COLUMN LEFT / RODOLFO F. ACUNA : Allegiance to the Party Is Passe : L.A. redistricting shows why Latinos and other minorities must pull together for clout.

It is getting increasingly difficult to explain to Latinos that it is in their best interest to support the Democratic Party. For years, Latinos waited for the party to make them equal partners in its mythical coalition of ethnics and progressives, forged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They had high hopes in 1960 when the Viva Kennedy! campaign promised them political appointments and a voice in party politics--but in the end, all they got was atole con el dedo (which means being fed a cornmeal drink with the server’s finger but is slang for being made a fool of).

In almost every state and local reapportionment since, party leaders haven’t given a bowl of beans for Latino interests. As a consequence, gains made by Latinos at the state level have been incremental. At the municipal and county levels it has been even slower. Indeed, the gains made in Los Angeles came largely through the judicial process and were made in spite of the Democratic Party.

It is ironic, but Latinos seem to have gotten a better shake from the panel of retired conservative jurists who remapped the state and congressional districts than they are getting from Democrats on the Los Angeles City Council. The outcome of council redistricting is going to be difficult for party apologists to explain away when Latinos in L.A. County win six assembly and four congressional districts this fall.

The City Council and the Honorable Mayor Tom Bradley have learned little from history and are backing a redistricting plan that protects incumbents at the expense of Latinos’ right to fair representation. Even after the threat of a lawsuit against the City Council, even after a court case that cost the county $12 million, City Hall still wants to play chicken with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), forcing a confrontation that will open up old wounds and make progressive coalitions that much harder to forge.

The fact is that the plan approved by the council is not based on equity. The council members opened up the possibility for a third Latino district, which would be in the San Fernando Valley, only because Councilman Ernani Bernardi plans to retire.

The struggle over the redistricting pits African-Americans against Latinos. Last February, John Mack, president of the Los Angeles Urban League, prophesied: “We have the potential of a political bloodletting along minority lines. I hope we can work it all out without going at each other’s throats.” The point of contention in the alternative plan offered by MALDEF appears to be that it strips Councilwoman Rita Walters of a rich commercial area that provides much-needed tax revenues for her largely South-Central constituency. The trade-off is to deny Latinos a fourth seat on the council.

Making things worse is that council members seem to have profited little from historical experience. Councilman Nate Holden’s raising the argument that many Latino residents are in this country illegally does little to build much-needed solidarity between blacks and Latinos.

From the Latino perspective, the MALDEF plan is not intended to take representation from African-Americans. It would be morally wrong to leave that community disenfranchised. History, however, has taught the Latino community that the electoral concerns of the Latino community are not high on the political Establishment’s list of priorities.

Many Chicanos have never forgotten that after years of struggle, Mexican-Americans elected Edward R. Roybal in 1949 to the City Council; then, in 1962, a coalition of downtown conservative Republicans and Westside liberals wiped Mexicans off the political map, and it took us more than 20 years to elect another Mexican-American to the City Council.

For the good of both communities, African-Americans and Latinos must sit down and talk about mutual interests. The two groups have problems in common vis-a-vis relations with the Westside. The MALDEF plan would give a Latino/African-American bloc seven votes. With Councilman Michael Woo’s vote added, the so-called minorities would be a majority of the council. That’s enough votes to change an inequitable tax structure that gives council members too much power over tax revenues generated in their fiefdoms, keeping districts like Councilman Mike Hernandez’s 1st District impoverished.

Hopefully, history and good sense will check the tendency to repeat the mistakes of the past. Ultimately, it is the taxpayers who will pay for another costly court battle. The wounds inflicted in a bitter court case will weaken the ability to form coalitions that are needed to restructure and reform Los Angeles. It’s a sad commentary when a panel of retired Republican judges can give us a better shake than the party of Kennedy and Roosevelt.