COMMENTARY: Pacheco’s Redistricting Move Undermining Spirit of Process

0

Pacheco’s Redistricting Move Undermining Spirit of Process





By JUANITA TATE

By July 1st, the Los Angeles City Council must approve a redistricting plan for itself; council members will vote on new boundaries for the city’s 15 council districts. This exercise is required by law to follow the U.S. census every 10 years.

A great deal of attention has been focused on a redistricting proposal to shift Ruth Galanter’s Westside Council District 6 to the Valley. What hasn’t been getting much attention is a plan by Councilmember Nick Pacheco to grab territory from his next-door neighbor, Councilmember Jan Perry, an African-American woman.

Currently, Perry represents parts of South Central Los Angeles and most of downtown, which elected her by a wide margin in the 2001 Council District 9 election. Pacheco was elected in 1999 to represent Eastside areas including Boyle Heights, El Sereno, Eagle Rock and a small portion of downtown.

Recently, Pacheco submitted a motion in the City Council asking that much of Perry’s downtown district be shifted to his Council District 14 and to Council District 1. The redistricting process is intended to adjust boundaries due to shifts in population only there has been no shift in population to support the Pacheco motion.

The City of Los Angeles adopted a new Charter in 1999, which included the creation of the Los Angeles Redistricting Commission. This Commission marks the first time a citizen commission has been charged with the responsibility to advise the City Council on how to redraw district boundaries.

During the first part of the year, the Redistricting Commission held 21 hearings to hear public testimony and to consider redistricting issues. The Commission also received more than 50 complete and partial redistricting plans from the public and public interest agencies.

Armed with this public input, the Commission adopted the comprehensive City Council Redistricting Plan on March 26 that was submitted to the City Council for consideration. That plan called for the vast majority of downtown to stay in Perry’s 9th Council District. The Commission indicated public input served as the basis for the district boundary recommendations included in the plan.

However, the Redistricting Commission’s Plan is advisory and, by July 1, the City Council will vote on the final City Council boundaries.

Pacheco’s move to dismiss the Redistricting Commission Plan undermines the new City Charter that created the commission process so redistricting would be more open and public. His actions are particularly egregious since he was an elected member of the Charter Reform Commission that created the Redistricting Commission in the first place.

With redistricting once again in the hands of the City Council, Pacheco’s motion will be considered, along with additional “amendments” that may be submitted by other council members. In his redistricting report, the chief legislative analyst stated that any amendments should be “based on adopted principles” of the Los Angeles Redistricting Commission. These principles include “preserving existing representational patterns” and “communities of interest.”

Nonetheless, Mr. Pacheco’s motion, in violation of the above principles, suggests radically altering the current Council boundaries to add several portions of downtown to his district, even though:

– There is no compelling population shift to support this change.

– There is no “equal protection” violation to compel this change.

– There is no voting rights or minority rights violation to compel this change.

– Mr. Pacheco’s plan would fragment downtown’s cohesive community more than it already is under the current boundaries.

– Mr. Pacheco’s plan does not respect current patterns of representation.

In sum, Mr. Pacheco’s motion violates every purpose and goal of the redistricting process.

So, why does Mr. Pacheco want more downtown territory? Well, Pacheco has described downtown in terms of “economic assets.” However, tax and fee revenues generated by each council district is divided equally among all 15 council districts. Consequently, there will be no additional economic benefit for the people of Pacheco’s and Reyes’ districts if the motion is adopted. However, a politician that represents such territory may want to use his position to solicit campaign contributions from downtown businesses.

The bottom line: Pacheco stands to gain politically if he succeeds in taking downtown from Perry.

The people of downtown voted for Jan Perry and they deserve to have their vote counted. Nick Pacheco should not be allowed to use redistricting to take what he hasn’t earned.

Juanita Tate is executive director of Concerned Citizens of South Central L.A.

No posts to display