High Court OKs Remap Plan That Boosts GOP : Redistricting: New political boundaries must stand test of U.S. Justice Department and federal courts.

Turning aside objections from Democrats and Latinos, the state Supreme Court on Monday adopted new political boundaries to guide the selection of legislators and members of Congress through the end of this century.

The new lines, if they withstand scrutiny by the U.S. Justice Department and the federal courts, will replace those drawn by Democrats 10 years ago and are expected to give Republicans a chance to control at least one house of the state Legislature for the first time since 1970. A majority of the state’s congressional seats also could fall to the Republicans.

Latinos holding or seeking seats in the Legislature and Congress should also benefit. But the court rejected a plea from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund to strengthen Latino chances even further in central Los Angeles and the Central Valley.

In a 6-1 decision authored by Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, the justices upheld almost entirely a plan drafted by three retired judges the court appointed in September. The court named the so-called special masters to break a deadlock between the Democratic-controlled Legislature and Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, who could not agree on how to redraw the district lines to reflect population shifts detected in the 1990 census.

Adoption of the final lines represents a starting gun for the 1992 election season and is expected to prompt politicians across the state to quickly declare where they will run and for what office. Candidates may file papers for election between Feb. 10 and March 6. The primaries are on June 2.

That calendar could be thrown into turmoil if the federal courts rule in favor of congressional Democrats or Latino groups, which have objected to the state high court’s plan. A review by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco is pending.

The plan also must be reviewed by the U.S. Justice Department to ensure that it complies with the federal Voting Rights Act, which prohibits boundaries that are found to dilute the political clout of ethnic minorities.

“We are very angry about the Supreme Court’s decision to implement what we consider to be illegal lines,” said Arturo Vargas, director of outreach and policy for MALDEF, a Latino rights group that forced the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to redraw its boundaries to enhance Latino voting strength.

Vargas said the group will pursue its pending challenge to the congressional lines with “all vigor.” He said MALDEF also now will consider challenging the legislative lines as well, because the court adopted boundaries that decrease the percentage of Latinos in two central Los Angeles districts.

Wilson, who triggered the court action by vetoing Democratic-drawn lines, described the court plan as “fair and honest. It is a solution that truly represents the interests of the people of our state and that offers an unprecedented opportunity to those who have been shut out of the political process in the past.”

Democrats had complained that the lines would unfairly tilt the balance of power to the Republicans. But Assembly Speaker Willie Brown of San Francisco said Monday that despite the tilt his party expects to retain control of the Legislature’s lower house.

“Every two years we have been doing things differently, and that’s why we’ve been winning,” Brown said. “We’re going to have to do it again.” Democrats currently hold 47 of the Assembly’s 80 seats.

Assembly Republican Leader Bill Jones of Fresno said the court plan “hits the bull’s-eye.”

“It respects minority communities of interest,” he said. “It leaves intact the boundaries of cities and counties wherever possible. Most important, it creates fair districts for the people of California.”

In the state Senate, where Democrats now hold 24 of the 40 seats, Republicans are not expected to challenge for control until at least 1994. But Sen. Bill Leonard of Big Bear, chairman of the Republican Caucus, said his party’s candidates no longer will have to run in districts “stacked against” Republicans.

“These are the fairest lines I’ve seen in 20 years,” Leonard said.

Democrats now hold 26 of the state’s 45 congressional seats. The new delegation, expanded to reflect the state’s population growth, will have 52 seats. Political analysts have said either party could win a majority of the newly drawn districts.

In sticking with the masters’ plan, the court’s majority rejected an array of proposals for changes. The justices said they did not weigh the partisan political impact of the plan or take into account the location of incumbents.

In the 36-page majority opinion, Lucas emphasized the need to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act and to stay as close as practical to city, county and regional boundaries.

The court allowed population deviations among districts of as much as 1% in order to form “reasonably compact” districts and to use census tracts rather than blocks. (Tracts generally include homogenous communities and are bound by geographical features; blocks are actual city or suburban blocks).

In rejecting the use of the more precise block data, the court turned aside the suggestion of two top state Republicans--Wilson and Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren. Both officeholders had urged the court to reduce the population difference among congressional districts to almost zero.

The court said more important state concerns overrode the desire to make the district populations almost equal. In particular, the justices said, using blocks instead of tracts would have been more expensive and would have denied minority groups the opportunity to participate in the process.

The justices said they turned down the congressional Democrats’ proposals because they would have violated county boundaries and resulted in non-contiguous districts.

Rejecting the Latinos’ argument, the court said its plan would create six seats in the Assembly, three in the Senate and four in Congress where the majority of the population is Latino. To also improve the Latino voter registration numbers in those districts, as MALDEF requested, would have unfairly divided Asian communities, the court said.

The justices did accept one change proposed by the Asian Pacific American Coalition, revising two Assembly districts and two Senate districts to avoid splitting the city of Torrance.

Justice Stanley Mosk, the only court member appointed by a Democratic governor, issued a sharp dissent, saying the plan “unfairly benefits Republicans” and improperly imposes “racial quotas” in seeking to increase minority voting power.

Redistricting Change

AD 53 was moved north to increase its Asian share, removing north Torrance from AD 51. Two Senate districts were affected moving the Torrance segment from SD 25 to SD 28.

Demographics*

Dist. No. Anglo Latino Black Asian Assem. 51 22% 36% 37% 6% Assem. 53 74 12 2 12 Sen. 25 16 42 37 6 Sen. 28 47 26 13 14

* Data exceed 100% because of rounding.

Source: California Supreme Court and Strategic Mapping, Inc.

(Southland Edition) NEXT STEP

The political redistricting plans enacted by the state Supreme Court on Monday face challenges in two more forums, the federal courts and the U.S. Justice Department. Lawyers for congressional Democrats and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund will press their claims in federal district court that the congressional districts fail to adequately meet “one person, one vote” standards and protect minority voting strength. (The validity of state Assembly and Senate districts has not yet been challenged in federal court.) Attorneys for Gov. Pete Wilson have asked the federal court to stay out of the case and allow the state Supreme Court ruling to end the matter. Action by the federal court is expected soon. The U.S. Justice Department also is expected to review the case to see if the plan complies with federal law protecting minority voter rights.