LOS ANGELES COUNTY: THE CENSUS STORY : Representation to Switch for Thousands : Remapping: Latinos have a strong chance of winning a third seat on the City Council. Supervisorial districts will be configured yet again.

When Los Angeles’ political boundaries are redrawn by next year, representation on the County Board of Supervisors and the City Council will change for hundreds of thousands of residents, and Latinos will stand a strong chance of winning a third seat on the council, according to political experts.

With 1990 census figures revealing the county’s population shifts, local officials are now embarking on the usually contentious political remapping that is required at least once every decade.

The task of equalizing the population among the council and supervisorial districts always is fraught with political infighting and territoriality. But the redistricting process this year is complicated by the changing ethnic composition and by court rulings that prohibit the fragmentation of heavy concentrations of minority voters.

In the city of Los Angeles, Latinos accounted for 40% of the city’s 3.5-million population in the 1990 census--a 70% increase from 1980. Blacks represented about 13%, Asians 10% and Anglos 37%.

Growth of the city’s Latino population is likely to translate into increased political power, said Richard Fajardo, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which has brought suits that increased representation of Latinos on the council and the county board.

“The growth of the Latino community in Los Angeles County has been substantial, and it is going to increase the number of Latino elected officials at all levels of government,” said Fajardo.

The Latino population climbed in all 15 council districts, and Latinos are now a majority in four districts, two of which have been represented by Latino council members.

Latinos now make up 63% of the population in the northeast San Fernando Valley’s 7th District, increasing the chances for a Latino to succeed Councilman Ernani Bernardi, who said he plans to retire in 1993.

While Latinos also have displaced blacks as a majority in the central city’s 9th District, they are not likely to immediately threaten the security of a seat where two blacks, Rita Walters and Robert Gay, face each other in a June 4 runoff to succeed the late Councilman Gilbert Lindsay, according to political experts.

Unlike the Valley, the 9th District includes many Latino immigrants who are ineligible to vote. However, black and Latino politicians say the increasing Latino population in the inner city will influence political decisions in the coming years.

“The African-American representatives on the City Council in Districts 9 and 8 are going to be obliged to pay attention in an unprecedented way . . . to the concerns of Latino residents,” said retiring Councilman Robert Farrell, whose 8th District also is becoming increasingly Latino.

In the 9th District race, Gay has sent out campaign literature in Spanish, and Walters has targeted mailers to Spanish-surnamed voters and featured endorsements from Latino political leaders.

Because the census shows that district populations have grown at uneven rates, some council members will pick up more territory and others will give up turf.

For example, figures show that liberal Councilmen Marvin Braude and Zev Yaroslavsky’s Westside districts must expand to reach the average population of other districts, about 232,000 residents. Their districts are likely to be extended further into the more conservative San Fernando Valley, according to Bruce Cain, a UC Berkeley political science professor who has served as a redistricting consultant for the council.

County supervisors also must realign their district boundaries, even though the lines were redrawn last year by a judge who ruled that the old lines discriminated against Latinos. The redrawing led to the election this year of the first Latino supervisor this century, Gloria Molina, and created a new liberal majority on the board.

The county is required to redraw the districts based on the 1990 census. As a result, many county residents, particularly those living along the current district borders, will have their second or even third different supervisor within a year, without casting a single vote.

“What’s absurd is that some voters will be denied the right to vote (for a supervisor) for six years,” said 5th District Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who is still bitter over the court-ordered redistricting last year that displaced him from most of the San Fernando Valley and stretched his district from the Antelope Valley to the San Gabriel Valley.

Normally, supervisorial elections are held every four years, with either two or three supervisors up for election. But with frequent redistricting, some communities are assigned representatives who were elected by residents of other areas.

In the case of Antonovich’s district, 157,540 residents must be shifted to other districts this year to bring his district down to the desired average of 1.8 million residents per district. And 222,991 residents of various districts will be added to Molina’s 1st Supervisorial District to bring it up to the average.

Such realignment can have an impact on a politician’s security. For a neighborhood, it can determine whether the elected representative is in tune with the community’s needs and political leanings.

Environmentalists in the San Fernando Valley achieved through court-ordering redistricting what they could not accomplish at the ballot box--replacement of the pro-development Antonovich with Ed Edelman, a slow-growth advocate.

The county redistricting may be complicated by the supervisors’ recent directive that a proposal to enlarge the board to seven members be drafted for the June, 1992, ballot. Meantime, a citizens committee is preparing seven-district maps for possible use.

Political aides to local officials have already begun poring over the census numbers, assessing alternative ways of drawing districts and the potential political consequences.

At both the city and county, public hearings will be held on maps proposed by politicians, civil rights groups and other special interests, as well as individuals.

Stewart Kwoh, executive director of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, said that he plans to present the City Council with a map that will eliminate the fragmentation of Chinatown, Koreatown and the Filipino community. Each of the neighborhoods is currently split among two or more council districts, Kwoh said.

Final redistricting plans must be adopted in public votes by the council and supervisors, but they often are the result of political bargaining among elected officials. The council must by July 1, 1992, adopt a plan, which is subject to the mayor’s approval. The county has until Oct. 1 of this year--and the plan must be cleared by the U.S. Justice Department.

One potential battle is shaping up over a portion of downtown Los Angeles. Councilman Richard Alatorre, who is expected to have a major role in council redistricting, has expressed interest in extending his Eastside district to include part of downtown Los Angeles, providing a new fund-raising source for a possible 1993 mayoral campaign.

“I’ve had a strong interest in the development along Broadway (and preserving) the viability of the largest commercial and retail area for Hispanics,” Alatorre said of a sector that currently is part of the 9th District.

Gay and Walters said that if elected they will fight any move to remove downtown from the 9th District. Gay said downtown provides clout that benefits the needy parts of the district. “Downtown is the cow that gives the milk,” he said.

While Latinos are increasing in numbers in the 9th District, experts say the district’s councilman is likely to remain an African-American at least through the 1990s. Many Latinos who live in the central city are ineligible to vote because they are not citizens or are not old enough, according to Latino leaders.

Of 57,000 registered voters in the 9th District, only 2,000 to 3,000 have Spanish surnames, said Chris Hammond, campaign manager for Gay.

In Bernardi’s 7th District in the San Fernando Valley, the Latino population increased from 43% in the previous census to 63% in the 1990 count. Fajardo of MALDEF said he expects the Latino percentage to grow through redistricting.

Already, a number of Latinos are eyeing a 1993 campaign for the seat, including Alatorre chief of staff Al Avila and Mayor Tom Bradley’s Valley deputy, Richard Alarcon.

About This Section

The Times today presents a comprehensive look at the evolving demographies of Los Angeles County, examining the ethnic composition of more than 160 communities and how it has changed during the past 10 years.

A computer comparison of new 1990 census data and 1980 figures indicates that the county is less segregated than it was 10 years ago. At the same time, the numbers suggest that new pockets of ethnic imbalance may be in the making.

Included in this special census report:

* A comprehensive listing of Los Angeles County’s 163 cities and communities detailing 1990 population figures, ethnic composition of each community and the percentage of growth or decline in each population group since 1980.

* Two pages of color maps that paint a picture of the county’s population shifts and movements between 1980 and 1990.

RELATED STORY, A1

POPULATION TRENDS

Here is a look at Los Angeles County’s population and ethnic mix in 1980 and 1990. 1980: Total population: 7,477,503 % Ethnic Breakdown: Anglo: 52.9% Latino: 27.6% Black: 12.4% Asian/Am. Indian: 6.0% Other: 1.1% 1990: Total population: 8,863,164 % Ethnic Breakdown: Anglo: 40.8% Latino: 37.8% Black: 10.5% Asian: 10.2% Am. Indian: 0.3% Other: 0.2% Population Totals

1980 1990 Anglo 3,953,603 Anglo 3,618,850 Latino 2,066,103 Latino 3,351,242 Black 926,360 Black 934,776 Asian/Am. Indian* 452,232 Asian* 907,810 Am. Indian* 29,159 Other 79,205 Other 21,327

* In 1980, the U.S. Census bureau counted non-Latino Asians and non-Latino American Indians in the same category. In 1990, these two groups were counted separately. Population Growth: 1,385,661 Percent Growth: 1.9% Stories in Numbers

County population figures from 1980 and 1990 tell a variety of stories: Among the most notable changes is the growth of the Latino community by nearly 1.3 million, a 62% increase. The Anglo population declined. While the number of Blacks increased slightly, their percentage of the total population declined. The Asian community roughly doubled in size.

POLITICAL CHANGES IN THE CITY COUNCIL

The population shifts and demographic changes in Los Angeles promise to bring political change to the City Council, especially for Latinos who now make up a majority of the residents of the central city’s 9th District represented by the late Gilbert W. Lindsay, and the northeast San Fernando Valley’s 7th District represented by Councilman Ernani Bernardi. At the very least, many residents will be assigned a different City Council member because populations in districts--which have grown at uneven rates--must be roughly equal. Here’s a look at the changing populations by district with current officeholders:

COUNCIL DISTRICT 1

Vacant * 1990 total population: 233,292 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 7.28 Anglos ‘80: 14.36 Asians ‘90: 18.10 Asians ‘80: 12.83 Blacks ‘90: 2.29 Blacks ‘80: 2.96 Latinos ‘90: 73.37 Latinos ‘80: 68.72

COUNCIL DISTRICT 2

Joel Wachs

* 1990 total population: 254,662 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 52.25 Anglos ‘80: 75.38 Asians ‘90: 8.14 Asians ‘80: 4.13 Blacks ‘90: 5.13 Blacks ‘80: 2.59 Latinos ‘90: 34.73 Latinos ‘80: 16.35

COUNCIL DISTRICT 3

Joy Picus

* 1990 total population: 226,915

Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 67.54 Anglos ‘80: 82.79 Asians ‘90: 8.43 Asians ‘80: 3.45 Blacks ‘90: 2.72 Blacks ‘80: 1.42 Latinos ‘90: 21.22 Latinos ‘80: 11.11

COUNCIL DISTRICT 4

John Ferraro

* 1990 total population: 245,891 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 36.98 Anglos ‘80: 53.48 Asians ‘90: 19.19 Asians ‘80: 13.05 Blacks ‘90: 5.75 Blacks ‘80: 4.60 Latinos ‘90: 39.05 Latinos ‘80: 26.80

COUNCIL DISTRICT 5

Zev Yaroslavsky

* 1990 total population: 212,864 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 82.27 Anglos ‘80: 86.13 Asians ‘90: 6.79 Asians ‘80: 3.49 Blacks ‘90: 3.14 Blacks ‘80: 3.99 Latinos ‘90: 7.78 Latinos ‘80: 5.07

COUNCIL DISTRICT 6

Ruth Galanter

* 1990 total population: 210,466 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 41.23 Anglos ‘80: 44.08 Asians ‘90: 6.56 Asians ‘80: 5.22 Blacks ‘90: 32.03 Blacks ‘80: 33.64 Latinos ‘90: 20.98 Latinos ‘80: 15.66

COUNCIL DISTRICT 7

Ernani Bernardi

* 1990 total population: 268,104 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 23.92 Anglos ‘80: 43.23 Asians ‘90: 7.09 Asians ‘80: 3.75 Blacks ‘90: 6.97 Blacks ‘80: 8.34 Latinos ‘90: 62.57 Latinos ‘80: 43.30

COUNCIL DISTRICT 8

Robert Farrell

* 1990 total population: 224,806 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 4.54 Anglos ‘80: 6.31 Asians ‘90: 6.21 Asians ‘80: 4.57 Blacks ‘90: 51.81 Blacks ‘80: 67.36 Latinos ‘90: 41.12 Latinos ‘80: 20.87

COUNCIL DISTRICT 9

Vacant

* 1990 total population: 246,631 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 3.40 Anglos ‘80: 5.60 Asians ‘90: 2.41 Asians ‘80: 1.92 Blacks ‘90: 35.91 Blacks ‘80: 56.06 Latinos ‘90: 61.40 Latinos ‘80: 35.74

COUNCIL DISTRICT 10

Nate Holden

* 1990 total population: 234,006 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 15.26 Anglos ‘80: 23.04 Asians ‘90: 14.10 Asians ‘80: 12.63 Blacks ‘90: 34.65 Blacks ‘80: 40.35 Latinos ‘90: 38.75 Latinos ‘80: 22.49

COUNCIL DISTRICT 11

Marvin Braude

* 1990 total population: 202,942 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 76.61 Anglos ‘80: 82.45 Asians ‘90: 7.61 Asians ‘80: 5.17 Blacks ‘90: 2.02 Blacks ‘80: 1.31 Latinos ‘90: 13.76 Latinos ‘80: 9.81

COUNCIL DISTRICT 12

Hal Bernson

* 1990 total population: 216,048 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 71.00 Anglos ‘80: 83.22 Asians ‘90: 12.02 Asians ‘80: 4.77 Blacks ‘90: 2.58 Blacks ‘80: 1.67 Latinos ‘90: 14.27 Latinos ‘80: 8.91

COUNCIL DISTRICT 13

Michael Woo

* 1990 total population: 232,760 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 49.35 Anglos ‘80: 61.53 Asians ‘90: 11.27 Asians ‘80: 9.77 Blacks ‘90: 4.42 Blacks ‘80: 4.30 Latinos ‘90: 35.50 Latinos ‘80: 21.93

COUNCIL DISTRICT 14

Richard Alatorre

* 1990 total population: 233,739 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 14.07 Anglos ‘80: 21.29 Asians ‘90: 11.16 Asians ‘80: 7.28 Blacks ‘90: 1.75 Blacks ‘80: 1.58 Latinos ‘90: 73.61 Latinos ‘80: 69.13

COUNCIL DISTRICT 15

Joan Milke Flores

* 1990 total population: 233,159 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 28.24 Anglos ‘80: 35.91 Asians ‘90: 7.34 Asians ‘80: 6.31 Blacks ‘90: 18.90 Blacks ‘80: 22.74 Latinos ‘90: 46.33 Latinos ‘80: 34.07

NOTES: 1980 Asian figures include Latino Asians, 1990 figures are non-Latino Asians.

* Figures do not include all population categories and therefore do not add to 100%.

SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, City of Los Angeles Community Development Department and Times statistical analysis by Maureen Lyons.

SUPERVISOR DISTRICTS: REDRAWING THE LINES

New supervisorial district boundaries have been in effect for only a few months. But the redistricting plan, drawn by a federal judge who ruled that the old lines discriminated against Latinos, was based on population estimates. Now it must be revised to the 1990 census. Districts must be roughly equal in population--about 1.77 million. Gloria Molina’s 1st District and Kenneth Hahn’s 2nd District must gain population while Ed Edelman’s 3rd District, Deane Dana’s 4th District and Mike Antonovich’s 5th District must give up population. As a result, hundreds of thousands of county residents will receive a different supervisor. Here are population figures by district and current officeholders.

SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 1

Gloria Molina

* 1990 total pop.: 1,549,641

* 1990 pop. estimate: 1,779,835

Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 12.1 Anglos ‘80: 55.9 Asians ‘90: 11.9 Asians ‘80: 4.1 Blacks ‘90: 1.8 Blacks ‘80: 3.0 Latinos ‘90: 73.6 Latinos ‘80: 36.2

SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 2

Kenneth Hahn

* 1990 total pop.: 1,760,271

* 1990 pop. estimate: 1,775,665 Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 14.3 Anglos ‘80: 23.6 Asians ‘90: 7.7 Asians ‘80: 6.7 Blacks ‘90: 35.1 Blacks ‘80: 42.2 Latinos ‘90: 42.3 Latinos ‘80: 26.5

SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 3

Ed Edelman

* 1990 total pop.: 1,825,032 * 1990 pop. estimate: 1,778,124

Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 59.1 Anglos ‘80: 45.8 Asians ‘90: 7.9 Asians ‘80: 8.7 Blacks ‘90: 3.9 Blacks ‘80: 2.4 Latinos ‘90: 28.6 Latinos ‘80: 41.8

SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 4

Deane Dana

* 1990 total pop.: 1,798,048

* 1990 pop. estimate: 1,776,240

Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 54.4 Anglos ‘80: 66.6 Asians ‘90: 12.8 Asians ‘80: 6.2 Blacks ‘90: 5.8 Blacks ‘80: 9.5 Latinos ‘90: 26.4 Latinos ‘80: 16.6

SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 5

Mike Antonovich

* 1990 total pop.: 1,930,172

* 1990 pop. estimate: 1,780,224

Ethnic group: % of total population Anglos ‘90: 58.2 Anglos ‘80: 72.7 Asians ‘90: 11.1 Asians ‘80: 4.6 Blacks ‘90: 5.9 Blacks ‘80: 4.8 Latinos ‘90: 24.3 Latinos ‘80: 16.9

NOTES: 1980 figures apply to district boundaries that were invalidated last year by a judge who declared that county supervisors had discriminated against Latinos in drawing the lines.

* Figures do not include all population categories and therefore do not add to 100%.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau and the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning