City to Fight U.S. Call for Early Vote in 13th District

Setting up a probable court battle, the Los Angeles City Council vowed Tuesday to fight the U.S. Justice Department’s demand that the council call an election next year in the city’s newly redrawn Latino district.

After a two-hour secret session, council members voted unanimously to defend in federal court the redistricting plan and election schedule that they approved July 30 after a bruising, monthlong debate.

Attorneys for the city said the council also ordered them to rebut criticism by minority and homeowner groups who also have filed motions in federal court seeking to have the redistricting plan thrown out.

“We are prepared to vigorously defend the present redistricting plan . . . against any additional claims,” said Assistant City Atty. Shelley Rosenfield.

The local furor over redistricting began when the Justice Department last November filed suit against the city’s 1982 remapping of council districts, charging that it violated the federal Voting Rights Act by carving up Latino voting strength into several districts. The Justice Department was joined in the case by several local groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People and representatives of the Asian-American community.

Council Redrew Boundaries

To head off a full-blown court fight, the council last month redrew the city’s legislative boundary lines to create a second heavily Latino district, the 13th. Before, only the 14th District, represented by Richard Alatorre, had a majority of Latino voters.

The council hoped the new boundaries would quell the dispute over the city’s redistricting history but those hopes were dashed when plaintiffs argued that the next scheduled election in the 13th District, in 1989, was too far off.

In a report filed in U.S. District Court last Friday, the Justice Department said the new district lines comply with the Voting Rights Act but added that the lawsuit would not be resolved until the 1989 election date was moved up.

“The whole purpose of devising this district was to afford a fair and effective franchise to Hispanic citizens and it seems self-defeating to award that franchise but to stay its exercise for another two years,” the department said.

To achieve an earlier election, the Justice Department asked the federal court to renumber the district from the 13th to the 4th. Since even-numbered districts will hold elections in 1987, that would speed up the election by two years.

MALDEF, another of the plaintiffs, has asked that the city call a special election in the new Latino district as another way of creating an earlier election. But a provision of the City Charter precludes the council from calling a special election that would shorten a sitting council member’s tenure.

The city’s attorneys bridled Tuesday at the Justice Department’s insistence on a speedy election.

“What is lurking behind this is a claim of urgency,” said Jonathan H. Steinberg, a private attorney counseling the city on the redistricting matter. Steinberg noted that the boundary plan that led to the federal suit was approved in 1982 but that the lawsuit against it was not filed until late 1985.

City Position Called Strong

“If there was such a hurry, why is it that 1982, ‘83, ’84 and ’85 went by without us hearing a word from the Justice Department or from MALDEF?”

Steinberg and Rosenfield said they believe the city is in a strong position as it heads into a probable federal court fight.

U.S. District Judge James A. Ideman, who is presiding in the case, would have to find that the city’s new remapping plan violates the Voting Rights Act or other parts of the U.S. Constitution before he could change the election date or make any other changes, Steinberg said.

The Justice Department itself admitted in its Friday report that the new redistricting plan “ameliorates the objectionable aspects of the challenged 1982 plan” and complies with the Voting Rights Act.

Ideman has scheduled the next hearing for Sept. 8, but it was unclear whether the election date dispute would be heard then.

Other Disputes Remain

In addition to the election issue, there remain other disputes over the new boundary plan. Attorneys representing Koreatown have filed papers in federal court charging that its population was unfairly carved up in the new plan. And a coalition of Wilshire-area homeowner groups filed another complaint that challenged the redistricting plan as “gerrymandering.”

The Koreatown area, previously split into two districts, was cut into three in the recently approved plan. The Wilshire residential area was in Councilman John Ferraro’s 4th District, but under the new plan is split between the 4th and the 10th districts.

Another of the plaintiffs, the NAACP, has not indicated whether it will challenge the new plan.