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 U.S. District Court earlier this month had found that the Board of Supervisors intentionally discriminated against Latinos in the drawing of district boundaries. The lower court threw out the results of the June primary election, drew new district lines to create a Latino-majority district and set a special election for November.

But the appeals court last week temporarily stayed the District Court decision and, after hearing oral arguments Thursday morning, the appeals court indefinitely extended its stay.

Latino groups, who brought the suit and were backed by the U.S. Justice Department, had expected that the court-ordered reapportionment would lead to the election of the first Latino supervisor in county history. The supervisors bitterly criticized the reapportionment and had appealed the District Court decision.

The 2-1 appeals court ruling was seen as a surprise by all parties and angered the winners of the June primary election in the 1st District who had hoped to meet in a November runoff.

The appeals court ordered that there be neither a runoff between June primary victors Sarah Flores and Gregory O’Brien, nor a special election in a redrawn 1st District in November.

“Rather the equities favor maintaining the status quo” pending the outcome of the county’s appeal, wrote Judges Robert R. Beezer and Alex Kozinski. “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.

The court will hear arguments on the county’s appeal in October and could rule any time after that.

County attorney John McDermott said, “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.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who attended the hearing, called the ruling a “mixed blessing.” He said he is encouraged by the tone of the judges who appeared to have a better understanding of what’s at stake for voters than the district court judge, who he accused of “ideological manipulation” of the electoral process.

Supervisor Schabarum said he thought the ruling is appropriate, adding, “It appears to me the appellate court is attempting to sort out the extraordinary mischief” done in the district court.

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.

John R. Dunne, assistant attorney general for civil rights, made a rare trip from Washington to argue for a new primary in November in a redrawn 1st District. Supervisor 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 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.

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

The possibility of indefinitely postponing the November election was raised for the first time by Judge Kozinski from the bench Thursday.

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.”

“They only cancel elections in places like Nicaragua,” said O’Brien.

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.”

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.

Supervisor Schabarum, who hinted last week that he might run in the new district, would only say, “I’m on until replaced.”

Supervisor Deane Dana said, “I would hope Mr. Schabarum would retire and allow the governor to make an appointment, but I don’t think (Schabarum) will.” Dana said he is certain that Governor George Deukmejian would appoint Flores to fill any unexpired term.

McDermott said a date for the election to choose Schabarum’s successor would depend on how long it takes the appeals court to decide on the county’s appeal. “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” and let Flores meet O’Brien.

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.

O’Brien too said that he must soon make a decision about continuing with the campaign or 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.

In papers filed with the appeals court, the Justice Department had talked about that problem: “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.”