No Quick Ruling Due on Redistricting Pact : Courts: A judge says he’ll need until at least November to decide if a settlement ending a lawsuit against the city is legal.

A final decision on the legality of a settlement ending a Latino voting rights lawsuit against the city of San Diego won’t be made until November at the earliest, the federal judge hearing the case indicated Wednesday.

But in the meantime, U.S. District Judge John Rhoades said in a written order issued late Wednesday that the settlement is “legally binding” on the city and those who filed the class-action lawsuit, represented by the Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc.

The Chicano Federation and a five-member majority of the City Council agreed last week to the settlement. The agreement included a redrawing of council district boundaries.

As a result of the redistricting, District 8 was given a majority of Latino voters. The Chicano Federation believes the ethnic composition of the district, which stretches from downtown to the South Bay, will greatly enhance the opportunity for a Latino to be elected to the City Council.

No Latino has served on the council without first having been appointed to the position.

While the settlement satisfied the Chicano Federation and the City Council majority, a vocal minority on the council, led by Mayor Maureen O’Connor, maintain the new district boundaries in other parts of the city, mainly those north of Interstate 8, were gerrymandered as a way to punish the majority’s political enemies on the council and in the process split neighborhoods and communities.

O’Connor and the others allege that many elements and boundaries of the settlement map were products of an earlier redistricting map crafted in secret by the five-member majority in violation of state open meeting laws and then approved by them last month, though the new agreement scuttles that approval.

Through their lawyers, the mayor and council members Ron Roberts, Bruce Henderson and Judy McCarty want the class-action lawsuit to continue so that depositions of the council majority and their aides are conducted.

The depositions had been scheduled by the Chicano Federation, which also alleged improprieties on the part of the majority, but on the eve of the sworn interrogations, the settlement was reached. Members of the five-member majority are Bob Filner, Linda Bernhardt, Wes Pratt, John Hartley and Abbe Wolfsheimer.

Judge Rhoades, however, said last week that he wanted the various lawyers in the case to submit arguments about, among other things, whether the council minority had legal standing to pursue its cause through the voting rights lawsuit. Wednesday’s order by Rhoades sets out those questions in more detail as well as a timetable for their resolution.

The judge said in his order that the scope of the court’s authority “is limited to whether the agreement is fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable” to those members of the Latino and black class which filed the lawsuit. As part of that inquiry, “the court must consider whether the settlement agreement is illegal or contrary to public policy.”

“If the settlement agreement and the redistricting plan as adopted meet the standards of being fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable, properly protects the rights of members of the plaintiff class, and is not illegal or contrary to public policy, then the court cannot and shall not decide what are basically political questions as to how and in what manner the district boundaries are drawn,” the judge’s order said.

Chicano Federation attorney Michael Aguirre said in a telephone interview from New Mexico that he considers the order as putting “us one more step closer” to a final resolution. The key to the federation, he said, is that the judge has declared the agreement legally binding and enforceable.

“This allows everything to continue forward,” Aguirre said. “The burden is now on those opposing it to set it aside.”

Aside from asking the lawyers to submit written argument, the order sets out a number of deadlines, beginning with next Monday, when a hearing before Magistrate Harry McCue is to be scheduled. McCue has handled most of the settlement negotiations.

Those in favor of the settlement agreement must file their arguments with Rhoades by Oct. 4, followed by those opposed to the agreement on Oct. 18. On Nov. 6, Rhoades said he will hold a hearing specifically to determine McCue’s exact role in overseeing approval of the settlement.

The judge said that, unless he is convinced otherwise, he will review McCue’s findings and recommendations and then determine himself whether to approve the settlement. Rhoades’s order said he expects to have McCue’s findings and recommendations by mid-November. The order did not say how long Rhoades would then take to issue a final decision.