Bradley OKs Controversial Redistricting Plan : Politics: MALDEF threatens to sue over proposal that it says cuts Latino voting power. About 650,000 residents would get different council representatives.

Despite the threat of a voting rights lawsuit, Mayor Tom Bradley gave final approval Thursday to a City Council redistricting map that critics say preserves the political status quo while depriving Los Angeles’ emerging Latino majority of greater clout at City Hall.

Bradley’s action sets up a legal confrontation with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which vowed to file a lawsuit challenging the election plan. A U.S. Justice Department official said the agency, which enforces the federal Voting Rights Act, intends to “take a look” at the map.

Unless it is invalidated, the map will give 650,000 of the city’s 3.5 million residents different council representatives.

Council members are already scurrying to familiarize themselves with new parts of their districts, and to make themselves known to their new constituents.

New district boundaries do not become effective until the redistricting ordinance is published in the legal notices, expected to occur in a few days. But city lawmakers and their staffs immediately went to work Thursday swapping files between council offices, arranging tours of their newly assigned neighborhoods and surveying locations for new field offices.

MALDEF, meanwhile, said it will proceed with a suit similar to its successful action against the county. The suit led to court-ordered remapping that culminated in the election of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors’ first Latino member this century, Gloria Molina, but only after a legal fight that cost taxpayers $12 million.

The new redistricting plan increases the chances for a Latino to succeed retiring Councilman Ernani Bernardi in a redrawn San Fernando Valley district in next April’s municipal election. But MALDEF contends that the plan divides Latino neighborhoods in the Central City, weakening voters’ power to elect a fourth Latino to the council.

Latinos make up about 40% of the city’s population, but only two Latinos serve on the 15-member City Council.

“We’re going to have to look at doing it the old-fashioned way,” said Antonia Hernandez, president of MALDEF, whose lawsuits have led to the election of Latinos to the City Council and Board of Supervisors. “It seems like the only way we can gain empowerment for our community is through expensive litigation.”

Deputy Mayor Mark Fabiani, however, said city lawyers have assured the mayor that the map is legal.

After signing the redistricting ordinance, Bradley issued a statement saying that he believes the plan is sound, but could be reassessed if warranted. “Based upon current information and the advice of the city attorney, the current redistricting map was approved by the majority of the City Council,” Bradley said. “If additional census data is revealed, the City Council should revisit this issue to ensure that all segments of this city are fully and fairly represented on the council.”

Bradley was alluding to the expected release this summer of census data that MALDEF contends will show it is possible to carve out a district west of downtown where Latinos would make up the majority of eligible voters.

Backers of the council plan note that it creates a new Latino-majority district stretching from Mt. Washington to Hollywood that would be represented by Councilman Michael Woo, who is considering running for mayor. But MALDEF officials note that Latinos make up only 24% of the registered voters in Woo’s new district, making it unlikely that a Latino could be elected there for years.

In his written statement, Bradley did not address the conflict between African-American and Latino groups--traditionally allies in voting rights cases who have parted company over how downtown should be carved up.

MALDEF drafted a map that it maintained would strengthen the chances for a fourth Latino to win election to the council. But the map was opposed by black groups, including the NAACP, because it would have stripped black Councilwoman Rita Walters of a rich commercial area that Walters said is vital to providing tax revenues to assist impoverished south-central parts of her district.

The plan approved Thursday by the mayor also drew opposition from the Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans for Fair Reapportionment, which objected to the fragmentation of Koreatown among three council districts. But coalition officials were undecided about whether they would join MALDEF in a lawsuit.

The architect of the new map, Council President John Ferraro, defended it Thursday, saying: “Here (are) four districts that have 57% or more Hispanics. Their real problem is that there are a lot of people out there who are not registered. They should put their emphasis on registering rather than redrawing the lines.”

Citywide, Latinos make up 11% of registered voters.

Ferraro said the council would reopen the contentious process of redrawing lines if the Justice Department raises objections, or if new census figures warrant it.

The U.S. Justice Department in 1985 challenged the city redistricting plan, but the council settled out of court by drawing a map that led to the election of the council’s second Latino member in 1987.

By law, the lines were redrawn this year to reflect population changes recorded in the census.

The New Districts

New Los Angeles City Council district boundaries assign different council representatives to 665,000 of the city’s 3.5 million residents. Following are the newly drawn boundaries and breakdowns on the etthnic groups and registered voters within each district:

District Anglo Black Asian Latino Dist. 1 % of total pop. 7.22% 2.57% 16.41% 74.90% % of reg. voters 39.19% 7.95% 7.76% 45.40% Dist. 2 % of total pop. 52.96% 4.13% 9.59% 33.74% % of reg. voters 83.85% 4.41% 2.24% 9.59% Dist. 3 % of total pop. 68.01% 2.60% 8.51% 20.76% % of reg. voters 89.69% 2.46% 2.28% 5.61% Dist. 4 % of total pop. 52.78% 6.53% 16.09% 25.26% % of reg. voters 81.73% 7.96% 4.05% 6.38% Dist. 5 % of total pop. 80.92% 3.28% 5.90% 9.86% % of reg. voters 92.00% 2.96% 2.04% 3.05% Dist. 6 % of total pop. 56.15% 15.67% 8.48% 20.08% % of reg. voters 73.15% 16.95% 3.43% 6.60% Dist. 7 % of total pop. 16.90% 8.02% 5.69% 70.04% % of reg. voters 48.46% 18.78% 1.99% 31.00% Dist. 8 % of total pop. 4.62% 63.80% 2.77% 31.86% % of reg. voters 6.62% 89.34% 1.39% 3.04% Dist. 9 % of total pop. 2.70% 35.70% 2.13% 62.72% % of reg. voters 7.86% 83.12% 1.67% 7.82% Dist. 10 % of total pop. 9.01% 37.23% 15.25% 41.92% % of reg. voters 20.58% 67.66% 6.35% 5.83% Dist. 11 % of total pop. 72.07% 2.66% 7.65% 17.70% % of reg. voters 90.91% 2.33% 2.98% 3.81% Dist. 12 % of total pop. 68.46% 3.15% 11.20% 17.10% % of reg. voters 87.50% 2.86% 3.38% 6.29% Dist. 13 % of total pop. 20.99% 3.55% 19.77% 57.04% % of reg. voters 61.19% 8.51% 6.49% 24.03% Dist. 14 % of total pop. 13.06% 3.79% 10.38% 73.40% % of reg. voters 39.45% 4.41% 4.56% 51.78% Dist. 15 % of total pop. 28.24% 18.91% 7.33% 46.31% % of reg. voters 49.77% 29.58% 3.11% 17.74% SOURCE: City Council