Congressional Lawmakers Face Hurdles on Road to Reapportionment : Districts: The once-a-decade redrawing of the political map has a bitter history. Rivalry between Democrats and Republicans may propel the issue into the courts.

One by one, California lawmakers recently filed into a spacious office on the third floor of the Capitol to discuss an issue near and dear to their hearts--their own political survival.

Awaiting them were Reps. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) and Vic Fazio (D-Sacramento) and Berman’s brother, Michael, armed with maps showing the racial makeup of various districts.

The two lawmakers head the state’s Democratic congressional reapportionment effort, and Michael Berman has been retained by the delegation to draw up a redistricting proposal to submit to the state Legislature.

Democrats view Michael Berman, a demographics expert who was involved in redrawing lines in 1970 and 1980, as a Picasso in the arcane art of political mapping. Republicans see him as a dreaded evil genius.

In 1980, he helped craft a plan that dramatically boosted Democratic fortunes statewide--creating in the process a comfortably Democratic district in the east San Fernando Valley for then-Assemblyman Howard L. Berman.

The closed-door sessions in the Capitol last month with about two dozen members of California’s congressional delegation represented the first step in a process that promises to be complicated and contentious.

Reapportionment--the redrawing of congressional district lines after the U.S. census--is a once-a-decade rite that has a legacy of bitter controversy in California. And here the past may loom as prologue.

Lawmakers face prodigious hurdles in developing a congressional plan that the Democrat-controlled state Assembly and Senate will pass and that Republican Gov. Pete Wilson will sign.

A gubernatorial veto would send the political map-making to the courts--taking the matter completely out of legislators’ hands. Indeed, some of those involved in the largely behind-the-scenes process are privately skeptical that such a scenario can be avoided.

The first obstacle is the federal Voting Rights Act, requiring that minority districts be created wherever possible--which is likely to mean several new Latino districts in California.

In Los Angeles County alone, Latinos now outnumber blacks in three districts represented by black lawmakers, thereby creating pressure to carve out new Latino districts while still preserving seats for the black incumbents.

Proposition 140, the measure adopted by voters in November to limit state legislative terms, has members of the Assembly and Senate eyeing congressional seats for themselves.

Hence, they will no longer be so willing to let the congressional delegation dictate its own plan.

The seven or eight new seats the state will gain will only partially satisfy their ambitions.

Finally, there is the bitter fallout from 1980.

Michael Berman, working with the late Rep. Phillip Burton (D-San Francisco), crafted a reapportionment plan that ballooned a 22-21 Democratic edge to 27-18.

Republicans howled that they had been robbed and challenged the plan in a referendum, initiative and lawsuit over eight years--ultimately without success.

In the 1980s, California’s growth was largely in GOP-dominated suburbs--prompting Republicans to assert that the new delegation should be evenly divided.

“There’s no question that they did talk to me and others about the fact that Pete Wilson is governor and there will have to be a different kind of negotiation and communication than there was last time,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Highland), one of those who met with the Bermans and Fazio. “I told them, ‘Yeah, you owe us about a dozen seats.’ ”

Moreover, Wilson says he wants a plan that is both “fair” and maximizes electoral competition.

Such talk makes many incumbents of both parties uneasy.

Against this backdrop, Michael Berman and partner Carl D’Agostino--principals in the Beverly Hills-based BAD Campaigns--have been hired by the Democratic delegation for $250,000.

A maximum of another $250,000 will be set aside for computer programming and other costs.

Each of the 24 Democrats seeking reelection in 1982 has agreed to contribute $25,000 from his or her campaign committee.

Fazio, who is overseeing the Democratic reapportionment effort nationwide, says the fee is reasonable “given the quality of the people we’re trying to obtain.”

He calls Michael Berman “the best in the business. . . . I don’t know of anyone who is quite as adept as he is with one of the most colorful and diverse states.”

Michael Berman, always publicity-shy, won’t discuss reapportionment.

Howard Berman would only say: “There are many, many hurdles, but we’re going to try.”

Last month’s meetings in the Capitol were largely an opportunity for lawmakers to sketch out the new districts they would like to see for themselves.

The process will begin in earnest when the U.S. Census Bureau gives final approval to the numbers on or before July 15.

The goal then, Fazio says, will be to fashion a bipartisan congressional plan to present to the state Legislature.

Lewis, also a battle-scarred reapportionment veteran, sounds skeptical. “I’m not sure the Democrats will be able to compromise enough to do what’s fair,” he said.

“If it goes to the courts,” quipped Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles), one of those kicking in $25,000 for BAD’s reapportionment services, “we should get our money back.”