Democrats Have Luck of Draw in Redistricting

The Legislature will start work in earnest Monday on what many members admit is their most self-serving, interest-conflicted and partisan ritual: carving new political boundaries for themselves and Californians in Congress.

The outcome, virtually a foregone conclusion because Democrats control the Legislature and governor’s office, is certain to further cement Democrats as the dominant party in the Senate, Assembly and the state’s House delegation for the next decade.

Republican ranks are so thin in the Legislature that they play almost a spectator role. Democratic dominance is so heavy that there may not be many more Democratic seats to create without endangering other Democrats, said Senate President Pro Tem John L. Burton (D-San Francisco).

“We cannot get a lot more than we’ve got,” he said.

Consequently, legislative leaders of both parties say they want to adopt plans that preserve the bipartisan status quo. That would tighten the Democratic lock, but also allow Republicans to keep their relatively few seats without the prospect of further weakening.

“Our goal is for a status quo reapportionment,” said Sen. Don Perata (D-Alameda), chief architect of the still-emerging Senate plan. “I think if we do it right, we will have a bipartisan plan that will not be challenged” by a statewide referendum or in the Supreme Court.

The prospect of such a challenge is an attractive incentive for Democrats to work with Republicans. In California, if a redistricting plan wins two-thirds legislative approval and becomes law immediately, its opponents cannot challenge it with a ballot referendum.

Since the Democrats’ majority is slightly less than two-thirds, they need Republican crossovers. A further danger if Democrats do not appeal to Republicans: All six Supreme Court justices are appointees of Republican former governors, George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson.

The last two line-drawings have signaled the need for at least some bipartisan agreement.

In 1982, Republicans blocked a Democratic redistricting plan with a statewide referendum, forcing the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown to rewrite it at a special session.

The next time around, in 1991, the court redrew the political maps when Wilson and legislative Democrats failed to reach a settlement.

Senate GOP Leader Jim Brulte of Rancho Cucamonga acknowledged that bipartisan cooperation is dictated not by a sudden love affair between enemies, but by political pragmatism.

“We Republicans have an incentive to work with Democrats because we know they can do the redistricting without us. They have an incentive to work with us because they know we can do a referendum and throw it into the court,” he said.

“If we can pass a bipartisan plan, it takes the whole edge off,” agreed Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks).

Redistricting, which includes the tax-collecting State Board of Equalization, is required every 10 years for the realignment of political districts to accommodate population changes.

Census results also are the key to allocating billions of federal dollars to state and local governments.

Historically, legislatures draw their own district lines to perpetuate the majority, a process criticized as an incestuous conflict of interest. In California, carving districts traditionally has been a nasty dogfight between the parties and occasionally among members of the same party who are fighting for political survival.

In the early 1970s, when Ronald Reagan was governor, Republicans briefly dominated the Assembly and Senate. That hasn’t happened since.

Democrats in the Assembly now outnumber Republicans 50 to 30. In the Senate, the Democratic margin is 26 to 14, and in California’s delegation to the House of Representatives it is 32 to 20.

California will gain a 53rd seat in Congress and it will be carved for a Democrat, experts for both parties agree. Whether it will be squeezed into Los Angeles or added to the fast-growing Central Valley will be decided soon, they say.

If the traditional fights are off the remapping easel this time, redistricting experts warn of a first-ever and potentially explosive wild card: term limits.

Although term limits were imposed by state voters in 1990, this will be the first redrawing of lines by lawmakers who face expulsion in 2002--more than half the members of the Legislature.

Attempting to prolong their political careers, many members of the Assembly are looking for favorable districts in the state Senate and Congress. State senators are focusing chiefly on the House, where terms are unlimited.

“Understandably, members of Congress are looking over their shoulders. If I were in Congress, I’d be a little nervous,” said Assemblyman John Longville (D-Rialto), chairman of the Assembly Redistricting Committee.

Perata, who as a redistricting consultant gained previous experience at redrawing political boundaries, said he was astonished by the frenetic scramble, particularly by Assembly members.

One ambitious Democrat, freshman Assemblyman Juan Vargas of San Diego, who can run twice more for the lower chamber, began lobbying early this year for creation of a House “border district” next to Mexico in San Diego County. The area now is represented by veteran Democratic Rep. Bob Filner and two other House members.

Side by side with the scrambling incumbents are interest groups, primarily racial and ethnic minority organizations that want to make it easier for their communities to elect candidates of their choice.

Traditional organizations such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the William C. Velasquez Institute and the NAACP are actively pursuing their agendas, as is a coalition known as the African American Advisory Committee on Redistricting.

But a newcomer, the Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans for Fair Redistricting, has emerged and is making itself felt. Catching the attention of legislators, the organization proposed a carefully sculpted Assembly plan that its drafters say could help elect candidates from up to 10 of its growing communities.

The proposed districts would have a plurality of Asian Pacific Americans, but not a majority, said Kathay Feng of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California.

In efforts to elect candidates of their choice, she said, those voters would form coalitions with like-minded organizations, perhaps African American or Latino community activists.

In the Assembly, there are four Asian Americans--three women of Chinese descent and a man of Japanese heritage, an all-time high. The Senate has none.

“They make very cogent and organized presentations,” Perata said of the Asian Pacific Americans coalition.

Perata noted that the desire of Asian groups for more political influence comes as the Legislature’s Latino numbers have expanded dramatically and its African American presence has rapidly diminished.

“We are trying to make sure that opportunities are enhanced and not diminished for all minority groups,” said Perata, who is white but represents a predominantly black district in Oakland.

*

Times staff writer Miguel Bustillo contributed to this story.