Redistricting Delayed Indefinitely by Court : County government: Panel of federal appeals judges puts election for 1st District supervisor on hold.

A federal appeals court on Thursday indefinitely blocked a dramatic reapportionment of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and postponed the November election to replace incumbent Supervisor Pete Schabarum.

In deciding to extend a stay they issued last week, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that the historic voting rights case raises “difficult and close legal questions” and that the status quo should remain pending the outcome of appeals.

A lower federal court this month had drawn new district lines to create a Latino-majority district and set a special election for November in the landmark case after finding that the Board of Supervisors intentionally discriminated against Latinos in the drawing of district boundaries.

But the appeals court last week temporarily stayed that decision, and Thursday it indefinitely extended that stay after hearing oral arguments in the morning.

Latino groups, who brought the suit and were backed by the U.S. Justice Department, had expected that the remapping would lead to the election of the first Latino supervisor. The supervisors had appealed the lower federal court decision.

The appeals court ruling was seen a surprise by all parties. It postponed any supervisorial election this Nov. 6. The appeals court ordered that there be neither a runoff between Sarah Flores and Gregory O’Brien in the existing 1st District, nor a new primary in a redrawn 1st District.

Judges Robert R. Beezer and Alex Kozinski wrote that “the equities favor maintaining the status quo” pending the outcome of the county’s appeal. “Accordingly, the county shall hold no election for supervisor, District 1, pending further order of this court.” Judge Dorothy Nelson dissented, saying she would have denied the county’s stay request.

Said county attorney John McDermott: “I’m thrilled. Our primary concern was that there not be irreversible change in the status quo until the merits of the case could be reviewed. . . . We would have preferred that the Sarah Flores election go forward, but this is a middle ground that is fair” to all parties.

Richard Fajardo, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a plaintiff, said he is considering seeking a review of the decision by a larger, 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit or appealing to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner.

“It seems as if they spread the benefits and the hurt around,” he said. The plaintiffs sought a new primary in November in the redrawn 1st District.

John R. Dunne, assistant attorney general for civil rights, made a rare trip from Washington to personally argue at the hearing Thursday for a new primary in November in a redrawn 1st District. Supervisors Mike Antonovich and Deane Dana also attended the hearing, as did Flores.

Dunne urged the judges to allow a November election in the new, predominantly Latino district to remedy the “egregious wrong that has been suffered by the Hispanic community so long.”

Attorneys for the Board of Supervisors had asked the appeals court to allow the Flores-O’Brien runoff to proceed and to stay implementation of a redistricting plan pending the outcome of the county’s appeal of the lower court ruling that reapportioned the district.

U.S. District Judge David V. Kenyon had approved the redistricting plan on Aug. 3, finding that the Board of Supervisors had diluted Latino voting power by splitting the community among three supervisorial districts. Kenyon threw out the results of the June election in the 1st District, redrew the districts and ordered a new election for November.

The possibility of indefinitely postponing the November election was raised for the first time by Kozinski during a court hearing Thursday in San Francisco on the county’s request for a stay.

Kozinski suggested that holding no election until the appeal is decided would prevent candidates from wasting time and money to win an election that could be nullified.

Flores called the ruling “shocking and deeply disappointing” but vowed to run no matter when an election is held.

O’Brien said the ruling was “disturbingly ambiguous. . . . It doesn’t give anybody enough to go on.” Until he gets a clarification and some idea of when an election might be held, O’Brien said he will continue his campaign. “I’ll be back in the (campaign) office tomorrow, and I expect everyone else to be here too.”

But he said that at some point he must make a decision about continuing with the campaign and going back to work. “At some point my resources will be tapped out,” said O’Brien, who has taken a leave of absence from his Superior Court post to run for supervisor.

Schabarum, in his enigmatic way, would only say in a prepared statement, “I’m on until replaced.”

Schabarum aide Judy Hammond said the supervisor would not expand on the statement. It is possible, she pointed out, that he could resign and be “replaced” through a gubernatorial appointment, that he could be replaced by an eventual winner in a 1st District election, or that he could win or lose at the polls himself. Schabarum said last week that running in the proposed Latino-majority district was a “serious option.”

McDermott said the ruling, if upheld, would allow Schabarum, who has said he plans to retire at the end of his term on Dec. 3, to stay in office until a successor could be appointed or elected. If Schabarum resigned, his seat could remain vacant or the governor could appoint a successor who would serve until an election could be held.

McDermott said the election to choose Schabarum’s successor would depend on how long it takes the appeals court to decide on the county’s appeal. The court will hear arguments in October. “It is hard to predict how long it will take to get an opinion out,” McDermott said. “It could be three or four months.”

McDermott had argued that it is too late to prepare for a November election in a new district without jeopardizing the entire November election, including balloting for governor.

He urged the judges to resolve the legal questions raised by the historic case “before you interfere in the local electoral process.”

If the reapportionment is upheld, Latinos would make up 51% of the voters and 71% of the population in the new 1st District. Latinos now make up 25% of the voters in the district, and 49% of the population is Latino.

Thomas Bourke, an attorney for Flores, argued that it would be unfair to call off the November runoff when Flores stands a chance of becoming the first Latina and the first woman elected to the board.

“Now, after she has mortgaged her house to run, after she mobilized $400,000 of support and successfully ran the primary race through completion, she is told to start over,” Bourke said.

In papers filed with the appeals court, the Justice Department responded: “Clearly, both candidates ran this year knowing full well that the 1981 redistricting plan was under legal attack and could be invalidated. . . . The inconvenience to these two individuals is hardly harm sufficient to forestall the long-overdue grant of constitutionally protected voting rights to citizens of Los Angeles County.”

Times staff writer Frederick M. Muir contributed to this report.