Disagreement Over Where to Draw the Line

With no clear consensus on what Orange County’s revamped supervisorial districts should look like, the Board of Supervisors and members of special-interest groups fretted Tuesday about the approaching deadline to choose a plan and the legalities involved.

As the 14 proposals were discussed at a board forum, the small audience flipped through a booklet of maps showing what each district would look like under each plan, along with demographic charts and details on population variances.

Concerns ranged from the possibility of missing the Aug. 21 deadline--and thus inadvertently going into the March elections with the old districts still in place--to the fairness of refusing to consider proposals that missed the submission deadline.

At the meeting, the county Department of Education submitted four maps that, according to Assistant Supt. Wendy Margarita, were designed to accommodate schools, local governments and area demographics.

After getting feedback from William F. Gayk, who heads the Center for Demographic Research at Cal State Fullerton and does technical adjustments on the maps, supervisors decided to allow additional proposals and modifications to be submitted until July 5.

District boundaries are redrawn every 10 years to reflect population changes recorded by the census.

Among the most important issues this time around, county officials say, are keeping population sizes as equal as possible in each district while allowing for growth and keeping together “communities of interest” so that supervisors can provide consistent representation.

Diane Taylor, president of the county League of Women Voters, said her organization’s map corrected deficiencies, such as North County cities being lumped with South County cities in the 3rd District.

That raised the ire of Todd Spitzer, the supervisor for that district: “Is the league going on record as saying that the 3rd District is an inappropriate district?”

Taylor responded that it is the league’s position to keep cities together. “It’s hard to rationalize La Habra and Mission Viejo together,” said Taylor, a Brea resident.

Zeke Hernandez, president of the Santa Ana chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens, expressed concern that the county may go into the March elections with the old districts and a near 20% disparity in populations among the districts.

At one point, Arturo Jacques of Santa Ana angrily claimed that out of all the maps submitted, his was the only one from a private citizen and he felt that it was being ignored.

“I can see that my proposal means nothing to you,” he told the supervisors. “I see things happening here that are wrong, W-R-O-N-G, wrong. . . . I am concerned that you are trying to kiss up to some groups.”

A redistricting committee made up of representatives from each supervisorial office has been studying the maps--some submitted by special-interest groups, most by supervisorial offices--since October.

Supervisors will vote on a final map July 17. An ordinance outlining the new district boundaries is scheduled to be approved Aug. 21.