Democrats Pass Redistricting Plans : Politics: No Republicans in either house vote in favor of any of the three bills. Wilson has threatened to veto the measures.

Ignoring Gov. Pete Wilson’s threat of a veto, Democratic lawmakers Thursday pushed bills through both houses of the Legislature that would enact new political districts, which Republicans said would consign them to another decade as the Legislature’s minority party.

No Republicans in either the Senate or Assembly voted for any of the three bills, each of which contained alternate plans for Assembly and congressional districts. All three bills included copies of a single Senate plan that had bipartisan support in the Legislature’s upper house.

Each package was an all-or-nothing offer for the governor. Even if he wanted to, Wilson could not sign the Senate or congressional plans that had Republican support without also enacting an Assembly plan that he and his allies in the Legislature have said is unacceptable.

If Wilson follows through on his threat to veto the bills and is not overridden by the Legislature, the task of drawing new districts to conform with the 1990 U.S. Census will almost certainly be thrown to the courts.

The bills were approved by bare majorities in each house.

Thursday’s votes came after months of closed-door negotiations and two weeks of public hearings at which most of those testifying--except on the Senate plan--said lawmakers had not provided sufficient detail about the proposed districts to allow the public to evaluate them.

“This is drop-dead day,” Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) told his house just before the vote. “There is no other opportunity. This is it.”

Brown said all three plans would abide by the federal Voting Rights Act, which protects the political interests of ethnic minorities, and the state Constitution, which calls for a minimum of districts that split city or county lines.

He also said the bills would give Republicans 36 solid districts in the 80-seat Assembly and a fair chance to compete for eight or 10 more. “There’s no way you can produce 80 competitive districts,” he said. Democrats now hold a 47-33 edge.

Brown said the congressional plans would probably produce a 26-26 split of the California delegation in the House of Representatives. Democrats now hold a 26-19 edge and there will be seven new seats for the state.

But Republicans scoffed at the idea that any of the three alternatives would allow them the chance to seize control of either house of the Legislature or draw even with the Democrats in Congress.

“This is not a solution,” said Assembly Republican Leader Bill Jones of Fresno. “There’s been no consensus, and therefore there will be no signature on these plans.”

Sen. Bill Leonard of Big Bear, chairman of the Senate Republican Caucus, described each of the bills as “a travesty.” While many conservative Republicans are said to prefer one of the congressional plans and Republicans voted for the Senate plan as a separate bill, Leonard dismissed all these efforts because they were linked to the Democrat-drawn Assembly plans.

“Drawing a distinction between them is like drawing a distinction between rape and date-rape,” Leonard said. “It’s still wrong.”

Wilson was traveling in Southern California with President Bush on Thursday. A spokesman said nothing had changed since the governor issued his veto threat Wednesday afternoon. Wilson was expected to veto the bills Monday.

Republicans said they hoped the vetoes would prompt Democrats to return to the bargaining table. In the Assembly, Republicans want the Democrats to collapse two additional districts--one in Los Angeles and one in the Bay Area--and shift them to growing areas that are heavily Republican.

“The Republican Caucus stands ready to stay here and work,” Jones said.

But Brown said the only further action he expects is a short session, probably next week, during which Democrats will seek to override the expected veto. They will need at least one Republican vote in the Senate and eight in the Assembly to succeed. One Democrat--Tom Hayden--voted against the plans and said he will not vote to override a veto.

In addition, at least three Assembly Republicans that Democrats hope will buck the governor have told The Times that they will not vote to override a veto on any of the three plans passed Thursday. They are Assemblymen Pat Nolan of Glendale, Ross Johnson of La Habra and William P. Baker of Danville.

As an alternative to overriding a veto, the parties could negotiate a solution, place it in a new bill and pass it in time for the 1992 elections.

But Brown told reporters there was no point in negotiating any longer with the Republicans, who he said would settle for nothing less than a guarantee of a majority after the 1992 elections.

“I’m at wits’ end,” Brown said. “I’m at the breaking point. I do better letting the courts rip me off.”

Republicans have complained that Brown is overstating their chances of victory in many of the districts he contends are either securely Republican or competitive. There was some evidence of that Thursday.

In his floor speech, Brown said the plans would give the Republicans 36 solid seats, but later he told reporters that his count includes two seats now held by Democrats--Dierdre Alpert of Del Mar and Dominic L. Cortese of San Jose. Alpert was elected in 1990 in a predominantly Republican district, which the Assembly plan would make slightly more Democratic. Cortese has served since 1980 in a district in which the majority of voters are Democrats, but the Assembly plan would reduce his partisan margin by about 2%.

Brown also said that he had told several Democrats in competitive Assembly districts that he could do nothing to improve their reelection chances, listing among these Steve Peace of La Mesa, Mike Gotch of San Diego, Tom Umberg of Garden Grove and Sal Cannella of Modesto. In fact, partisan breakdowns provided by Assembly aides showed that each of those members would see a modest strengthening of their Democratic numbers.

Brown said his plan would increase from three to six the number of districts in Los Angeles County in which Latinos would have an “immediate opportunity” to be elected. White incumbents who are expected to seek reelection hold two of the three new seats Brown said would go to Latinos.

The Competing Plans

The three redistricting bills passed by the Legislature each contain a different set of boundaries for legislative and congressional districts, labeled Plans A, B and C. Here are the distinctions pertaining to congressional boundaries, where seven new districts are being added. PLAN A

Protects all 45 incumbents.

Of the seven new seats, one, a heavily Latino district in Los Angeles County, would be solidly Democratic. Two others would be almost certain to go Republican.

Three seats, one along the coast in Santa Barbara and Ventura, would be competitive but leaning to the Democrats.

If the Democrats held all their current seats and won the new ones leaning their way, they would control 31 of the delegation’s 52 seats. PLAN B

Designed to seek an override vote in the Legislature if Wilson vetoes.

Would transform the district of Democratic Rep. Glenn Anderson of San Pedro into one favoring Republicans, and is drawn in a way that could be attractive to Assemblyman Tom Mays of Huntington Beach.

Of the seven new seats, one would be a Republican-leaning district in which Assemblyman William P. Baker of Danville could run. Another is a district in the eastern San Joaquin Valley and Sierra foothills that might be attractive to either Dean Andal or David Knowles, two freshman Republicans in the Assembly. Another new, solid Republican district would include areas now represented by Assemblyman Pat Nolan of Glendale.

Would create new seat in Orange County that could make it easier for Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-La Habra) to be elected to Congress.

Plan B also includes three seats favoring Democrats in Los Angeles, along the Santa Barbara-Ventura coast and in San Diego.

Democrats would be expected to have a 28-24 advantage. PLAN C

Seemingly designed to appeal to Gov. Wilson.

Like B, would transform the seat of Rep. Anderson into a Republican-leaning district, reducing the Democratic margin in the existing seats to 25-20.

Of the new seats, one--the Los Angeles Latino seat--would be solidly Democratic. Three seats would be solidly Republican.

Three others would be competitive.

The final make-up of the delegation would be expected to be 28 to 24 in favor of the Democrats. But in a good Republican year the delegation could be split down the middle.