Long Beach May Lose in Remap for Senate : Reapportionment: Some districts find themselves with decreases in population. That could cost one or more of the incumbents their jobs.

The Long Beach area’s four state Senate districts are expected to be among the losers in this decade’s version of the California reapportionment numbers game.

The political arithmetic goes like this: Based on 1990 census data, each of the state’s 40 Senate districts must contain 744,000 people. To reach the magic number, each of the Long Beach area’s Senate districts must add thousands of new constituents because population within them has failed to keep pace with other parts of California. In some cases, the population has actually dropped.

Consequently, some of the boundaries for the area’s Senate districts--currently represented by Robert G. Beverly (R-Manhattan Beach), Ralph C. Dills (D-Gardena), Bill Greene (D-Los Angeles) and Cecil N. Green (D-Norwalk)--could be combined or shifted eastward. That could cost one or more of the incumbents their jobs. And it could trigger a ripple effect that ultimately boosts representation in such fast-growing, Republican-leaning areas as the Antelope and San Gabriel valleys and Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

“People are moving to the Inland Empire, Lancaster and Palmdale,” said Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles). “They are moving out of the urban core.”

Indeed, while politicians can artfully design boundaries to ensure safe seats for many incumbents, including those facing population deficits in their districts, one fact in the reapportionment puzzle cannot be changed: Population growth in inland areas is dramatically outstripping growth along the coastal plain.

And that probably means redistricting problems for at least a few lawmakers in districts that are significantly below the 744,000 population figure. As Sen. Bill Leonard (R-Big Bear) notes, “Political power sooner or later does follow the population.” His district covers booming areas in the San Gabriel Valley and San Bernardino County.

Statewide, one result of the redistricting process could be a cut in the Democratic majority in the Senate, where the current lineup is 26 Democrats, 11 Republicans and one independent, with two vacancies.

Los Angeles County--currently represented by all or part of 17 Senate districts--could lose the equivalent of one full seat, according to lawmakers and legislative staffers. And though the exact shape of the districts will not be decided for months, in the Long Beach area the result will probably be a reduction in representation in the Senate.

Historically, as population grew in Los Angeles County during most of this century, reapportionment turf fights revolved around skirmishes between Northern and Southern California. Now, given the population shifts within Southern California, the battle lines likely will pit the interests of such established coastal communities as Long Beach against fast-growing inland areas.

“With the population static on most of the coast and ballooning inland . . . that will definitely tip the scales of power to the inland counties,” asserted Assemblyman Pat Nolan (R-Glendale), a member of the Assembly Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee that is now crafting a redistricting plan.

A look at census figures highlights why legislative boundaries are expected to be shifted toward the growing inland areas. For instance, the inland city of Pomona grew a whopping 42% in the 1980s, to 133,107, and Baldwin Park grew 37%, to 69,330. By comparison, Lakewood’s population decreased 1%, to 73,557.

Even though Long Beach grew 19%, to 429,433, and Compton increased 11%, to 90,454, the state as a whole grew by 26%. By failing to keep pace with statewide growth, the Long Beach area stands to lose representation in the Legislature, according to lawmakers and others beginning to draw the new boundary lines.

Based on the census numbers, the Senate Elections Committee has estimated that Beverly’s Senate District is 92,000 below the required 744,000 population figure for new Senate districts. The Long Beach area’s other senators find their districts below that figure by the following amounts: Dills, 62,600; Bill Greene, 43,300; and Cecil Green, 105,700.

Comparable population projections for the Assembly and U.S. House of Representatives have not been made public.

Once the Legislature approves a reapportionment plan, it goes to Gov. Pete Wilson for his signature. No matter what Wilson decides, it is widely anticipated that the final maps will face stiff court challenges, especially from Latino or Asian groups seeking to boost minority representation.

Some lawmakers, reviewing the preliminary numbers for the Senate districts, have already cooked up their own formulas to compensate for the population deficits in their districts. For instance, various suggestions have been floated to change Beverly’s district by either stretching it south into Orange County, taking sections of Wilmington and Long Beach away from Dills or adding the Westchester area now represented by Watson.

In the past, politicians could press for such swaps without having to consider many factors other than self-preservation. But now, changes in the federal Voting Rights Act restrict some of that latitude by requiring that political map makers take steps to ensure that minority representation is not shortchanged. Thus, minority districts as those represented by Watson and Greene, both of whom are black, have a greater chance of being protected.

Beverly acknowledged that because of the Voting Rights Act, reapportionment “is a new game this year.” The act, he said, compels the Legislature to carve out as many minority districts as possible.

Beverly said he has no preference concerning the shape of his new district. Whatever it looks like, he said, “my present intention is to run for reelection.”

Other state senators, however, are flirting with the idea of running for Congress as they contemplate the changes reapportionment might bring.

Dills, 81, has said that if his district is dramatically redrawn, he might run instead for Congress. But he stressed that he would not run against an incumbent congressman.

On Los Angeles’ Westside, Sen. Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles) has acknowledged that he could also develop a case of Potomac fever if his Senate district is carved up.

The prospect of senators jumping into congressional races is being taken seriously for several reasons. First, term limits for state lawmakers imposed by the passage last year of Proposition 140 have prompted some legislators to contemplate new political opportunities.

Second, in contrast to a decade ago, the legislators plan to exercise more control over the drawing of congressional lines, according to Nolan.

“Ten years ago they were willing to accept” a plan drawn up by the late Rep. Philip Burton (D-San Francisco), Nolan said. But this time, he predicted, they will listen to their congressional colleagues and “then go ahead and draw whatever they want.”

REMAPPING OF SENATE DISTRICTS

Based on 1990 census figures, state Senate districts must be redrawn so that each new district represents 744,000 people. The following chart, based on preliminary legislative estimates, shows how current Senate districts encompassing all or part of the Long Beach area compare to that number.

Number of people District Represented by above or below 744,000 27 Bill Greene (D-Los Angeles) -43,300 29 Robert Beverly (R-Manhattan Beach) -92,000 30 Ralph Dills (D-Gardena) -62,600 33 Cecil Green (D-Norwalk) -105,700