EDITORIAL - LINING UP RIGHT - SUPERVISORS MADE WISEST DECISION IN KEEPING VALLEY DISTRICT INTACT - Supervisors made wisest decision in keeping Valley district intact

Daily News of Los Angeles (CA)
September 29, 2011

THE Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors had three choices on the momentarily hot issue of county redistricting, and they picked perhaps the least politically expedient one. For that alone, they deserve praise.

They also made the right choice, rejecting both a bid to increase Latino representation and the attractive option of punting the decision to other county officials.

The board's 4-1 vote Tuesday to essentially keep the current district lines is not the blow to Latino political power that many activists claim. And it avoids a major pitfall of the remapping proposal, which would have blunted the influence of 1.7 million San Fernando Valley residents.

There was pressure on the supervisors. A crowd of about 1,300 overflowed the County Hall of Administration meeting room, and more than 900 signed up to speak. These mainly were supporters of recarving the county to add a second mostly Latino supervisorial district, alongside District 1, now represented by Gloria Molina.

They argued that as long as there is only a single "Latino seat" among five in a county that's 47.7 percent Hispanic, Los Angeles is violating the federal Voting Rights Act. For supervisors who might have their eye on higher office, such as potential mayoral candidate Zev Yaroslavsky, it must have been tempting to appease the activists. Civil-rights groups are threatening to sue, and, after all, Latino voters are presumed to be the rising force in L.A. and California politics.

But, in part because of the attention candidates pay to Latino voters, it is getting harder and harder to convince Angelenos that Hispanics need help with political clout. The city of Los Angeles (Latino population: 48.5 percent) elected a Mexican-American mayor. Latinos make up majorities of the population in seven of the 15 City Council districts and pluralities in two others. Those seven seats include the four held by Latino members - but also the three held by black members.

All of this shows how inaccurate it can be, if not downright insulting, to assume Latinos need clear majorities in local and state districts to achieve fair representation - or that Latinos want only Latinos representing them.

In fact, as long as we're talking about total population and not just voting-age population, Latinos already compose a slim majority of the District 2 approved on Tuesday, the area represented by Mark Ridley-Thomas. That could soon grow into a majority of voting-age residents.

Also in the coming years, voters will have chances to elect a board full of new faces as entrenched incumbents face the first round of term limits mandated by a 2002 ballot measure. Latinos will have opportunities for big gains.

San Fernando Valley leaders fought the proposal to create a second Latino-dominated district and backed a winner in Supervisor Don Knabe's status-quo plan. Their reasoning was correct.

On the current map, Yaroslavsky's District3 is made up mostly of the Valley, meaning he pays particular attention to the Valley residents' wishes. Under the proposed changes, the Valley would have been part of three districts but a majority of none, diluting the community's influence.

As we have said before, assuring fair representation for Latinos and any other racial or ethnic group is a worthy goal. But it would have been wrong to hurt Valley residents to achieve that.

The supervisors made a difficult but correct choice.