Odd Equation for Adding Supervisors : Politics: Hahn needed help from conservatives to draft a plan to expand the board. Civil rights groups say a seven-member panel would dilute Latino power.

For 18 years, Supervisor Kenneth Hahn has campaigned to enlarge Los Angeles County’s governing board to seven members, contending that the five supervisors cannot adequately represent districts that have larger populations than many states.

Hahn’s long struggle appeared closer to fruition when the election of Gloria Molina this year established a liberal majority that favors adding supervisors.

But, in an unusual alliance, Hahn and two board conservatives voted last month to draft a measure for the June, 1992, ballot that would expand the Board of Supervisors to seven members.

The measure is far from assured a place on the ballot because complex legal and political issues remain unresolved:

* Civil rights groups have threatened to take legal action to invalidate the expansion to seven members, saying that the voting power of Latinos would be diluted. They support expansion to nine members.

* Board conservatives say they might withdraw their support for the ballot measure when it comes back for final adoption. They say expansion would unnecessarily increase government costs.

* Hahn’s two liberal colleagues want any expansion proposal to be accompanied by other changes, such as ethics rules for the supervisors and creation of a “county mayor.”

Each supervisor represents about 1.7 million residents--more than twice the population of San Francisco.

How creation of a seven-member board would affect the county’s 8.8 million residents, especially minorities, is in dispute. Some experts contend that Latinos, although they make up 40% of the county’s population, would not win either of the two new seats. Others say Latinos stand a good chance of filling at least one new seat.

The fear among civil rights groups is that Anglos will win the two new seats, eroding the political power that Latinos gained through a historic voting rights suit. The case led to a redrawing of district boundaries and the election of Molina as the county’s first Latino supervisor this century.

Enlarging the board to fewer than nine would “dilute the newly acquired voting strength of the Hispanic community,” said Richard Fajardo, attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a plaintiff in the voting rights suit.

UCLA demographer Leo Estrada, who drew the court-ordered supervisorial district boundaries for MALDEF, contends that Latinos cannot make up a majority of eligible voters of two supervisorial districts, no matter how the seven districts are defined.

“We would go from having one seat of five to one seat of seven,” Estrada said.

On the other hand, he said, a nine-district plan could create two predominantly Latino districts and a third district in the San Fernando Valley that would have a Latino majority in the next decade. “Then you have the possibility of winning two of nine (seats) and situating yourself for three of nine,” he said.

County officials say they cannot assess the legal and political impact of a seven-district plan until they draft maps.

After last month’s vote, the supervisors asked a county reapportionment committee to draft a seven-district map that would go on the June, 1992, ballot.

Some elected officials have started assessing the political impact of a seven-member board.

City Councilman Richard Alatorre--who has helped draft city and state reapportionment plans--drew a seven-district county plan during last year’s redistricting case that he says could create a second district where a Latino has a good chance of being elected.

Alatorre’s plan would preserve the Latino majority in Molina’s 1st District and would create a San Gabriel Valley district with a population more than 40% Latino.

Alatorre said a Latino stands a chance of being elected from a new San Gabriel Valley district that would tend to support a conservative candidate.

His map also would form a “tossup” district in a new San Fernando Valley district that could be won by a Republican or Democrat, according to Alatorre. This, he said, would give conservatives a chance to regain a board majority.

Alatorre has taken no position on the expansion proposal.

Conservative Supervisor Mike Antonovich said: “I believe that Sarah (Flores) would have an opportunity of being elected under a seven-member plan.” Flores is a Republican aide to Antonovich and was the top finisher in an invalidated election last year in the old 1st District.

Despite the county’s population growth, the board has remained at five members since 1885. Voters rejected a 1962 proposal to add two board members and a 1976 proposal to add four. Opponents have argued that an enlarged board, with perks and staff for each of the additional supervisors, would increase taxpayers’ costs.

Last year, U.S. District Judge David V. Kenyon redrew county supervisorial district boundaries after declaring that the old lines discriminated against Latinos. He ruled that the districts are “too large for any one person to adequately represent,” but he left it to the supervisors to determine whether to expand the board.

The plaintiffs in the redistricting lawsuit argued that the size and population of the districts make it difficult for candidates--especially minorities and women--to challenge incumbent supervisors. Kenyon agreed, saying that the five-district structure “clearly provides an advantage to incumbents and requires significant financial expenditures to run a successful campaign.”

Ironically, the support for drafting the ballot measure came from Hahn’s conservative colleagues, Antonovich and Deane Dana.

Molina, who abstained, asked for time to study the legal questions, as well as hold public hearings on how much the board should be expanded and on other proposed reforms, such as a campaign contribution limit for supervisorial elections, a ban on gifts for county officials, and regulation of county lobbyists.

The board vote raised a number of questions: Why would Hahn, a liberal who has advocated expansion of the board as a way of increasing minority representation, summarily dismiss the legal concerns raised by civil rights groups? Why did conservative supervisors who have bitterly opposed expansion join Hahn in voting to draft the ballot measure?

An aide to Hahn said the veteran supervisor pressed for a vote because he resented the attention that Molina has received for advocating board expansion--an issue that Hahn has long pursued.

“Gloria wants to take the lead,” said the aide. “Kenny is not going to let her.”

Hahn, through a spokesman, said he pushed the matter because he believes in the cause and did not want to wait any longer.

Molina could not be reached, but her deputy, Robert Alaniz, said: “I don’t think it is a matter of who is going to take the lead, but a matter of who is going to work together for open government.”

Asked why he voted for the ballot measure, Dana said he and Antonovich have been under pressure from constituents to consolidate the San Gabriel Valley into one district.

“They are very upset at being put in three supervisorial districts” by the court-ordered redistricting, Dana said.

The expansion, he said, also could restore a conservative majority to the board.

The legal questions remain unanswered.

Hahn has asked the U.S. Justice Department to rule on the legality of the proposed board expansion. If the seven-member plan is declared illegal, Hahn said, he will support a proposal to expand the board to nine members.

He said he still believes that the proposed seven-member board stands a better chance of winning voters’ approval than nine because the change would not be as dramatic.

Liberal Supervisor Ed Edelman said that although he favors a seven-member board, he might support a nine-member plan if the seven-member plan is found in violation of last year’s redistricting decision. Most important, he said, is that any board expansion must be accompanied by creation of an elected county executive position.