Latino Group Seeks to Alter Remap Plans : Politics: MALDEF claims Supreme Court’s tentative districts fall short of the demands of federal law and fairness.

Contending that the state Supreme Court’s tentative district lines would deprive Latinos of the right to elect representatives of their choice, a civil rights group intends to ask the court to increase the number of Latino voters in several districts in Los Angeles and other parts of the state.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund argues that the court’s plan, drawn by three retired judges, falls short of what federal law and fairness require in its design of Assembly, Senate and congressional districts in Latino areas.

MALDEF fears that white Democratic incumbents will move into districts drawn for Latinos and win because several of those districts do not include sufficient Latino voters to assure that Latinos will control the outcome of the election.

“If the Latino community is given a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, then it’s up to the Latino community,” said Arturo Vargas, director of outreach and policy for MALDEF. “If a non-Latino is elected, then that’s the community’s choice. But at this point we are saying we don’t think those districts are fair.”

Monday was the unofficial deadline set by the high court for groups and individuals to respond to the plan prepared by the retired judges, known as special masters. The court appointed the masters to break a deadlock between the Democrats who control the Legislature and Republican Gov. Pete Wilson.

Officially, the court will accept briefs through the end of the year, but the justices said they wanted the material early to give them more time to weigh the issues before a scheduled Jan. 13 hearing. The court expects to adopt final lines by Jan. 28 unless the Legislature and the governor agree on a plan before then.

Also expected to file briefs are the Democrats in California’s congressional delegation and in the state Assembly and Senate.

Congressional Democrats want a federal court to take over drawing of the boundaries for California’s expanded delegation in the House of Representatives and adopt a plan pushed through the Legislature by Democrats that Wilson vetoed.

Lawyers for the Assembly and Senate also said Monday that they will ask the state court to reject the masters’ plan and adopt lines drawn by the Legislature.

The Senate’s lawyer--Allan Browne--said the plan approved without dissent by the Legislature’s upper house is fairer to minorities than the masters’ plan. The Assembly’s lawyer--Joseph Remcho--said he intends to ask the court to set aside the masters’ plan because it favors Republicans.

Although both lawyers are paid with taxpayer funds, their legal strategies are shaped by the Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature. Republican leaders in both houses said Monday that they do not support the attacks on the masters’ plan.

The court is expected to look most closely at the complaints from minority groups, whose interests are protected under the federal Voting Rights Act. That law prohibits the map-drawers from fashioning districts that divide minority communities or pack them into districts in ways that minimize their political clout.

Vargas said MALDEF has drawn new districts for the state’s heavily Latino regions that the court will be asked to adopt in place of the masters’ plan.

In Los Angeles County, the MALDEF plan would create six Assembly districts, three state Senate districts and four congressional districts in which Latinos represent at least 40% of the registered voters--the number elections experts say is necessary for that minority group to control the outcome of a race.

The masters’ plan included four Assembly districts, two Senate districts and three congressional districts that met MALDEF’s standard. Vargas said MALDEF was able to increase the number of Latino districts without affecting districts outside the core Latino community.

Outside Los Angeles County, Vargas said, the organization objects to lines drawn in the Oxnard area, in San Bernardino County, and in San Jose, San Diego and the San Joaquin Valley.

Although none of these areas have Latinos in sufficient concentration to assure Latino control of a district, Vargas said several districts divide Latino communities, which, if united, could give Latinos greater influence in the outcome of the elections. In many cases, the communities were split in order to prevent the division of cities and counties into separate districts.

“The masters have a conflict between enhanced opportunities for Latinos and their interest in being nice and neat,” Vargas said. “Being nice and neat is not the law of the land when federal law should be the first principle that’s applied.”

Blacks are not expected to file a challenge with the court because the masters’ plan appears to provide no reduction in the number of seats they will control.