Valley Area Should Gain in Remap for State Senate

SACRAMENTO —  The San Gabriel Valley is expected to be one of the winners in the state Senate in this decade’s version of the California reapportionment game.

The political arithmetic goes like this: Based on 1990 Census data, each of the state’s 40 Senate districts must contain 744,000 people. Because population increases in much of the San Gabriel Valley have far surpassed the statewide pace, five of the seven Senate districts that encompass all or part of the region exceed that number.

That means the boundaries for these seats must shrink. That, in turn, could result in increased Senate representation for the valley. Instead of districts that stretch hundreds of miles east or north--as is now the case--the new boundaries may increase the number of seats firmly anchored in the valley, forcing lawmakers to increase their focus on the region’s concerns.

In the current reapportionment process, population growth in the San Gabriel Valley and in other inland areas is expected to act like a magnet, pulling Los Angeles County Senate districts farther east, away from coastal areas that experienced little or no growth in the 1980s.

“The growth is to the east, and there’s no question about that,” said Sen. Charles M. Calderon (D-Whittier).

Added Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles), “People are moving to the Inland Empire. . . . They are moving out of the urban core.”

The exact design of the new districts--and to what extent they end up reflecting the changing population patterns--will remain a guessing game for months to come. And as part of the process, politicians can artfully design boundaries to ensure safe seats for many incumbents, including those whose districts are significantly below the 744,000 population figure.

But one fact in the reapportionment puzzle remains inescapable: Population growth in inland areas dramatically outstripped growth in the coastal plain. And that probably means gains for the high-growth areas.

As Sen. Bill Leonard (R-Big Bear) notes, “Political power sooner or later does follow the population.” His district includes booming inland areas in the valley and San Bernardino County.

In addition to Leonard, area senators whose districts exceed the 744,000 figure are Ruben S. Ayala (D-Chino), Newton R. Russell (R-Glendale), Frank Hill (R-Whittier) and Don Rogers (R-Bakersfield). By contrast, districts in the western portions of the valley represented by Calderon and Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles) must add population to reach the target.

Historically, as Los Angeles County’s population grew during much of this century, reapportionment turf fights often revolved around skirmishes between Northern and Southern California. Now, given the population shifts within Southern California, part of this year’s battle will probably pit the interests of such established coastal communities as Santa Monica and Long Beach against such fast-growing inland areas as Diamond Bar and Pomona.

“With the population static on most of the coast and ballooning inland . . . that will definitely tip the scales of power to the inland counties,” said Assemblyman Pat Nolan (R-Glendale), a member of the Assembly Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee that is crafting a redistricting plan.

A look at census figures highlights why legislative boundaries are expected to be pulled toward the booming inland areas. Diamond Bar’s population skyrocketed a whopping 91%, to 53,672, during the 1980s, and Pomona’s grew 42%, to 133,107. By comparison, coastal Santa Monica’s population dropped 2%, to 86,905.

More established communities in the San Gabriel Valley also grew, but at a pace below the statewide average of 26%.

For example, Pasadena grew 11%, to 131,591. By failing to keep up with statewide growth, Pasadena and other built-out areas stand to lose representation in the Legislature, according to lawmakers and others beginning to draw the new lines.

Based on the census figures, the Senate Elections Committee has estimated that Ayala’s Senate district, which includes Pomona and extends into San Bernardino County, is 172,000 above the 744,000 population figure that the new boundaries need to encompass. Three other valley area senators find their districts above the 744,000 mark by the following amounts: Leonard, 150,400; Russell, 52,000, and Hill, 29,200.

A fifth district, represented by Rogers, runs about 185 miles from the farmland of the San Joaquin Valley south to the Rose Bowl. Rogers must lose about 37,000 constituents, according to Elections Committee estimates, which could be accomplished by lopping off the Pasadena and Altadena portions of his district.

Those Democratic-majority areas were lumped into the district in the reapportionment after the 1980 census to bolster the reelection chances of Rogers’ Democratic predecessor, Walter Stiern. But when Stiern retired in 1986, Republican Rogers won the seat, and those Democratic areas are now expected to be tacked onto another Democratic district, possibly Torres’.

Torres needs to add 58,200 people to his district, according to the legislative estimates. Calderon needs to add 32,300.

Comparable population projections for the Assembly and the House of Representatives have not been made public.

Once the Legislature approves a reapportionment plan, it goes to Gov. Pete Wilson for his signature. No matter what Wilson decides, it is widely expected that the final maps will face court challenges, especially from Latino or Asian groups seeking increased representation.

Reviewing the preliminary numbers for Senate districts, some lawmakers have already cooked up their own formulas to compensate for the population deficits they face. For instance, Calderon suggested that he could add unincorporated areas around Whittier or South Whittier, currently represented by Hill. Calderon speculated that Hill’s district could, in turn, stretch farther into Orange County.

Calderon, who is a Latino, is in a good position to make deals because changes in the federal Voting Rights Act require political map makers to take steps to ensure that minority representation is not shortchanged.

Partly because of that, some Anglo senators in other parts of the county are flirting with running for Congress.

Eighty-one-year-old Sen. Ralph C. Dills (D-Gardena) has said that if his Southeast Los Angeles County district is dramatically redrawn, he might run for Congress. Likewise, Sen. Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles) has indicated that he could develop a case of Potomac Fever if his West Los Angeles district is carved up.

The prospect of state senators jumping into congressional races is being taken seriously for several reasons. First, term limits for state lawmakers imposed by the passage last year of Proposition 140 have prompted some legislators to contemplate new political opportunities.

Second, in contrast to a decade ago, legislators are going to exercise much more control over the drawing of congressional lines, according to Assemblyman Nolan.

“Ten years ago they were willing to accept” a plan drawn up by the late Rep. Philip Burton (D-San Francisco), Nolan said. But this time, he predicted, they will listen to their congressional colleagues and “then go ahead and draw whatever they want.”

SENATE DISTRICT POPULATIONS

Based on 1990 census figures, new state Senate districts must be redrawn to each represent 744,000 people. The following chart, based on preliminary legislative estimates, shows how curent Senate districts encompassing all or part of the San Gabriel Valley compare to that number.

District Represented by Difference 16 Don Rogers (R-Bakersfield) + 37,000 21 Newton Russell (R-Glendale) + 52,000 24 Art Torres (D-Los Angeles) - 58,200 25 Bill Leonard (R-Big Bear) +150,400 26 Charles Calderon (D-Whittier) - 32,300 31 Frank Hill (R-Whittier) + 29,200 34 Ruben Ayala (D-Chino) +172,000