Only the Supervisors Had No Case : Kenyon’s careful ruling in the Board of Supervisors’ case helps Latinos, doesn’t hurt blacks

In handing down his final ruling in the historic redistricting lawsuit against Los Angeles County’s Board of Supervisors, U.S. District Judge David V. Kenyon tried to be fair to almost everyone involved. By and large, he succeeded admirably.

And while he fell short of ordering the expansion of the county board that could make county government more responsive to local residents, the trial itself helped put the issue on the public agenda, where it will have to be faced in the near future.

Kenyon had already ruled that county supervisors violated the Voting Rights Act when they drew themselves new district lines in 1981, doing so in such a manner that they discriminated against Latinos by diluting their potential voting strength. A key piece of evidence at the trial is the fact that a Latino has never been elected to the board in the county’s history. On Friday, Kenyon selected an alternative district map drawn up by the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit that will at least theoretically improve the odds for Latino candidates.

But Kenyon’s task was made harder by the fact that a Latina, Sarah Flores, was on the verge of being elected to the board under the old lines, in the 1st District. Flores was the leader in the June 5 primary election and the favorite in a November runoff against Superior Court Judge Gregory O’Brien. Because the district lines they ran under are illegal, Kenyon voided the results of the June vote and ordered a special election be held to fill the soon-to-be-vacant 1st District seat in November. To be fair to Flores, O’Brien and the many county residents who voted for them, Kenyon ruled that both candidates can run then, if they move to the new district after winning.

Kenyon’s ruling was also fair to the county’s other major minority group. The new district map he ordered into effect will not dilute the voting strength of African-Americans, unlike a map that had been proposed by the three Republican supervisors in a blatant attempt to hold onto power.

In fact, Kenyon’s final ruling left only the supervisors as the real losers. For all the millions of dollars they wasted fighting the lawsuit, they didn’t score a single legal point. Even the final plea their high-priced private lawyer made to Kenyon--that he not void the results of June’s election--flopped.

If nothing else, Kenyon’s ruling should persuade the board majority that prolonging this lawsuit by appealing the case, as retiring Supervisor Pete Schabarum says he is determined to do, is just an exercise in expensive futility.