Council’s Battle of All Battles Emerges Once Again : Redistricting: It’s back to the drawing board. New census figures require council to again redraw district lines, just months after the politically sensitive task was most recently completed.

Uneagerly reopening a politically divisive redistricting battle, the San Diego City Council on Monday took the first step toward redrawing council district lines that new census figures show violate federal voting-rights guidelines.

By a unanimous vote, the council, its hand forced by the census data, scheduled two public hearings for next week, at which district boundaries approved only last year could be revised--thereby resuming a debate that scarred City Hall and helped sweep one council member from office.

Ironically, the council’s action on the politically hypersensitive issue came on the same day that new 5th District Councilman Tom Behr was sworn in to succeed Linda Bernhardt, who was overwhelmingly swept from office in an April 9 recall election that stemmed largely from her support for last year’s controversial redistricting plan.

Behr could become the swing vote on the volatile issue, because Bernhardt was part of the council’s so-called Gang of Five majority that, by a 5-4 vote, adopted the current map that, among other things, jettisoned Scripps Ranch and Mira Mesa from her district. In her absence, and in light of changed political realities, there appears to be no clear majority for any redistricting plan under consideration.

One of the changed realities is numerical, which in turns raises legal issues requiring the 5-month-old district lines to be redrawn.

The current lines were based on population estimates, which, in several cases--notably, Ron Roberts’ 2nd District and Bob Filner’s 8th District--varied dramatically from the official census figures received by the city this spring.

As a result of Roberts’ district being considerably smaller and Filner’s being more populous than expected, there is a nearly 23% variance between their constituencies--more than double the disparity permitted under federal standards designed to ensure that legislative districts include about the same number of people.

Though most council members expressed hope that the redrawing of the district lines could occur without the acrimony and lawsuits that dominated last year’s debate, the high political stakes inherent in redistricting--and the new battle lines that began emerging Monday--make that scenario doubtful.

Indeed, the fact that the council members spent nearly 90 minutes Monday debating merely whether to hold public hearings on the subject, without discussing the specifics of several proposed maps already circulating at City Hall, underlined the deep divisions that make a quick, dispassionate decision unlikely.

“This has been the most divisive issue for this council,” Mayor Maureen O’Connor said. “Rightly or wrongly, it is perceived as very political, very personal. We have to get away from that . . . and start afresh (with) a map that will unite the community and bring consensus to this council.”

Beyond the members’ obvious differences on the configuration of their respective districts--a decision that can make or break political careers--the upcoming redistricting debate also will focus on several other thorny questions, starting with timing.

In order to meet administrative and legal deadlines related to September’s council elections, the council would need to agree on a new redistricting map no later than May 9, according to city attorneys.

Though that timetable would leave the council less than three weeks to resolve a question that it bitterly debated for months last year, several members argued that a rapid decision is necessary in order to prevent district lines from being redrawn shortly after this fall’s elections.

“You either do it now or you clearly do it after the election and give people what could be very changed districts shortly after they voted,” said Roberts, the author of one redistricting plan that will be reviewed next week. “That’s what somebody just got thrown out of office for. We should have learned something.”

Other council members, however, complained that a pre-May 9 vote would minimize public input and perhaps generate a rushed, flawed decision on a weighty question that will affect City Hall politics for the next decade. As evidence, they noted that O’Connor suggested that any redistricting proposals be in the hands of city lawyers and administrators by Thursday in order to allow sufficient time for review before next week’s hearings.

“That’s three days--you’ve got to be kidding!” said a visibly exasperated Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer.

The settlement in a federal lawsuit aimed at enhancing Latino voting rights that led to last year’s redistricting map, Filner stressed, allows the city to make necessary adjustments in district lines up until nine months after the official census figures are received.

Rather than rushing to beat this fall’s election deadlines, San Diego should avail itself of the additional time to redraw the lines before the 1993 council elections, Filner argued.

Filner blended philosophy and practical considerations in framing his arguments, but a delay such as he suggested also could offer him political advantages. Both Roberts’ map and Councilman Bruce Henderson’s counterproposal would resolve the population imbalance between the 2nd and 8th Districts by shifting most of downtown from Filner’s jurisdiction to Roberts’ control.

If that change occurred, Filner would lose a key part of his district--one that provides both visibility and valuable fund-raising sources--only four months before his upcoming primary.

In the end, the council agreed to simply hold two public hearings on the redistricting issue next week: at 7 p.m. April 30 at Golden Hall, next to City Hall, and at 2 p.m. May 3 at City Hall.