Bitter Redistricting Battle Nearing an End

Lawyers for the Chicano Federation and those representing a majority of the San Diego City Council reached a settlement Wednesday of a voting rights lawsuit, all but putting an end to a bitter political and legal dispute that has dogged the council for two years and avoiding long and costly trial.

There are several steps left before the compromise becomes final, but attorneys who agreed to the settlement said they believe all major obstacles have been removed.

The first step in wrapping up the settlement occurs today, when the City Council meets in closed session at 4 p.m. to vote on the proposal, the essentials of which the council majority approved Tuesday by a 5-3 vote before the agreement became bogged in renewed bickering.

Centerpiece of the proposal is a redistricting map that gives the key 8th District a 53.8% majority of Latinos.

This provides what the Chicano Federation of San Diego County had sought in its class-action lawsuit filed against the City Council two years ago: a district that significantly increases the likelihood of a Latino being elected to the City Council.

A Latino has never been elected to the City Council without having first been appointed to the post.

“In terms of what we set out to accomplish, which was to maximize the opportunity of Hispanic voters in District 8, this agreement puts us as close as we can expect to get,” said Jess Haro, head of the Chicano Federation, whose attorney Michael Aguirre proposed the map that is expected to be approved.

“I think in terms of not only the percentage of Hispanics but of the configuration of the district, it gives us the best opportunity than we’ve ever had in the past,” Haro said.

The District 8 Latino population in the existing district is slightly less than 41%. Once the settlement becomes final, the first election in the new district would take place next year.

If the five-member City Council majority approves the proposal today as expected, the settlement will be presented to U.S. District Court Judge John Rhoades at 5 p.m. Rhoades, who is on temporary assignment in Montana, will talk to the attorneys by telephone. The judge must rule that the restricting map is constitutional.

That is not expected to be a problem because Rhoades has consistently said that redistricting is a political act left to the legislative branch of government, in this case the City Council. In addition, attorneys for the two major sides in the case have told the judge that the redistricting map is constitutional.

The settlement will then be referred to U.S. Magistrate Harry McCue, who was in charge of attempting to help negotiate a settlement. He is expected to call for a hearing, probably within a month or so, at which Latinos and blacks--as general plaintiffs in the class-action suit--will have an opportunity to address the merits of the settlement.

If McCue approves the proposal, it will become final.

Although it appears almost certain the five majority bloc members on the council--Bob Filner, Linda Bernhardt, John Hartley, Abbe Wolfsheimer and Wes Pratt--will vote to approve the settlement, the minority bloc wants the lawsuit to continue.

Lawyers representing Mayor Maureen O’Connor, Ron Roberts, Judy McCarty and Bruce Henderson said the four will vote to reject the pact.

They told Rhoades Wednesday that they want sworn interrogations of the majority and their current and former aides to go forward. The mayor’s attorney, Donald McGrath, told the judge that the depositions are needed to find out whether portions of the map that will be voted on today were derived from secret discussions held by the five-member majority, in violation of state open meeting laws.

Rhoades said he will await the outcome of today’s vote before taking up McGrath’s contention.

Later, talking to reporters, McGrath said it would be unfair to let allegations about secret redistricting meetings “just hang there in the air,” even if the major parties to the lawsuit agree to settle.

“I think we should see if something occurred,” McGrath said. “We don’t know if anything illegal was done, but the allegation about secret meetings and destruction of public documents” should be pursued.

Depositions in the case were scheduled to begin Tuesday, leading off with Bernhardt’s former chief aide Chris Crotty.

Some council members in the minority faction, such as Roberts, maintain that it was the prospect of public depositions and the potential for disclosure of embarrassing information that drove the majority bloc to finally accept a redistricting map it had rejected and criticized only last week.

But members of the majority maintain that they switched positions to avoid a costly trial and to stop a lawsuit-caused paralysis that has distracted the council from what they say are other important city issues.

They say the prospect of depositions didn’t play a major role in their agreement to accept a compromise and are insistent that secret meetings in violation of the law never occurred.

“It’s their allegation, and they have no basis in fact,” said Filner, who represents District 8. “They are carrying on a political fight that is very divisive. . . . It’s been settled, now let’s just get it behind us and move on.”

David Lundin, the lawyer representing Filner, Bernhardt and Hartley, and one who negotiated the final settlement with Aguirre of the Chicano Federation, said that, “if anyone thinks something wrong happened, they can file a suit in state court,” which has jurisdiction over violations of the state’s open meeting law.

“I don’t think they (members of the council minority bloc) are interested, in fact, in a settlement . . . but in scoring political points” by having public depositions.

He said, “No matter what the substance (of the depositions) would have been . . ., just having depositions taken would have been embarrassing.”

Lundin accused O’Connor of placing pressure on Aguirre Wednesday morning after he had submitted his draft settlement proposal to Lundin.

“There was enormous pressure on Mike by the mayor directly . . . to screw up the deal for a few days” to allow the depositions to go forward, Lundin said.

“To Mike’s credit,” said Lundin, Aguirre didn’t renege on the proposal “for someone else’s short-term political agenda.”

Aguirre, however, said he never spoke to the mayor but only to her attorneys, McGrath and Brian Monaghan. He said they told him that they thought it was premature to stop the depositions before a settlement was final, and that they had concerns about how some elements of the map--specifically those elements first introduced by the council majority--were created.

Aguirre was emphatic in saying there was no pressure by the mayor or her representatives to delay a settlement.

“The mayor did not in any way, shape or form pressure us into a delay or to get us to take depositions. She has been very supportive of our position,” Aguirre said late Wednesday night. “They just wanted everything to come out in the best interest of everyone concerned.”

He described Lundin’s accusation as conjecture and said he had jumped to conclusions.

O’Connor was unavailable for comment, but her spokesman, Paul Downey, said that, just because Filner and Lundin “say it’s true, doesn’t mean it’s so.”

“The mayor is concerned with what’s going on. There’s a cloud hanging over City Hall these days,” said Downey. “On the one hand, they are (saying) they have nothing to hide . . . but at the same time they are jumping through hoops to keep these depositions from occurring.”

Filner also accused O’Connor of attempting to drag out the settlement by refusing to call for today’s special meeting. The five majority members used a section of the state law governing council meetings to formally schedule today’s session. The notice was signed by Filner, Bernhardt, Wolfsheimer, Hartley and Pratt.

As for Filner, his immediate political concern is that he must now run in a district he originally voted against and which has been specifically crafted to enhance the chances of a Latino candidate.

He had objected to transferring the largely Anglo South Bay community of Nestor out of the district and linking it by a line down San Diego Bay to District 2, which is composed mainly of Point Loma, Mission Hills and Ocean Beach. But he lost that particular battle and now intends to vote for the redistricting map anyway.

Although his district now has a Latino majority, Filner said, “I don’t think the people of District 8 will vote by ethnicity but will vote for who best represents them. I think I’ve represented all the people in District 8 well . . . and will make that case in the election. I have a good record.”

He said that, although much attention has been placed on the Latino composition of District 8, the essential components of a redistricting map approved by the five-member majority last month remain intact.

That redistricting map, mainly Filner’s creation, was the one that drove the federation back to court because it said the map diluted the Latino strength in District 8.

But those in the council minority were also upset because the map divided parts of the high-growth areas of North San Diego into three districts, while changing boundary lines, sometimes in odd configurations, in other districts, especially Henderson’s District 6.

“The map, with certain exceptions, is a good map for the city of San Diego and the Latino community,” Filner said. “We have changed the basic political structure of the city from an anti-environmental and anti-neighbhorhood map. The map is a great victory for San Diego.”

He said the only ones for whom it wasn’t “a red letter day” were “the special interests who contrived to fight this.”

The settlement was reached Wednesday afternoon at a hearing in Rhoades’ courtroom, after a whirlwind of activity the day before during which the settlement was alternately off and on.

The judge called from a telephone booth inside an International House of Pancakes restaurant in Nevada. On the other end in the courtroom were lawyers for the various members of the council, Aguirre and representatives from the city attorney’s office, including Senior Chief Deputy City Atty. Jack Katz.

The eight-page proposal crafted by Aguirre, including the map, was initialed as approved by Aguirre, Lundin and Katz, putting the case--which has been described as a political and legal roller coaster by the judge--closer to an end than ever before.

Aguirre said later outside court that the map provides almost everything the Chicano Federation wanted in District 8. In addition, the settlement agreement says Aguirre can be paid as much as $150,000 in legal fees by the city, if the fees are approved by Rhoades.

The agreement also contains a provision allowing for a revision of the district if federal census tabulations show there is a 2% decline in the 53.8% Latino population in District 8.

Asked to characterize Wednesday’s developments, Aguirre said, “I think we are closer to our objective than we’ve ever been. . . . As a practical matter it (the settlement) will be achieved. I feel it’s a district a Latino can win.”