“These maps are
a worst case scenario for the Latino community.
The lines drawn by the Commission gerrymander Los
Angeles Latinos into a district with the
millionaires of Beverly Hills and Pacific
Palisades. These lines would disenfranchise
Latinos by denying them a fair voice in the
democratic process.†So says Arturo Vargas,
redistricting expert with the National Association
of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.
What is this all
about? Did the Arizona Legislature sneak into
California and draw the new district lines
released by the Redistricting Commission last
week? Aren’t Latinos responsible for 90 percent
of the net growth in California over the past
decade? Is it possible a nonpartisan citizens
commission could treat them so badly?
Well, Mr. Vargas
is absolutely correct; California Latinos take it
in the shorts in the Commission’s draft plans.
In assessing the
impact of redistricting plans on minority groups,
the courts tell us to look at purpose and effect.
Is the purpose to deny fair representation? Is
that the effect?
I will not go so
far as to say that the Commission has been taken
over by the Arizona Legislature. Their purpose was
not to disenfranchise Latinos. But that is the
effect. And the reason for this is not nefarious
motives on the Commission’s part. It is the
inexperience and lack of knowledge of
California’s demographic history on the part of
the Commission’s staff.
Exhibit one is
San Jose. Back in the 1980s when I was a
Republican legislative redistricting staffer,
Latino groups came to us and said, unite all the
historic Latino neighborhoods in east and south
San Jose and give us a district we can win.
Working together, the Democratic and Republican
staffers ignored their request, slicing and dicing
the neighborhoods. It was nothing personal, only
business and we knew what we were doing. This
Commission apparently did it without knowing it.
In 1991, the
Supreme Court masters did create the long overdue
San Jose Latino district, and said in their report
that is what they were doing. It is today one of
only two Latino-held legislative seats in the Bay
Area. But in the Commission plan, this 20-year
Latino district, now represented by Assembly
Member Nora Campos, simply disappears. The
heaviest Latino neighborhoods are in an Asian
district going north, and one to the west, while
an Asian piece of the district is placed in a
Salinas Latino district. Go figure.
Spent a
little time in Salinas, too. Actually it is ( or
was ) majority Anglo, with a large
Latino
minority.
Then we have the
overlapping Senate districts. A big piece of
Latino and Asian San Jose goes off to a district
in Modesto. This district, successor to the
existing 12th Senate District is a Voting Rights
Act district, including the Voting Rights Act
counties of Monterey and Merced. You may not
regress Latino electoral opportunities in VRA
counties, but the Commission managed to do just
that.
Because Monterey
and Merced Counties ( WTH ? One is
Pacific Ocean high income, the
other is
in the central valley ) are in the
same district today, the Commission apparently
felt they needed to keep them together in its
plan, even though that creates a crazy
gerrymandered monstrosity that runs from the
Salinas Valley to Modesto, and violates the state
constitution.
Ya think
?
That monstrosity
was not drawn in 2001 to enhance Latino
opportunities; it was part of a political deal
between Anglo Democratic legislators. Once again
the Supreme Court masters got it right; in 1991
they noted that putting Merced and Monterey
together would dilute Latino opportunities because
Merced is full of “Valley-crats,†conservative
Democrats, who will not vote for a coastal Latino
candidate. And we saw that exact result in 2010,
when Republican Anthony Cannella of Ceres beat
Democrat Anna Caballero of Salinas in what should
have been a Democratic win.
So how to resolve
this? Easy. Restore the historic Latino Assembly
district in San Jose and connect it to the heavily
Latino Assembly district covering Salinas. That
creates a sure Latino State Senate district, which
would be the first one in the Bay Area.
All of the
southern Bay Area needs serious redrawing because
the chopping up does not stop with ethnic
neighborhoods. For 60 years, Santa Cruz has been
united with the Silicon Valley area of Santa Clara
County, which are connected via Highway 17. But
under the Commission plan, Santa Cruz runs down
the coast in a Senate district that goes all the
way to Lompoc. The district is unconstitutional
since it violates both contiguity and
compactness, held together by Big Sur, one hundred
miles of coastline with no people, not to mention
no communities of interest. People in Santa Cruz
work and shop in Silicon Valley, not in Lompoc.
Should not the Commission look at where people
live and work in forming these districts?
Exhibit two is
Los Angeles. Mr. Vargas complains rightly about
the Commission’s preference for uniting wealthy
areas with working class area in ways that dilute
Latino opportunities. They do this all throughout
Southern California, and a good example is the new
Congressional District that runs from Pasadena to
Diamond Bar, communities that have never been in
the same district. The incumbent in this area is
Congresswoman Judy Chu, an Asian American, who
took the former Latino seat held by Hilda Solis
when she became Labor Secretary in 2009.
The district was
historically Latino and Chu won it fair and square
in 2009 and held it easily in 2010. But the
Commission decided it needed to destroy the Latino
base of this seat and unite disparate Asian
American communities into a crazy quilt
gerrymander that runs around Latino neighborhoods.
What criteria tells this Commission it must dilute
Latinos because a Latino district has an Asian
American incumbent?
Perhaps most
disturbing in Los Angeles is the lack of any sense
of history in forming the Latino districts. The
Commission is not supposed to consider incumbent
homes in drawing the districts, but they should
consider the historical minority areas. Their plan
combines the current districts held by
Congresswoman Lucille Roybal Allard and
Congressman Xavier Becerra. These are senior
members of Congress, so by combining their
districts not only do they weaken California’s
clout in Congress, they gravely weaken Latino
clout in Congress. Does that make any sense?
Congresswoman
Roybal Allard is the daughter of the legendary
Latino political pioneer Edward Roybal, the first
Latino elected to major office in Los Angeles
County, more than sixty years ago, and the first
California Latino member of Congress, elected in
1962. The Almanac of American Politics describes
this district very well: “An emblem of the entry
level Latino neighborhoods of the nation’s
second largest city, the places where many
immigrants come to find a cheap place to live,
doubling and tripling up with other families.â€
The district also includes Boyle Heights, “once
an entry level of Irish and Jewish immigrants.â€
This embryo from
which grew Latino political power in Southern
California no longer exists in the Commission’s
plan. It is no wonder that one analysis
circulating these days shows that number of
heavily Latino “majority-minority†legislative
and Congressional districts actually decreases
under their plan. That is an incredible
accomplishment, and one this Commission should not
be proud of.
http://foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/tony-quinn/9102-how-redistricting-commission-screwed-latinos
