New Supervisorial Districts Much Like the Old

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a redistricting plan that barely alters the shape of their districts, sparking complaints that it discriminates against minorities and a promise by activists to appeal to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The most significant of the proposed changes is the transfer of Walnut from Supervisor Mike Antonovich’s district to Supervisor Gloria Molina’s. A patch of southern Hollywood will go from Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky’s district to Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke’s, and Eagle Rock will move from Antonovich’s district to Molina’s. In all, only 82,269 of more than 9 million county residents will be in a new district.

Every 10 years, after the release of census data, the board must redraw the lines of its five districts to balance their population. Though arcane for most people, redistricting is the lifeblood of elected officials and has particular significance to county supervisors.

The Department of Justice in 1988 found that the county had intentionally drawn its districts to keep Latinos from winning a seat on the board. The county had to enter a consent decree and redraw its districts to create an Eastside seat, which was won by Molina in 1991.

That history was on everyone’s mind Tuesday as a group of Latino and Asian American political activists warned that demographic changes in the past decade mean that maintaining the status quo may violate the Civil Rights Act.

Alan Clayton, a demographer with the county Chicano Employees Assn., proposed creating one seat to cover the entire San Gabriel Valley, which is currently divided among three supervisorial districts. With a second seat covering the Eastside, that would create two potential slots for Latino candidates or even an Asian American candidate, he said.

“They’ve fragmented the Asian community and the Latino community in the San Gabriel Valley,” Clayton said.

Activists argued that with Molina’s district currently 76.1% Latino, Latino voting power is diluted in other districts. “I can understand your reluctance to share power,” El Monte Mayor Rachel Montes said.

But Kevin Acebo, chairman of the supervisor-appointed committee that redrew the district lines, told the board that the committee struggled to ensure that no group’s rights were violated. He said Clayton’s proposal reduces minority voting strength “in relation to the current plan.”

After an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund warned that the county may not have done all the required legal studies before drawing the map, Molina proposed that the board study the issues further and consider redrawing the lines in two years.

Her colleagues agreed to continually review demographic and voting data with an eye toward civil rights issues, but they declined to set a date for reconsidering the shape of their districts.

Still, Molina said in an interview, “we are in full compliance with civil rights law.” She joined her colleagues in unanimously approving the plan.

Because the county remains under its consent decree, the Justice Department must approve its redistricting plan within 60 days of its final vote on the matter. Before that, supervisors must formally vote twice again to adopt the plan.

Clayton said his group will appeal to the Justice Department. And MALDEF attorney Steven Reyes held out the possibility of filing a separate challenge.