Big Population Gains Will Drive State Redistricting : Politics: Legislators will be looking out for themselves. But minorities will be watching them.

SACRAMENTO â€”  State legislators will soon begin fighting over one of the biggest special-interest bills of the decade. But this time the special interest is themselves and the measure could make or break their own careers.

For some it can guarantee another term in the Legislature--or even a seat in Congress. For others, it can mean the sudden end to a lifetime in public office.

As it does every 10 years, the Legislature will take on the arcane business of reapportionment, a process of political intrigue and bitter infighting in which legislators decide among themselves how to draw the boundaries of their own districts.

“Obviously, when a legislator is going to vote, he’s going to be thinking of his own political survival,� acknowledged Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles). “Of course it’s a conflict of interest. It’s a built-in conflict.�

The result will change the makeup of the Legislature and the state’s congressional delegation, which now are dominated by Democrats and Anglos.

This year’s redistricting will be driven largely by California’s huge population growth, particularly among Latinos and Asians. New district lines should reflect the state’s shift toward a more suburban and more ethnically diverse populous.

When the dust settles after the 1992 elections, many of today’s legislators will be gone. Political insiders predict that there will be more Latinos in public office--and fewer white Democrats. The new districts also should boost the chances for an Asian to be elected to the Legislature for the first time in more than a decade. At the same time, Los Angeles County could lose a seat in the Assembly to faster-growing suburbs to the east.

Already, rumors of deal-making have swept through the state Capitol as incumbents begin competing with each other for boundaries that will help them keep their jobs. Some state legislators, looking ahead to the term limits imposed by Proposition 140, are angling for the seven new seats in Congress that California will get this year because of reapportionment. Others simply are considering retirement.

“It’s a terribly divisive process,� said Senate Republican Leader Ken Maddy of Fresno. “It’s going to be an amazing challenge to get through it without blood all over the place.�

The hard decisions will not be made until later this year, when population figures provided by the 1990 Census are finalized and deal-making to build majority support for a plan can begin in earnest.

Legislators often are accused of doing the bidding of special interests, such as businesses, farmers, unions, lawyers and doctors. But in the case of redistricting, legislators themselves are the special interests. And by shaping the Legislature of the future, the plan they approve will help decide the fate of the state’s other interest groups.

During the last round of redistricting in the 1980s, the process was controlled by Democrats and took place behind closed doors. The result was a lopsided reapportionment that gave Democrats a large majority of the congressional delegation and control of both houses of the Legislature during a decade in which Democratic voter registration declined.

But this year, lawmakers are finding that the rules of the game have changed. At least at the outset, Democrats and Republicans alike are predicting that the 1991 redistricting will be different because of a strict new anti-discrimination law and more active participation by a wide range of groups.

“We will have so different a process this time around that I think it will be stark in its contrast,� said Assembly Majority Leader Thomas M. Hannigan (D-Fairfield), who will play a leading role in the Assembly redistricting.

Federal law and recent court decisions require that district lines be drawn to enhance the representation of racial minorities, whose numbers have dramatically increased in California. This will mean that legislators must draw as many districts as possible in which Latinos, blacks and Asians have the opportunity to elect one of their own.

In addition, computer technology has advanced so much in the last decade that just about anyone with a personal computer and detailed census data can draw up a redistricting proposal. A number of minority groups are planning to do just that.

The political landscape also has changed in Sacramento. To take effect, the redistricting plan must have the approval of the Democratic-controlled Legislature and the signature of Republican Gov. Pete Wilson. Last time, Democrat Edmund G. Brown Jr. occupied the governor’s office. This time, Wilson will serve as a check on the Democrats and has pledged to veto any plan that he believes is unfair to the minority party.

“What he simply says is he wants an honest reapportionment, one that favors people over politicians,� said Marty Wilson, an aide to the governor. “Intuitively, Republicans stand to gain from this reapportionment. We think we have a lot in common with some of those minority groups.�

Under an agreement worked out between the two houses, the Senate will draft the plan for its districts, the Assembly will draw its boundaries and both houses will draw the lines for the congressional districts. Congress has no official role in the process, but in the past has largely dictated its own districts. This year, legislators have signaled they will retain control, although members of Congress from both parties are planning to submit their own proposals.

Looming over the process is the threat of court intervention. If the Legislature and the governor cannot agree on a plan, the final decision will fall to a judge, who may not be so sensitive to the concerns of incumbent legislators.

That possibility makes members of both parties a little nervous. Since Republicans now make up a majority of the state Supreme Court, Democrats fear that a court-ordered plan could mean the loss of many seats in the next election. On the other hand, Republicans recall that in the early 1970s a court-ordered reapportionment plan resulted in one of the Democrats’ greatest legislative election victories ever.

Whoever comes up with the final plans will be governed first and foremost by changes in the federal Voting Rights Act that require greater minority participation.

The tougher law is a response to past reapportionment plans around the nation that have long diluted minority voting strength.

In many cases, blacks or Latinos have been divided among several districts so their influence was dispersed. Since they have generally voted Democratic, their votes often have helped elect white Democrats.

In other cases, large numbers of blacks or Latinos have been packed into one district so that their influence has been confined to a single representative. Frequently, this has helped Republicans win election in neighboring districts made up largely of white voters.

Now the law requires that, whenever possible, drafters of a reapportionment plan must put enough minorities in a district so they can elect their own representative--but not pack in so many that their voting strength is weakened in adjoining districts.

The power of the law was best demonstrated by the landmark federal court decision in Los Angeles that found the County Board of Supervisors’ district boundaries discriminated against Latinos. New boundaries ordered by a federal judge resulted in the February election of Supervisor Gloria Molina, the board’s first Latina.

For those alleging discrimination in a reapportionment plan, it is easier to win a lawsuit. No longer must a judge find that discrimination was intentional, only that it was the result of new district lines.

All these restrictions mean legislators will have much less of a free hand this year than in the past. Rather than beginning with boundaries that help incumbents win reelection, the starting point will be the enhancement of minority representation, reapportionment experts say.

“We want to maximize the number of districts where Hispanics can have a choice in the process,� said Richard Fajardo, who as lead attorney for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund helped bring the Los Angeles County redistricting case. “Don’t create the district simply for the benefit of the person who happens to hold the job at the time the line drawing is done.�

The redistricting plan will be based on the 1990 Census, which has reported dramatic growth in many parts of the state and important demographic shifts in the population.

Of California’s 29.8 million people, 17 million are Anglos, 7.7 million are Latinos, 2.7 million are Asian and 2.1 million are black, the U.S. Census Bureau reported.

Overall, the state’s population increased by 26% between 1980 and 1990. The number of Anglos grew by 8% while the black population increased by 17%. But during the same period, the statewide Latino population grew by 69% and the number of Asians increased by a staggering 127%.

The changes are even more pronounced in certain fast-growing regions of the state, such as the Inland Empire, northern San Diego County, and southern Orange County--all of which saw large increases in their minority populations.

This means, for example, that the Inland Empire, where the population grew 66%, will be entitled to greater representation in Congress and the Legislature, especially when compared to a slow-growing county like San Francisco, where the population increased only 7%.

Despite the growth of minority populations in many urban areas, some of the state’s largest cities--such as Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland and San Francisco--did not keep pace with the rest of the state.

Los Angeles County’s 17% population growth means it is likely to lose a seat in the Assembly, reapportionment experts say. Many of the remaining districts in the county will be drawn to give minorities a greater chance of electing members of their own ethnic groups.

Preliminary figures released by the state Senate illustrate California’s changing population in another way.

Based on the 1990 Census, each new Senate district must have approximately 744,000 people. Sen. Robert Presley (D-Riverside) now has more than 1 million people in his district, the figures show. By contrast, Sen. Milton Marks (D-San Francisco) now has only about 624,000 people living in his district.

Under the law, the new districts all must end up with virtually the same number of people. For the Assembly, this means about 372,000 residents in each district. Congressional districts must have about 572,300 people. As much as possible, the new districts also must take into account city and county boundaries as well as “communities of interest� in a given region.

Regardless of the law’s strict requirements and the emphasis on minority representation, incumbents will be doing all they can to save their jobs and win as many seats as possible for their parties.

Republicans, who fared poorly in the last reapportionment, portray themselves this year as one more minority group that should be given greater representation in all three legislative bodies. Republicans also hope that creating districts with large numbers of minorities will enhance the GOP’s chances in other, mostly white districts.

“This is trouble for the Democrats because their rhetoric and their reality sort of smack into each other,� said Benjamin L. Ginsberg, chief counsel of the National Republican Committee.

In California’s congressional delegation, Democrats hold 26 seats to the Republicans’ 19. In the state Senate, there are 26 Democrats, 11 Republicans, one independent and two vacancies. In the Assembly, Democrats hold the advantage, 47 to 32, with one vacancy.

Some Republicans maintain that they should have half the seats in each house because Republican legislative candidates statewide have received about half of the votes cast in recent elections.

Not surprisingly, Democrats reject a reapportionment based on the number of votes cast, pointing out that voter turnout in Democratic districts is often much lower than in Republican strongholds.

Even so, Democrats acknowledge they may very well lose ground with this redistricting because of recent registration gains for Republicans and because of population growth in the suburbs, where Republicans tend to be stronger.

When it comes to drawing the lines for Congress, lawmakers will have the greatest chance of saving incumbents because of California’s seven new seats, which will bring the state’s total delegation to 52.

But competition for the new openings will be fierce. Latinos and Republicans each contend that they deserve at least four of the seats. And some members of the Legislature will undoubtedly attempt to carve out congressional districts that help them run for the seats next year.

“There are a lot of people who would like to run for Congress running around expressing an opinion,� said Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Sacramento). “Democrats want to elect Democrats and Republicans want to elect Republicans. Incumbents want to win reelection and the public wants openness. Somehow we have to find our way through this minefield.�

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNTY POPULATIONS

The table below summarizes 1990 population figures for Southern California counties along with the percentage change in the sizes of various ethnic/racial groups since the 1980 Census.

Total % 80 Anglo % 80 Black California 29,760,021 26% 17,029,126 8% 2,092,446 Los Angeles County 8,863,164 19 3,618,850 -8 934,776 Orange County 2,410,556 25 1,554,501 3 39,159 Riverside County 1,170,413 76 754,140 54 59,966 San Bernardino County 1,418,380 58 862,113 32 109,162 San Diego County 2,498,016 34 1,633,281 19 149,898 Ventura County 669,016 26 440,555 15 14,559

% 80 California 17% Los Angeles County 1 Orange County 60 Riverside County 99 San Bernardino County 134 San Diego County 47 Ventura County 34

Latino Asian % 80 (all races) % 80 California 2,710,353 127% 7,687,938 69% Los Angeles County 907,810 119 3,351,242 62 Orange County 240,756 187 564,828 97 Riverside County 38,349 352 307,514 147 San Bernardino County 55,387 297 378,582 128 San Diego County 185,144 121 510,781 86 Ventura County 32,665 116 176,952 56

Source: 1990 Census

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA VOTER PROFILE

The tables below shows 1990 voter registration figures for the state and six Southern California counties along with the change in party registration over the last decade among Democrats, Republicans and those without a party affiliation. 1990 PARTY REGISTRATION

Democrat Republican Non-Partisan California 6,671,747 5,290,202 1,221,374 Los Angeles County 1,902,797 1,233,739 279,133 Orange County 370,179 606,889 93,189 Riverside County 219,961 233,646 35,803 San Bernardino County 267,796 278,362 43,333 San Diego County 457,918 576,849 136,198 Ventura County 125,238 146,417 28,684

CHANGE IN REGISTRATION SINCE 1980

% Dem. % Rep. % Non-Partisan California 10.4% 34.2% 11.3% Los Angeles County 0 17.1 14.9 Orange County -12.3 30.3 1 Riverside County 43.4 87.0 29.9 San Bernardino County 40.2 91.6 23.8 San Diego County 9.0 53.3 10.8 Ventura County 10.9 51.2 23.11

Source: California Secretary of State