Council Approves Remap Settlement, but Judge Says Questions Linger

A majority of the San Diego City Council on Thursday approved a settlement agreement of a Latino voting rights lawsuit, but a possible new kink appeared when the federal judge hearing the case said there are still some “serious” issues to be resolved and left open the possibility of future depositions of City Council members.

The importance of those issues--raised by council members who oppose the settlement--and whether they will keep the agreement from becoming final was left to the interpretation of lawyers involved in the case.

Michael Aguirre, the lawyer who filed the class-action lawsuit two years ago, insisted that, “as a practical matter, it’s over.”

Deputy City Atty. Kenneth So, representing the city of San Diego as the defendant in the suit, said, “The litigation has a few (more) steps that are necessary before it is finally put to rest, including a final hearing. The court wants to make sure all the legal questions are answered.”

“Judge Rhoades is a cautious man,” So said of U.S. District Judge John S. Rhoades.

David Lundin, a lawyer representing three members of the council who approved the settlement, told reporters he too believes the case has realistically ended because the two parties to the lawsuit--Aguirre and the Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc., representing Latinos and blacks as a class, and the city of San Diego--have agreed to a settlement.

Lawyers for Mayor Maureen O’Connor and other council members who oppose the settlement agreement contend that the map containing redrawn City Council district boundaries is flawed because, they say, parts of it were drafted in secret by members of a five-member council majority.

In doing so, they say, the majority bloc acted in bad faith and might have broken the law by meeting in secret and violating the state’s open-meeting law.

Brian Monaghan, one of two attorneys representing O’Connor, told the judge, who held the hearing from Montana via a teleconference call, that the court has an obligation to make sure the proposed map was done legally.

“The point is whether we have a right to object” to the settlement in court and continue the lawsuit by having depositions, Monaghan told the judge.

Attorney Donald McGrath, who also represents the mayor, told reporters that, although the two parties to the suit have agreed to a settlement, “you can’t do anything that affronts others’ rights.” In this context, he said, that would be the mayor and those who weren’t included in “meetings that are supposed to be open.”

The mayor and other members of the council minority have said the map included in the settlement splits neighborhoods for political ends and punishes political enemies of the council majority, such as Councilman Bruce Henderson.

Rhoades said that the City Council’s approval of the settlement earlier in the afternoon by a 5-2 vote, with O’Connor and Ron Roberts absent, “does change the whole complexion of the case dramatically.”

The judge said he was “surprised and disappointed to find out we have a different ballgame” because of the mayor’s and others’ objections, and that he was “disappointed” the case wasn’t settled and was going “on and on.”

Rhoades said he will issue an order next week outlining legal questions he wants the lawyers to answer.

He said, for example, that, since the mayor and some council members have objections, he wants to know whether they have legal standing to raise those questions because they are not members of the legal class represented in the suit.

“I wonder whether such an objection can be made by . . . (someone) outside the class,” Rhoades said.

The judge said that, even if the state’s open-meeting law was violated and/or the council majority acted in bad faith, it might not make any difference if the proposed new council districts are constitutional and don’t violate the federal Voting Rights Act.

Rhoades said the matter of whether the council majority broke the law might best be left to the grand jury and the district attorney.

“By asking these questions, I don’t mean I have the answers. . . . I don’t,” Rhoades said.

The specter of depositions has loomed large over the case. Before the proposed settlement was agreed to, the Chicano Federation and Aguirre were pressing ahead to hold public sworn interrogations of the five-member council majority and their aides.

Aguirre was attempting to use the depositions to accomplish exactly what the mayor and minority council faction want to do now: find evidence of secret meetings that led to the five-member bloc’s approval of a redistricting map last month.

Aguirre said that map violated a previous settlement agreement and the Voting Rights Act by not creating a district in which a Latino had a good chance of being elected.

It was only at the last-minute Wednesday, the same day depositions were scheduled to begin, that the five-member majority--composed of Bob Filner, Wes Pratt, Linda Bernhardt, John Hartley and Abbe Wolfsheimer--reversed their earlier stand and agreed to the new map contained in the settlement.

The new map contains an 8th District with an 53.8% Latino population, which was what Aguirre wanted and was the aim of the lawsuit. It also includes, however, district boundaries in the northern part of the city that were part of the original redistricting approved by the majority.

The mayor and other members of the minority bloc, such as Roberts, contend that it was the prospect of politically embarrassing information coming out of the depositions that caused the five to switch.

The five, who maintain they have nothing to hide, say they changed their minds to avoid a costly and lengthly court fight. They also say the new districts in the north are pro-neighborhood and pro-environment, and they wanted those boundaries preserved.

The City Council, in approving the settlement agreement, set a public hearing on the new redistricting for Sept. 24. It was not clear, however, whether the hearing will be held before resolution of the questions Rhoades has posed.