No Immediate Impact Seen in California

The Supreme Court decision opening the door to challenges of oddly configured legislative districts is unlikely to have an immediate impact in California, but legal and political experts said it may encourage more lawsuits attacking districts created with race in mind.

Several voting rights experts said they knew of no California legislative district drawn in a manner that approached the North Carolina district the Supreme Court found unacceptable--a 160-mile long district that winds snakelike from one black enclave to another along an interstate highway.

California congressional and legislative districts appear immune from challenge because race was one of only several factors--including compactness and geography--taken into consideration when the districts were redrawn. Thus, the ruling is not expected to force any changes in the 100 state legislative districts and 52 congressional districts established last year by the California Supreme Court after Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed Democratic-sponsored reapportionment bills.

The distortion of the North Carolina district is “a quantum leap--four quantum leaps” beyond the shaping of any California boundary in an attempt to create a minority-controlled district, said Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a Washington attorney who was chief counsel of the Republican National Committee in 1991 and spent considerable time in the state during the last reapportionment.

Ginsberg also noted that the California districts were drawn under the supervision of the state Supreme Court, whereas the challenged North Carolina district was shaped by the Legislature.

Timothy A. Hodson, staff director of the state Senate’s elections and reapportionment committee, gave a similar analysis. “The minority districts in California, in comparison to those in North Carolina, are relatively compact and make sense on grounds other than race. But this decision could have a major impact on the ability of minority communities to argue their case in the next reapportioning in 2000.”

The newly drawn boundaries for Los Angeles County supervisorial districts, which paved the way for the election of Gloria Molina, also appear to be immune to challenge, according to Morgan Kousser, a California Institute of Technology history professor and voting rights expert.

The Los Angeles supervisorial lines were redrawn after a federal court ruled that there had been discriminatory intent in the drawing of previous boundaries. As a consequence, race could be taken into account in shaping a new district to remedy the prior discrimination against Latinos, Kousser said.

Nonetheless, Kousser said he thinks “the immediate upshot will be more litigation.” He said groups attempting to remedy perceived injustices will “have to have a great deal more evidence before they can draw districts that are racially conscious. I think it means a lot more work for lawyers.”

John E. McDermott, a Los Angeles lawyer who specializes in voting rights cases, said the ruling could bear on several pending cases, including a suit in Los Angeles federal court challenging the fairness of at-large elections for the Santa Maria City Council.

In that case, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund contends that Latinos have been frozen out of the council by the at-large system and have drawn a proposed new district that would make the election of a Latino much more likely. McDermott, representing Santa Maria, contends the proposed district makes no sense.

He said the Supreme Court ruling also could affect challenges to the existing methods of electing judges, school districts and water boards in various California cities. Various suits have said those districts exclude minorities. Monday’s decision could have an impact on how new districts are fashioned to remedy districts where discriminatory practices are found.

Ginsberg emphasized that the contested North Carolina district was challenged under the constitutional provision guaranteeing equal protection of the laws. “They are not tossing out the Voting Rights Act.”

But Mark Rosenbaum of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the attorneys who represented Latino plaintiffs in the landmark Los Angeles supervisors case, called the decision “a warning shot that the Supreme Court may have the Voting Rights Act in its sights.”

“What’s disturbing,” Rosenbaum said, “is that in the past bizarrely drawn districts were approved for white incumbents. The only time the court has lifted its eyes is when districts like this are drawn to benefit minorities who have been pushed around by the political process.”

McDermott, Rosenbaum’s adversary in the Los Angeles case, asserted that the Supreme Court was particularly receptive to the arguments of whites in the North Carolina case because it appeared clear that a number of “conventional criteria” in such cases--compactness, geography, continuity of representation--had been “subordinated to the overriding issue of race.” He said the decision could place “a major roadblock” on similar remedies in the future.

Kousser said it was possible that the Supreme Court decision might embolden some individuals to challenge newly drawn districts designed to increase minority representation--including the Los Angeles School Board district represented by Leticia Quezada.

The questions raised by the Supreme Court ruling may be answered in part when a North Carolina federal district court--at the direction of the Supreme Court--makes a further review of what factors were involved in drawing the district ruled unconstitutional Monday. “It probably will take a lot of litigation to determine under what conditions” so-called “majority-minority” districts are acceptable, said Joaquin G. Avila, a Fremont-based voting rights attorney.

Times staff writer Eric Bailey contributed to this story.