MALDEF-WCVI Senate Plan
California Senate Redistricting Plan
Submitted July 31, 2001 Sacramento, California
Mexican American Legal Defense And Educational Fund
&
William C. Velasquez Institute TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 2 The Redistricting Partnership for Community Education 4 Statewide Map of Senate Districts 6 Statewide Map 7 Statewide Map of Districts - Inset San Francisco/ Bay Area 8 Statewide Map of Districts - Inset of Central Coast/Valley Area 9 Statewide Map of Districts - Inset of Los Angeles Area 10 Statewide Map of Districts - Inset of Orange County Area 11 Statewide Map of Districts - Inset of Inland Empire Area 12 Statewide Map of Districts - Inset of Southern California 13 Statement of Use of Traditional Redistricting Criteria 14 District Narratives 16 Demographic Tables 26 City and County Division Explanations 36 Voter Deferral Report 40
Appendix A: Traditional Redistricting Criteria Appendix B: The Voting Rights Act and Redistricting Appendix C: Statement of Compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Appendix D: The Role of Cross-Over Districts in a Fair Redistricting: Lessons From the 1990s, Morgan Kousser, Ph.D Appendix E: MALDEF-WCVI Senate Plan Report: Latino Democrat Percentage of Total Democrat Registrants Latino Republican Percentage of Total Republican Registrants Appendix F: Summary of Methodological Approaches to Redistricting And Socioeconomic Considerations, Ali Modarres, Ph.D Appendix G: Socioeconomic Assessment of Districts Appendix H: MALDEF-WCVI Community of Interest Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The redistricting process is an essential element of our democracy. The statewide legislative redistricting process, which occurs after the decennial census, provides a valuable opportunity to examine questions of inclusiveness, fair representation, and equity in our democracy. Our democratic society functions best when all people are provided with equal opportunities to fully and meaningfully participate in the electoral process.
This Senate redistricting plan, submitted on behalf of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and the William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI), provides a community- based vision of inclusive democracy and features extensive community outreach as its centerpiece. MALDEF and WCVI have visited with community members throughout California, from the Imperial Valley desert community of Calexico to the burgeoning, ethnically rich, and diverse communities in Oakland. During these meetings, we have met members of the community face to face, and we have incorporated into our Senate redistricting plan, their vision of an inclusive democracy.
This Senate redistricting plan represents a reasonable, fair, and equitable picture of electoral districts that complies with all applicable Constitutional, federal and state law:
· This redistricting plan contains a total overall deviation of 0.27% and an average deviation of 0.07% in compliance with the equal population requirement of the United States Constitution.
· The plan fully complies with Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
· This plan does not elevate race above other traditional redistricting criteria.
· This plan respects traditional redistricting criteria by utilizing communities of interest as its foundation.
· This plan respects traditional redistricting criteria by creating districts that are contiguous.
· This plan respects traditional redistricting criteria by incorporating and respecting communities of interest.
· This plan respects political subdivisions by avoiding, to the extent possible, the splitting of counties or cities, except to comply with the rule of equal population and the Voting Rights Act.
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 2 This plan creates districts that are based on MALDEF’s and WCVI’s extensive outreach to ensure that these districts truly capture communities which share representational interests. During the past year, MALDEF and WCVI have documented community concerns regarding what these communities believe would contribute to equitable and fair opportunities for representation. In addition, we have reviewed of community of interest testimony submitted to the Assembly and Senate Elections and Reapportionment Committees.
This redistricting plan is in full compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it does not dilute minority voting strength. The plan is in full compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and does not retrogress the voting strength of minorities in California’s four covered jurisdictions - Yuba County, Merced County, Monterey County, and Kings County.
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 3 THE REDISTRICTING PARTNERSHIP FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and the William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI) joined together in a redistricting partnership for community education. The central goal of that partnership was to provide resources to the Latino communities throughout the state in order to support the creation of fair districts.
To that end, MALDEF and WCVI provided education seminars on the legal and technical aspects of redistricting. The 35 redistricting workshops, open to the general public and frequently covered by local media, were held throughout the state, in such diverse communities as San Diego County, San Bernardino, Santa Clara County, Fresno, and Los Angeles. In each meeting, we gathered information from a community regarding how best to represent their needs and interests.
At each meeting, we distributed our respective publications: The Importance of Redistricting in Your Community (MALDEF/APALC/NAACP-LDF) and Fair Redistricting in the 2000’s, A Manual for Minority Groups (WCVI). After providing them with an overview of the legal and technical issues involving redistricting, the community members were asked to apply their local knowledge and experiences about their communities to the census tracks and population figures on the maps we provided. They also incorporated into the socio-economic maps the issues that unite and divide their community. If they needed access to mapping software, we provided free NetMeeting Mapping.
As the map was being constructed, MALDEF and WCVI frequently consulted community members. Both groups continue to provide assistance with local redistricting efforts, providing the technical and legal assistance to create supervisorial or city council districts that reflect the needs of their community.
Our redistricting effort is a statewide project aimed at giving community members a greater voice in the governance of California. To that end, in April 2001, MALDEF and WCVI convened community groups at the Latino Summit on Fair Redistricting in Sacramento. Over 150 community members from throughout the state attended the summit and shared their experiences in redistricting.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) is a national nonprofit legal organization which promotes and protects the civil rights of the over 30 million Latinos residing in the United States. One of the most important goals for MALDEF is ensuring fair access to the political process for all Latinos. MALDEF performs its work through community education, public policy advocacy, and litigation. For over 30 years, MALDEF has been actively involved in redistricting efforts throughout the United States. As the Latino population continues to grow throughout the country, it is critical that Latinos’ level of political awareness, sophistication and participation in the electoral process are enhanced. MALDEF knows that political empowerment is vital to our strong democratic form of government. Our efforts have involved both enforcing Latino voting rights and protecting gains
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 4 which already have been achieved.
MALDEF played a key role in the advocacy and passage of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) or “Motor Voter Act”and we are monitoring national implementation through our litigation efforts in LULAC v. State of Illinois and Voting Rights Coalition v. Wilson. MALDEF also has actively participated in litigation arising from the 1993 Supreme Court decision in Shaw v. Reno, which allows parties to challenge as racial gerrymandering districts in which minorities constitute a majority of the population (majority-minority districts). In the aftermath of Shaw, there have been several legal challenges filed against majority-minority districts throughout the country; MALDEF has defended congressional and state legislative redistricting plans for the states of Illinois, Louisiana and Texas.
For more information visit www.maldef.org
The William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI), formerly known, as the Southwest Voter Research Institute is a tax-exempt, non-profit, non-partisan organization chartered in 1985. The purpose of WCVI is to conduct research aimed at improving the level of political and economic participation in Latino and other underrepresented communities. WCVI holds a unique position among national Latino organizations. In its tradition of working with grassroots organizations, academic institutions and local elected officials, WCVI fills the gap between intellectual think tanks and community groups. WCVI conducts research in selected areas of concentration and follows up the implementation stages: WCVI translates ideas into research, research into policy and policy into action.
WCVI was created:
· To provide information to Latino leaders relevant to the needs of their constituents · To inform the Latino leadership and public about the impact of public and international policies on Latinos · To inform the Latino leadership and public about political opinions and behavior of Latinos
For more information visit www.wcvi.org
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 5 STATEWIDE MAPS OF SENATE DISTRICTS
The following are maps of the MALDEF-WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan. Detailed maps in Adobe Acrobat format are available at www.maldef.org or www.wcvi.org.
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 6 MALDEF - WCVI California State Senate Districts
04 02 01
06
09 05
13 12
15 14 16
18 17
22 31 32 35 37 38 40 39 MALDEF - WCVI Map Layers Districts County (Tiger) San Francisco Bay Area Water Area Highways Interstate State Senate Districts US State Highway 0 4 8 12 Miles
09
07 ^\]80 ^\]980
San Francisco 580 03 ^\] ^\]205 Oakland ^\]880 ^\]238 ^\]580 ^\]680 08 ^\]380 `_101 10 ^\]280
^\]880 13 San Jose 11 ^\]280
15 `_101 MALDEF - WCVI Map Layers Districts County (Tiger) Central Coast - Central Valley Area Highways Interstate US State Highway State Senate Districts 0 20 40 60 Miles
09 ^\]680 07
880 \] 580 08 ^ ^\] Modesto 10 ^\]280 11 13 12
Madera
Fresno
Salinas 14 ^\]5 15
16
Bakersfield
^\]5 17 18 ^\]40 ^\]15 MALDEF - WCVI Map Layers Districts County (Tiger) Los Angeles Area Highways Interstate US State Highway State Senate Districts 0 4 8 12 Miles
19 ^\]5
29 20 ^\]210 21 29 Thousand Oaks
`_101 Pasadena Los Angeles 210 405 ^\] 23 ^\] `_101 24 22 ^\]10 ^\]710 Pomona 10 ^\] 5 26 ^\] ^\]605
30
Santa Fe Springs 27 105 ^\] ^\]15 25 Corona
Anaheim 33
^\]405 34
28 ^\]110 Long Beach Santa Ana ^\]5 33
35 MALDEF - WCVI Map Layers Districts County (Tiger) Orange County Area Highways Interstate US State Highway State Senate Districts 0 3 6 9 Miles
710 57 a60 ^\] ba 215 b ^\]5 ba91 ^\] 27 ^\]105 ba71 25 ba91 ^\]605 ba91 Anaheim ba55 ^\]405 34
22 47 ba ^\]110 ba ^\]15 Santa Ana ^\]5 33
35 ^\]405 ba74 ba73
15 Newport Beach ^\] 38
ba1 Laguna Niguel
^\]5 MALDEF - WCVI Map Layers Districts County (Tiger) Inland Empire Area Highways Interstate US State Highway State Senate Districts 0 3 6 9 Miles
29 ba138 ba18
215 ^\] ba330 ^\]15 ba39 San Bernardino
259 30 ba ^\]210 ba ba66 ba30 38 10 ba ^\] 32 ^\]10 Pomona
ba60 a71 ba60 b 57 ba 31 Riverside Moreno Valley ba60 ba91 ^\]10 ba243 ^\]15 ^\]215 a79 Corona b ba91 37 Anaheim 33 ^\]5 ba55
34 Perris ba22
Santa Ana ba74 MALDEF - WCVI Map Layers Districts County (Tiger) Southern California Highways Interstate US State Highway State Senate Districts 0 10 20 30 Miles
^\]10 32
^\]215 ^\]10 `_95 Palm Springs ^\]15 33 37 ^\]405 Coachella ^\]10
40 38 Oceanside
5 ^\] Escondido 36
^\]15
San Diego
El Centro 8 95 39 ^\] `_ ^\]8 Calexico ^\]805 STATEMENT OF USE OF TRADITIONAL REDISTRICTING CRITERIA
MALDEF and WCVI have ensured that each of the districts in this redistricting plan comply with traditional redistricting criteria.
Prohibition Against Malapportionment: The One-Person, One-Vote Rule
The districts in this plan contain an overall deviation of 0.27% and an average deviation of 0.07% in compliance with the one person-one vote rule in Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. In this plan, deviations from the ideal district size are justifiable on the basis of non- discriminatory legitimate objectives.
Compact and Contiguous Districts
The districts in this plan are both contiguous and compact.
Respect for Political Subdivisions
This plan respects political subdivisions by avoiding, where practicable, the splitting of counties or cities. This plan respects political subdivision boundaries to the extent necessary to comply with the rule of equal population or with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Respects Communities of Interest
This Senate redistricting plan respects communities of interest and incorporates both quantitative and qualitative data in determining whether residents of a district might be represented fairly, and effectively. MALDEF and WCVI have conducted over thirty-five interactive community redistricting workshops where local residents shared their unique knowledge about their community and the similarities and differences they had with neighboring communities. In addition, demographic information reported by the United States Census Bureau, and other social and economic data, including information on education, education, and housing, was also used as guides to observing communities of interest in the newly shaped districts.1 Furthermore, MALDEF and WCVI have attended every public Assembly and Senate Committee hearing on redistricting.
Respect California’s Basic Geographic Regions
1Social and economic data used in this plan are based on the U.S. Census STF-3 Files for 1990 and projections to 2002 as calculated by the Caliper Corporation of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 14 This plan also preserves the integrity of California’s basic geographic regions (coastal, mountain, desert, central valley and intermediate valley regions).
Does Not Elevate Race Above Other Criteria
This plan does not elevate race above other criteria in creating boundaries for districts. Each district in the plan is supported by numerous non-racial and traditional redistricting criteria described above.
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 15 DISTRICT NARRATIVES
District 1 the junction of Highway 780 and Highway 680. · The western boundary of the district runs along the Pacific Cities: Aturas, Amador City, Angels City, Auburn, Ocean. Colfax, Folsom, Grass Valley, Ione, Jackson, Linoln, · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the western Loomis, Loyalton, Marysville, Nevada City, Oroville, boundaries of Siskiyou, Trinity, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Paradise, Placerville, Plymouth, Portola, Rocklin, Yolo Counties, and runs through Solano County near Roseville, South Lake Tahoe, Susanville, Sutter Creek, Highway 780. Truckee, Wheatland. District 3 Counties: El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sierra, Yuba. Cities: Belvedere, Corte Madera, Cotati, Fairfax, Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Partial Counties: Butte, Sacramento. Ross, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito, Sonoma, Tiburon. · The northern boundary of the district runs along the California-Oregon border. Partial Cities: Fairfield, San Francisco, Santa Rosa. · The southern boundary of the district runs along the southern boundary of Calaveras, the eastern boundary of Counties: Marin. Amador County, and the southern boundary of El Dorado County. Partial Counties: San Francisco, Sonoma. · The western boundary of the district runs along the western boundaries of Modoc, Lassen, and Plumas Counties, splits · The northern boundary of the district east from the Pacific Butte County, and continues along the western boundaries Ocean north of both Occidental and Graton, continues of Yuba, Pacer, El Dorado, Amador, and Calaveras Counties. south through and around Sebastopol, along Highway 12 · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the through Roseland, and through Santa Rose to the western California-Nevada border. boundary of Napa County. · The southern boundary of the district runs along the District 2 portions of the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, through San Francisco County. Cities: American Canyon, Arcata, Benicia, Blue Lake, · The western boundary of the district runs along the Pacific Calistoga, Clearlake, Cloverdale, Crescent City, Eureka, Ocean. Ferndale, Fort Bragg, Fortuna, Healdsburg, Lakeport, · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the western Napa, Point Arena, Rio Dell, Sebastopol, St. Helena, border of Napa County and along the western border of the Trinidad, Ukiah, Vallejo, Willitis, Windsor, Yountville. North Bay.
Partial Cities: Santa Rosa. District 4
Counties: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Cities: Anderson, Biggs, Chico, Colusa, Corning, Napa. Davis, Dixon, Dorris, Dunsmuir, Etna, Fort Jones, Gridley, Live Oak, Montague, Mount Shasta, Orland, Partial Counties: Solano, Sonoma. Red Bluff, Redding, Rio Vista, Shasta Lake, Suisun City, Tehama, Tulelake, Vacaville, Weed, West Sacramento, · The northern boundary of the district runs along the Williams, Willows, Winters, Woodland, Yreka, Yuba California-Oregon border. City. · The southern boundary of the district runs east from the Pacific Ocean north of both Occidental and Graton, Partial Cities: Fairfield. continues south through and around Sebastopol, along Highway 12 through Roseland, and through Santa Rosa and Counties: Colusa, Glenn, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, southward along the western boundary of Napa County, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo. eastward just south of Vallejo and Benicia and ends along
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 16 Partial Counties: Butte, Sacramento, Solano. · The northern boundary of the district runs along the · The northern boundary of the district runs along the southern boundaries of Sutter and Placer Counties. California-Oregon border. · The southern boundary of the district runs north along · The southern boundary of the district runs along the Howe Avenue, east along Northrop Avenue, north along northern boundary of Contra Costa County and continues Fulton Avenue, east along Arden Way, and along the along the Sacramento River. American River. · The western boundary of the dis trict runs along the eastern · The western boundary of the district runs along the eastern boundaries of Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, and boundary of Yolo County. Napa Counties, and along Highway 80 and Highway 680 to · The eastern boundary of the district runs along Santa the northern boundary of Contra Costa County. Juanita Avenue, Canyon Terrace Lane, Crow Canyon Drive, · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the Canyon Lake Lane, and along American River. boundaries of Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Yuba, Placer, and Sacramento Counties. District 7
District 5 Cities: Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Lafayette, Livermore, Martinez, Moraga, Cities: Galt, Isleton, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Stockton, Oakley, Orinda, Pittsburgh, Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, Tracy. Walnut Creek.
Partial Cities: Sacramento. Partial Counties: Alameda, Contra Costa.
Counties: None. · The northern boundary of the district runs along the Carquinez Strait, Suisun Bay, and along the San Joaquin Partial Counties: Sacramento, San Joaquin. River. · The southern boundary of the district runs along the · The northern boundary of the district runs east along northern boundary of Santa Clara County. Stonecrest Avenue, south along Highway 15, northeast · The western boundary of the district runs along Cumming along Beach Lake, north along Stockton Boulevard, east Skyway, John Muir Parkway, south along the western along Elsie Avenue, north along Powder Inn Road, north boundary of Contra Costa County, south near Highway 580, along Howe Avenue, east along Northrop Avenue, north and south just west of Livermore. along Fulton Avenue, east along Arden Way, northeast · The eastern boundary of the district runs along interstate along the American River, south to Highway 16, east along 580, north of Hayward and Fairview, along the southern Highway 16, and northeast to the western boundary of boundary of Contra Costa County around Fairview, south Folsom. along Follan Road and El Charro Road, east along Stanley · The southern boundary of the district runs east from the Boulevard, south along Isabel Avenue, south along Rocky eastern boundary of Alameda County through Tracy, Ridge,and southeast to the southern boundary of Alameda around Manteca northward to Highway 4 and east along County. high 4 to the eastern boundary of San Joaquin County. · The western boundary of the district runs along the western District 8 boundary of Sacramento County, the eastern boundary of Contra Costa County, and the eastern boundary of San Cities: Brisbane, Burlington, Colma, Daly City, Pacifica, Joaquin County. San Mateo, South San Francisco. · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the western boundaries of Amador and Calaveras Counties, and along Partial Cities: San Francisco. the border of Stanislaus County. Partial Counties: San Francisco, San Mateo. District 6 · The northern boundary of the district runs along Pacific Cities: Citrus Heights. Avenue through part of San Francisco. · The southern boundary of the district runs along Cabrillo Partial Cities: Sacramento. Highway, northeast along the eastern boundary of Pacifica, south along the western boundaries of San Bruno, Millbrae, Partial Counties: Sacramento. Burlingame, Hillsborough, and the southern border of San
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 17 Mateo. Palo Alto, Foster City, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los · The western boundary of the district runs along the Pacific Gatos, Menlo Park, Monte Sereno, Palo Alto, Portola Ocean. Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, Saratoga, Woodside. · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the San Francisco Bay. Partial Cities: San Jose. · Includes Maintop, Middle Farallon, Farallon, Southeast Farallon, and North Farallon Islands. Partial Counties: Santa Clara, San Mateo.
District 9 · The northern boundary of the district runs near Pacifica, San Andreas Lake, and Upper Crystal Resevoir, along the Cities: Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, northern boundary of Belmont and the western boundary of Emeryville, Hercules, Oakland, Piedmont, Pinole, Foster City, and southeast along the San Francisco Bay. Richmond, San Pablo. · The southern boundary of the district runs along the northern boundary of Santa Cruz County. Partial Counties: Alameda, Contra Costa. · The western boundary of the district runs along the Pacific Ocean. · The northern boundary of the district runs along San Pablo · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the western Avenue, Eastshore Freeway, and Cummings Skyway. boundaries of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, · The southern boundary of the district runs along the area through San Jose and along Highway 101. south of Airport Drive, and along the northern border of San Leandro. District 12 · The western boundary of the district runs along the San Pablo Bay and the San Francisco Bay. Cities: Atwater, Ceres, Chowchilla, Dos Palos, Escalon, · The eastern boundary of the district runs along Cummings Gustine, Hughson, Livingston, Los Banos, Madera, Skyway, John Muir Parkway, south along the western Merced, Modesto, Newman, Patterson, Ripon, boundary of Contra Costa County, and south along Skyline Riverbank. Boulevard to Lake Chabot. Partial Cities: Fresno, Turlock. District 10 Counties: Merced. Cities: Dublin, Fremont, Hayward, Milpitas, Newark, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City. Partial Counties: Fresno, Madera, Stanislaus.
Partial Cities: San Jose, Sunnyvale. · The northern boundary of the district runs along the southern boundaries of Merced, and Madera Counties, and Partial Counties: Alameda, Santa Clara. east through Fresno. · The southern boundary of the district runs along and near · The northern boundary of the district runs from north of San the northern boundary of Fresno County. Leandro, along Highway 580, to just north of Dublin and · The western boundary of the district runs along the eastern along the southern boundary of Contra Costa County. boundaries of Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Benito · The southern boundary of the district runs through Counties. Mountain View, north of Sunnyvale, through Santa Clara · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the border and the East Foothills, north to the northern border of Santa of Stanislaus, through Waterford and Turlock, along the Clara County, and east along the northern border of Santa western boundary of Mariposa County, and south along Clara County. River Road. · The western boundary of the district runs along the San Francisco Bay. District 13 · The eastern boundary of the district runs south from the southern boundary of Contra Costa County along Falcon Cities: Mountain View, Santa Clara. Road. Partial Cities: San Jose, Sunnyvale. District 11 Partial Counties: Santa Clara. Cities: Atherton, Belmont, Campbell, Cupertino, East
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 18 · The northern boundary of the district runs just north of northern boundary of Santa Cruz County, along Oak Glenn Mountain View, Santa Clara, and through San Jose. Avenue, Willow Springs Road, Hale Avenue, Santa Teresa · The southern boundary of the district runs along the Boulevard, and Monterey Road, near Highway 101, Alum southern boundaries of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Rock, and East Foothills, and partially along the northern Clara, and through San Jose. boundary of Santa Clara County · The western boundary of the district runs along the western · The southern boundary of the district runs along the boundaries of Mountain View and Sunnyvale. northern boundary of San Luis Obispo County. · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the eastern · The western boundary of the district runs along the Pacific boundary of San Jose and through part of San Jose. Ocean. · The eastern boundary of the district runs the western District 14 boundaries of Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno and King Counties. Cities: Barstow, Bishop, Clovis, Exeter, Farmersville, Lindsay, Mammoth Lakes, Oakdale, Ridgecrest, Sonora, District 16 Waterford, Woodlake. Cities: Arvin, Avenal, Coalinga, Corcoran, Delano, Partial Cities: Fresno, Porterville, Tulare, Turlock, Dinuba, Firebaugh, Fowler, Hanford, Huron, Kerman, Visalia. Kingsburg, Lemore, McFarland, Mendota, Orange Cove, Parlier, Reedley, San Joaquin, Sanger, Selma, Counties: Alpine, Calaveras, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Shafter, Wasco. Tuolumne. Partial Cities: Bakersfield, Fresno, Porterville, Tulare, Partial Counties: Fresno, Kern, Madera, Stanislaus, Visalia. Tulare, San Bernardino. Counties: Kings. · The northern boundary of the district runs along a portion of the eastern boundary of San Joaquin County, along the Partial Counties: Fresno, Kern, Tulare. southern boundary of Calaveras County, the eastern boundary of Amador County, and the southern boundary of · The northern boundary of the district runs along the El Dorado County. southern boundaries of Merced and Madera Counties, near · The southern boundary of the district runs near Highway Fresno and around Reedley and Orange Cove. 179, and Highway 395 and along Highway 15. · The southern boundary of the district runs southeast near · The western boundary of the district runs through Highway 5 and partially along Highway 99. Waterford and Turlock, along the eastern border of Merced · The western boundary of the district runs along the eastern County, through central Madera and Fresno Counties, boundaries of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. through Visalia, Tulare, Porterville, and along Highway 65. · The eastern boundary of the district runs south near · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the Highway 60, Highway 99, and near and along Highway 65. California-Nevada border. District 17 District 15 Cities: Adelanto, Apple Valley, Big Bear Lake, Cities: Capitola, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, California City, Hesperia, Lancaster, Maricopa, Taft, Gilroy, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Tehachapi, Victorville. Monterey, Morgan Hill, Pacific Grove, Salinas, San Juan Bautista, Sand City, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, Seaside, Partial Cities: Bakersfield, Palmdale. Soledad, Watsonville. Partial Counties: Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino. Partial Cities: San Jose. · The northern boundary of the district runs east near Counties: Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz. Highway 179, near Lake Isabella, and along Bird Spring Canyon Road. Partial Counties: Santa Clara. · The southern boundary of the district runs along the northern boundaries of Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, · The northern boundary of the district runs along the around Lancaster and through Palmdale, and around
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 19 Hesperia and Big Bear Lake. · Includes Channel Islands. · The western boundary of the district runs south through Bakersfield, northwest near Interstate 5, and southeast District 20 along the eastern boundary of San Luis Obispo County. · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the eastern Cities: San Fernando. boundary of Kern County, east near Barstow, and south along Camp Rock Road. Partial Cities: Los Angeles.
District 18 Partial Counties: Los Angeles.
Cities: Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Buellton, · The northern boundary of the district runs along the Los Carpinteria, El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles), Fillmore, Angeles City Border. Grover Beach, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Morro Bay, Ojai, · The southern boundary of the district runs along Van Owen Pismo Beach, San Buenaventura (Ventura), San Luis Street, Victory Boulevard, Burbank Boulevard, and Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Santa Paula, Magnolia Boulevard. Solvang. · The western boundary of the district runs along Interstate 5, Roscoe Boulevard, and Topanga Canyon Boulevard. Counties: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara. · The eastern boundary of the district runs the Los Angeles City Border, Clybourn Boulevard, and Glen Oaks Boulevard. Partial Counties: Ventura. District 21 · The northern boundary of the district runs along the northern boundary of San Luis Obispo County. Cities: Burbank, Glendale, La Canada Flintridge, · The southern boundary of the district runs along Santa Pasadena, San Marino, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, Clara River, near Highway 101 and north of Camarillo, south Temply City. of Filmore and along Highway 126. · The western boundary of the district runs along the Pacific Partial Cities: Los Angeles. Ocean. · The eastern boundary of the district runs the western Partial Counties: Los Angeles. boundary of Kern County and the eastern boundary of Ventura County. · The northern boundary of the district includes the Angeles · Includes Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa Islands. National Forest. · The southern boundary of the district includes Ventura District 19 Boulevard, US Highway 101, Sunset Boulevard, York Boulevard, Yosemite Boulevard, and the southern borders Cities: Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, of South Pasadena, San Marino, and Temple City. Santa Clarita, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks. · The western boundary of the district includes the Los Angeles City border, Clybourn Boulevard, Glen Oaks Partial Cities: Palmdale. Boulevard, Magnolia Boulevard, Burbank Boulevard, Fulton Avenue and the western border of Burbank. Partial Counties: Los Angeles, Ventura. · The eastern boundary of the district runs through the Angeles National Forest, the eastern border of Sierra Madre, · The northern boundary of the district runs along the the western border of Arcadia (but not including), and the northern boundary of Los Angeles County. eastern border of Temple City. · The southern boundary of the district runs along the southern boundary of Ventura County, along State Highway District 22 118, near Browns Canyon Road, Mormon Canyon, and Santa Clarita, and east to near Highway 2. Partial Cities: Los Angeles. · The western boundary of the district runs along the eastern boundary of Ventura County, southwest near Filmore and Partial Counties: Los Angeles. Camarillo, and along the Pacific Ocean. · The eastern boundary of the district runs near Lancaster, · The northern boundary of the district includes Franklin through Palmdale, and south near Highway 139 and Avenue, US Highway 101, Hollywood Boulevard, Sunset Highway 2. Boulevard, Fountain Avenue, York Boulevard, Yosemite
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 20 Boulevard, and portions of the Los Angeles City border. · The western boundary of the district includes Collis · The southern boundary of the district includes the Los Avenue, Huntington Dr, Mission Rd, Valley Boulevard, Angeles City Border, 48th Street, and 51st Street. Indiana Boulevard, Interstate 10, and Eastern Avenue. · The western boundary of the district includes Highland · The eastern boundary of the district includes the western Avenue, Gower Street, Van Ness Avenue, Normandie border of Glendora, Barrancca Avenue, and the eastern Avenue, Interstate 10, Interstate 110, and San Perdo Street. borders of Azusa, Covina, and West Covina. · The eastern boundary of the district includes Collis Avenue, Huntington Dr, Valley Boulevard, Interstate 10, Eastern District 25 Avenue, Interstate 710, Ceasar Chavez Avenue, and the Los Angeles City Border. Cities: Carson, Compton, Gardena, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale. District 23 Partial Cities: Long Beach, Los Angeles, Torrance. Cities: Agoura Hills, Beverly Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Partial Counties: Los Angeles. Westlake Village. · The northern boundary of the district includes the northern Partial Cities: Los Angeles. Inglewood border, 92nd Street, Figueroa Street, 104th Street, Central Avenue, and Firestone Boulevard. Partial Counties: Los Angeles. · The southern boundary of the district includes the northern border of Lomita, Lomita Boulevard, southern border of · The northern boundary of the district runs along the Los Carson, and Anahiem Street. Angeles City Border. · The western boundary of the district includes Airport · The southern boundary of the district runs along the Pacific Boulevard, Century Boulevard, La Cienega Boulevard, Ocean. eastern border of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, and · The western boundary of the district runs along the Los Redondo Beach, Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance Angeles County border and the Los Angeles City border. Boulevard, Carson Street, and Crenshaw Boulevard. · The eastern boundary of the district includes the southern · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the eastern border of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and West borders of South Gate, Lynwood, Paramount, and Long Hollywood, Nebraska Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, Beach and Interstate 710. Rosewood Avenue, Highland Avenue, US Highway 101, Ventura Boulevard, Valley Heard Dr, Fulton Avenue, District 26 Burbank Boulevard, Interstate 405, Victory Boulevard, Van Owen Street, Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Roscoe Cities: Culver City. Boulevard, Havenhurst Avenue, Woodly Avenue, and Interstate 5. Partial Cities: Los Angeles.
District 24 Partial Counties: Los Angeles.
Cities: Alhambra, Azuza, Baldwin Park, Covina, El · The northern boundary of the district includes Nebraska Monte, Irwindale, La Puente, Monterey Park, Avenue, Santa Monica Boulevard, Sepulveda Boulevard, Rosemead, San Gabriel, West Covina. Olympic Boulevard, the southern borders of Beverly Hills and West Hollywood, Rosewood Boulevard, Fountain Partial Cities: Industry, Los Angeles. Avenue, Highland Avenue, and Melrose Avenue. · The southern boundary of the district runs along Partial Counties: Los Angeles. Manchester Boulevard, the northern Inglewood Border, 92nd Street, 93rd Street , 95th Street, Figueroa Street, and 104th · The northern boundary of the district includes the southern Street. borders of South Pasadena, Arcadia, and Monrovia, the · The western boundary of the district includes the eastern northern borders of Alhambra, San Gabriel, Rosemead, El border of Santa Monica, McLaughlin Avenue, Venice Monte, Baldwin Park, Irwindale, and Azusa. Boulevard, Walnut Avenue, McConnell Avenue, State · The southern boundary of the district includes the southern Highway 90, and Lincoln Boulevard. border of Monterey Park, Rosemead, South El Monte, · The eastern boundary of the district runs along Van Ness Baldwin Park, and La Puente. Avenue, Wilshire Boulevard, Normandie Avenue, Interstate
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 21 10, Interstate 110, Jefferson Boulevard, Main Street, San District 29 Pedro Street, Firestone Boulevard, and Central Avenue. Cities: Arcadia, Bradbury, Chino Hills, Claremont, District 27 Diamond Bar, Duarte, Glendora, La Verne, Monrovia, Rancho Cucamonga, San Dimas, Upland, Walnut. Cities: Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Cudahy, Downey, Huntington Park, Paramount, South Gate. Partial Cities: Industry, Pomona, San Bernardino.
Partial Cities: Long Beach, Los Angeles. Partial Counties: Los Angeles, San Bernardino.
Partial Counties: Los Angeles. · The northern boundary of the district includes the Angeles National Forest, San Bernardino County border, State · The northern boundary of the district runs along 51st Street, Highway 18, the southwestern borders of Victorville and 48th Street, Alameda Street, and the northern borders of Hesperia. Huntington Park, Cudahy, Bell Gardens, and Downey. · The southern boundary of the district includes the southern · The southern boundary of the district runs along 7th Street. borders of Arcadia, Monrovia, and Duarte, the northern · The western boundary of the district runs along San Pedro border of Azusa, the western border of Glendora, western Street, Firestone Boulevard, and the western borders of borders of Covina and West Covina, Nogales Street, Los South Gate, Lynwood, Paramount, and Long Beach, and Angeles County border, Chino Hills border, State Highway Interstate 710. 71, Interstate 10, the southern borders of Claremont, · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the eastern Upland, and Rancho Cucamunga, the northern border of border of Downey, Bellflower, and Long Beach, Atlantic Fontana and Rialto, Highland Avenue, Kendall Dr, E Street, Avenue, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. State Highway 30, the northern border of Highland, State Highway 330, southern border of Running Springs, and District 28 State Highway 18. · The western boundary of the district runs along the western Cities: Avalon, El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Lomita, border of Arcadia. Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos · The eastern boundary of the district runs through San Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Bernardino National Forest. Estates, Signal Hill. District 30 Partial Cities: Lakewood, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Torrance. Cities: Artesia, Bell, Cerritos, Commerce, Hawaiian Gardens, La Habra Heights, La Mirada, Maywood, Partial Counties: Los Angeles. Montebello, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, Vernon, Whittier. · The northern boundary of the district includes the southern border of Santa Monica, National Boulevard, McLaughlin Partial Cities: Industry, Lakewood. Avenue, Venice Boulevard, Lincoln Boulevard, Manchester Boulevard, Century Boulevard, La Cieniga Boulevard, the Partial Counties: Los Angeles. eastern borders of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach, Hawthorne Boulevard, Crenshaw · The northern boundary of the district runs includes the Boulevard, the northern border of Lomita, Lomita Boulevard, northern border of Vernon, Indiana Avenue, Ceasar Chavez Interstate 710, 7th Street, Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, the Boulevard, northern border of Montebello, and the southern northern border of Lakewood, Norwalk Boulevard, and the borders of South El Monte, El Monte, and La Puente. Southern border of Hawaiian Gardens. · The southern boundary of the district runs along the · The southern boundary of the district runs along the Pacific southern borders of Vernon, Maywood, Bell, Commerce, Ocean. Montebello and Pico Rivera, the western borders of Santa · The western boundary of the district runs along the Pacific Fe Springs and Norwalk, the southern border of Cerritos, Ocean. and the Los Angeles County border. · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the Los · The western boundary of the district runs along the western Angeles County border. border of Vernon. · Includes Catalina and San Clemente Island. · The eastern boundary of the district runs along Nogales Street.
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 22
District 31 Partial Counties: Orange.
Cities: Calimesa, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, · The northern boundary of the district runs along the Moreno Valley, Needles, Norco, Perris, Redlands, boundaries of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Riverside, Twentynine Palms, Yucaipa, Yucca Valley. · The southern boundary of the district runs along the northern boundary of San Diego County. Partial Cities: San Bernardino. · The western boundary of the district runs along Lakeside Drive, Artesia Boulevard, North Harbor Boulevard, East Partial Counties: Riverside, San Bernardino. Chapman Avenue, along the boundary between Placentia and Fullerton and the boundary between Placentia and · The northern boundary of the district runs along Highway Anaheim, North Kraemer Boulevard, along the Santa Ana 15. River, along North Main Street, East Chapman Avenue, the · The southern boundary of the district runs along the Newport Freeway, along the Tustin-Santa Ana and Tustin- northern boundary of Riverside County. Costa Mesa boundaries, through Irvine along Irvine Center · The western boundary of the district runs south along and Drive, northeast along Jeffrey and south along Highway 15, near Camp Rock Road, along Bessemer Mine Road, west along the western boundary of Lake Forest and the western along Old Woman Springs Road, South again along Camp boundary of Mission Viejo, and south near Via Escolar, Rock Road, near Highway 18, and near Big Bear Lake. Silver Creek Drive and La Pata Avenue. · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the western California-Nevada border, and along the California-Arizona. boundaries of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.
District 32 District 34
Cities: Chino, Colton, Fontana, Ontario, Rialto. Cities: Santa Ana, Stanton.
Partial Cities: Pomona, San Bernardino. Partial Cities: Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Orange. Partial Counties: Los Angeles, San Bernardino. Partial Counties: Orange. · The northern boundary of the district runs through Pomona, along the northern borders of Ontario, Fontana, and Rialto, · The northern boundary of the district runs east near Tulare and through San Bernardino. Street, just south of Lakeside Recreation Area, near Artesia · The southern boundary of the district runs along the Boulevard, West Walnut Avenue, East Chapman Avenue, northwestern boundary of Riverside County. and along the southwest boundary of Placentia. · The western boundary of the district runs along Highway 71 · The southern boundary of the district runs along the through Pomona and continues along the boundary southern boundary of Santa Ana. between Chino and Chino Hills. · The western boundary of the district runs along the western · The eastern boundary of the district runs along Pacific boundaries of Buena Park, Stanton, and Anaheim, south Street, along and near Del Rosa Drive, along Tippecanoe along West Street and Harbor Boulevard, and the western Avenue, along and near 3rd Street, along the Santa Ana boundary of Santa Ana. River, near Mountain View Avenue, along South · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the Richardson, and along the boundary between the San Placentia-Fullerton and Placentia-Anaheim boundaries, Bernardino and Loma Linda and the boundary between North Kraemer Boulevard, along the Santa Ana River, along Colton and Loma Linda. North Main Street, East Chapman Avenue, the Newport Freeway, and along the Tustin-Santa Ana boundary. District 33 District 35 Cities: Brea, La Habra, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Placentia, Rancho Santa Margarita, Tustin, Villa Park, Cities: Cypress, Huntington Beach, La Palma, Los Yorba Linda. Alamitos, Newport Beach, Seal Beach, Westminster.
Partial Cities: Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton, Irvine, Partial Cities: Garden Grove, Irvine. Orange.
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 23 Partial Counties: Orange. · The northern boundary of the district runs along River · The northern boundary of the district runs along the Road, along the southern boundary of Riverside, south of northern boundaries of La Palma and Cypress, and along the March AFB, along the boundary with Perris, along the northern boundary of Garden Grove east until West Street. southern boundary with Moreno Valley, along Highway 60, · The southern boundary of the district runs along the along the southern boundary of Calimesa, and along the southern and southeastern boundary of Newport Beach, southern boundary of San Bernardino County. along Bonita Canyon Drive and Sand Canyon Avenue. · The southern boundary of the district runs along the · The western boundary of the district runs along the Pacific northern boundary of San Diego County. Ocean and the southern boundary of Los Angeles County. · The western boundary of the district runs along the eastern · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the eastern boundaries of San Bernardino and Orange Counties. boundaries of Westminster and Fountain Valley, the · The eastern boundary of the district runs from the southern northern boundary Costa Mesa, along Highway 405, San boundary of San Bernardino County, between La Quinta Diego Creek, near Warner Avenue, along Harvard Avenue, and Indio, to the northern boundary of San Diego County. Irvine Center Drive, along Jeffrey Road, and near Interstate 405. District 38
District 36 Cities: Carlsbad, Dana Point, Del Mar, Encinitas, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Cities: El Cajon, Escondido, Poway, Santee. Woods, Oceanside, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, San Marcos, Solana Beach, Vista. Partial Cities: San Diego. Partial Cities: Irvine, San Diego. Partial Counties: San Diego. Partial Counties: Orange, San Diego. · The northern boundary of the district runs along the southern boundary of Riverside County. · The northern boundary of the district runs along the · The southern boundary of the district runs east from near southeastern boundary of Newport Beach, Bonita Canyon Upper Otay Resevoir along Otay Lakes Road, Honey Drive, San Canyon Avenue, Interstate 405, Jeffrey Road, Springs Road, Lyons Valley Road, Barrett Lake Road, north and Interstate 15. along Barrett Lake, north-northwest from Barrett Lake to · The southern boundary of the district runs along the Interstate 8, and east along Interstate 8. southern boundary of Del Mar, along Carmel Valley Road, · The western boundary of the district runs near Sandia Creek Highway 15, Del Mar Heights Road, El Camino Real, and Via Drive, De Luz Road, Alturas Street, Luneta Lane, Olive Hill De La Valle, near Calle Camposeco, Artesian Road, Del Rios Road, Via Puerta Del Sol, along Little Gopher Canyon Road, Highway, Lake Drive, Del Dios Highway, Harmony Grove Interstate 15, along the western boundary of Escondido, Road, Kauana Loa Drive, and Hill Valley Drive. west of Lake Hodges, near Del Dios Highway, Artesian · The western boundary of the district runs along the Pacific Road, Calle Camposeco, Via De Santa Fe, Via De La Valle, El Ocean. Camino Real, and Del Mar Heights Road, south along · The eastern boundary of the district runs near Interstate 5, Highway 805, along State Highway 52, along the eastern along the western boundaries of San Juan Capistrano and boundaries of San Diego and La Mesa, south near Interstate San Clemente, the northern boundary of San Diego County, 8 and Highway 94, along Sweetwater River, and south from Los Robles Road, Creek Drive, Sandia Creek Drive, Olive Hill near Jeep Trail. Road, Villa Puerta Del Sol, Mission Road, Little Gopher · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the western Canyon Road, Interstate 15, and along the eastern boundary boundary of Imperial County. of San Marcos.
District 37 District 39
Cities: Banning, Beaumont, Canyon Lake, Cathedral Cities: Coronado, La Mesa, Lemon Grove. City, Corona, Desert Hot Springs, Hemet, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Palm Desert, Palm Partial Cities: San Diego. Springs, Rancho Mirage, San Jacinto, Temecula. Partial Counties: San Diego. Partial Counties: Riverside.
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 24 · The northern boundary of the district runs along the Partial Counties: San Diego, Riverside. southern boundary of Del Mar, and Carmel Valley Road, near Interstate 805 and State Highway 52. · The northern boundary of the district runs along the · The southern boundary of the district and along the southern boundary of San Bernardino County. northern boundary of Chula Vista. · The southern boundary of the district along the California- · The western boundary of the district runs along the Pacific Mexico border. Ocean. · The western boundary of the district runs from the southern · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the eastern boundary of San Bernardino County, between of La Quinta boundaries of San Diego and La Mesa, near Shadow Road, and Indio, to the northern boundary of San Diego County, Kimberley Woods Drive, Noakes Road, Circo Del Cielo east along the northern boundary of San Diego County, Drive, Avocado Boulevard, Fuerie Drive, Conrad Drive, south along the eastern boundary of San Diego County, State Highway 94, along Sweetwater River, and south to the west along Interstate 8, near Las Bancas Horsethief Road, northern boundary of Chula Vista. along Barrett Lake, near Barrett Lake Road, Lyons Valley Road, Honey Springs Road, Otay Lakes Road, along the District 40 Upper Otay Reservoir, along the northern boundary of Chula Vista and the eastern boundary of National City, Cities: Blythe, Brawley, Calexico, Calipatria, Chula along the western boundary of Lemon Grove, along Vista, El Centro, Holtville, Imperial, Imperial Beach, Highway 94, near Euclid Avenue, Chollas Parkway, 54th National City, Westmorland. Street, El Cajon Boulevard, Interstate 805, Interstate 15, State Highway 94, A Street, Russ Boulevard, Highway 15, Market Partial Cities: San Diego. Street, and 8th Avenue, along the San Diego Bay, Cherry Avenue, and the Pacific Ocean. Counties: Imperial. · The eastern boundary of the district runs along the California-Arizona border.
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 - Sacramento, California 25 DEMOGRAPHIC TABLES
The following demographic tables identify the racial and ethnic composition of the districts in our Senate plan. The demographic data is derived from the United States Census Bureau, 2000 Census. Registration Data is derived from the data Statewide Database at U.C. Berkeley (http://swdb.berkeley.edu).
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 26 MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan - July 31, 2001 Total Population and Registration Statistics
Senate District Total Deviation Deviation Total Voting Total Registered Registered Registered Registered Number Population Percent Age Registered Democrat Democrat Republican Republican Population Voters (Nov. Percent Percent 2000)
1 846,257 -534 -0.06% 632,067 481,001 166,711 34.66% 223,890 46.55% 2 847,861 1,070 0.13% 632,682 463,536 227,624 49.11% 136,670 29.48% 3 847,915 1,124 0.13% 697,519 522,328 278,699 53.36% 109,958 21.05% 4 847,701 910 0.11% 622,954 427,078 174,301 40.81% 170,402 39.90% 5 847,514 723 0.09% 590,504 383,466 173,598 45.27% 157,724 41.13% 6 847,099 308 0.04% 615,431 413,457 200,529 48.50% 135,014 32.65% 7 846,863 72 0.01% 622,626 456,252 204,657 44.86% 167,918 36.80% 8 847,743 952 0.11% 680,660 436,840 238,407 54.58% 81,985 18.77% 9 846,269 -522 -0.06% 645,607 416,941 268,949 64.51% 50,277 12.06% 10 847,569 778 0.09% 629,673 342,777 172,614 50.36% 93,178 27.18% 11 847,083 292 0.03% 642,587 470,266 209,499 44.55% 158,272 33.66% 12 845,991 -800 -0.09% 574,088 351,535 160,039 45.53% 140,318 39.92% 13 845,700 -1,091 -0.13% 639,565 336,796 168,574 50.05% 86,166 25.58% 14 845,839 -952 -0.11% 605,784 411,645 151,205 36.73% 196,974 47.85% 15 847,349 558 0.07% 615,234 396,484 192,953 48.67% 118,881 29.98% 16 847,975 1,184 0.14% 552,498 245,508 122,138 49.75% 88,555 36.07% 17 845,919 -872 -0.10% 576,619 382,218 133,984 35.05% 184,883 48.37% 18 845,855 -936 -0.11% 639,076 469,166 188,245 40.12% 182,147 38.82% 19 845,893 -898 -0.11% 594,523 419,731 150,353 35.82% 190,248 45.33% 20 846,431 -360 -0.04% 583,284 264,873 149,091 56.29% 64,444 24.33% 21 846,208 -583 -0.07% 659,923 464,731 211,162 45.44% 162,514 34.97% 22 847,096 305 0.04% 604,356 223,599 141,663 63.36% 34,535 15.45% 23 845,997 -794 -0.09% 695,221 525,779 264,249 50.26% 155,519 29.58% 24 846,169 -622 -0.07% 595,729 302,845 163,957 54.14% 76,465 25.25% 25 846,342 -449 -0.05% 571,182 338,948 223,884 66.05% 55,315 16.32% 26 846,659 -132 -0.02% 620,979 381,588 265,702 69.63% 49,336 12.93% 27 846,047 -744 -0.09% 547,906 261,432 162,226 62.05% 54,691 20.92% 28 847,462 671 0.08% 647,436 476,479 210,603 44.20% 173,621 36.44% 29 846,851 60 0.01% 610,059 423,783 157,032 37.05% 188,682 44.52% 30 845,799 -992 -0.12% 589,834 336,763 185,384 55.05% 93,889 27.88% 31 846,919 128 0.02% 586,046 350,597 135,673 38.70% 156,706 44.70% 32 846,661 -130 -0.02% 543,227 271,074 147,140 54.28% 81,251 29.97% 33 845,975 -816 -0.10% 615,098 449,582 124,166 27.62% 245,367 54.58% 34 846,463 -328 -0.04% 576,153 251,751 113,773 45.19% 93,794 37.26% 35 846,986 195 0.02% 650,759 453,081 140,594 31.03% 223,482 49.32% 36 847,135 344 0.04% 613,140 435,038 127,137 29.22% 211,553 48.63% 37 846,896 105 0.01% 607,578 382,261 128,123 33.52% 191,470 50.09% 38 847,305 514 0.06% 635,755 446,987 133,938 29.96% 216,827 48.51% 39 847,941 1,150 0.14% 681,208 492,799 195,171 39.60% 180,140 36.55% 40 847,911 1,120 0.13% 577,249 282,945 140,591 49.69% 82,039 28.99%
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 27 MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan - July 31, 2001 Latino Population and Registration Statistics Department of Justice Recommended Category
Senate District Total Total Voting Total Latino Latino Latino Voting Latino Voting Latino Latino Number Population Age Registered Population Population Age Age Registration Registration Population Voters (Nov. Percent Population Population (Nov. 2000) Percent 2000) Percent
1 846,257 632,067 481,001 79,161 9.35% 50,620 8.01% 22,295 4.64% 2 847,861 632,682 463,536 134,577 15.87% 84,130 13.30% 34,831 7.51% 3 847,915 697,519 522,328 104,632 12.34% 74,371 10.66% 27,003 5.17% 4 847,701 622,954 427,078 145,678 17.19% 89,977 14.44% 36,085 8.45% 5 847,514 590,504 383,466 210,132 24.79% 128,075 21.69% 56,061 14.62% 6 847,099 615,431 413,457 144,134 17.02% 89,708 14.58% 39,376 9.52% 7 846,863 622,626 456,252 130,027 15.35% 83,020 13.33% 37,008 8.11% 8 847,743 680,660 436,840 162,906 19.22% 118,322 17.38% 58,592 13.41% 9 846,269 645,607 416,941 162,279 19.18% 106,803 16.54% 34,058 8.17% 10 847,569 629,673 342,777 173,638 20.49% 115,616 18.36% 50,938 14.86% 11 847,083 642,587 470,266 125,530 14.82% 83,054 12.92% 32,909 7.00% 12 845,991 574,088 351,535 328,590 38.84% 195,111 33.99% 76,383 21.73% 13 845,700 639,565 336,796 276,994 32.75% 183,789 28.74% 66,237 19.67% 14 845,839 605,784 411,645 217,456 25.71% 131,649 21.73% 55,797 13.55% 15 847,349 615,234 396,484 327,790 38.68% 205,916 33.47% 76,941 19.41% 16 847,975 552,498 245,508 536,466 63.26% 323,670 58.58% 100,392 40.89% 17 845,919 576,619 382,218 221,443 26.18% 129,293 22.42% 55,996 14.65% 18 845,855 639,076 469,166 249,476 29.49% 159,691 24.99% 63,627 13.56% 19 845,893 594,523 419,731 245,817 29.06% 155,409 26.14% 62,004 14.77% 20 846,431 583,284 264,873 522,936 61.78% 328,663 56.35% 92,476 34.91% 21 846,208 659,923 464,731 187,527 22.16% 129,189 19.58% 62,197 13.38% 22 847,096 604,356 223,599 585,036 69.06% 385,634 63.81% 104,144 46.58% 23 845,997 695,221 525,779 86,046 10.17% 64,462 9.27% 30,743 5.85% 24 846,169 595,729 302,845 491,038 58.03% 315,330 52.93% 137,842 45.52% 25 846,342 571,182 338,948 381,821 45.11% 231,533 40.54% 70,633 20.84% 26 846,659 620,979 381,588 324,303 38.30% 206,891 33.32% 51,519 13.50% 27 846,047 547,906 261,432 585,277 69.18% 356,662 65.10% 110,875 42.41% 28 847,462 647,436 476,479 215,522 25.43% 139,560 21.56% 58,529 12.28% 29 846,851 610,059 423,783 213,669 25.23% 136,210 22.33% 71,133 16.79% 30 845,799 589,834 336,763 543,138 64.22% 352,620 59.78% 162,694 48.31% 31 846,919 586,046 350,597 286,755 33.86% 171,436 29.25% 64,089 18.28% 32 846,661 543,227 271,074 505,003 59.65% 298,307 54.91% 102,233 37.71% 33 845,975 615,098 449,582 176,058 20.81% 113,037 18.38% 45,120 10.04% 34 846,463 576,153 251,751 508,092 60.03% 311,297 54.03% 76,850 30.53% 35 846,986 650,759 453,081 147,074 17.36% 96,117 14.77% 35,971 7.94% 36 847,135 613,140 435,038 150,148 17.72% 92,471 15.08% 36,202 8.32% 37 846,896 607,578 382,261 234,779 27.72% 139,954 23.03% 50,035 13.09% 38 847,305 635,755 446,987 182,734 21.57% 115,675 18.19% 35,604 7.97% 39 847,941 681,208 492,799 144,151 17.00% 98,873 14.51% 48,989 9.94% 40 847,911 577,249 282,945 518,723 61.18% 323,586 56.06% 118,088 41.74%
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 28 MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan - July 31, 2001 Non-Latino White Population Statistics Department of Justice Recommended Category
Senate District Total Total Voting Total White White White White Number Population Age Registered Population Population Voting Age Voting Age Population Voters (Nov. Percent Population Population Percent 2000)
1 846,257 632,067 481,001 695,972 82.24% 532,805 84.30% 2 847,861 632,682 463,536 564,133 66.54% 446,335 70.55% 3 847,915 697,519 522,328 565,891 66.74% 480,901 68.94% 4 847,701 622,954 427,078 589,014 69.48% 453,606 72.82% 5 847,514 590,504 383,466 430,851 50.84% 328,359 55.61% 6 847,099 615,431 413,457 475,856 56.17% 376,698 61.21% 7 846,863 622,626 456,252 570,248 67.34% 438,944 70.50% 8 847,743 680,660 436,840 340,594 40.18% 293,005 43.05% 9 846,269 645,607 416,941 283,193 33.46% 244,068 37.80% 10 847,569 629,673 342,777 324,490 38.28% 260,069 41.30% 11 847,083 642,587 470,266 529,596 62.52% 420,736 65.48% 12 845,991 574,088 351,535 407,517 48.17% 308,995 53.82% 13 845,700 639,565 336,796 283,973 33.58% 239,029 37.37% 14 845,839 605,784 411,645 534,255 63.16% 412,855 68.15% 15 847,349 615,234 396,484 418,913 49.44% 335,354 54.51% 16 847,975 552,498 245,508 197,529 23.29% 154,472 27.96% 17 845,919 576,619 382,218 498,343 58.91% 367,378 63.71% 18 845,855 639,076 469,166 530,562 62.72% 429,733 67.24% 19 845,893 594,523 419,731 498,731 58.96% 369,310 62.12% 20 846,431 583,284 264,873 194,913 23.03% 160,999 27.60% 21 846,208 659,923 464,731 447,334 52.86% 370,567 56.15% 22 847,096 604,356 223,599 80,942 9.56% 71,194 11.78% 23 845,997 695,221 525,779 622,148 73.54% 520,241 74.83% 24 846,169 595,729 302,845 116,443 13.76% 97,372 16.35% 25 846,342 571,182 338,948 94,556 11.17% 78,547 13.75% 26 846,659 620,979 381,588 177,711 20.99% 153,108 24.66% 27 846,047 547,906 261,432 108,690 12.85% 89,595 16.35% 28 847,462 647,436 476,479 458,094 54.05% 383,150 59.18% 29 846,851 610,059 423,783 420,871 49.70% 324,026 53.11% 30 845,799 589,834 336,763 159,025 18.80% 130,306 22.09% 31 846,919 586,046 350,597 416,197 49.14% 318,490 54.35% 32 846,661 543,227 271,074 194,441 22.97% 149,378 27.50% 33 845,975 615,098 449,582 528,063 62.42% 400,072 65.04% 34 846,463 576,153 251,751 203,646 24.06% 166,158 28.84% 35 846,986 650,759 453,081 494,957 58.44% 400,981 61.62% 36 847,135 613,140 435,038 566,894 66.92% 430,379 70.19% 37 846,896 607,578 382,261 527,576 62.30% 411,985 67.81% 38 847,305 635,755 446,987 571,731 67.48% 454,488 71.49% 39 847,941 681,208 492,799 521,166 61.46% 448,508 65.84% 40 847,911 577,249 282,945 171,731 20.25% 141,736 24.55%
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 29 MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan - July 31, 2001 Non-Latino African-American Population Statistics Department of Justice Recommended Category
Senate District Total Total Voting Total African- African- African African-American Number Population Age Registered American American American Voting Age Population Voters (Nov. Population Population Voting Age Population Percent 2000) Percent Population
1 846,257 632,067 481,001 15,313 1.81% 11,845 1.87% 2 847,861 632,682 463,536 51,646 6.09% 34,200 5.41% 3 847,915 697,519 522,328 50,783 5.99% 38,654 5.54% 4 847,701 622,954 427,078 27,573 3.25% 19,099 3.07% 5 847,514 590,504 383,466 65,351 7.71% 40,807 6.91% 6 847,099 615,431 413,457 93,180 11.00% 58,888 9.57% 7 846,863 622,626 456,252 39,113 4.62% 24,948 4.01% 8 847,743 680,660 436,840 33,727 3.98% 26,182 3.85% 9 846,269 645,607 416,941 219,596 25.95% 156,577 24.25% 10 847,569 629,673 342,777 53,586 6.32% 37,549 5.96% 11 847,083 642,587 470,266 25,209 2.98% 18,335 2.85% 12 845,991 574,088 351,535 35,027 4.14% 22,364 3.90% 13 845,700 639,565 336,796 27,674 3.27% 20,445 3.20% 14 845,839 605,784 411,645 23,726 2.81% 14,816 2.45% 15 847,349 615,234 396,484 21,247 2.51% 15,606 2.54% 16 847,975 552,498 245,508 48,271 5.69% 34,272 6.20% 17 845,919 576,619 382,218 73,647 8.71% 44,060 7.64% 18 845,855 639,076 469,166 16,921 2.00% 12,591 1.97% 19 845,893 594,523 419,731 28,057 3.32% 18,563 3.12% 20 846,431 583,284 264,873 39,661 4.69% 26,661 4.57% 21 846,208 659,923 464,731 48,886 5.78% 35,814 5.43% 22 847,096 604,356 223,599 39,631 4.68% 32,374 5.36% 23 845,997 695,221 525,779 26,497 3.13% 20,662 2.97% 24 846,169 595,729 302,845 18,424 2.18% 12,335 2.07% 25 846,342 571,182 338,948 259,883 30.71% 177,453 31.07% 26 846,659 620,979 381,588 255,068 30.13% 186,983 30.11% 27 846,047 547,906 261,432 88,004 10.40% 56,659 10.34% 28 847,462 647,436 476,479 49,233 5.81% 33,902 5.24% 29 846,851 610,059 423,783 54,937 6.49% 36,312 5.95% 30 845,799 589,834 336,763 16,919 2.00% 11,164 1.89% 31 846,919 586,046 350,597 75,408 8.90% 46,994 8.02% 32 846,661 543,227 271,074 93,699 11.07% 58,609 10.79% 33 845,975 615,098 449,582 14,001 1.66% 9,494 1.54% 34 846,463 576,153 251,751 18,529 2.19% 12,525 2.17% 35 846,986 650,759 453,081 11,113 1.31% 7,713 1.19% 36 847,135 613,140 435,038 22,907 2.70% 14,562 2.37% 37 846,896 607,578 382,261 32,143 3.80% 20,248 3.33% 38 847,305 635,755 446,987 25,237 2.98% 16,709 2.63% 39 847,941 681,208 492,799 62,733 7.40% 42,676 6.26% 40 847,911 577,249 282,945 66,319 7.82% 46,842 8.11%
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 30 MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan - July 31, 2001 Non-Latino Asian Population Statistics Department of Justice Recommended Category
Senate District Total Total Voting Total Asian Asian Asian Voting Asian Voting Asian Asian Number Population Age Registered Population Population Age Population Age Population Registration* Registration Population Voters (Nov. Percent Percent Percent* 2000)
1 846,257 632,067 481,001 27,771 3.28% 17,512 2.77% 7,735 2.10% 2 847,861 632,682 463,536 56,496 6.66% 40,664 6.43% 13,700 1.17% 3 847,915 697,519 522,328 103,474 12.20% 85,836 12.31% 31,334 3.81% 4 847,701 622,954 427,078 50,978 6.01% 36,968 5.93% 12,610 2.07% 5 847,514 590,504 383,466 108,203 12.77% 71,655 12.13% 22,284 7.00% 6 847,099 615,431 413,457 95,905 11.32% 64,854 10.54% 20,582 2.27% 7 846,863 622,626 456,252 83,037 9.81% 59,183 9.51% 23,131 7.12% 8 847,743 680,660 436,840 281,411 33.20% 221,959 32.61% 74,934 13.85% 9 846,269 645,607 416,941 151,872 17.95% 117,699 18.23% 37,135 8.97% 10 847,569 629,673 342,777 262,950 31.02% 193,696 30.76% 54,229 5.18% 11 847,083 642,587 470,266 144,274 17.03% 104,913 16.33% 44,547 5.58% 12 845,991 574,088 351,535 46,015 5.44% 27,773 4.84% 11,230 15.22% 13 845,700 639,565 336,796 234,266 27.70% 179,594 28.08% 52,990 14.96% 14 845,839 605,784 411,645 39,429 4.66% 25,338 4.18% 9,382 11.11% 15 847,349 615,234 396,484 58,004 6.85% 43,068 7.00% 17,080 8.36% 16 847,975 552,498 245,508 46,723 5.51% 27,739 5.02% 8,008 19.66% 17 845,919 576,619 382,218 27,393 3.24% 19,206 3.33% 6,256 3.73% 18 845,855 639,076 469,166 30,845 3.65% 23,853 3.73% 11,206 3.38% 19 845,893 594,523 419,731 56,403 6.67% 40,078 6.74% 14,615 2.32% 20 846,431 583,284 264,873 68,943 8.15% 52,577 9.01% 14,847 3.28% 21 846,208 659,923 464,731 126,484 14.95% 97,040 14.70% 33,498 1.65% 22 847,096 604,356 223,599 127,801 15.09% 104,846 17.35% 25,444 2.59% 23 845,997 695,221 525,779 89,190 10.54% 72,421 10.42% 25,912 3.19% 24 846,169 595,729 302,845 207,735 24.55% 161,980 27.19% 50,311 4.95% 25 846,342 571,182 338,948 87,886 10.38% 68,965 12.07% 23,656 3.73% 26 846,659 620,979 381,588 70,275 8.30% 59,465 9.58% 18,837 4.87% 27 846,047 547,906 261,432 46,742 5.52% 34,096 6.22% 10,576 9.23% 28 847,462 647,436 476,479 101,969 12.03% 74,554 11.52% 26,418 8.26% 29 846,851 610,059 423,783 136,299 16.09% 99,242 16.27% 34,080 4.18% 30 845,799 589,834 336,763 112,967 13.36% 86,122 14.60% 32,034 12.91% 31 846,919 586,046 350,597 44,091 5.21% 32,823 5.60% 9,086 15.41% 32 846,661 543,227 271,074 35,395 4.18% 25,302 4.66% 7,644 5.97% 33 845,975 615,098 449,582 110,839 13.10% 80,675 13.12% 31,117 8.14% 34 846,463 576,153 251,751 99,361 11.74% 74,757 12.98% 26,515 10.15% 35 846,986 650,759 453,081 174,065 20.55% 131,782 20.25% 52,836 5.13% 36 847,135 613,140 435,038 82,286 9.71% 59,336 9.68% 17,523 7.12% 37 846,896 607,578 382,261 31,961 3.77% 21,963 3.61% 6,896 4.85% 38 847,305 635,755 446,987 48,055 5.67% 35,537 5.59% 12,912 3.32% 39 847,941 681,208 492,799 92,994 10.97% 71,784 10.54% 20,062 8.39% 40 847,911 577,249 282,945 71,018 8.38% 52,041 9.02% 12,517 2.34%
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 31 MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan - July 31, 2001 Non-Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Population Statistics Department of Justice Recommended Category
Senate District Total Total Voting Total Native Native Native Native Number Population Age Registered Hawaiian Hawaiian Hawaiian Hawaiian Population Voters (Nov. Population Population Voting Age Voting Age 2000) Percent Population Population Percent
1 846,257 632,067 481,001 1,777 0.21% 1,173 0.19% 2 847,861 632,682 463,536 3,903 0.46% 2,617 0.41% 3 847,915 697,519 522,328 3,410 0.40% 2,375 0.34% 4 847,701 622,954 427,078 2,652 0.31% 1,855 0.30% 5 847,514 590,504 383,466 3,743 0.44% 2,544 0.43% 6 847,099 615,431 413,457 6,013 0.71% 3,938 0.64% 7 846,863 622,626 456,252 3,467 0.41% 2,259 0.36% 8 847,743 680,660 436,840 7,437 0.88% 5,183 0.76% 9 846,269 645,607 416,941 3,957 0.47% 2,616 0.41% 10 847,569 629,673 342,777 7,525 0.89% 5,236 0.83% 11 847,083 642,587 470,266 5,628 0.66% 3,641 0.57% 12 845,991 574,088 351,535 2,532 0.30% 1,770 0.31% 13 845,700 639,565 336,796 3,691 0.44% 2,626 0.41% 14 845,839 605,784 411,645 1,862 0.22% 1,250 0.21% 15 847,349 615,234 396,484 2,845 0.34% 1,977 0.32% 16 847,975 552,498 245,508 776 0.09% 540 0.10% 17 845,919 576,619 382,218 1,681 0.20% 1,042 0.18% 18 845,855 639,076 469,166 1,566 0.19% 1,103 0.17% 19 845,893 594,523 419,731 2,121 0.25% 1,394 0.23% 20 846,431 583,284 264,873 1,258 0.15% 876 0.15% 21 846,208 659,923 464,731 1,074 0.13% 867 0.13% 22 847,096 604,356 223,599 605 0.07% 493 0.08% 23 845,997 695,221 525,779 1,157 0.14% 921 0.13% 24 846,169 595,729 302,845 1,011 0.12% 735 0.12% 25 846,342 571,182 338,948 7,493 0.89% 4,698 0.82% 26 846,659 620,979 381,588 1,133 0.13% 899 0.14% 27 846,047 547,906 261,432 6,015 0.71% 3,504 0.64% 28 847,462 647,436 476,479 3,971 0.47% 2,736 0.42% 29 846,851 610,059 423,783 1,674 0.20% 1,112 0.18% 30 845,799 589,834 336,763 1,545 0.18% 1,061 0.18% 31 846,919 586,046 350,597 3,238 0.38% 2,103 0.36% 32 846,661 543,227 271,074 2,647 0.31% 1,546 0.28% 33 845,975 615,098 449,582 1,959 0.23% 1,337 0.22% 34 846,463 576,153 251,751 3,920 0.46% 2,484 0.43% 35 846,986 650,759 453,081 3,551 0.42% 2,398 0.37% 36 847,135 613,140 435,038 3,189 0.38% 2,133 0.35% 37 846,896 607,578 382,261 1,939 0.23% 1,237 0.20% 38 847,305 635,755 446,987 4,254 0.50% 2,842 0.45% 39 847,941 681,208 492,799 5,056 0.60% 3,634 0.53% 40 847,911 577,249 282,945 3,512 0.41% 2,460 0.43%
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 32 MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan - July 31, 2001 Non-Latino Native American Population Statistics Department of Justice Recommended Category
Senate District Total Total Voting Total Native Native American Native American Native American Number Population Age Registered American Population Voting Age Voting Age Population Voters (Nov. Population Percent Population Population 2000) Percent
1 846,257 632,067 481,001 18815 2.22% 13171 2.08% 2 847,861 632,682 463,536 25120 2.96% 16999 2.69% 3 847,915 697,519 522,328 7080 0.83% 5739 0.82% 4 847,701 622,954 427,078 20913 2.47% 14332 2.30% 5 847,514 590,504 383,466 10426 1.23% 7475 1.27% 6 847,099 615,431 413,457 12837 1.52% 9351 1.52% 7 846,863 622,626 456,252 7637 0.90% 5670 0.91% 8 847,743 680,660 436,840 3598 0.42% 2981 0.44% 9 846,269 645,607 416,941 5497 0.65% 4324 0.67% 10 847,569 629,673 342,777 5783 0.68% 4384 0.70% 11 847,083 642,587 470,266 4638 0.55% 3576 0.56% 12 845,991 574,088 351,535 11381 1.35% 8297 1.45% 13 845,700 639,565 336,796 4532 0.54% 3563 0.56% 14 845,839 605,784 411,645 17925 2.12% 12498 2.06% 15 847,349 615,234 396,484 7470 0.88% 5669 0.92% 16 847,975 552,498 245,508 8424 0.99% 5857 1.06% 17 845,919 576,619 382,218 12797 1.51% 9153 1.59% 18 845,855 639,076 469,166 9315 1.10% 7044 1.10% 19 845,893 594,523 419,731 6335 0.75% 4560 0.77% 20 846,431 583,284 264,873 3614 0.43% 2736 0.47% 21 846,208 659,923 464,731 4027 0.48% 3255 0.49% 22 847,096 604,356 223,599 2953 0.35% 2212 0.37% 23 845,997 695,221 525,779 3669 0.43% 3036 0.44% 24 846,169 595,729 302,845 3433 0.41% 2509 0.42% 25 846,342 571,182 338,948 2769 0.33% 2068 0.36% 26 846,659 620,979 381,588 2514 0.30% 1963 0.32% 27 846,047 547,906 261,432 3313 0.39% 2454 0.45% 28 847,462 647,436 476,479 5492 0.65% 4427 0.68% 29 846,851 610,059 423,783 6224 0.73% 4495 0.74% 30 845,799 589,834 336,763 3848 0.45% 2864 0.49% 31 846,919 586,046 350,597 9519 1.12% 6836 1.17% 32 846,661 543,227 271,074 5691 0.67% 4066 0.75% 33 845,975 615,098 449,582 4705 0.56% 3512 0.57% 34 846,463 576,153 251,751 4377 0.52% 3219 0.56% 35 846,986 650,759 453,081 5737 0.68% 4344 0.67% 36 847,135 613,140 435,038 10542 1.24% 7282 1.19% 37 846,896 607,578 382,261 10349 1.22% 7183 1.18% 38 847,305 635,755 446,987 6015 0.71% 4551 0.72% 39 847,941 681,208 492,799 6906 0.81% 5535 0.81% 40 847,911 577,249 282,945 6434 0.76% 4656 0.81%
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 33 MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan - July 31, 2001 Non-Latino Other Race Population Statistics Department of Justice Recommended Category
Senate District Total Total Voting Total Other Race Other Race Other Race Other Race Number Population Age Registered Population Population Voting Age Voting Age Population Voters (Nov. Percent Population Population 2000) Percent
1 846,257 632,067 481,001 4414 0.52% 3264 0.52% 2 847,861 632,682 463,536 5342 0.63% 4012 0.63% 3 847,915 697,519 522,328 6748 0.80% 5401 0.77% 4 847,701 622,954 427,078 5278 0.62% 3829 0.61% 5 847,514 590,504 383,466 7933 0.94% 5411 0.92% 6 847,099 615,431 413,457 7329 0.87% 5109 0.83% 7 846,863 622,626 456,252 7434 0.88% 5140 0.83% 8 847,743 680,660 436,840 9058 1.07% 6848 1.01% 9 846,269 645,607 416,941 7664 0.91% 5531 0.86% 10 847,569 629,673 342,777 8638 1.02% 6177 0.98% 11 847,083 642,587 470,266 7189 0.85% 5117 0.80% 12 845,991 574,088 351,535 8582 1.01% 5984 1.04% 13 845,700 639,565 336,796 7016 0.83% 5383 0.84% 14 845,839 605,784 411,645 7047 0.83% 5077 0.84% 15 847,349 615,234 396,484 6122 0.72% 4650 0.76% 16 847,975 552,498 245,508 5323 0.63% 3609 0.65% 17 845,919 576,619 382,218 5740 0.68% 3848 0.67% 18 845,855 639,076 469,166 4137 0.49% 3105 0.49% 19 845,893 594,523 419,731 4581 0.54% 2948 0.50% 20 846,431 583,284 264,873 10490 1.24% 7697 1.32% 21 846,208 659,923 464,731 25285 2.99% 19238 2.92% 22 847,096 604,356 223,599 5468 0.65% 4147 0.69% 23 845,997 695,221 525,779 12859 1.52% 10219 1.47% 24 846,169 595,729 302,845 3411 0.40% 2340 0.39% 25 846,342 571,182 338,948 4035 0.48% 2801 0.49% 26 846,659 620,979 381,588 6954 0.82% 5316 0.86% 27 846,047 547,906 261,432 3166 0.37% 2169 0.40% 28 847,462 647,436 476,479 6448 0.76% 4819 0.74% 29 846,851 610,059 423,783 6942 0.82% 4684 0.77% 30 845,799 589,834 336,763 4780 0.57% 3334 0.57% 31 846,919 586,046 350,597 5791 0.68% 3903 0.67% 32 846,661 543,227 271,074 4378 0.52% 2835 0.52% 33 845,975 615,098 449,582 6186 0.73% 4318 0.70% 34 846,463 576,153 251,751 4410 0.52% 3121 0.54% 35 846,986 650,759 453,081 6014 0.71% 4392 0.67% 36 847,135 613,140 435,038 6586 0.78% 4356 0.71% 37 846,896 607,578 382,261 4285 0.51% 2857 0.47% 38 847,305 635,755 446,987 4934 0.58% 3460 0.54% 39 847,941 681,208 492,799 7247 0.85% 5616 0.82% 40 847,911 577,249 282,945 3472 0.41% 2324 0.40%
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 34
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan - July 31, 2001 Non-Latino Mixed Race (Two or More) Population Statistics Department of Justice Recommended Category
Senate District Total Total Voting Total Mixed Race Mixed Race Mixed Race Mixed Race Number Population Age Registered Population Population Voting Age Voting Age Population Voters (Nov. Percent Population Population 2000) Percent
1 846,257 632,067 481,001 3,034 0.36% 1,677 0.27% 2 847,861 632,682 463,536 6,644 0.78% 3,725 0.59% 3 847,915 697,519 522,328 5,897 0.70% 4,242 0.61% 4 847,701 622,954 427,078 5,615 0.66% 3,288 0.53% 5 847,514 590,504 383,466 10,875 1.28% 6,178 1.05% 6 847,099 615,431 413,457 11,845 1.40% 6,885 1.12% 7 846,863 622,626 456,252 5,900 0.70% 3,462 0.56% 8 847,743 680,660 436,840 9,012 1.06% 6,180 0.91% 9 846,269 645,607 416,941 12,211 1.44% 7,989 1.24% 10 847,569 629,673 342,777 10,959 1.29% 6,946 1.10% 11 847,083 642,587 470,266 5,019 0.59% 3,215 0.50% 12 845,991 574,088 351,535 6,347 0.75% 3,794 0.66% 13 845,700 639,565 336,796 7,554 0.89% 5,136 0.80% 14 845,839 605,784 411,645 4,139 0.49% 2,301 0.38% 15 847,349 615,234 396,484 4,958 0.59% 2,994 0.49% 16 847,975 552,498 245,508 4,463 0.53% 2,339 0.42% 17 845,919 576,619 382,218 4,875 0.58% 2,639 0.46% 18 845,855 639,076 469,166 3,033 0.36% 1,956 0.31% 19 845,893 594,523 419,731 3,848 0.45% 2,261 0.38% 20 846,431 583,284 264,873 4,616 0.55% 3,075 0.53% 21 846,208 659,923 464,731 5,591 0.66% 3,953 0.60% 22 847,096 604,356 223,599 4,660 0.55% 3,456 0.57% 23 845,997 695,221 525,779 4,431 0.52% 3,259 0.47% 24 846,169 595,729 302,845 4,674 0.55% 3,128 0.53% 25 846,342 571,182 338,948 7,899 0.93% 5,117 0.90% 26 846,659 620,979 381,588 8,701 1.03% 6,354 1.02% 27 846,047 547,906 261,432 4,840 0.57% 2,767 0.51% 28 847,462 647,436 476,479 6,733 0.79% 4,288 0.66% 29 846,851 610,059 423,783 6,235 0.74% 3,978 0.65% 30 845,799 589,834 336,763 3,577 0.42% 2,363 0.40% 31 846,919 586,046 350,597 5,920 0.70% 3,461 0.59% 32 846,661 543,227 271,074 5,407 0.64% 3,184 0.59% 33 845,975 615,098 449,582 4,164 0.49% 2,653 0.43% 34 846,463 576,153 251,751 4,128 0.49% 2,592 0.45% 35 846,986 650,759 453,081 4,475 0.53% 3,032 0.47% 36 847,135 613,140 435,038 4,583 0.54% 2,621 0.43% 37 846,896 607,578 382,261 3,864 0.46% 2,151 0.35% 38 847,305 635,755 446,987 4,345 0.51% 2,493 0.39% 39 847,941 681,208 492,799 7,688 0.91% 4,582 0.67% 40 847,911 577,249 282,945 6,702 0.79% 3,604 0.62%
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 35
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 36 MALDEF-WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan City/County Split Explanation
The following are justifications for the city and county splits contained in the MALDEF-WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan. All city and county divisions are necessary and justified. The explanations fall into three major categories: 1) to comply with the one-person, one-vote rule; 2) to comply with Section 2 or Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; and 3) to maintain communities of interest.
Where the plan contains city and/or county divisions, every effort was made to ensure that those divisions respected communities of interest.
City District Justification Anaheim 33, 34 Because Anaheim's elongated city boundary is non-compact and irregularly shaped, precedence is given to drawing a compact senate district.
Bakersfield 16, 17 The city has sufficient population for multiple districts. To unify Bakersfield would jeopardize comp liance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Buena Park 33, 34 The city is split in order to keep communities of interest in a single senate district. Additionally, the district is more compact and is bordered by a major road on the north.
Fairfield 3, 4 The city is split as a result of population constraints in the neighboring districts.
Fresno 12, 14, 16 The city has sufficient population for multiple districts. To unify Fresno would jeopardize compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Fullerton 33, 34 The city is split in order to keep communities of interest in a single senate district. Additionally, the district is more compact and is bordered by a major road on the north.
Garden Grove 34, 35 The city is divided to maintain distinct communities of interest in different districts. One community is united between western Garden Grove and Westminster, and another community of interest in maintained with eastern Garden Grove, Anaheim and Santa Ana.
Industry 24, 29, 30 Because Industry's elongated city boundary is non-compact and irregularly shaped, precedence is given to drawing a compact senate district.
Irvine 33, 35, 38 The city has sufficient population for multiple districts. Irvine is divided to maintain equal population among the districts in Orange County.
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 37 Lakewood 28, 30 The eastern end of the city is split in order to include the city of Hawaiian Gardens with neighboring communities in Artesia and Cerritos.
Long Beach 25, 27, 28 The city has sufficient population for multiple senate districts.
Los Angeles 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, The city has sufficient population for multiple districts. 27, 28
Orange 33, 34 The city is divided to maintain communities of interst in the western portion of the city with neighboring communities in Santa Ana and Anaheim.
Palmdale 17, 19 The city was split as a result of population constraints in neighboring districts.
Pomona 29, 32 The city was split in order to maintain communities of interest together and contain the western boundary of the senate district along a major highway.
Porterville 14, 16 The city was split in order to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the District containing Kings County.
Sacramento 5, 6 The city has sufficient population for multiple districts.
San Bernardino 29, 31, 32 The city is split in order to maintain distinct communities of interest in separate districts. Additionally, the parts of the city are divided as a result of population constraints in neighboring districts.
San Diego 36, 38, 39, 40 The city has sufficient population for multiple districts.
San Francisco 3, 8 The city has sufficient population for multiple districts.
San Jose 10, 11, 13, 15 The city has sufficient population for multiple districts.
Santa Rosa 2, 3 The city was split as a result of population constraints in neighboring districts.
Sunnyvale 10, 13 The city is divided in order to maintain the current senatorial boundary that separates the commercial northern portion of the city from the residential southern portion of the city.
Torrance 25, 28 The city was split as a result of population constraints in neighboring districts. In order to draw SD 27 around a community of interest that complies with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, SD 28 must necessarily include many of the communities along the South Bay, including Wilmington, San Pedro and the Palos Verdes Penisula.
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 38 Tulare 14, 16 The city was split in order to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the district containing Kings County.
Turlock 12, 14 The city was split in order to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the district containing Merced County. The city was primarily split along a major highway.
Visalia 14, 16 The city was split in order to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the district containing Kings County.
County District Justification Alameda 7, 9, 10 The county is divided into three senate districts in order to maintain communities of interest together and respect geographic boundaries.
Butte 1, 4 The county is split as a result of population constraints in neighboring districts.
Contra Costa 7, 9 The county is split in order to keep communities of interest together and as a result of population constraints in neighboring districts. The western portion of the county is kept in SD 7 and the eastern portion of the county is placed in CD 9.
Fresno 12, 14, 16 The county was split in order to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the district containing Kings County.
Kern 14, 16, 17 The county is split in order to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the district containing Kings County.
Los Angeles 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, The county contains sufficient population for multiple districts. On the 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32 western end of the county, the county boundary is crossed as a result of population constraints from neighboring districts. The southern end of the county is not crossed. On the eastern end of the county, SD 29 and SD 32 cross into San Bernardino County in order to maintain equal population in the senate districts wholly contained within Los Angeles County.
Madera 12, 14 The county is split in order to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the district containing Merced County.
Orange 33, 34, 35, 38 The county has sufficient population for multiple districts. Communities of interest are maintained in the central area of the county.
Riverside 31, 37, 40 The county has sufficient population for multiple districts. Communities of interest maintained together along the eastern side of the county.
Sacramento 1, 4, 5, 6 The county has sufficient population for multiple districts. Communities of interest maintained together along the western portion of the county.
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 39 San Bernardino 14, 17, 29, 31, 32 The county boundary is crossed is the west in order to maintain communities of interest within SD 32. The county is boundary is crossed in other areas as a result of population constraints.
San Diego 36, 38, 39, 40 The county line is crossed to the north in order to achieve equal population within the neighboring districts. The county is crossed along the eastern border for SD 40 to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Additionally, the Imperial County and Eastern Coachella Valley communities are united with communities that share similar concerns in the City of San Diego.
San Francisco 3, 8 The county has sufficient population for multiple districts. The county boundary is crossed into Marin County on the north as a result of population constraints in the districts south of San Francisco County.
San Joaquin 5, 12 The county is split in order to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the district containing Merced County. The county was also divided to achieve equal population neighboring districts.
San Mateo 8, 11 The county is divided as a result of population constrains in SD 8 and SD 11.
Santa Clara 10, 11, 13, 15 The county is divided as a result of population constrains in SD 10, SD 11, SD 13, and SD 15. Portions of the county were divided to ensure compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the district containing Monterey County.
Solano 2, 4 The county is divided as a result of population constraints in neighboring districts.
Sonoma 2, 3 The county is divided as a result of population constraints in neighboring districts.
Stanislaus 12, 14 The county is split in order to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the district containing Merced County.
Tulare 14, 16 The county is split in order to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the district containing Kings County.
Ventura 18, 19 The county is divided as a result of population constraints in neighboring districts.
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 40 VOTER DEFERRAL REPORT
Vote deferral occurs when voters scheduled to vote in 2002 (even-numbered senate district elections) are moved to districts not scheduled to vote until 2004 (odd-numbered senate districts), therefore delaying their otherwise normally scheduled chance to vote. The following report analyzes the MALDEF-WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan for the number of voters lost from even-numbered districts to odd-numbered districts as well as the number of voters in odd-numbered districts gained from even- numbered districts.
VOTERS LOST FROM EVEN-NUMBERED DISTRICTS TO ODD-NUMBERED DISTRICTS
Total Population Total Voting Age Total Registered Voters Population
District 2 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 3 89,099 68,896 49,650 Total 89,099 68,896 49,650
District 4 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 1 1,055 688 324 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 5 12,454 9,511 5,646 Total 13,509 10,199 5,970
District 6 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 1 51,884 39,327 26,411 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 5 6,160 4,282 3,284 Total 58,044 43,609 29,695
District 8 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 3 11,757 10,402 8,084 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 11 13,719 10,895 7,454 Total 25,476 21,297 15,538
District 10 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 7 59,825 45,568 31,968 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 9 44 33 4 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 13 33,506 26,262 13,182 Total 93,375 71,863 45,154
District 12 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 5 8,905 5,961 3,841 Total 8,905 5,961 3,841
District 14 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 17 287,900 198,701 142,549 Total 287,900 198,701 142,549
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 41 Total Population Total Voting Age Total Registered Voters Population
District 16 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 17 28,152 20,267 10,989 Total 28,152 20,267 10,989
District 18 Total 0 0 0
District 20 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 21 54,567 45,622 32,055 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 23 43,252 35,441 24,952 Total 97,819 81,063 57,007
District 22 Total 0 0 0
District 24 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 21 2,888 2,192 1,471 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 29 1,090 816 705 Total 3,978 3,008 2,176
District 26 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 25 318 240 192 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 27 47,346 28,348 11,788 Total 47,664 28,588 11,980
District 28 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 25 259,740 185,723 119,953 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 27 96,719 60,550 29,768 Total 356,459 246,273 149,721
District 30 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 27 277,305 174,608 62,434 Total 277,305 174,608 62,434
District 32 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 29 94,357 65,000 38,876 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 31 45,279 32,097 18,671 Total 139,636 97,097 57,547
District 34 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 35 205,679 150,025 84,920 Total 205,679 150,025 84,920
District 36 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 31 413,638 283,495 163,325 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 37 485,226 332,327 212,962 Total 898,864 615,822 376,287
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 42
Total Population Total Voting Age Total Registered Voters Population
District 38 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 33 6,730 5,031 3,785 Total 6,730 5,031 3,785
District 40 Loss to SENATE DISTRICT 39 211,444 153,648 106,504 Total 211,444 153,648 106,504
Total Vote Deferred Population 2,850,038 1,995,956 1,215,747
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 43 VOTERS GAINED FROM EVEN-NUMBERED DISTRICTS TO ODD-NUMBERED DISTRICTS
Total Population Total Voting Age Total Registered Voters Population
District 1 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 4 1,055 688 324 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 6 51,884 39,327 26,411 Total 52,939 40,015 26,735
District 3 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 2 89,099 68,896 49,650 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 8 11,757 10,402 8,084 Total 100,856 79,298 57,734
District 5 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 4 12,454 9,511 5,646 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 6 6,160 4,282 3,284 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 12 8,905 5,961 3,841 Total 27,519 19,754 12,771
District 7 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 10 59,825 45,568 31,968 Total 59,825 45,568 31,968
District 9 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 10 44 33 4 Total 44 33 4
District 11 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 8 13,719 10,895 7,454 Total 13,719 10,895 7,454
District 13 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 10 33,506 26,262 13,182 Total 33,506 26,262 13,182
District 15 Total 0 0 0
District 17 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 14 287,900 198,701 142,549 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 16 28,152 20,267 10,989 Total 316,052 218,968 153,538
District 19 Total 0 0 0
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 44
Total Population Total Voting Age Total Registered Voters Population
District 21 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 20 54,567 45,622 32,055 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 24 2,888 2,192 1,471 Total 57,455 47,814 33,526
District 23 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 20 43,252 35,441 24,952 Total 43,252 35,441 24,952
District 25 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 26 318 240 192 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 28 259,740 185,723 119,953 Total 260,058 185,963 120,145
District 27 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 26 47,346 28,348 11,788 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 28 96,719 60,550 29,768 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 30 277,305 174,608 62,434 Total 421,370 263,506 103,990
District 29 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 24 1,090 816 705 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 32 94,357 65,000 38,876 Total 95,447 65,816 39,581
District 31 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 32 45,279 32,097 18,671 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 36 413,638 283,495 163,325 Total 458,917 315,592 181,996
District 33 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 38 6,730 5,031 3,785 Total 6,730 5,031 3,785
District 35 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 34 205,679 150,025 84,920 Total 205,679 150,025 84,920
District 37 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 36 485,226 332,327 212,962 Total 485,226 332,327 212,962
District 39 Gain from SENATE DISTRICT 40 211,444 153,648 106,504 Total 211,444 153,648 106,504
MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan July 31, 2001 – Sacramento, California 45
APPENDIX A TRADITIONAL REDISTRICTING CRITERIA
MALDEF and WCVI have ensured that each of the districts in this redistricting plan comply with traditional redistricting criteria and the population equity requirements of the United States Constitution. These traditional redistricting criteria are outlined in the California State Constitution.1 They are also reflected in the guidelines adopted by both the Senate Elections and Reapportionment Committee (“Senate Elections Committee”)2 and the California State Assembly Elections, Reapportionment, and Constitutional Amendments Committee (“Assembly Elections Committee”).3
United States Constitution
The “equal representation” standard embodied in Art I, § 2 of the United States Constitution requires congressional districts within a state be drawn to achieve equal populations “as nearly as is practicable.”4 Thus, obtaining an absolute population equality among districts is a paramount objective.5
While state redistricting is not held to as strict a standard as congressional redistricting, states must nonetheless make a good faith effort to ensure that the districts adopted by the legislature comply with the one-person, one vote standard.6 State redistricting plans have been held unconstitutional where population deviations were too high.7 Generally, if a plan’s deviation is under 10% the plan is presumed to be prima facie constitutional and those plans substantially
1See Cal. Const. art. XXI, § 1; Wilson v. Eu, 4 Cal Rptr.2d 379, 1 Cal. 4th 707 (1992); Legislature v. Reinecke, 10 Cal .3d 396, 402, 410-14 (1973),[ hereinafter Reinecke IV].
2See California State Senate Elections Committee Website, available at http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/COMMITTEE/STANDING/EL/_home/requirements.htp (June 22, 2001).
3See Assembly Elections Committee Website, “Redistricting Plans Submitted By Members of the Public, I.F.1-8,” available at “http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/committee/c7/publications/tpsguidelines.pdf”.
4See U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 730 (1983); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1964).
5Karcher, 462 U.S. at 732.
6Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842 (1983); see also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 578 (1964); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973) (noting the distinction between congressional and state legislative redistricting).; Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973).
7See e.g. Gorin v. Karpan, 775 F. Supp. 1430 (D. Wyo. 1991).
1 exceeding 10% may require justification.8
In Reinecke v. Legislature, the California Supreme Court required lower population deviations among districts. There, the Court stated that “[t]he population of senate and assembly districts should be within 1% of the ideal except in unusual circumstances, and in no event should a deviation greater than 2%.”9 The MALDEF-WCVI Assembly and Senate redistricting plans fall well below this threshold and in no instance is the overall population deviation for our proposed senate districts above .27% and for our proposed assembly districts is the deviation above .47%. Average deviations for our senate and assembly districts are .07% and .15%, respectively.
State Constitutional Requirements
Article XXI, § 1 of the California Constitution outlines the standards for senatorial, assembly, congressional, and board of equalization redistricting. District populations must be reasonably equal in size, must be contiguous and numbered consecutively from north to south, must maintain the geographic integrity of cities and counties or cities and counties together, and finally, must respect California’s geographic regions to the extent possible without violating other state constitutional requirements.10
State Legislative Guidelines
The Senate Elections Committee has identified the following redistricting guidelines that largely comport with the criteria outlined in Article XXI § 1: “2) All districts within a statewide plan must be as close to perfect population equality as possible. Legal requirements mandate Congressional districts achieve virtual population equality. There is somewhat more flexibility for state legislative and Board of Equalization districts than for Congressional districts, but given current technological capabilities, and given the Committee’s preference for strict adherence to “one-person-one-vote,” anything other than very small population deviations may be unacceptable – and must be accompanied by written justification. 3) Within each body (Senate, Congress, etc.), every district must be contiguous and districts must be consecutively numbered from north to south. 4) California’s Constitution requires that the number of unnecessary city and county splits be minimized. Plans must be accompanied with a listing of, and an explanation for all unnecessary city and county splits.”11 The Assembly Elections Committee guidelines are
8See Gaffney, 412 U.S. 835; Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1 (1975); Quilter v. Voinovich, 857 F.Supp 579 (N.D. Ohio 1994); Marylanders for Fair Redistricting Inc. v. Schaefer, 849 F.Supp. 1022 (D. MD. 1994).
9110 Cal.Rptr. 718, 727 (Cal. 1973).
10See Cal. Const. art. XXI, § 1 (b)-(e); Wilson v. Eu, 4 Cal Rpt.2d 379, 383 (Cal. 1992).
11See California State Senate Elections Committee Website, available at http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/COMMITTEE/STANDING/EL/_home/requirements.htp (June 22, 2001).
2 substantially similar.12
12See California Assembly Elections Committee Website, “Redistricting Plans Submitted By Members of the Public, I.F.1-8,” available at “http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/committee/c7/publications/tpsguidelines.pdf”.
3
APPENDIX B THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protect minority voters during redistricting. The Voting Rights Act prohibits the denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group and provides legal recourse for communities disenfranchised by any electoral system that contains or perpetuates systemic barriers to equitable participation and fair representation.1 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the enactment of redistricting plans which deliberately minimize minority political power.2 By enforcing compliance with constitutional and statutory voting rights laws, MALDEF and WCVI are committed to ensuring that Latinos are provided with every opportunity to participate as equal partners in our democracy.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, enacted by the United States Congress in 1965, prohibits practices or procedures that dilute the voting strength of minorities.3 The underlying purpose behind the enactment of the Voting Rights Act has been “to eliminate the negative
1See 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (2001).
2See Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 777-78 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming district court’s finding that the County of Los Angeles intentionally discriminated against Hispanics in violation of Section 2 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).
3Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, as amended, prohibits any practice that has the intent or the result of denying a citizen of the United States the right to vote on account of race, color or status as a language minority. Section 2 states in pertinent part:
(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.
1 effects of past discrimination on the electoral opportunities of minorities.”4 In essence, “Section 2 guarantees a fair process” during redistricting.5 In 1982, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act to reaffirm “the right of minority voters to be free from election practices, procedures, or methods, that deny them the same opportunity to participate in the political process other citizens enjoy.”6 To reach discriminatory conduct which might otherwise evade liability under the more stringent intent standard established earlier in City of Mobile v. Bolden,7 the amendment created a “results-based” test to analyze a vote dilution claim.8
Vote dilution most commonly occurs when those who draw redistricting plans compress minority communities into a sub-optimal number of districts (packing) or spread them thinly into a large number of districts (fracturing or splitting). Both actions may result in the minority group’s vote being diluted and both actions can give rise to a claim under the Voting Rights Act and should be avoided when redistricting.
Determination of whether there is a dilution of minority voting strength is governed by the legal principles articulated in Thornburg v. Gingles.9 There, the Supreme Court set forth three preconditions a minority group must prove to establish a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act:
1). the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; 2.) the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive, that is, it usually votes for the same candidates; and 3.) the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.10
“The essence of a § 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice or structure interacts with social or historical conditions to cause an inequality in opportunities enjoyed by [minority] and
4Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 65 (1986).
5See Ruiz v. Santa Maria, 160 F.3d 543, 549 (9th Cir. 1998).
6S. Rep. No. 97-417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. (1982) at 28, reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 206 [hereinafter “S. Rep.”].
7City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) (stating that racially discriminatory motivation is a necessary ingredient of a Fifteenth Amendment violation).
8See generally, S. Rep.
9See Gingles, 478 U.S. 30.
10Id. at 50-51; Ruiz, 160 F.3d at 549.
2 white voters to elect their preferred representatives.”11
Once these three pre-conditions are established, a determination must be made as to whether, under “the totality of the circumstances” the minority group had less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the electoral process and to elect representatives of their choice. “[T]he question of whether the political processes are equally open depends upon a searching practical evaluation of the ‘past and present’ reality.”12
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, aside from the protections embodied in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, also protects minority voters from intentional discrimination. In Garza v. County of Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district finding that county supervisors’ fragmentation of the Hispanic population by which to achieve self- preservation, constituted intentional discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.13
During the past decade, a number of federal courts have found certain minority-majority districts to be unconstitutionally race-based. In the most recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court on the legislative constraints imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court in Hunt v. Cromartie held that legislative redistricting decisions are to be accorded deference, even in light of allegations of race-based redistricting.14 The Court held that “the party attacking the legislature’s decision bears the burden of proving that racial considerations are dominant and controlling.”15 In upholding the majority-minority districts, the Court determined that where political behavior correlated closely with race and in the absence of sufficient evidence that racial considerations predominated over traditional redistricting criteria, a legislature’s decision to
11Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47. Rights afforded by Section 2 extend to members of all protected classes of racial and ethnic minorities, including Hispanics. See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 43; Gomez v. City of Watsonville, 863 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1080, 109 U.S. 1534 (1989); 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(4)(f)(2) prohibits voting discrimination on account of membership in a “language minority group.” The definition of “language minority group”includes “persons who are . . . of Spanish heritage.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(c)(3).
12Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45. The Senate Judiciary Committee Report accompanying the 1982 amendments to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act listed these non-exclusive factors as relevant to the totality of the circumstances inquiry: (1) the history of official discrimination touching upon the right of the minority group to vote or otherwise participate in the political process; (2) the extent to which voting is racially polarized; (3) the extent to which voting practices or procedures have been used to discriminate against the minority group (including use of at-large election systems); (4) the extent to which minority candidates have been denied access to a candidate slating process; (5) the extent to which the minority group bears the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment and health which hinder their ability to participate in the political process; (6) whether political campaigns have been subject to racial appeals; (7) the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office. See Ruiz, 160 F.3d at 550 n. 15; S. Rep. at 28-29; see also Gingles, 478 U.S. at 48 n15.
13Garza, 918 F.2d at 769-70.
14Hunt v. Cromartie, 121 S. Ct. 1452 (2001).
15Id. at 1466 (internal quotations omitted); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 913 (1995).
3 create districts to achieve political objectives will be upheld.16 “[T]he legislature always is aware of race when it draws district lines, just as it is aware of age, economic status, religious and political persuasion, and a variety of other demographic factors. That sort of race consciousness does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination.”17
Indeed, there are instances where racial considerations must predominate over other considerations, where the legislature has a compelling interest in the protections of the rights of minority voters under the Voting Rights Act. Where minority district plans are narrowly tailored to comply with the State’s obligations under the Voting Rights Act, the districts are constitutional.18
Accordingly, the creation of a majority-minority district is not inherently suspect under the Fourteenth Amendment unless race predominates over all other traditional redistricting criteria.19 Even when racial considerations trump other criteria, districts that are created to protect geographically compact areas of cohesive minority voting strength, or are drawn to avoid retrogression in a Section 5-covered County, do no violence to the Constitution, and indeed are compelled by the Voting Rights Act. Redistricting plans that dilute minority voting strength are still illegal under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.20
MALDEF - WCVI Plan Complies With Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
In the Senate redistricting plan submitted by MALDEF and WCVI, racial considerations do not predominate over other traditional redistricting criteria. Given MALDEF’s and WCVI’s extensive community outreach across California, where we obtained firsthand, ways in which people defined their own communities and the representational interests they had in common with their neighbors, and given our consideration of socio-economic data and our respect for
16Id. 121 S. Ct. at 1466.
17Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (holding that allegations of excessive and unjustified use of race in a redistricting scheme were cognizable under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment); see also Miller, 515 U.S. at 916 (stating that discriminatory purpose “implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences. It implies that the decisionmaker . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects . . . .”); Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 958 (1996).
18See Bush, 517 U.S. at 977, 990-94; Shaw v. Hunt, 116 S. Ct. 1894, 1905 (1996 ); Miller, 515 U.S. at 921.
19Cromartie, 121 S. Ct. at 1458.
20See e.g. Sanchez v. Colorado, 97 F.3d 1303, 1315-16 (10th Cir. 1996) cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1229 (1997) (state legislative districts unlawfully diluted voting strength of Latino voters); Rural West Tennessee African- American Affairs Council v. Sundquist, 209 F.3d 835 (6th Cir. 2000) (affirming lower court’s finding that Tennessee’s 1994 legislative redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act); Clark v. Calhoun County, Miss., 88 F.3d 1393 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that “Calhoun County’s districting system dilutes minority voting strength in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.”).
4 traditional redistricting criteria, including compactness, contiguity, political subdivision boundaries, and the state’s basic geographic regions, this Senate redistricting plan stands firmly within all constitutional, federal and state legal requirements.
Furthermore, in the event of a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection challenge to these districts, and even if a court found that racial considerations predominated over traditional redistricting criteria in this plan, the creation of these districts is fully justified by the necessity of compliance with the Voting Rights Act. In those areas of California where populations shifts over the past decade have created new sufficiently numerous and geographically compact Latino communities, where racially polarized voting results in unequal opportunities for Latinos to elect the candidate of their choice, this plan creates the Section 2 senate districts required by law.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
The persistence of widespread discrimination against minority voters prompted Congress to enact Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.21 Unlike Section 2 which applies to every jurisdiction, Section 5 applies only to certain jurisdictions for which there has been a finding by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that the jurisdiction had a history of discrimination against minority voters and that minorities had been denied an effective voice in the electoral process. Low minority voter registration and turnout also resulted in certain jurisdictions falling within Section 5 coverage. In California, the counties of Kings, Merced, Monterey, and Yuba are subject to Section 5 coverage.22
Section 5 requires covered jurisdictions to submit all laws affecting voting for federal government review to ensure that a proposed change “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.”23 Prior to enactment of practices or procedures affecting voting, jurisdictions must seek either administrative preclearance from the Department of Justice or judicial preclearance from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.24
In jurisdictions covered by Section 5, changes in election laws or procedures must not be
21See S. Rep.
22See 28 C.F.R. § 51.4(c); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(3). In 1965, California became subject to Section 5 when coverage provisions were expanded to include the practice of providing election information, such as ballots, only in English or in political subdivisions where members of a single language minority constituted more than five percent of the citizens of voting age.
2342 U.S.C. § 1973(c) “prohibits the enforcement in any jurisdiction covered by Section 4(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973(b), of any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on the date used to determine coverage” until precleared. See also 28 C.F.R. § 51.1(a).
24See Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 120 S. Ct. 866, 871-72 (2000).
5 given effect if those changes cause retrogression in the voting strength of minority groups. The covered jurisdiction must show that the voting change is not tainted, even in part, by an invidious racial purpose and will not have a retrogressive effect.25
For purposes of redistricting, special care must be taken to ensure that changes to the shape of Congressional, Senate, and Assembly electoral districts do not retrogress the voting strength of minorities in Kings, Monterey, Yuba, and Merced counties.26
To determine whether a proposed change has a retrogressive effect on the voting strength of minorities requires an examination of several factors. The essential inquiries in a Section 5 retrogression analysis is whether minority voters are in a worse position under the proposed plan than they are under the existing plans. The first level of analysis begins with an examination of the existing districts with 2000 racial Census data, which is then compared with 2000 Census racial data of the proposed districts.
Several other considerations inform a retrogression analysis. “Election history and voting patterns within the jurisdiction, voter registration and turnout information, and other similar information are very important to an assessment of the actual effect of a redistricting plan . . . [and] is used to compare minority voting strength in the proposed plan as a whole.”27 Based on a review of this information, the Department of Justice examines issues of minority representation and the extent to which minorities have been denied an equal opportunity to participate meaningfully in the political process.28 Further analysis includes determination of the extent to which malapportionment, fragmentation or overconcentration of minorities, and the extent to which a proposed redistricting plan departs from traditional redistricting criteria or its stated redistricting standards, reduce the voting strength of minorities.29
The MALDEF/WCVI Senate redistricting plan improves, not retrogresses, minority voting strength for Latinos, African Americans, and Asian/Pacific Islander communities. In the
25See Bossier, 528 U.S. 320; Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358, 378-79 (1975); Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 140-42 (1976); Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 172 (1980); Busbee v. Smith, 549 F.Supp. 494, 516-17 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d, 459 U.S. 1166 (1983); Wilkes County v. United States, 450 F. Supp. 1171, 1177 (D.D.C. 1978); 28 C.F.R. § 51.54.
26See Lopez v. Monterey County, 119 S. Ct. 693, 701 (1999) (stating that “even where the jurisdiction exercises no discretion in giving effect to a state-mandated change, we conclude that the County is required to seek preclearance before implementing California laws that effect voting changes in the County”).
27“Guidance Concerning Redistricting and Retrogression Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1973(c); Notice,” 66 Fed. Reg. at 2 (2001); see also 28 C.F.R. § 51.28(a) (outlining other information considered useful as including, but not limited to: demographic data, registration data, election returns).
2828 C.F.R. § 51.58.
2928 C.F.R. § 51.59.
6 four Senate districts that contain Section 5 covered counties, (District 1 - Yuba County; District 17 - Monterey County; District 12 - Merced County; District 16 - Kings County), this redistricting plan is not retrogressive.
7
APPENDIX C STATEMENT OF SECTION 2 COMPLIANCE
The MALDEF-WCVI Congressional, Senate, and Assembly Redistricting plans contain several districts that contain legally protectable communities under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Several of these were originally identified by the California Special Masters in 1991 and these have been maintained in our Congressional, Senate, and Assembly Redistricting Plans.
MALDEF and its experts have identified those districts that are protected by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act based on a legal analysis that includes the evidentiary factors that would guide a federal court in making that determination. The evidence addresses the three prongs of Thornbug v. Gingles,1 as well as historical and political factors that aid the courts in evaluating whether a plan illegally dilutes minority voting strength.
We set forth below a summary of the evidentiary basis for our conclusions in order to aid this Legislature in enforcing its compelling interest in enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The districts submitted by MALDEF-WCVI, which are protected as majority Latino districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, include:2
Congressional Districts: Assembly Districts:
Congressional District 20 Assembly District 28 Congressional District 26 Assembly District 30 Congressional District 30 Assembly District 31 Congressional District 31 Assembly District 36 Congressional District 33 Assembly District 39 Congressional District 34 Assembly District 45 Congressional District 38 Assembly District 46 Assembly District 50 Senate Districts: Assembly District 56 Assembly District 57 Senate District 16 Assembly District 58 Senate District 22 Assembly District 61 Senate District 24 Assembly District 69 Senate District 27 Assembly District 79 Senate District 30 Senate District 40
1473 U.S. 30 (1986).
2Note, all district numbers refer to those submitted in the MALDEF-WCVI plan and are not based on a renumbered scheme.
1 Latinos in These Districts Have An Opportunity to Elect Candidates of Their Choice.
The districts listed above provide Latinos with an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. The districts do not fragment or over-concentrate Latino communities into districts that dilute their vote. The Latino population within these districts is geographically compact, and sufficiently large such that Latinos have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. Furthermore, based on an in-depth analysis by Professor Morgan Kousser, Latinos in each of these districts will have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.3 See Appendix D, “The Role of Cross-Over Districts in a Fair Redistricting: Lessons From the 1990s.” Kousser’s analysis indicates that in the Section 2 districts listed above, Latinos constitute a sufficient percentage of the registrants such that they can effectively elect a candidate of their choice.
Racially Polarized Voting Still Exists In California
Unfortunately, racially polarized voting persists in California, thus demonstrating the continued need for and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. MALDEF’s consultants have conducted preliminary racial polarization analysis of elections occurring during the decade and have found evidence of polarization, particularly in Southern California.
Several cases in California have resulted in findings of racially polarized voting in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In Garza v. County of Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district finding that county supervisors’ fragmentation of the Hispanic population by which to achieve self-preservation, constituted intentional discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.4 In Garza, racially polarized voting was found to be a feature of supervisorial elections in Los Angeles County – Latinos voted cohesively and Anglos voted as a bloc to defeat the Latino preferred candidate. In Gomez v. City of Watsonville the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court finding that Latinos did not vote cohesively.5 There, the court found that racially polarized voting existed in Watsonville elections and held that its at- large system of electing mayors and city councilpersons was an “ impermissible obstacle to the ability of Hispanics to participate effectively in the political process.”6
3See Appendix D, “The Role of Cross-Over Districts in a Fair Redistricting: Lessons From the 1990s.”
4918 F.2d 763, 769-70 (1990).
5863 F.2d 1407, 1415-16 (9th Cir. 1988).
6Id. at 1419.
2 In addition, during the 1990's several racially polarizing statewide initiatives were introduced to the electorate. Propositions 187, 209, and 227, see supra, Senate Factor 6, provide dramatic examples of races that were not only racially divisive in the daily portrayals of Latinos, in political campaigns and news media, they also resulted in racially polarized voting.
Latinos Face Unequal Opportunities Than Other Members of Electorate to Participate in the Electoral Process.
A review of the “totality of the circumstances” indicates that Latinos continue to have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the electoral process and to elect representatives of their choice. In addition to the Gingles preconditions, the court must inquire into whether, under the totality of circumstances, vote dilution exists in the challenged jurisdiction. The Senate Factors, provided in the Senate Judiciary Committee Report to Section 2 and adopted by the Supreme Court in Gingles, are intended to assist the Court in determining whether the challenged practice or structure results in a lack of plaintiffs’ equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice.7
There is no requirement that all seven factors be met or that “any particular number of factors be proved, or that a majority of them point one way or the other.”8 “The courts ordinarily have not used these factors . . . as a mechanical ‘point counting’ device . . . . Rather, the provision requires the court’s overall judgment, based on the totality of circumstances and guided by those relevant factors in the particular case, of whether the voting strength of minority voters is, in the language of Fortson and Burns, ‘minimized or canceled out.’”9
The Court in Gingles emphasized that the Senate Factors should be applied with an eye toward a “practical evaluation of the ‘past and present reality’ and on a ‘functional’ view of the political process.”10 Within this “totality of the circumstances inquiry,” factors other than the three Gingles prongs are supportive of, but not essential to a claim under Section 2.11
The Senate Judiciary Committee Report accompanying the 1982 amendments to Section
7Thornburg v. Gingles, 473 U.S. at 36-37, 44-45 (1986).
8S. Rep. at 29.
9Id. at 29 n.118.
10 478 U.S. at 45, (quoting S. Rep. at 30 n.120).
11Gomez, 863 F.2d at 1419 (citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 48 n.15).
3 2 of the Voting Rights Act listed these non-exclusive factors as relevant to the totality of the circumstances inquiry: (1) the history of official discrimination touching upon the right of the minority group to vote or otherwise participate in the political process; (2) the extent to which voting is racially polarized; (3) the extent to which voting practices or procedures have been used to discriminate against the minority group (including use of at-large election systems); (4) the extent to which minority candidates have been denied access to a candidate slating process; (5) the extent to which the minority group bears the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment and health which hinder their ability to participate in the political process; (6) whether political campaigns have been subject to racial appeals; (7) the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office.12
Senate Factor One
Latinos in California have been subjected to official discrimination that has affected their right to register, to vote, or otherwise participate in the democratic process. Since the United States’ acquisition of Mexican territory in 1848, official discrimination and discreet forms of racism have obstructed Latinos from exercising their right to participate in the democratic process in California.
The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provided that all Mexicans living in the newly acquired territory would enjoy full rights as citizens of the United States. Article IX of the treaty provided that Mexicans remaining in the territories “shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States . . . to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States according to the principles of the Constitution.”13 Despite the Treaty, California lawmakers limited the franchise to white male citizens. Article II, Section 1 of the 1850 California Constitution granted the right to vote to white male citizens of Mexico and denied it to Mexicans of mixed Indian blood.14
During the 1850's Hispanics in Southern California were successful in securing positions such as “...tax assessors, election referees, surveyors, court clerks, and translators; as party delegates and national committeemen; as town constables, councilmen, and mayors; as assemblymen and senators; as trial jurors and coroner's jurors; and as justices of the peace, judges
12See Ruiz v. Santa Maria, 160 F.3d 543, 550 n15; S. Rep. at 28-29; see also Gingles, 478 U.S. at 48 n15.
13Hunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America 219 (Washington, D.C., Vol. V 1937).
14Walton Bean, California: An Interpretive History 130 (McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1968).
4 of the plains, and district judges.”15 Hispanics were also successful in areas such as Santa Barbara as well. Since the Mexican American population constituted a majority of the voters, they elected Hispanic representatives. Racial bloc voting usually occurred when Anglos sought public office. As noted by a local prominent Anglo:
“‘The Americans have very little influence in the elections, but in a few years they will have all the power and they won't consult the Californians about anything ... The Californians have a majority of the votes. When they are united [which was usually the case when an Anglo and Mexican candidate vie for the same position] they can elect whomever they wish.’”16
In Santa Barbara, a major turning point was the 1874 city elections which resulted in the first Anglo mayor and the demise of the Mexican voting bloc.17 The Anglo political forces sought the reincorporation of the city. In an unusual twist, as part of the reincorporation effort, the method of election for the city council was changed from an at-large election scheme to a ward or single-member districting scheme. Under the at-large election scheme, the Mexican American community exercised greater control by selecting a greater number of city officials. However, under the new districting plan, the Hispanic community was relegated primarily to one district. Thus, the Hispanic community which previously had an impact on the selection of the entire city council was confined to the selection of one city council person:
“The new wardship system brought to an end the influence Chicanos once wielded in local general elections; now they were able to elect only one city councilman, whose
15Leonard Pitt, The Decline of the Californios, A Social History of the Spanish-Speaking Californians, 1846-1890 147 (University of California Press 1966).
16Albert Camarillo, Chicanos in a Changing Society, From Mexican Pueblos to American Barrios in Santa Barbara and Southern California, 1848-1930 23 (Harvard University Press 1979):
“By 1855 Anglos began to contest the political power arrangements of Mexican Santa Barbara. Through the columns of the Gazette the editors and other Anglos directed attacks against `bad city politics' and the Mexican practice of bloc voting. ... The 1855 city, county, and state elections are good examples of Mexican election control. ... Although Anglos were able to elect representatives to the Common Council in 1857, they remained a subordinate political force in the city and county throughout the 1850's and early 1860's.”
(footnote omitted).
17Camarillo, supra note 16, at 71-72.
5 voting power was negated by a four-to-one margin.”18
Although Article XI, Section 21 of California’s Constitution of 1849 reflected the Treaty of Guadalupe’s guarantee that Mexicans be allowed to maintain their Spanish language and participate fully as citizens through bilingual publications of laws, regulations and other official documents, this requirement was ignored by the state legislature and local governments, and it was officially rescinded from the Constitution in 1879. Thus, any documents relating to elections were not published in Spanish.19
In 1894, the political alienation of Hispanics was exacerbated by the adoption of an English literacy requirement to vote. This constitutional amendment denied the right of suffrage to any male person who was not able to read in English and write his name. This literacy amendment was initiated as a means of denying suffrage to Mexicans in California without directly and overtly violating the protections of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Article II, Section 1 of the California Constitution further limited suffrage to free White persons including members of the White or Caucasian race as distinct from the “black, red, yellow and brown races.”20
More recent analysis of the 1894 literacy requirement finds, “[t]here is every reason to suspect that the provision remained largely a dead letter: certainly it was not enforced among the Italians of San Francisco in the first decades of this century nor against Yiddish speaking Los Angeles Jews in the years after 1920, nor even against the newly naturalized Issei after 1952. The sole enforcement, and that largely sporadic, seems to have been against a group more native than the nativists themselves: the Spanish speaking Mexican-Americans whose recent increased political activity has resulted in the first significant use of the Gilded Age voting restriction.”21
The English literacy requirement remained law until as recently as 1970 when it was successfully challenged in state court. In Castro v. State of California, the court found that “fear and hatred played a significant role” in the legislature’s passage of the English literacy voting
18Id. at 71. As part of the continuing campaign to limit Hispanic political participation in Santa Barbara, Chicanos were excluded from participation in the county's Democratic Party convention in the early 1880's. See id. at 75.
19Pitt, supra note 15, at 46.
20Paul Mason, ed., Constitution of the State of California, at 390 [Annotated] (California State Printing Office, 1946).
21Bruce C. Bollinger, California Election Law During the Sixties and Seventies: Liberalization and Centralization 55, 59-60 in Annotated California Codes, Elections Code Sections 1 to 5999 (West Publishing 1968) (1977).
6 requirement.22 However, the case only challenged the use of English for determining whether a potential voter met the literacy requirement and did not directly challenge the literacy requirement itself. Thus, literacy tests in Spanish were permissible under the Castro decision until 1970, when Congress amended the Voting Rights Act to require a nationwide five-year ban on the use of literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting.23
California’s hostility to minority political participation was also apparent when California delegates to the 1869 Democratic state convention rejected the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “that we are opposed to the adoption of the proposed Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution believing the same to be designed, and if adopted, certain to degrade the right of suffrage; to ruin the laboring White man, by bringing untold hordes of Pagan slaves . . .into direct competition with his efforts to earn a livelihood. . . to give the Negro and Chinaman the right to vote and hold office . . . .” The delegates also passed the following resolution: “That the democracy of California now and always confide in the intelligence, patriotism, and discriminating justice of the White people of the country to administer and control their government without the aid of either Negroes or Chinese.”24
There anti-Black and anti-Chinese forces in California also held strong prejudices against Mexicans. The 1890s coalition supporting literacy voting restrictions had a very definite anti- Mexican position. Noting that “Mexico, a nation of ‘mongrels and half-breeds’ had [once] fallen to European imperial designs,” it warned Americans “that if we go on mixing and mongrelizing the people of this nation, as we have been doing, and as sentimentalists would have us continue to do, a time will come when a foreign expeditionary force will put a European emperor in the White House and keep him there.”25
Barriers to Latino electoral participation were also written into the California election law. [Former] Section 5567 of the California Elections Code, as adopted in 1941, required that elections be conducted in the English language and prohibited election officials from speaking any language other than English while on duty. This meant that election services were not available to limited English speaking and non-English speaking Mexican American citizens. The
22 2 Cal.3d 223, 231, 85 Cal.Rptr. 20, 466 P.2d 244 (Cal. 1970). (California Constitutional provision requiring ability to read English as a prerequisite for voting declared unconstitutional as applied to those literate in another language).
2342 U.S.C. § 1973aa. The nationwide ban on literacy tests became permanent in 1975. S. Rep. No. 94- 295, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 789 (1975), reprinted in 1975 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 774.
24Winfield Davis, History of Political Conventions in California, 1849-1892 289-291 (Publication of the California State Library No. 1, Sacramento, California 1983).
25Id. at 496.
7 Elections Code also provided that voters could be challenged at the polls to read in English one hundred words of the U.S. Constitution.26
Not only did Latinos find barriers to electoral participation written into California laws, but they also found them at the polling places where they were intimidated and physically prevented from exercising their right to vote. In the 1950s, when two Mexican Americans (Roybal and Lopez) ran for political office in California, “Republican Party workers blocked Mexicans trying to vote.”27 In 1960, in Orange County there were mass challenges of Latino voters. “Harassment was such that many people who were legally entitled to vote were intimidated to the degree that they left the polls without voting.”28 In 1962, the Attorney General reported that unauthorized signs at polls warning voters of the literacy requirement intimidated some Hispanics from voting.29
In Santa Barbara, Mexican Americans were politically disenfranchised in the late nineteenth century as Anglo Americans became the dominant population and created policies to remove native-born Spanish-speaking people from participation in local politics through gerrymandering and outright exclusion from Santa Barbara’s Democratic Party Central Committee. Mexican Americans in other towns in southern California suffered similar fates. The effects of this political disenfranchisement persisted for generations.
Another area of voting discrimination involved the redistricting of congressional and legislative districts. The redistricting efforts in the 1960's in California did affect the impact of Hispanic voting strength. Unfortunately, it was not a positive impact. There was a consistent pattern of fragmenting the Chicano communities in the Los Angeles area. For the 1961 redistricting, then council person Edward Roybal, testified before the Reapportionment and Elections Committees of the Senate and Assembly of the necessity to create Hispanic districts.30 Interviews with Hispanic activists indicated "... that there was minimal participation of Chicanos in the 1961 redistricting process."31 Moreover, since there were no Hispanic representatives in
26Bollinger, supra note 21, at 61.
27Ralph Guzman, “Politics and Policies of the Mexican American Community,” in California Politics and Policies 350, 367 (Eugene P. Dvorin & Arthur J. Misner, eds., 1966).
28Bollinger, supra note 21, at 60, n.7, (citing a letter from Hazel L. Lewis, Executive Secretary of the Orange County Democratic Central Committee to Joseph Wyatt, dated Dec. 14, 1960).
29Id. at 63. 30Richard Santillan, ed., The Hispanic Community and Redistricting, Volume I 43 (The Rose Institute, Claremont McKenna College 1981) [hereinafter Redistricting Vol. I.].
31Id. at 45. According to these activists, this absence of involvement in the 1961 redistricting process
8 the state legislature, there was no one who could at least monitor the proceedings for the Mexican American community.
The 1961 redistricting plan resulted in the blatant gerrymandering of the Latino community in the Los Angeles area. The community was divided into six assembly districts by the state Democrats. This fragmentation of the Latino community has been a persistent theme in redistrictings controlled by the Democratic Party. Since the Mexican American registered voters were primarily identified with the Democratic Party, state party officials used these Democratic voting blocs and distributed them among the various Democratic assembly and senate districts.32 Perhaps the most significant impact of the 1961 redistricting process was the creation of a congressional district which made it possible for Edward Roybal to become the only Congress person from California in the 1962 elections.33 Although the results of the 1962 elections resulted in the election of 2 Hispanics to the State Assembly, their assembly seats were marginally Hispanic. Thus both lost their seats in subsequent elections.34
The 1961 plan for the state senate was challenged in both state and federal courts after the United States Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691 (1962).35
was due to the "...Chicanos' lack of awareness of the reapportionment process; the focusing of Chicano interest on local rather than statewide issues; the absence of Chicanos in the Legislature who might have informed the Chicano community about the importance of redistricting; and more concern on the part of Chicano activist to register Chicanos to vote than to create Chicano districts."
32 T. Anthony Quinn, Redrawing the Lines: 1961, A Study of the Redistricting Process in California 10 (The Rose Institute of State and Local Government, Claremont Men's College) (not dated):
"Spanish-speaking neighborhoods regularly returned huge Democratic majorities, but they exerted no political power of their own. Unruh and Crown saw such Hispanic neighborhoods as putty, to be shaped as necessary to maximize Democratic opportunities. The huge East Los Angeles barrio would be divided among six Assembly Districts, and in 1962 all but one of these would be captured by Anglo-Democrats."
33Id., at 49 ("Under the 1961 plan, his [Congress person McDonough's] district was largely dismembered, and its declining Republican base was divided among three neighboring districts. The bulk of McDonough's district was shifted to East Los Angeles, and he was defeated handily in 1962 by Democratic City Councilman Edward Roybal, who became the first -- and only -- Hispanic Congressman from California.").
34Redistricting Vol. I, supra note 30, at 45-46.
35Yorty v. Anderson, 60 Cal.2d 312, 33 Cal.Rptr. 97, 384 P.2d 417 (cal. 1963) (state court challenge); Silver v. Jordan, 241 F.Supp. 576 (S.D. Cal. 1964), aff'd, 381 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1572, 14 L.Ed.2d 689 (1965) (federal court challenge).
9 The result of this initial court action was the declaration of the state senate districts as unconstitutional. However, the state legislature was permitted an opportunity to correct the population imbalances. Since the legislature adjourned without a new senatorial redistricting plan, another action was instituted. This action challenged both the state assembly districts as well as the state senate districts.36 The subsequent action resulted in the implementation of a temporary court ordered plan for the 1966 party primary and general elections. As with the previous litigation, the temporary court ordered plan for the senate and assembly districts would be implemented only in the event the Legislature was not able to redistrict in time for the 1966 elections.
The California Legislature did act. The 1965 redistricting plan for the assembly and senate districts in California continued the fragmentation of the Hispanic community in the Los Angeles area.37 Litigation also followed the adoption of the 1965 redistricting plans. In this subsequent litigation, the Court was requested by both the Governor and the Legislature to correct certain technical deficiencies of the 1965 plan. The Court agreed and adopted the necessary technical corrections; the plan was subsequently declared constitutional.
The Court also for the first time discussed the issue of whether minority voting rights had been diluted or impermissibly minimized as the result of the two at-large senatorial districts in counties of San Francisco and Alameda. The 1965 senate redistricting provided for two members to be elected at-large in each of the two counties. In discounting the claim of minority vote dilution, the Court stated:
"Although there are substantial racial, ethnic, and political minorities in the districts involved, no purpose to minimize or cancel their voting strength appears, and it is sheer speculation to assume that dividing the at-large districts into single-member districts would substantially affect the voting strength of any of the minorities involved. Indeed, even more suspect under the equal protection clause than at-large districting would be districting that concentrated minority voting strength in a single-member district for the purpose of minimizing
36Silver v. Brown, 46 Cal.Rptr. 308, 405 P.2d 132 (Cal. 1965) (en banc).
37Redistricting Vol. I, supra note 30, at 46:
"The Assembly plan offers a good example of gerrymandering practices. Five Assembly districts -- the 40th, 45th, 48th, 50th, and 51st -- all dipped into East Los Angeles for 20-30 percent of their registered voters, while five other Assembly districts -- the 52nd, 53rd, 56th, 65th, and 66th --all dipped in for smaller percentages. As was the case in 1961, this gerrymandering by the Democratic party leadership was designed to re-elect non-Chicano Democratic incumbents from the districts in question."
10 such strength elsewhere."38
The Court's dicta suggests that the concept of minority districts was not one to be recognized in the state courts during the 1960's.
The 1965 redistrictings did not include the congressional districts. The 1961 congressional redistricting plan was challenged in a separate lawsuit filed in 1965.39 However, due to the impending election schedule the state Supreme Court permitted the congressional redistricting plan to be used for the 1966 election even though the plan was declared unconstitutional. The Court permitted the Legislature an opportunity in 1967 to adopt a constitutional redistricting plan replacing the 1961 malapportioned plan. After a request for delaying the congressional redistricting until after the publication of the 1970 census data was denied by the Court,40 the Legislature presented the 1967 congressional redistricting plan for judicial approval. The Court subsequently approved the plan.41
The 1966 and 1967 redistricting plans had a discriminatory impact on the voting strength of Hispanics in the east Los Angeles area. Nevertheless, representation by the Mexican American community improved. The 1967 congressional redistricting plan continued the fragmentation of the Hispanic community in the east Los Angeles area.42 However, the redistricting plan also permitted the only Hispanic congress person to continue his representation. With respect to legislative representation, despite the gerrymanders, Hispanics were able to secure and increase their representation beginning with the 1968 party primary and general elections.43
38Silver v. Brown, 63 Cal.2d 841, 847 (Cal. 1966).
39 Silver v. Brown, 46 Cal.Rptr. 531, 405 P.2d 571 (Cal. 1965).
40Silver v. Reagan, 62 Cal.Rptr. 424, 432 P.2d 26 (Cal. 1967) (en banc).
41Silver v. Reagan, 64 Cal.Rptr. 325, 434 P.2d 621 (Cal. 1967).
42Redistricting Vol. I, supra note 30, at 46.
43Redistricting Vol. I, supra note 30, at 89:
California Chicano Legislative Representation Year House Senate 1962 2 0 1964 1 0 1966 0 0 1968 1 0 1970 2 0
11 The discrimination against the Latino community continued in the redistrictings of the 1970's. A major difference between the redistrictings of the 60's and the 70's in California was the significant involvement by the Mexican American community. The Mexican American community participated in various fora, including hearings before the California State Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights.44 As a result of this increased activity, various state senators and state assembly persons met with representatives of the Mexican American community. Moreover, elected state officials from the Republican Party began to take an interest in assisting Hispanic efforts to create minority districts since the creation of such districts would have a beneficial effect on Republican districts.45 In addition, the Mexican American community was able to present alternative plans to the California Legislature which did not continue the fragmentation of the Hispanic community. Unfortunately, the legislative process ignored these requests.
In 1971, the California Legislature passed redistricting plans for Congressional, senatorial, and state representative districts. These plans did not improve upon Hispanic representation. The three plans were vetoed by then Governor Reagan. In the subsequent litigation, the State Supreme Court imposed a temporary court plan for the 1972 elections. In the litigation various civil rights organizations filed petitions with the state court requesting that the plans proposed by the vetoed 1971 legislation not be incorporated into a temporary court plan.46 These organizations were not successful.
The Legislature and the Governor were not able to reach an agreement and formulate redistricting plans for the state senate, state representative, and congressional districts.47 Unable to reach an accord, the State Supreme Court appointed a panel of Special Masters.48 Prior to the adoption of the Special Master's plan there were 5 Latino Assembly persons and no State Senators; the 1974 election resulted in a decrease of a Latino Assembly person, but an increase in
44Redistricting Vol. I, supra, at 49.
45Id. at 56 ("At first, the Republicans ignored the demands of Chicanos for more districts, but finally the GOP leadership came to realize that solid Chicano districts could help the cause of the Republican Party by concentrating Democratic voting strength and increasing GOP chances in a number of districts where Chicano votes had traditionally provided the margin of victory for Democratic candidates.").
46Id. at 62-63.
47Id. at 64-68.
48Legislature of State of California v. Reinecke, 110 Cal.Rptr. 718, 516 P.2d 6 (Cal. 1973 en banc).
12 two Latino Senators.49 By 1980, there were 4 Latino Assembly persons and 3 Latino State Senators. Although in actual numbers the plan may not have significantly increased Hispanic representation, the Masters' plan did create Hispanic districts. These districts at a minimum increased the likelihood that there would be Hispanic representation in both the Assembly and the State Senate. Although the Master's plan was a definite improvement over the redistricting plans of the 1960's, the fragmentation of the Latino community continued.
Part of this fragmentation was eliminated in the 1980's redistricting process. However, redistricting plans having a discriminatory impact in many areas of California were adopted. In the 1980 redistricting process, an extensive grass roots effort was launched. An organization called Californios for Fair Representation organized chapters across the state. These chapters incorporated a broad cross-section of the Hispanic community. With census data and maps, they formulated redistricting plans for Congressional and legislative seats. These plans were presented to the legislature in various hearings held around the state.50 Apart from this extensive community input, the Hispanic legislators also monitored the process. The Speaker of the House appointed an Hispanic to chair the Assembly Elections and Reapportionment Committee.
The Californios’ efforts resulted in two additional Hispanic congressional seats, raising the state total from one to three. There was no increase in the number of Hispanic assembly or senate districts, although Assembly districts with a Hispanic population above 30% rose from 12 to 17.
Immediately after the passage of the congressional and state legislative plans, Republicans mounted a drive to place on the ballot a referendum on these redistricting statutes.51 A court challenge was filed in an unsuccessful attempt to invalidate the referendum. The State Supreme Court declared that the referendum could proceed as scheduled, however the upcoming
49Redistricting Vol. I, supra note 30, at 69 & 89:
California Chicano Representation Year House Senate 1972 5 0 1974 4 2 1976 4 2 1978 3 3
50See e.g., Hearings, California Legislature Senate Committee on Elections and Reapportionment, San Francisco, (May 1, 1981), San Bernardino (March 27, 1981), San Diego (February 20, 1981), Sacramento (September 11, 1981), Santa Ana (March 13, 1981).
51Assembly of State of Cal. v. Deukmejian, 30 Cal.3d 638, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939 (Cal. 1982).
13 1982 party primary and general elections would be based upon the Legislature's 1981 plan. The electorate disapproved the redistricting statutes in the referendum. As a result of the election, the Legislature adopted another set of redistricting plans during the latter part of 1982.
Prior to the adoption of the 1982 legislative redistricting plans, an initiative seeking to establish a redistricting commission qualified for the November, 1982, election. The initiative was opposed by Californios:
“Californios for Fair Representation was publicly opposed to the commission initiative. The Latino community felt that the commission measure did not provide strong enough language to insure that Hispanic political interests would be protected. Latinos also believed it was naive to expect that a truly nonpartisan reapportionment commission could be created; they were aware of the bitter political battles that had occurred in those states that already had redistricting commissioners. Lastly, CFR was unhappy that the commission issue had emerged just at a time when Hispanics were becoming more successful in state politics.”52 The initiative was not successful.
The 1982 redistricting plans did not significantly diminish the congressional and assembly gains secured by the 1981 plans. However, the state senate plan fragmented the Hispanic community in the Los Angeles area. Challenges to the plan were undertaken by the Republican Party. One avenue was to place on the ballot as an initiative three sets of redistricting plans for voter approval. Although the initiative qualified, the California State
52Richard Santillan, The Hispanic Community and Redistricting, Vol. II, 64 (The Rose Institute, Claremont McKenna Institute) [hereinafter cited as Redistricting Vol. II]. The California Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights also opposed the commission initiative. California Advisory Committee To The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Statement on the California Initiative to Establish A Reapportionment Commission, at 18-20: "In 1981, the Advisory Committee found that minority group representatives were active participants during reapportionment. Political activity and population increases within minority communities signal a growing influence for minorities in politics and State Government in the 1980's. A commission system would jeopardize this development by giving control of the redistricting process to a handful of individuals."
California Advisory Committee To The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Statement on the California Initiative to Establish A Reapportionment Commission, at 18-20.
14 Supreme Court declared the initiative unconstitutional.53 The other avenue was an unsuccessful challenge to the plan as a partisan gerrymander.54
The most dramatic impact of the 1981 and 1982 redistricting plans was the increase in the number of Hispanic congressional districts. For the redistricting plan of the early 60's utilized in the elections for the 88th Congress there were only two congressional districts having over a 20% Hispanic population: 29th (28.0% Hispanic pop.); 30th (22.2% Hispanic pop.).55 Both of these districts were located in the Los Angeles area. The 1971 temporary court ordered plan although increasing the number of congressional districts containing 20% or more Spanish population, the plan continued the fragmentation of the Hispanic community: 9th (24.9% Hispanic population) 16th (24.5% Hispanic population), 18th (20.3% Hispanic population), 19th (35.3% Hispanic population), 21st (21.1% Hispanic population), 29th (39.4% Hispanic population), 30th (49.5% Hispanic population), 35th (20.2% Hispanic population), 38th (22.2% Hispanic population), 43rd (21.3% Hispanic population).56
During the next decade, the number of congressional districts containing a 20% or more Hispanic population significantly increased.57 This increase was due to the dramatic increase in the Mexican American population during the 1970's. As a result of the pressures exerted by the Mexican American community, the Legislature in 1981 created two congressional districts having over a 50% Hispanic population and another congressional district having close to a 48% Hispanic population. As a result of this plan, Hispanic congressional representation went from one to three. The 1981 plan was later superseded by the 1982 plan. The 1982 plan did not appreciably alter the Hispanic percentages for the congressional districts. The following Hispanic percentages are based upon the 1981 plan: 10th (28.0% Hispanic population), 15th (26.8% Hispanic population), 16th (21.9% Hispanic population), 17th (28.3% Hispanic population), 18th (24.3% Hispanic population), 19th (25.2% Hispanic population), 24th (26.4%
53Legislature of the State of Cal. v. Deukmejian, 34 Cal.3d 658 (Cal. 1983).
54Badham v. Eu, 694 F.Supp. 664 (N.D.Cal. 1988), affirmed, 488 U.S. 1024, 109 S.Ct. 829 (1989).
55U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Congressional District Data Book (Districts of the 88th Congress), A Statistical Abstract Supplement, at 55.
56As previously mentioned, the State Supreme Court ordered the implementation of the 1971 redistricting plans enacted by the legislature as a temporary measure since the 1971 plans were unconstitutional. Congressional Quarterly, Congressional Districts in the 1970's, at 25-27, 30, 32-34 (hereinafter cited as Congressional (1970's). No data on Hispanic percentages was secured for the 1967 congressional redistricting plan.
57No data is presented for the Hispanic population percentage for the congressional districts developed by the Special Masters in 1973.
15 Hispanic population), 25th (63.6%), 26th (25.3% Hispanic population), 28th (29.6% Hispanic population), 30th (54.2% Hispanic population), 31st (25.1% Hispanic population), 32nd (22.2% Hispanic population), 34th (47.6% Hispanic population), 36th (23.3% Hispanic population), 38th (26.2% Hispanic population), 44th (26.1% Hispanic population).58
With respect to the state legislative districts under the 1982 redistricting plans, Hispanics were able to preserve their Hispanic districts in the Assembly and unable to avoid a fragmentation of the community in the senate districts. In Los Angeles County, there were four Assembly districts having a 50% or more Hispanic population.59 As to the state senate districts, there were only two districts containing a 50% or more Hispanic population: S.D. 24 (70.2% Hispanic population), S.D.26 (56.7% Hispanic population).60 In other counties, the Legislature in some instances increased the percentage of Hispanics in excess of the percentage requested by Californios for certain districts.61 However, in other districts, the Hispanic community did not fare well. In San Joaquin County, Californios included a 41.8% Hispanic population in A.D. 31. The Legislature reduced the Hispanic percentage to 30.7%.62
During the 1991 redistricting cycle provides more examples of redistricting plans that failed to respect the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority voting strength. A commission, appointed by Governor Pete Wilson submitted redistricting plans that “decimated districts then represented by members of minority groups, reducing the number of congressional seats winnable by blacks in Los Angeles from three to one and the number of probable Latino seats in
58Congressional Quarterly Inc., Congressional Districts in the 1980's, at 42, 48-49, 51-52, 58, 60-61, 64, 66, 68-69, 72, 74, 77, 83. A review of selected congressional districts for the 1982 redistricting plans reveals that there are hardly any significant changes with respect to Hispanic population concentrations: 25th (63.2% Hispanic population); 26th (54.5% Hispanic population); 34th (47.4% Hispanic population). Redistricting Vol. II, supra, at 114-15.
59A.D. 55 (59.0% Hispanic population), A.D. 56 (78.1 Hispanic population), A.D. 59 (53.3% Hispanic population), A.D. 60 (53.9% Hispanic population.) In the category between 40% and 49% Hispanic population for Los Angeles County, there was one district: A.D. 47 (47.3% Hispanic population). In the range of 30%-39% Hispanic population there was one district: A.D. 48 (34.3% Hispanic population).
60Redistricting Vol. II, supra note 52, at 11-14.
61 For example, in San Diego County for A.D. 80, Californios requested a percentage of 29.6% Hispanic population. The 1982 plan provided a 42.2% Hispanic Population. In Orange County, Californios requested a 28.3% Hispanic population for A.D. 72. the Legislature provided a 39% Hispanic population.
62Redistricting Vol. II, supra note 52, at 110.
16 all three bodies from 10 to 5.”63 Democrats passed redistricting bills and on September 23, 1991, Governor Wilson vetoed them.64 The Supreme Court assumed the task of redistricting which then appointed three retired judges, as Special Masters to develop the state’s redistricting plans. The Special Master’s plans drew significant fire from minority civil rights organizations. While MALDEF’s plan proposed to created six assembly and three senate districts where Latinos comprised 40% of the registered voters, the Special Master’s Plan created only four comparable Assembly seats and two senate seats.65
Senate Factor Two
The existence of racially polarized voting is an unfortunate feature of California electoral politics. Several cases in California have resulted in findings of racially polarized voting in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In Garza v. County of Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district finding that county supervisors’ fragmentation of the Hispanic population by which to achieve self-preservation, constituted intentional discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.66 In Garza, racially polarized voting was found to be a feature of supervisorial elections in Los Angeles County – Latinos voted cohesively and Anglos voted as a bloc to defeat the Latino preferred candidate. In Gomez v. City of Watsonville the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court finding that Latinos did not vote cohesively.67 There, the court found that racially polarized voting existed in Watsonville elections and held that its at- large system of electing mayors and city councilpersons was an “ impermissible obstacle to the ability of Hispanics to participate effectively in the political process.”68
Furthermore, preliminary analysis has revealed evidence of racially polarized voting in southern California. MALDEF will submit evidence of racial polarization in California’s legislative elections upon completion of the on-going study by their experts.
Senate Factor Five
63Morgan Kousser, Reapportionment Wars: Party, Race, and Redistricting in California, 1971-1992, ed. Bernard Grofman, in “Race and Redistricting in the 1990s” 134 at 170 (New York: Agathon Press, 1998).
64See Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal.4th 707, 711 (Cal. 1992).
65Kousser, supra at 172.
66918 F.2d at 769-70.
67863 F.2d at 1415-16.
68Id. at 1419.
17 Latinos in California have been subjected to pervasive societal and governmental discrimination in California that has hindered the ability of Latinos to participate in the political process.
Political and civil rights violations against Latinos were not only limited to voting restrictions. Other laws and official practices marked Latinos as a distinct, often inferior, race, burdened Latinos economically and socially, and served to separate Mexican Americans from mainstream civic life, including political life.
In People v. Hall, Chief Justice Murray, in an opinion for the California Court of Appeal, wrote that all non-white races were inferior and that “[t]he word ‘white’ has a distinct signification, which ex vi termini, excludes black, yellow, and all other colors . . . it will be found that not a little difficulty existed in selecting these precise words, which were finally agreed upon as the most comprehensive that could be suggested to exclude all inferior races.”69 In Hall, the court broadened a state statute prohibiting Blacks, Mulattos, or Indians from giving evidence in favor of or against a White man to include Chinese and all other peoples not White.70 The Chief Justice based his decision on public policy and noted that permitting Chinese people to testify would “admit them to all the equal rights of citizenship, and we might soon see them at the polls, in the jury box, upon the bench, and in our legislative halls.”71
Historically, the California state legislature enacted a number of statutes that prohibited Latinos from participating in the economic and social mainstream. In 1850, the newly formed California Legislature enacted a foreign miners tax in order to eliminate competition from Mexican miners.72 This law charged foreigners mining in California a monthly fee for the privilege of mining. It was enforced primarily against Mexican Americans, who, although they had become naturalized citizens through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, were still treated as foreigners. The Legislature also enacted a land tax which put the tax burden on landowners who were predominantly Mexican ranchers and exempted Mine owners from paying taxes:
“In 1852, six southern California cattle counties had a population of 6,000 (Mostly Mexican) and paid $42,000 in property taxes and $4,000 in poll taxes, whereas Northern
694 Cal. 399, 404 (1854).
70Id. at 399.
71Id. at 404.
72Carey McWilliams, North From Mexico: The Spanish Speaking People of the United States 127 (Greenwood Press 1968).
18 California, with 120,000 persons, paid only $21,000 in property taxes and $3,500 poll taxes. At the same time rancheros were obligated to pay county, road, poll, and other special taxes. Between 1850 and 1856 the tax rate doubled while mines were exempted; landowners felt the brunt of the load.”73
The Land Act enacted in 1851 allowed Anglos to homestead land owned by Mexicans, and contributed to Mexicans becoming landless by the 1870s.74 In 1856, California legislators passed the “Greaser Act.” The California Assembly refused to translate laws into Spanish and enacted an antivagrancy law which specified, “all persons who are commonly known as ‘Greasers’ or the issue of Spanish or Indian blood.”75 Local authorities used this “vagrancy” law to jail or impose fines on unemployed Mexican Americans.76
In the 1940s, anti-Mexican sentiment was documented in a report prepared by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department for a 1942 grand jury in the “Case of the Sleepy Lagoon” which convicted nine Mexican youth of second degree murder plus two counts of assault.77 The report disclosed that discrimination against Mexicans was prevalent but attributed it to the violent nature of Mexicans.78 The report stated, “all a Mexican youth knows and feels is a desire to use a knife or some lethal weapon. In other words, his desire is to kill, or at least let blood.”79 What followed in the wake of this “Sleepy Lagoon Case” were the Zoot Suit riots where U.S. servicemen searched and hunted down Mexicans, Filipinos, and African-Americans wearing
73Rodolfo Acuña, Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, Third Edition 116 (Harper & Row 1988).
74Id. at 116.
75Id. at 117.
76Id. at 117.
77McWilliams, supra note 71, at 231.
78Id. at 233-234. The report detailed widespread discrimination: “Mexicans as a whole in this county, are restricted...to certain kinds of labor, and that being the lowest paid. It must be admitted that they are discriminated against and have been heretofore practically barred from learning trades. . .discrimination and segregation, as evidenced by public signs and rules, such as appear in certain restaurants, public swimming plunges, public parks, theaters, and even in schools. . . .”
79Id. at 234.
19 baggy pants and oversize jackets better known as “zoot suits.”80 In Lopez v. Seccombe,81 the court enjoined city officials in San Bernardino from excluding persons of Mexican and Latin descent from using the public bath house, swimming pool, playgrounds, and park facilities.
In Lopez v. Seccombe, 71 F.Supp. 769, 770 (S.D. Cal. 1944), city officials in San Bernardino excluded persons of Mexican and Latin descent from using the public bath house, swimming pool, playgrounds, and park facilities and it was not until 1944 that the court enjoined city officials from excluding Hispanics.
In Romero v. Weakly, the court compiled a history of segregation laws in California in appendix III of the opinion entitled, “History of Legislation with Respect to Segregation in California.”82 In DeRonde v. Regents of University of California,83 the California Supreme Court recognized that the “societal discrimination against ethnic minorities is an unfortunate, but demonstrable, historical fact (emphasis added).”
Acts of race-motivated violence increased as California’s diverse immigrant population grew.84 Moreover, prejudicial attitudes still persist as Latinos continued to be perceived according to negative stereotypes. In a December 1990 study by the National Opinion Research Center that measured six characteristics including wealth, work ethic, violence, intelligence, dependency, and patriotism, over 80% of respondents rated Latinos and African-Americans lower than Whites. Latinos were rated at the bottom on three characteristics and next to last on the remaining three characteristics.85
80Acuña, supra note 72, at 256-259.
8171 F. Supp. 769, 770 (S.D. Cal. 1944).
82131 F. Supp. 818 (S.D. Cal.), rev’d 226 F.2d 399 (9th Cir. 1955).
8328 Cal. 3d 875, 886, 172 Cal. Rptr. 677, 683 (1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 832, 102 S.Ct. 130 (1981). See also Price v. Civil Service Com., 26 Cal.3d 257, 286, 161 Cal. Rptr. 474, 493 (1980) (California Supreme Court notes “the pervasive discrimination long endured by minorities in our society”).
84J. Kennedy and A. Noel, The Ralph and Bane Civil Rights Acts: A Manual for Attorneys, (Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Fair Employment and Housing Commission, January 1991).
85C. Gonzales and F. Lopez, The Empty Promise: Civil Rights Enforcement and Hispanics, Summary Report 3 (National Council of La Raza, July 1991).
20 Education
Official discrimination against Latinos in California in the area of education has also been well documented. Starting in the 1860s, there is evidence that in California the “government required Whites and non-Whites to attend separate schools.”86 In 1849, the state legislature declared Mexican mestizos and Mexican Indians as lawfully non-White, during this time the “majority of the Mexican population of California was considered non-White and therefore subject to discriminatory school codes.”87 In addition to discriminatory codes, schools could not use funds to educate non-white students. For instance, “[i]n 1855, the California state legislature passed an educational law prohibiting school boards from using funds to educate non-White students. If any public school district was found enrolling non-Whites, the legislators could legally withhold state school funds.”88 Even when “public education was finally extended to non-White students in 1864,” they were still required to be “instructed in separate schools.”89 In fact, parents of non-White children had to petition the government of their intent to fund minority public schools and obtain approval from the local school board.90 If the state granted the petition, the “school board was authorized to fund the school on the basis of the property taxes collected from non-White residents.”91 However, this was quite impossible due to earlier discriminatory tax laws wherein most Californian Mexicans lost their land.92 In the city of Santa Paula, for example, only seven Mexican-Americans owned property in 1902.93
School segregation of Mexican-American students intensified and “was common in California during the 1920s and 1930s.”94 By 1931, “85 percent of California schools surveyed
86Martha Menchaca, The Mexican Outsiders: A Community History of Marginalization and Discrimination in California 60 (University of Texas Press 1995).
87Id. at 62.
88Id.
89Id.
90Id.
91Id.
92Id. at 63.
93Id.
94Id. at 77.
21 by the state government reported segregating Mexican students either in separate classroom or in separate schools.”95
California school districts validated segregation of Mexican students “by stating that Mexicans had language, hygiene and learning problems.”96 For example, the cities of Santa Ana (in Orange County) and Santa Paula (in Ventura County) segregated their Mexican student population on the grounds that they had “special needs”—language and hygiene problems.97 In another case, the school board of Carpinteria in 1927 “announced that Mexican students would be segregated in Carpinteria because they were Indian.”98 In Oxnard, the school board segregated Mexican students in the early 1930s by “(1) building a ‘Mexican school’ in the largest Mexican neighborhood in Oxnard, (2) manipulating attendance zones and (3) staggering playground periods and end-of-school-day release times so as to not allow the Mexican and Anglo students to mix in the one school attended by both.”99
The segregated schools attended by Mexican students were inferior to the Anglo schools. For example, the Santa Paula school in the mid-1920s “had a much higher student per classroom ratio and inferior facilities.”100 “The Mexican school enrolled nearly 1000 students in a schoolhouse with eight classrooms and contained two bathrooms and one administrative office. On the other hand, the Anglo school enrolled less than 700 students and contained twenty-one classrooms, a cafeteria, a training shop, and several administrative offices.”101 A Los Angeles
95R. Donato, M. Menchaca, and R. Valencia, “Segregation, Desegregation, and Integration of Chicano Students: Problems and Prospects,” in Chicano School Failure and Success: Research and Policy Agendas for the 1900s 35 (The Falmer Press 1991).
96Menchaca, supra note 85, at 73-74.
97Id. [See also Menchaca, supra note 85, at 69. Indeed, the “hygiene rationale” was “protected by law since California’s state government permitted school administrators to prohibit children from attending school or to segregate them if they were filthy or identified them as unhealthy (California School Code I.12, 1929, cited in California State Department of Education 1929).”].
98Id. at 75.
99Id. at 76. [See also Menchaca, supra note 85 at 77. In 1970, when a desegregation law suit was filed in Oxnard, the judge presiding over the case “ruled that the 1970 conditions of segregation in Oxnard were inextricably tied to a historical process—that is, the well-planned scheme of forced segregation pursued in the 1930s.].
100Donato, et. al., supra note 94, at 29.
101Id.
22 Times article, reported about a 1970 desegregation trial in which several past Oxnard Superintendents testified about the “deplorable schooling conditions Chicano children experienced in the 1930s”:102
“One school was described as literally no more than a chicken coop. It had a dirt floor, single thickness walls, very run down, some stench from the toilet facility. Another school had a floor made from ‘just black asphalt of the type you would see placed on street pavement,’ a former superintendent said. ‘In the classroom, there was a single light bulb, not a large one. . .It may have been a 100-watt bulb, screwed into an outlet in the center of the ceiling.’ ” 103
Segregated schools were legitimized by laws that the California judiciary did not begin to strike down until 1947. In Mendez v. Westminster School District, four school systems in Orange County sought to keep Mexican children in separate schools. The court found a violation of state law because “[in the] laws relating to the public educational system in the State of California [there was] a clear purpose to avoid and forbid distinctions among pupils based upon race or ancestry except in specific situations.”104
Even after Mendez, which ended de jure segregation in California, the segregation of California’s Latino students continued. Local school boards enacted policies that allowed them to continue to segregate students. These tactics included noncompliance with desegregation plans, site selection, optional attendance plans and neighborhood school policies.105 In Jackson v. Pasadena City School District, the California Supreme Court held that a Pasadena junior high school was racially segregated and that an adjoining junior high school zone had been gerrymandered.106 In Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Education, the court found racial segregation at all levels including assignment and hiring of staff.107 In Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School District, the court ordered the San Francisco School District to desegregate and
102Id.
103Id. at 30.
10464 F. Supp. 544, 546 (S.D. Cal. 1946), aff’d, 161 F.2d 774, 781 (9th Cir. 1947). (Distinctions based on race were permitted only against children of Indian, Chinese, and Japanese parentage).
105James A. Kushner, “Apartheid in America: An Historical and Legal Analysis of Contemporary Racial Residential Segregation in the United States,” 22 Howard Law Jour. 548, 573-524 (1979).
10659 Cal. 2d 876, 879, 31 Cal. Rptr. 606, 608 (1963).
107311 F. Supp 501 (C.D. Cal. 1970).
23 noted that, “for a long period of time there has been and there now is de jure segregation in the San Francisco public elementary schools.”108
The segregation of Latino students by academic ability groups has a long history in California. In the first half of the twentieth century, “Lewis Terman, Professor of Education at Stanford University, presented many findings from racial studies of intelligence testing research supporting the view that Blacks, Indians, and Mexican Americans were inferior to Whites.”109 To further highlight the fact, in 1934, an official of the Orange County Health Department wrote that “the tendency among educators and psychologists is to assume that children of Mexican parentage are mentally inferior to white children.”110
There were California school districts during that time that tracked Mexican American students into vocational schools - schools which tend to have a curriculum for students perceived to have low levels of intelligence.111 For instance in 1923, the principal of the San Fernando, Los Angeles elementary school “requested that the school, ‘attended entirely by Mexicans,’ and totaling 600 students, be officially transformed into a ‘Mexican Industrial School.’ The superintendent of schools and the Board of Education were favorably disposed to such a change, which they thought would ‘better fit the boys and girls to meet their problems of life in future years.’ ”112 The training entailed that:
“The girls will have more extensive sewing, knitting, crocheting, drawn work, rug weaving, and pottery. They will be taught personal hygiene, homemaking, care of the sick. With the aid of a nursery they will learn the care of little children. The boys will be given more advanced agriculture and shop work of various kinds.”113
A principal from Montebello Elementary School, located in Southern California, “found vocational education as early as the fifth grade necessary in light of the educational problems
108339 F. Supp. 1315, 1323 (N. D. Cal. 1971).
109Donato, et. al., supra note 94, at 36.
110Gilbert Gonzalez, Chicano Education in the Era of Segregation 68 (The Balch Institute Press 1990).
111Id. at 83-84.
112Id. at 85.
113Id. at 86.
24 affecting Mexican children.”114
Vocational training for California’s Mexican American students was also implemented at the junior high and high school levels. In the late 1940s, the principal of Los Angeles Roosevelt High School, a school overwhelmingly attended by Mexican Americans, sought to transform the school into a completely vocationalized school in order “to meet the needs of the student body. . .such as high drop-out rates, so that by the time he graduated from high school, his education might have consisted of twelve years of vocational training.115 Furthermore,
“The soon-to-be superintendent of the Chaffey School District in southern California, Merton Hill, strongly advocated vocational training for Mexican children since, he argued, Mexican children work at only about half the normal capacity of white children. ‘In communities where there is sufficient Mexican population,’ wrote Hill, ‘there should be developed industrial high schools for Mexican pupils. . . .’ He also proudly pointed out that the Chaffey Board of Education passed a resolution on February 6, 1927 that was ‘looking forward to the development of an industrial high school for Mexican pupils of the Chaffey district and other portions of San Bernardino County. . . .”116
In the 1940s, the California State Department of Education “integrated the special occupational needs of minorities, apart from those of the majority, into its overall program guide.”117 “Consequently, the highest levels of educational administration also segregated the vocational program, reinforcing the practice of allocating specific curriculum to Mexican students.”118 The result of the new program guide further contributed to the “greater isolation, segregation, and socioeconomic distinctiveness of the Mexican from the Anglo communities.”119
The perception that Mexican students were inferior mentally persisted in the 1960s and 1970s among California’s public teachers. For example, the United States Commission on Civil Rights Mexican American Education Study, Report Number 5 (Teachers and Students:
114Id. at 87.
115Id. at 86.
116Id. at 88.
117Id.
118Id.
119Id.
25 Differences in Teacher Interaction with Mexican American and Anglo Students) (1973), conducted a teacher- student interactions study in the Southwest (including California), and found that “Chicano students, compared to Whites, received significantly less praise and encouragement from teachers. Furthermore, teachers were found to spend less time in asking questions to Chicanos, and they provided more noncriticizing talk to White pupils than to Chicanos.”120 These results led the Commission to conclude that the “disparities in teacher behavior toward Mexican Americans and Anglos are likely to hinder seriously the educational opportunities and achievement of Chicano pupils.”121
Finally, a “study of the Los Angeles Unified School District demonstrated that large differences were evident in the amount of money spent in elementary schools along racial/ethnic lines. Fairchild (1984) found that as the percentage of Chicano and other Latino students increased among the various schools, per-pupil expenditures decreased. In contrast, as the proportion of White students increased, school financing increased.”122 In Serrano v. Priest,123 the court held that California’s state public school financing system for elementary and secondary public schools violated the equal protection provisions of the state constitution.
Housing
California’s Latinos historically have also experienced housing discrimination and residential segregation resulting from official and unofficial racial restrictions and labor-related substandard housing practices.
In both Northern and Southern California, Latinos experienced residential segregation. In Northern California after 1850, “with the exception of Monterey and a few rural areas, Mexicans and Latin Americans formed ethnic enclaves or barrios within predominately Anglo-European cities, towns, and their surrounding countryside.”124
120Id.
121Id.
122Richard R.Valencia, “The Plight of Chicano Students: An Overview of Schooling conditions and Outcomes,” in Chicano School Failure and Success: Research and Policy Agendas for the 1990s (The Falmer Press 1991).
12318 Cal.3d 728, 775-6, 135 Cal. Rptr. 345, 373-4 (Cal. 1976).
124Antonio Rios-Bustamante, “The Barrioization of Nineteenth-Century Mexican Californians: From Landowners to Laborers,” at 27, Masterkey, Volume 60-61, 26-35 (Summer/Fall 1986).
26 In Southern California Latinos fared no better. In city after city, Latinos were segregated from Anglos. Martha Menchaca finds that “a few decades after the Mexican American War, Anglo Americans were able to enforce discriminatory practices in Santa Paula and other Southwestern communities because Mexicans had been transformed into landless and politically powerless low-wage earners.”125 Landless and dependent on the Anglo for employment, Mexican-Americans in Santa Paula were “forced to accept the residential boundaries drawn for them.”126 By 1902,
“Mexicans were residentially segregated to the East Side, along Santa Paula Creek, regardless of their social class status. They were prohibited from buying property in the new sections of town, where the Anglo Americans resided.”127
Latinos in several other Southern California cities experienced discriminatory segregation after the Mexican-American war. For instance in San Bernardino, Chicanos had to accept the boundaries set for them by the Anglos because they were dependent on them for living wages. Mexican-Americans supplied the labor necessary to meet the demand of the railroad industry growing in San Bernardino at the end of the twentieth century.
Indeed, the first Mexican barrio in San Bernardino “originated as a railroad labor colony.”128 By 1900, it “contained over half of the city’s Spanish-surnamed population.”129 However in 1909, Anglo officials decided to move the barrio to “an area less conspicuous” because it had become an “ ‘eyesore, . . .marring the entrance of the city.’ ”130 Another barrio was formed as “more and more [Mexican] workers were imported to meet the railroad’s needs.”131 By the beginning of the 1920s, these two barrios “contained at least 60 to 70 percent of all Spanish surnamed families, and by 1928, 70 to 75 percent.”132
125Menchaca, supra note 85, at 25.
126Id.
127Id. at 26.
128Camarillo, supra note 16, at 206.
129Id. at 206-207.
130Id. at 207.
131Id.
132Id.
27 In Los Angeles, social historian Del Castillo writes that “During the period 1850-1880, the poorest section of the city, measured in terms of rental and purchase of homes, was the core area.”133 For example, “in 1861 the bulk of Mexican-American property owners were located in the core of the city, an area that corresponded to the heaviest concentration of the old Mexican pueblo.”134 The second most populous area, in terms of Mexican-American property ownership, was the southern section of the city. This had traditionally been a small farming region.”135 By 1880, more than 70 percent of Los Angeles’ Mexican Americans lived in the core and southern areas of the city.136 Furthermore, of the Mexican immigrants traveling to the city, more than 83 percent of these immigrants lived in the core and southern sections of the city by 1880.137
In Los Angeles in the 1910s “Chicanos were not allowed to live in certain areas of East Los Angeles because of racially restrictive covenants that forbade the sale or rental of real estate to Mexicans.”138
In 1906, the Housing Commission took official notice of the slum conditions within Los Angles’ barrios.139 Although some non-Mexican populations also lived within the barrios, the Chicanos were “the poorest of all minorities.”140 The Mexicans in these areas were residents, but were not the owners which intensified the substandard conditions. They “composed most of the inhabitants of tent and shack colonies and occupied many of the poorest house courts, often referred to as Cholo courts.”141 About the Cholo courts, the Housing Commission reported,
133Richard Griswold del Castillo, The Los Angeles Barrio, 1850-1890: A Social History 149 (University of California Press 1979).
134Id. at 141.
135Id.
136Id. at 145.
137Id. at 150.
138Camarillo, supra note 16, at 204-205.
139Id. at 203.
140Id.
141Id. (internal quotations omitted)
28 “Here we found filth and squalor on every hand. Miserably constructed houses, made of scrap sheet iron, old bagging and sections of dry goods boxes, were huddled together without any attempt at proper construction or order . . . The more Mexicans to the lot, the more money for the owner.”142
By 1920, close to a majority of Chicanos still resided in the central plaza barrio, but a growing number inhabited the East Los Angeles barrios.143
In San Diego, Chicanos were also segregated through restrictive covenants, as well as the flight of Anglos from Mexican-American neighborhoods. By 1914, because of these restrictive covenants southeast San Diego contained around twenty-five percent of the Mexican-American population.144 Here, they were crowded into unsanitary “ ‘cottage and shacks,’ ”145 and after World War I, the number and concentration of Mexican-Americans in the area significantly increased in San Diego.146 Because of this,
“Anglo residents in the area, originally known as the Logan Heights, moved to newer subdivisions in the city and left the neighborhood to Mexicans and a small group of blacks. The addition of thousands of new residents into the Logan Heights barrio aggravated the existing overcrowded conditions as these workers helped fill labor needs in the nearby factories, fish canneries, laundries, and the construction industry in general. By the late 1920s and estimated 20,000 Mexicans were living in Logan Heights, the second largest such population in southern California.”147
Substandard housing in San Diego was at its worst in this new barrio.148
Latinos residential segregation was further institutionalized by the real estate industry. For example, the National Association of Real Estate Board’s 1943 brochure “Fundamental of
142Id.
143Id. at 205.
144Id. at 209.
145Id.
146Id.
147Id.
148Id. at 210.
29 Real Estate Practice” explicitly stated that a real estate agent was prohibited from selling a house to a “colored” person if the sale would decrease the value of the surrounding homes. True to the national policy, in 1955, a real estate board in Los Angeles expelled members who had sold units to Latinos on the grounds that they had violated the brochure’s policy.149 And in San Francisco, three out of five brokers interviewed who workers in the city said they would not offer their services to Mexican-Americans, or would do so only on a restrictive basis.150
Latino migrant workers received the worst treatment when it came to housing discrimination.
“Officials of the Farm Bureau Federation in Bakersfield admitted to the Housing Authority that the housing was kept miserable because they wanted the migrants to work then leave the area: good housing might encourage them to stay and become a burden on the schools and facilities of the community.”151
Indeed in 1963, the State of California officially noted that “agriculture workers suffer serious deficiencies in terms of both housing quality and quantity”152 and that the majority of California’s agricultural workers are of Mexican origin.153
The migrant workers of Fresno also experienced substandard housing during the 1960s. In Fresno, “families engaged in farm labor [were required], at the peak of the harvest season, [to] secure non-labor camp housing. Often, they settled in the marginal areas of the city where rents [were] the cheapest”154 and the housing was substandard.155 In fact, this migration of Mexican
149Davis McEntire, Resident and Race 241 (University of California Press 1960).
150Id. at 240.
151William Tim Dagodag, Public Policy and the Housing Patterns of Urban Mexican-Americans in Selected Cities of the Central Valley, at 143 (citing Peter Matthiessan’s study of the farmworker unionization movement, Dissertation presented at the University of Oregon, 1972).
152Oliver McMillan, “Housing Deficiencies of Agricultural Workers and other Low Income Groups in Rural and Urban Fringe Communities,”at 651 (Report on Housing in California, Appendix Governor’s Advisory Commission on Housing Problems April 1963).
153Id. at 676.
154Dagodag, supra note 150, at 161.
155Id. at 167, 170.
30 workers into the core of Fresno caused a housing shortage of 1600 units during the 1960s.156
In 1989, a team of researchers of the University of California system found that California Latinos continue to be “clustered in . . . perfectly identifiable communities . . . [that] are afflicted by a high incidence of poverty, unemployment and underemployment; they experience a rapid rate of population growth; they possess weak or deficient community infrastructure and resources; and they are generally neglected in the delivery of basic public services.”157
A 1999 report by the Greenlining Institute reveals the persistent effect of housing discrimination on Latinos and the institutional barriers Latinos face in acquiring loans to purchase homes.158 The study indicated that in Los Angeles County, although Latinos comprise 46 percent of the population, only 1,038 home loans were made to Latinos earing $35,000 or less. The report indicates that “Latinos in California received only 8.5 percent of all conventional home loans made. Since Latinos represent 30 percent of the population, this represents a dangerous three and a half to one difference.159 In Los Angeles County, “Latinos received only 11.4 percent of all conventional home loans. Since Latinos represent 46 percent of the Los Angeles County population, this represents a four to one differential that endangers Los Angeles’ dominant economic role.160 These disparities have exacerbated the effects of housing discrimination that Latinos have endured.
Historical housing discrimination played a major role in the creation of segregated Latino communities. This discrimination has adversely affected the ability of Latinos to participate effectively in the political process.
Discrimination in Employment
Unemployment and inferior occupation distribution continues to disproportionately
156Id. at 164.
157The Challenge: Latinos in a Changing California, The Report of the University of California SCR 43 Task Force at 130, (Introduced by Senator Robert Presley, 1989).
158Latinos: A New Majority of Workers Without Homeownership, The Greenlining Institute, (January 1999), available at: http://www.greenlining.org .
159Id. (emphasis in original).
160Id. (emphasis in original).
31 impact African-Americans and Hispanics. National data shows that African-Americans and Hispanics have higher unemployment levels than Whites. In 1987, the unemployment rate showed significant differences by race and ethnicity: the lowest employment rate was for Whites, at 5.3 percent; followed by Hispanics at 8.8 percent, followed by African-Americans at 13.0 percent.161 African-Americans were more than twice as likely compared to Whites to be unemployed.162 For Hispanics, to be in the workforce means that one is less likely to be employed, and if employed, will earn lower wages.163 In California, the 1990 unemployment rate follows the national pattern: 9.6 % of African-American persons were unemployed, 8.1 % of Hispanics, and 5.4 % of Whites.164
Nationally, there is an inferior occupation distribution among African-Americans and Hispanics, who are far less likely to be employed in managerial and professional jobs.165 African-American males are only half as likely as white males to be employed in the five top paying occupational categories. For example only 6.7 % of African-American employed male workers were employed in executive, administrative, and managerial jobs in 1989 compared to 14.7 of White male workers.166 African-American males are overrepresented in the five lowest paying occupational categories.167 The situation for African-American females is similar.168 Hispanic men are also overrepresented in the lowest paying job categories and far less likely to be employed in managerial and professional jobs.169 Hispanic males are most likely to be
161U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Health Status of Minorities and Low-Income Groups: Third Edition 13 (1991).
162 Id. at 13.
163 C. Gonzales and F. Lopez, The Empty Promise: Civil Rights Enforcement and Hispanics 6 (National Council of La Raza, July 1991).
164 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Bull. No. 2381, Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment,1990 at 36 (1990).
165 See National Urban League, The State of Black America, 1990 at 62-65; National Council of La Raza, Hispanic Education: A Statistical Portrait, 1990, at 8-9.
166 See National Urban League, The State of Black America 62-63 (1990).
167 Id. at 63.
168 Id. at 63.
169 D. la Rosa and C. E. Maw, Hispanic Education: A Statistical Portrait 1990 9 (National Council of la Raza, October 1990).
32 employed as operator, fabricator and laborer.170 Hispanic women are most likely to be employed in service occupations.171
Hispanic and African-American male incomes are considerably less than that of White males.172 In 1989, Nationally African-American males earned $12,609 or 60.4% of the White male median income of $20,863.173 According to a study by the National Council of La Raza, a significant portion of the earnings gap between Hispanics and Whites appears to be attributable to employment discrimination.174 The study revealed that 14% of the earnings gap between White and Hispanic males and 29% of the gap between White males and Hispanic females was due to ethnicity alone.175
Governmentally sanctioned employment discrimination against African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians has been well documented by California courts. In U.S. v. San Francisco Firefighters, the court approved the entry of a Consent Decree justified by a long history of discriminatory hiring and promotional practices within San Francisco's Fire Department and found that with respect to the treatment of minority members, the SFFD was "out of control."176 In Higgins v. City of Vallejo, the court recognizes historical discrimination against minorities in Vallejo's municipal workforce and fire department.177
California courts found minority discrimination in Los Angeles' fire department178 and in
170Id. at 9.
171 Id. at 9.
172Swinton, "Economic Status of African Americans: 'Permanent' Poverty and Inequality," 32 The State of Black America, 1991 (National Urban League, Inc., 1991).
173 Id. at 33.
174C. Gonzalez and F. Lopez, The Empty Promise: Civil Rights Enforcement and Hispanics, Summary Report 4-5 (National Council of La Raza, July 1991).
175Id. at 5.
176696 F.Supp 1287, 1289 (N.D. Cal. 1988); aff'd, sub nom Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 890 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1989); cert denied, 111 S.Ct 248 (1990).
177823 F.2d 351, 356 (9th Cir. 1987).
178Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 566 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1977), vacated as moot, 440 U.S. 625 (1979) (Height requirement and written test for Los Angeles firemen have discriminatory effect on blacks and Mexican-Americans).
33 its sheriff's department.179 An English-only workplace rule in Los Angeles' county court offices constituted a discriminatory condition of employment adversely impacting Hispanics and Asian- Americans.180 Gutierrez v. Municipal Ct. of the Southeast Judicial Dist., County of Los Angeles, 838 F.2d 1031, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 1988) vacated as moot, 490 U.S. 1016 (1989). The court stated: "English-only rules generally have an adverse impact on protected groups and ordinarily constitute discriminatory conditions of employment."181
Discrimination based on ethnicity alone was recently documented using a new research technique, "Hiring Audits," which provides convincing evidence of continuing employment discrimination. The results of one study based on 360 audits conducted in San Diego and Chicago in 1989 found: "Anglo applicants received 33% more interviews and 52% more job offers than the Hispanic applicants; and 31% of the Hispanic applicants encountered unfavorable treatment in the hiring process, compared to only 11% of the Anglo applicants"182
Today, minorities continue to feel the effects of discrimination, suffering in far greater numbers from unemployment, inferior occupations, low educational achievement, and other inequality in socioeconomic conditions. The economic disparity between Anglos and Latinos in California indicated by the1990 Census is still present today. In California, the average unemployment rate for Caucasians, based on the monthly unemployment rates from January 1992 to June 2001 reveals significant disparities. The average unemployment rate during this 114 month period is 6.9% for Anglos compared to 9.9% for Latinos.183 The poverty rate in California is currently 15.35% based on a 3-year average from 1997-1999. According to the California Population survey 8.1% of Anglo and 23.6% of Latino are living below poverty level. Of those races polled Anglo population had the smallest percentage living below poverty while Latinos had the highest followed at a distance by Blacks at 19.5%.184
179Craig v. County of Los Angeles, 626 F.2d 659, 661 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 919 (1981) (Height requirement for sheriff's department had discriminatory effect on Mexican-Americans). 180Gutierrez v. Municipal Ct. of the Southeast Judicial Dist., County of Los Angeles, 838 F.2d 1031, 1039- 40 (9th Cir. 1988) vacated as moot, 490 U.S. 1016 (1989).
181Id. at 1044.
182Id. at 6.
183See California Economic Development Department, “Labor Market Information, Figure 8: Unemployment Rates for Labor Force Groups in California By Race and Ethnicity Not Seasonally Adjusted (in Percent),” available at, http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfother/fig8.htm (citing US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics).
184Id.
34 In California, Latino households continue to occupy the lower rungs of the economic ladder. While the median income of white families is $60, 200, for Latinos, the number is significantly lower: only $31,200.185 While only 57,000 Anglos family incomes are less than $5,000 over 70,000 of Latinos families income is under $5,000.186 Latinos constitute the largest group living below the poverty line in California and constitute 53% of the total.187
Senate Factor Six
Senate Factor six under Gingles is “whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals.”188 Like most of the other Senate Factors, this one is not essential to prove a Section 2 violation.189 However, of the non-essential factors, this one is of particular importance because racial appeals, particularly those that are less subtle, come closest to constituting intentional discrimination in the jurisdiction’s political system.190 Where a minority group is expressly targeted in successful campaigns for political office, racial appeals epitomize the continued presence of discrimination in the challenged electoral system.
Regrettably, in the last several years, some statewide elections in California, particularly surrounding initiative propositions, have been characterized by racial appeals and by consequent unprecedented divergence between the vote of the Latino electorate and the overall state vote on the initiatives.
Proposition 187 was enacted by a vote of 59 percent to 41 percent on election day, November 8, 1994. The enactment followed a campaign that has been nearly universally recognized as racially divisive.191 Campaign commercials with grainy video of border crossings,
185California Current Population Survey Report: March 2000 Data, “Table 46. Households by Household Income (1999) and Familes by Family Income (1999) and Race/Ethnicity of Householder,” (March 2001).
186Id.
187Id. “Appendix A: Standard Errors (SE) and Confidence Intervals (CI) for Selected Measures.”
188S. Rep. at 29; Gingles, 478 U.S. at 37, 45.
189Gingles, 478 U.S. at 48 n.15.
190Cf. LULAC v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 876 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (identifying racial appeals, non- responsiveness, and lack of success as most important of non-essential Senate Factors).
191See, e.g., Johnson, Kevin R. (Professor of Law) Proposition 187: The Nativist Campaign, the Impact on the Latino Community, and the Future, JSIR Research Report #15, The Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1996 (reviewing racial undercurrent of campaign).
35 accompanied by ominous and thinly veiled warnings of an “invasion” of California by Mexico, became ubiquitous on television screens in the state. Proposition 187 claimed many parents; among those who claimed some form of at-least-partial authorship were a state legislator, former officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and anti-immigrant community activists. Some of the most prominent of these activist proponents of the initiative have, beginning with the notoriety they gained through the Proposition 187 campaign, consistently expressed beliefs that Mexico is attempting to reconquer California. The anti-Mexican nature of these public statements have earned some of their organizations classification as hate groups.192 Others have been shocked to learn exactly how race-laced the rhetoric of some of these Proposition 187 proponents is and was.193
Despite the initiative’s many author/proponents, by election day in 1994, the most well- known proponent of Proposition 187 was plainly California Governor Pete Wilson, who rode the initiative to an unlikely and substantial re-election victory. “[B]ecause of his outspoken support for Proposition 187, Wilson consistently has been identified as the individual ‘spearheading’ and ‘trumpeting’ the initiative.”194 By virtue of his position, Wilson could promote his views through the media relatively easily. His views shared an undeniable anti-Mexican tinge with other Proposition 187 proponents as he promoted the same view of undocumented immigration as an invasion from the south. The governor even went so far as to involve the state in a lawsuit, filed in 1994, claiming that the federal government had “violated is obligation under the Invasion Clause of Article IV, § 4 of the Constitution to protect the State from invasion” by not stemming undocumented immigration.195 The unstated – and obvious to everyone -- source of this “invasion” was, of course, one country, Mexico.
In addition to the race-linked campaign rhetoric, Proposition 187, by mandating denial of government services on the basis of “reasonable suspicion” that an individual was undocumented, engendered strong concerns that it would result in service denials based on race, ethnicity, language, accent, or name alone, and that Latinos would be the primary victims of such stereotyping. Consistent with the civil rights concerns Proposition 187 engendered, statewide exit polling by the Los Angeles Times showed a racially divided electorate, with 63 percent of white voters casting a “Yes” vote, but majorities of African Americans and Asian Americans
192See, e.g., Patrick J. McDonnell, “Brash Evangelist,” L.A. Times Magazine, July 15, 2001, at 14, 36 (regarding Glenn Spencer).
193See, e.g., R. Abcarian, “The Real Issue is the Color of Their Skin,” L.A. Times, June 19, 1996, at E1 (describing press conference involving organizations that had been proponents of Proposition 187).
194League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1305 (9th Cir. 1997).
195See State of California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Cir. 1997).
36 voting against Proposition 187, and an astounding 77 percent of Latino voters casting a “No” vote.196 This dramatic difference between white and Latino voters was also reflected in the vote on Wilson’s re-election in 1994.
More recently, in the primary election of June 1998, California voters enacted Proposition 227 after a campaign that focused nearly exclusively on Latino children. First, the initiative itself addressed the education of limited-English-proficient children in public school. In so doing, the initiative targeted a student population that was at the time over 80 percent Latino and over 96 percent Latino or Asian.197 Not surprisingly, having chosen to frame their initiative to focus on such a race-linked issue, the proponents cast their proposal as addressing a Latino problem. In both their opening argument and in rebuttal in the official California Ballot Pamphlet, backers of Proposition 227 portrayed the issue of LEP instruction as involving instruction of Spanish- speaking students alone.198 Moreover, through its press releases, the “English for the Children” campaign often discussed the purported concerns of, and the campaign’s purported concerns for, Latino parents and Latino children.199 Ron Unz, the main author and proponent of Proposition 227, also wrote numerous published opinion pieces during the campaign. These pieces often referred specifically and expressly to only one group – Latinos.200 Finally, in campaign literature and letters, the “English for the Children” frequently hit the same tone and content.201
196Los Angeles Times – California Exit Poll, Nov. 8, 1994.
197See Cal. Dep’t Educ., Number of LEP Students, By Grade Level and By Language, 1997.
198See, e.g., Arg. in Favor of Prop. 227, Cal. Ballot Pamphlet, June 1998, at 34 (system of "SPANISH- ONLY education"; "Latino immigrant children" are victims of failed system; "Latino parents" support initiative; "Spanish-only bilingual education" harms Latino children); Rebuttal to Arg. Against Prop. 227, Cal. Ballot Pamphlet, June 1998, at 35 ("failed system of SPANISH-ONLY bilingual education").
199See, e.g., English for the Children, Press Release of Sept. 28, 1997, “Overcoming Leadership Opposition, California republican Party Endorses ‘English for the Children’ Initiative,’”(“Republican Party leadership misunderstood the desires of ordinary Latinos”); English for the Children, Press Release of Jan. 6, 1997, “‘English for the Children’ Calls for Carmen Schroeder’s Resignation Over LAUSD ‘Three Hour Recess’ Scandal,” (Ron Unz “fully understands the outrage which Latino parents feel”).
200See, e.g., Ron K. Unz, “Bilingualism Works -- But Bilingual Education Doesn’t,” S.F. Chron., Jan. 30, 1998 (“system’s primary victims – Latino immigrants and their children”); Ron Unz, “Alpert-Firestone: Recipe for Chaos,” L.A. Times, Feb. 26, 1998 (“Spanish-only bilingual education”).
201See, e.g., Yes on 227 English for the Children contribution solicitation letter (“Spanish-only activists . . . mobilize voters for SPANISH-ONLY programs”); English for the Children, Important Questions and Answers (“SPANISH-ONLY instruction”); English for the Children, signature collection letter (“Spanish-only”) (emphasis original).
37 Although the proponents of Proposition 227 attempted to portray their campaign focus on Latinos as benevolent, the outcome of the vote plainly indicates that Latinos, and many non- Latinos, understood that the intent and effect were otherwise. Like its predecessor, Proposition 227 was essentially imposed against the overwhelming wishes of the community likely to be most heavily affected. Again, statewide exit polling conducted by the Los Angeles Times showed a dramatic split between the votes of Latinos and those of the white majority. Proposition 227 passed by a vote of 61 percent to 39 percent, with 67 percent of white voters in favor; Latino voters cast ballots in a near mirror image of the overall electorate, with 63 percent against the initiative.202
Sandwiched between these two propositions, in 1996, was another racially divisive initiative, Proposition 209, which sought to eliminate affirmative action programs in public education, employment and contracting. While this initiative was less explicitly and exclusively targeted at Latinos than Proposition 187 or Proposition 227, it nonetheless inspired racial division. Moreover, in a state where Latinos are the largest minority group, representing now one third of the population, an initiative proposing to eliminate programs designed to benefit underrepresented minorities would be associated in many people’s minds with Latinos. As this might suggest, then, there was again a remarkable split in the vote on Proposition 209. Although the initiative passed by a vote of 54 percent to 46 percent, 76 percent of Latinos voters cast a “no” vote, a higher percentage than any other racial/ethnic group; whites voted heavily in favor (63 percent), while African Americans (74 percent) and Asian Americans (61 percent) joined Latinos in voting heavily against the initiative.203
Proposition 63, an English-only initiative passed in 1986, generated numerous racial appeals that sought to increase fear of minority communities. Ex-Senator S.I. Hayakawa distributed pamphlets arguing that some "Chicano activists" wanted to establish a "Spanish- speaking state of Aztlan," and that this alleged movement had "national security implications."204 At a legislative hearing in Los Angeles in October 1, Assemblyman Frank Hill charged that some Latino leaders want to control Latino communities by keeping people in "a language ghetto, a language barrio, where they're out of touch with the common language of this country."205
202Los Angeles Times - California Exit Poll, June 2, 1998.
203See Los Angeles Times -- California Exit Poll, Nov. 5, 1996.
204English-Only Proposition Kindles Minorities' Fears, L.A. Times, October 12, 1986 at 1 (Part 1, Column 1, Metro Desk ).
205Id.
38 Senate Factor Seven
Senate Factor seven is “the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.”206 Despite significant gains throughout the 1990s, in 2001 Latinos comprise only 18.6% of the total number of state and federal legislators despite the fact that Latinos comprise 32.4% of the state’s total population. The number of Latino elected officials still lags far behind the percentage of the total Latino population in California. The analysis below utilizes the yearly roster compilation in the National Directory of Latino Elected Officials, produced by the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund (NALEO). This publication lists the total number of Latino elected officials by state in particular jurisdictions.
In 1996, Latinos comprised 10.47% of the total number of state and federal elected officials in California (18/172).207 Latinos accounted for 7.69% of the House of Representatives seats (4/52), 10% of senate seats (4/40), and 12.5% of assembly seats (10/80). Latinos comprised only 2.8% of the total number of county elected officials in California (58/2,013) and only 8.7% of all municipal elected officials (255/2,913).208
In 1997, Latinos comprised 13.37% of the total number of state and federal elected officials in California (23/172). Latinos accounted for 9.62% of the House of Representatives seats in California (5/52), 10% of senate seats (4/40) and 17.5% of assembly seats (14/80). Latinos comprised only 3.0% of the total number of county elected officials in California (62/2,013) and only 8.8% of all municipal elected officials (258/2,913).
In 1998, Latinos comprised 13.37% of the total number of state and federal elected officials in California (23/172). Latinos accounted for 9.62% of the House of Representatives seats in California (5/52), 10% of senate seats (4/40), and 17.5% of assembly seats (14/80). Latinos comprised only 3.5% of the total number of county elected officials in California (71/2,013) and only 10.6% of all municipal elected officials (309/2,913).
206S. Rep. at 29; Gingles, 478 U.S. at 37, 45.
207Here, reference to state and federal elected officials includes only State Senators, State Assembly persons, and California Congressmembers.
208The total number of municipal elected seats (2,913), and the total number of county elected seats (2,013), are derived from Popularly Elected Officials, No. 2, Government Organization, Vol. 1, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration; Bureau of Census (1992 Census of Governments) (listing the total number of elected officials by state). For purposes of this analysis, the number of county and municipal elected officials is assumed a constant throughout the decade. For county elected official seats, the corresponding NALEO categories are “county officials” and “judicial/law enforcement officials” For municipal elected official seats, the respective NALEO category is the same as the Census Bureau category.
39 In 1999, Latinos comprised 16.86% of the total number of state and federal elected officials in California (29/172). Latinos accounted for 9.62% of the House of Representatives seats in California (5/52), 17.5% of senate seats (7/40), and 21.25% of assembly seats (17/80). Latinos comprised only 3.3% of the total number of county elected officials in California (67/2,013) and only 10.1% of all municipal elected officials (296/2,913).
In 2000, Latinos comprised 16.86% of the total number of state and federal elected officials in California (29/172). Latinos accounted for 11.54% of the House of Representatives seats in California (6/52), 17.5% of senate seats (7/40) and 20% of assembly seats (16/80).
Latinos comprised only 2.8% of the total number of county elected officials in California (58/2,013) and only 10.5% of all municipal elected officials (308/2,913).
In 2001, Latinos comprise 18.60% of the total number of state and federal elected officials in California (32/172). Latinos accounted for 11.54% number of the House of Representatives seats in California (6/52), 17.5% of senate seats (7/40), and 23.75% assembly seats (19/80). Latinos comprised only 2.9% of the total number of county elected officials in California (59/2,013) and only 10.1% of all municipal elected officials (295/2,913).209
As these figures indicate, Latinos continue to be underrepresented in state and federal elected seats. At the municipal and county level, the levels of underrepresentation are extreme.
Latinos are also disproportionately represented by the number of districts containing Latino voting age population majorities. Furthermore, although Latinos comprise 28.1% of the total voting age population in California, Latinos suffer from a lack of representation in state legislative and congressional districts. In 2001, there are only 14 of 80 (17.5%) of assembly districts where Latinos comprise over 50% of the total voting age population. For senate districts, there are only 6 of 40 (15) that contained over a 50% Latino voting age population. In congress, there are 8 of 52 (15.38%) districts that have over a 50% Latino voting age population. These are well below the 28.1% Latino voting age population in California and a further indication of the unequal electoral opportunities for Latinos.
An examination of the totality of the circumstances reveals substantial evidence of “practical realities” that has impeded the ability of Latinos to participate as equals with the rest of
209The total number of municipal elected seats (2,913), and the total number of county elected seats (2,013), are derived from Popularly Elected Officials, No. 2, Government Organization, Vol. 1, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration; Bureau of Census (1992 Census of Governments) (listing the total number of elected officials by state).
40 the electorate. Historical discrimination against Latinos has left its imprint in a variety of ways, not the least of which has been the adverse impact on Latino participation in our democratic political process.
The 2000 Census Undercount
Every decennial census since at least 1940 has undercounted the population of the United States. However, while the national undercount for the general population has been reduced progressively over this period, the undercount has remained consistently and substantially higher than the national undercount for African-Americans, Hispanics, other racial and ethnic minorities, persons who do not read and speak English well, and persons living in poverty or in high-crime areas. The United States Bureau of the Census refers to these groups collectively as the “chronically undercounted.”
The consequences of the undercount are many, not the least of which is the disproportionate effect it has on minorities in the allocation of state, local, and federal resources. The suit against the Census Bureau and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans by the City of Los Angeles and numerous other municipalities and counties underscores the problems the use of unadjusted data has on the equitable allocation of resources.
The use of unadjusted census data for redistricting has, during the 1990's adversely affected the ability of minorities to share in equal opportunities to elect candidates of their choice. A January 2001 study by Allan Lichtman for the U.S. Census Monitoring Board concludes that the use of corrected census data:
“had the potential to enhance minority voter opportunities in the plans drawn for the California State Senate and State Assembly, even though the number of seats in these plans would not have changed. In the State Senate, even without changing a single district line, the use of corrected data would have enhanced minority voter opportunities by increasing the baseline of majority-minority districts against which the next redistricting plan will be measured.”210
The use of corrected data in reapportionment of congressional seats might have also aided minorities in California. “If corrected data rather than uncorrected data had been used for the
210Allan Lichtman, “Report On the Implications for Minority Voter Opportunities if Corrected Census Data Had Been Used For The Post-1990 Redistricting: States With The Largest Numerical Undercount, Presidential Members Report: Implications for Minority Voters in 2001 January, 2001" (U.S. Census Monitoring Board).
41 post-1990 apportionment of congressional districts among states, a congressional district would have shifted from Wisconsin to California, as a result of California's large minority percentage. The demographics of the undercount in California indicate that the additional district may well have included a majority of minority group members and thus have provided minority voters an enhanced opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice.”
In July 2001, the Census Bureau released the preliminary 2001 census population counts for California. In California, the net undercount rate for Los Angeles County was 1.81% which is above the 1.52% California undercount. Los Angeles County had the highest undercounted population in the state: 176,047.
Use of unadjusted data has potential legal consequences as well. Use of unadjusted data exposes the legislature to malapportionment actions as well as Section 2 liability for its potential effect of diluting minority voting strength.
42
APPENDIX D The Role of Cross-Over Districts in a Fair Redistricting: Lessons from the 1990s
by J. Morgan Kousser July 28, 2001
Abstract: Assessing the fairness to California Latinos of redistricting plans for the state legislature and Congress inevitably involves a consideration of the question of what it takes to elect a Latino in contemporary California. Have the state’s voters become so colorblind that Latino candidates are equally likely to be elected from districts with small, as with large proportions of Latino voters? Or on the contrary, is racial polarization so absolute that only packed, overwhelmingly Latino districts can possibly afford Latino voters an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice? What is the best index of Latino voting power? Combining election and registration statistics from the State Assembly, Senate, and Congress with facts about candidates’ ethnic backgrounds for the 1994-2000 elections, this paper provides an empirical basis for evaluating redistricting plans. Its principal conclusions are: < Californians are not colorblind. In districts where Latinos comprise 30 percent or less of the registered Democrats, non-Latino candidates win almost 98 percent of the elections; in districts where Latinos make up a majority of Democrats, Latino candidates win 90 percent of the elections. More Latinos have won in recent elections because a Latino registration surge during the 1990s created more districts with sufficient concentrations of Latinos to win Democratic nominations, not because of a collapse in color consciousness among non-Latinos. < Latino candidates win nearly a fifth of the contests for seats in which Latinos amount to between 30 and 40 percent of Democrats and over two-fifths for seats in which Latinos are between 40 and 50 percent of Democrats. These are the critical “cross-over” seats. The fairness of a redistricting to Latinos must be judged largely on just how these seats are designed – that is, on who else is in them. Latinos can be elected where they form a large enough plurality over Democratic candidates from other ethnic backgrounds to win the Democratic nomination, but only where Democrats have a sufficient registration advantage to carry the general election. < Since Latino Republican seats cannot easily be distinguished from other Republican seats, there is no general method for increasing the proportion of Latino Republicans in office in California today. Thus, including Latino Republicans in a quantitative analysis will detract from, instead of add to, one’s ability to assess the fairness of redistricting to Latinos. I. Introduction
What does it take to elect a Latino in contemporary California? Have we become so enlightened, so colorblind, that ethnicity no longer matters? Or, on the contrary, is the electorate still stuck in the same historic racial rut, so that “majority-minority” districts are absolutely necessary for Latino victory? These are crucial questions in evaluating the racial fairness of competing redistricting plans in 2001. What are the conditions that would enable Latinos to enjoy, in the words of the Voting Rights Act, “an equal opportunity to participate in elections and to elect a candidate of their choice”?
Combining information about candidate ethnicity drawn largely from biennial reports in the California Journal with data about the ethnic and partisan composition of legislative and congressional districts available from the UC Berkeley Statewide Data Base and the California
Secretary of State’s office, some of which has been put into aggregate form by the MALDEF staff, this paper provides a snapshot of the changing political/ethnic realities of the nation’s largest and most sociologically complex state.
This analysis in nonpartisan, pointing up opportunities and problems for both political parties. If Democrats scatter too many Latinos in districts where they comprise less than a substantial plurality of the Democratic registrants, Republicans can offer Latinos plans that contain more plurality Latino Democratic districts, perhaps draining Latinos from nearby districts and making those districts more likely to vote Republican. If Republicans concentrate Latinos in too small a number of districts, Democrats can point out that Latinos could increase their total representation if their pluralities among Democrats were somewhat lower. Judges who assess the
1 ethnic fairness of redistricting in the lawsuits that seem invariably to follow every reapportionment can compute statistics similar to those presented in this paper for competing redistricting plans. Using these tools, the judges can then determine, on the basis of immediate past experience, what the likely consequences to Latinos of each plan would be, whether or not the plans were adopted by the legislature.
II. Choosing Indices of Electoral Power
The essential task in such an inquiry is to find the best measure of Latino voting power and to compare that with the success of the candidates who are most strongly preferred by those voters. There are four currently available choices for a measure of Latino voting power: population, voting age population, overall registration, and registration within the Democratic party.1 Although all are highly correlated,2 only registrants can vote, and there is a good deal of variation across legislative districts in the proportions of the total population of all ages or of
1The registration figures are estimates available on the website of the Statewide Data Base, and they are widely used. They were compiled by comparing the names of every registrant with a Spanish-surname dictionary. The website contains district-level estimates of ethnicity by party (e.g., of Latino Democrats) for the Assembly, Senate, and Congress for 1994 and 2000, and of ethnic registration for 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000. I calculated the proportion of Latino registrants who were Democrats for each district for 1994 and 2000, interpolated those percentages for 1996 and 1998, and multiplied the overall proportion of registrants who were Latino in 1996 and 1998 by the interpolated figures.
2For example, for the 80 Assembly districts in the 2000 election, the correlation coefficients between the percentages Latino of the population, the voting-age population, all voter registrants, and Democratic registrants range from 0.93 to 0.98.
2 voting age who are registered to vote.3 If measuring electoral influence is the goal, the population and voting-age percentages are, in this instance at least, rather crude indicators.
Should one, then, use Latino registration rates for all parties as the principal index of
Latino strength in the electorate and the election of Republican, as well as Democratic Latino legislators as an index of the success with which Latino voters translate their franchises into power? Is it realistic to ignore partisanship in an analysis of Latino influence in California in
2001? Election data shows that it would not merely be unrealistic to ignore party labels -- it would be folly.
First, consider the electorate. An estimated 65.8% of Latinos in California in the year
1994 registered as Democrats, compared to 21.6% who registered as Republicans.4 In a system of closed primaries or one in which few voters cross party lines in the blanket primaries that were used in California during most of the 1990s, Latino voters can realistically hope to have a major influence only on the nominations of Democratic candidates. Second, there is substantial variation from district to district in the proportion of Latinos who register as Democrats. In the
2000 Assembly, the mean (average) proportion of Latinos who are Democrats is 60%, but the standard deviation (a measure of dispersion about the mean) is 7.6%, and the range from district
3For the 2000 Assembly districts, an average of 25% of the total population, young and old, citizen and non-citizen, is registered to vote, but this ranges from 11% in one district to 46% in another, with a standard deviation (a measure of the average dispersion about the mean of a variable) of 6.5%. An average of 39% of the Latinos of voting age registered to vote in the same districts, with a range of 19% to 61% from district to district and a standard deviation of 8.8%.
4 The general California trend away from registering with the two major parties continued in the 1990s. In 1994, 49% of all California voters registered as Democrats, while 37.2% registered as Republicans. By the 2000 election, the Democratic registration percentage had slipped to 45.4% and the Republican, to 34.9%. Latinos followed the same pattern as other Californians, only 61.8% of them registering as Democrats and 19.8% as Republicans in 2000.
3 to district is from 41% to 73%. Using the overall Latino registration rate, rather than the Latino
Democratic registration rate as an indicator of Latino voting power would underestimate the ability of Latinos to influence nominations in some districts and overestimate it in others.
If voting is the input, then candidates’ election is the output of the electoral process. How should one gauge the success of minority voters? Since the beginning of minority ethnic politics in the United States, most famously with the massive Irish immigration to America in the 1840s and 50s, emerging minority ethnic groups have most preferred candidates from their own ethnic group. As Latino voting in the recent Los Angeles mayoral race once again demonstrates, the same behavioral law that governed Irish-American voting behavior in the 19th century holds for
Latino Americans in California today. So although not every Latino voter prefers to vote for a
Latino candidate in every instance, not every Latino candidate considers himself or herself a representative of the Latino community, and many non-Latino officeholders are quite responsive to Latino interests, the election of Latino candidates is still the most appropriate, least complicated, and least ambiguous measure of Latino political influence across districts and across time.
But should Republican, as well as Democratic Latino elected officials count in this index at this time in California? Again, let the data decide. Consider Table 1, which divides Assembly districts in the November, 2000 election into six groups, depending on the party and ethnicity of the winning candidate, and spells out some ethnic and partisan traits of the groups of districts.5
Three contrasts and one similarity are especially notable. First, note that African-Americans
5There were no African-American or Asian-American Republicans elected to the California Assembly in the 2000 election. For a discussion of the estimates of black and white registered voter percentages, see the Appendix.
4 comprise the majority of registered voters in the districts that elect black legislators, and Latinos comprise the plurality in districts that elect Latino Democrats. In all other types of districts,
Anglos account for at least 63.6% of the voters, rising to 79% in Anglo Republican districts.
That is why Latinos and African-Americans are called “under-represented” minorities: On average, they must control at least pluralities of the relevant electorates in districts that they seek to represent. Where whites control such pluralities, they elect Latinos in only one special case.
That special case -- Latino Republicans -- highlights the second contrast, that between districts that elected Latino Democrats and those that elected Latino Republicans. The Latino proportion of the registered voters is two and a half times as high in the 16 Democratic as in the 4
Republican districts, and a more conventional measure of voting strength, the proportion of the voting age population that is Latino, is 2.2 times as high. Latino registered voters comprise 42% of the district of the average Latino Democratic member of the Assembly, but less than half as high a percentage of the constituency of the legislators of any other ethnicity. They form the core of the electorate for Latino Democrats, but not for Latino Republicans.
The third contrast is between the partisan groups. As I have shown elsewhere, statistical models based only on partisan registration percentages predicted nearly 90% of the outcomes of
California Assembly and congressional races from 1970 through 1996.6 And the partisan registration percentages in the Democratic and Republican districts in Table I differ dramatically, regardless of the ethnicity of the successful candidates. In all of the Democratic groups of districts, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by an average of at least twenty percentage
6Kousser, “Reapportionment Wars: Party, Race, and Redistricting in California, 1971- 1992,” in Bernard Grofman, ed., Race and Redistricting in the 1990s (N.Y.: Agathon Press, 1998), 134-90.
5 points, while in districts that elected Latino, as well as Anglo Republicans, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by seven or more percentage points.
This third contrast accents, as well, the key similarity in Table 1: The districts that send
Latino Republicans to Sacramento are much more similar to those that send Anglo Republicans than to those of any other group. Since Latinos comprise a much smaller proportion of
Republicans than of Democrats in California today, they necessarily have much less power in the
Republican than in the Democratic party, and the conditions of that power are much less predictable. Consider one more statistic. The average Latino percentage of the Republican registration in the four districts that elected Latino Republicans to the Assembly in 2000 was only 10.2%, which was below the Latino percentage of the Republican registration of 12.7% in the 76 other districts in the state. That is, the Latino Republicans were elected from districts in which Latino Republican voters have less voting power in the Republican party than in the average district in the state.
While knowledgeable political consultants might be able to draw districts that would be likely to elect particular Latino Republican politicians, it is much more difficult for political scientists to discover correlates of districts that would have a good chance of doing so. There is just no easy way to differentiate such districts from any other districts that are friendly to
Republican candidates.
Three conclusions follow immediately: First, there is no general rule for designing Latino
Republican districts. Second, including Latino Republicans in any predictive tables or equations will just decrease one’s ability to generalize. Third, the index of Latino influence on election outcomes that will yield the broadest conclusions is the Latino percentage of registered
6 Democrats.
In brief, any rational assessment of the fairness of redistricting for Latinos in California in
2001 must be confined to the behavior of Latino Democratic voters and Latino Democratic
politicians. As a redistricting strategy for Latinos, it makes sense to concentrate on winning
Democratic nominations; as an evaluative strategy for political scientists, it makes sense to
concentrate on measuring Latino power within the Democratic party.
III. Trends
A. The Assembly
The simplest way to present our index of Latino voting power, on the one hand, and its effectiveness in electing Latino candidates, on the other, is in a series of tables, one for each legislative body in each election year from 1994 to 2000.7 Table II. A., whose four parts depict
Assembly election results from 1994 through 2000, shows the most change, because Assembly
districts are smaller, campaigns are therefore easier to finance and organize, and the six-year term
limits are shorter than for the Senate, causing more mandated turnover than in the other two
bodies. (The U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for states to limit congressional
7The lack of 1992 Latino registration data currently available on the Statewide Data Base precludes an analysis of that election at this time. Although the 1994 election was the high point of the decade for California Republicans, it does not seem to have had a major impact on Latino politicians’ fortunes. No Latino incumbent lost, and the number of Latino Democratic nominees who were beaten in the general election was not out of line with the numbers from other elections during the decade.
7 terms.) Tables II. B. and II. C. are identical for each of the other legislative bodies, with cell entries being the number of districts in each category, by decile. Thus, the first cell of the first column of Table II. A. 1. shows that Latinos comprised fewer than ten percent of the registered
Democrats in 29 Assembly districts in 1994. The first row of the second column shows that in such overwhelmingly non-Latino districts, no Latino Assembly candidates were elected, while the third row shows that none received the Democratic nomination, and the fourth, that in only two such districts were there even any Spanish-surnamed candidates.8
The trends are quite interesting. Two are most significant – the growth in Latino registration and the increase in the number of Latino members of the Assembly. The increase in the Latino proportion of the Democratic registrants grew much faster than the Latino proportion of the overall population did. From 1994 to 2000, the Latino proportion of the population in
California rose from 28.7% to 32.4%, an increase of 13.2%. But the Latino proportion of
Democratic registration jumped from 16.1% to 22.1%, a 37.3% rise. The Latino population did not just grow. It politicized dramatically during the 1990s, especially from 1994 to 1996, in the aftermath of the controversy over Proposition 187, which was viewed by many Latinos as a racial issue.
This increased registration changed the political calculus in many legislative districts. In
1994, there were 29 Assembly districts in which the Latino proportion of the Democratic registration was in single digits; by 2000, only 15 districts. In 1994, there were 9 Assembly
8Candidates not in serious contention for nominations, or candidates for parties that are in hopeless minority positions within districts are often barely mentioned in the press or remembered for very long by outside observers. Thus, in a good many cases, I was forced to rely on surnames to determine ethnicity. Although I made special efforts to separate Basque and Portuguese surnames from Spanish ones, I undoubtedly made some errors.
8 districts in which Latinos amounted to forty percent or more of the Democratic registration; in
2000, there were 15. And registration led to election: the number of Latinos in the Assembly rose from 10 in 1994 to 16 in 2000, with districts in which Latinos comprised forty percent or more of the Democrats accounting for 5 of the 6 additional seats.
The two trends highlight two basic facts that are relevant to the evaluation of districts in
2001: First, the California electorate is not colorblind. In 1994, in the 64 Assembly districts in which Latinos amounted to thirty percent or less of the registered Democrats, only 4 Latino
Democrats were nominated, and only 1 was elected. In 2000, there were still 61 districts in which Latinos made up thirty percent or less of the Democratic registration, and there were only
5 Latinos nominated and 3 elected. The likelihood of a Latino being elected to the Assembly in the year 2000 from a district in which the Democratic registration was seventy percent or more non-Latino was three out of 61 or 4.9%, while in districts where Latinos made up half or more of the Democrats, the probability was 88.8%. Second, an increasing proportion of Latino candidates can be elected from districts in which Latinos comprise between thirty and fifty percent of the Democratic registrants – 5 out of 12 in 1994, and 5 out of 10 in 2000. These districts might have been considered “influence districts” during the 1991-92 round of redistricting. Today, they should be considered Latino “opportunity” or “cross-over”districts. As the Latino population continues to diffuse within urban areas, such as the San Gabriel Valley and northern Orange County, it is these ethnically mixed areas where Latino percentages are likely to experience the most growth during the next decade.
It is also worth noting that the number of Latinos nominated, but not elected to the
Assembly has hardly grown – from 5 to 6 from 1994 to 2000. Apparently, savvy Latino
9 politicians are not wasting their time running for largely empty nominations in overwhelmingly
Republican districts, and Democratic electorates are not making symbolic ethnic nominations.
But there are a lot more districts of every sort in which one or more Spanish-surnamed candidates
are competing – a sign of an increasingly active political group of amateurs, as well as
professionals. In 1994, there were Latino candidates for the Democratic nomination for the
Assembly in 19 of the 80 districts; in 2000, in 29.
III.
B. The Senate
Senate trends are somewhat more difficult to discern because in years divisible by four,
1996 and 2000, there were no districts up for election in which Latinos comprised a third or more of the Democratic registrants. In those years, there were only two and four Latinos, respectively, who won Democratic Senate nominations, and none who managed to be elected. The 1994 and
1998 elections were much more useful for tracking the Senate.
The trends are similar to those in the Assembly – rising percentages of registrants and rising numbers of Latino candidates elected. In 1994, including one special election, only 4 of 21 seats had more than forty percent Latino Democratic registrants; in 1998, 5 of 20. More spectacularly, in 1994, 4 Latinos were elected, with none from districts below thirty percent
Latino; in 1998, 7 were elected, including 2 from districts in which the Latino percentage of
Democratic registrants was less than twenty percent. In every district above thirty percent Latino
10 of the Democratic registration where there was a Latino candidate for the nomination in 1998,
there was a Latino elected. As with the Assembly, it will instructive to pay special attention later
in this report to the crossover districts.
III.
C. Congress
Although it might have been expected that the Latino political upsurge would be muted in the congressional delegation, since members of Congress are not subject to term limits and the well-known incumbency advantage is quite potent, the pattern of congressional elections rather closely mirrors those in the term-limited Assembly and Senate. First, the number of congressional districts in which Latinos comprised less than ten percent of the Democratic registration fell from 18 to 8 from 1994 to 2000, while the number in which Latinos exceeded forty percent rose from 5 to 8. Second, the number of Latinos elected rose in the same years from 4 to 6, with one in the 2000 election coming from a district in which Latinos made up less than thirty-eight percent of the Democrats. The number of districts in which Latinos contested primaries jumped from 6 to 11, and the number in which they were nominated, but not elected rose from 0 to 3. In Congress, as well as in the state legislature, the picture is the same: greater registration, greater opportunity, more elected officials.
Since a third of the Latinos elected to Congress from California in 2000 came from districts in which Latino voters made up less than a majority of Democratic registrants, it would
11 be an egregious mistake for Latinos to insist on drawing only majority-Latino Democratic registration districts and unfair for any court truly interested in equal opportunity to establish such a percentage as a “bright-line” rule.9
III. D. Summary of the Trends and Conditions
Table III, which simply adds up all the parts of Table II, is static, but still revealing. In the 482 Assembly, Senate, and congressional districts where Latinos comprised less than thirty percent of the Democratic registration, Latino candidates won only 10 times, or in only 2.1 percent of the contests. On the other hand, in districts where Latinos amounted to fifty percent or more of the Democratic registration, they won 49 of 54 times, or 90.1 percent. Thus, the outcomes in either overwhelmingly Latino or overwhelmingly non-Latino districts, which account for 87.9% of the districts in California from 1994 through 2000, are as close to being sure bets as anything gets in the politics of a democracy. The really interesting cases are in the other 12.1% of the districts, those in which Latino voters control between thirty and fifty percent of the Democratic registration. There, they were successful in electing Latino candidates nearly a third of the time – 18.9% of the time in districts between 30 and 40 percent Latino Democratic registration and 45.9% of the time in districts between 40 and 50 percent. Such districts are the key to Latino opportunity in the next decade. What explains the pattern of their victories and losses during the 1990s?
9As Tables IV and V, below, show, nearly all of the districts in which between 30% and 50% of the Democrats are Latinos also contains a Latino majority of the voting age population, which would likely satisfy the U.S. Supreme Court’s criteria for districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as set forth, at least implicitly in Johnson v. De Grandy.
12 IV. What Happened in the Crossover Districts?
Why did Latinos win in some districts in which their percentage of the Democratic registration was between thirty and fifty percent, but lose in others? If one were designing or evaluating the design of such districts, what other characteristics would encourage or discourage the success of Latino candidates? In particular, what difference does the partisan composition of the registrants, which has been shown to be an extremely potent predictor of electoral success in
California, make to the prospects of Latino candidates in districts where they must seek support from non-Latino voters?
Table IV summarizes information given in much more detail in the parts of Table V. It divides all of the Assembly, Senate, and congressional districts in the state from the 1994 through
2000 elections in which Latinos comprised between thirty and fifty percent of the registered
Democrats into four groups – those that elected Latino, Anglo, or Asian Democrats, and those that elected Anglo Republicans. (There were no Asian or Latino Republican candidates elected from such districts.) Since each district counts once for each election, a district that, for example, sent the same Anglo Republican to Congress four times is counted four times in the Anglo
Republican totals.
Two contrasts are most significant. First, consider the Latino and Anglo percentages of registered Democrats in districts that elected Latino versus Anglo Democrats. In those that elected Latinos, the Latino Democratic percentage averaged 11 points higher than the Anglo
Democratic percentage, while in those that elected Anglos, the Latino Democratic percentage averaged less than three points higher than the Anglo Democratic percentage. Apparently, in districts where Latinos had strong pluralities, enough African-Americans and Asian-Americans
13 supported the Latino candidate in the primary to nominate him or her. Or perhaps for some reason there were more white cross-overs in more strongly Latino plurality districts than in less strongly ones. In either case, the same conclusion follows straightforwardly: To nominate a
Latino Democrat, create a district with a solid Latino plurality among Democrats.
But of course, nomination is not the same thing as election, and the second contrast defines the needle to be threaded. As in all 80 Assembly districts pictured in Table I, above, there is in the subset of districts studied in Table IV a stark contrast in the Democratic registration margin in districts won by Democrats of whatever ethnic group and Anglo
Republicans. In districts won by Democratic candidates, the percentage of Democratic registrants exceeded that of Republican registrants by an average of 23 percent or more. In districts won by Republicans, the average difference was less than 6 percent. The vast majority of these Republicans are Anglos. In eight of the twenty-five contests in which Republicans won the general election, the Democrats that they beat were Latinos. But six of these nominations came in effectively overwhelmingly Republican districts, where no Democrat would have had much of a chance to win the general election. The second conclusion is therefore as obvious as the first: To elect any Democrat, make sure that the district has a fairly hefty Democratic registration margin.
Putting the two conclusions together defines the task: To draw Latino cross-over districts, one needs enough non-Latino Democrats to elect a Latino Democratic nominee, but not so many as to deny a Latino primary candidate the nomination.
14 V. Cross-Over Districts and the “Racial Gerrymandering” Cases
The tables generated for this report and the analysis made of them should help to avoid the dilemmas posed for redistricters by Shaw v. Reno and its progeny. Because the Latino population has grown so much in the last generation, because there is still a substantial amount of housing segregation among Latinos, and because Latinos are concentrated in the Democratic party, it would take an almost unprecedented gerrymander to eliminate or even greatly reduce the number of legislative districts in which Latinos comprise a majority of the Democratic registrants. And as the figures in Table III show, those districts are extremely likely to elect
Latino Democratic representatives. On the other hand, to increase the proportion of Latinos in such districts – to “pack” more Latinos into districts that Latinos can already easily win – would not only decrease the opportunity of Latino voters to elect more candidates of their choice, thus contravening Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, but it would also exacerbate the problems that Justice O’Connor decried in Shaw v. Reno as the “balkanization” or “segregation” of more voters by ethnicity.10
Emphasizing cross-over districts, on the other hand, obviates both difficulties. In districts in which Latinos are a plurality within the Democratic party, they must obviously reach out to voters from other groups in order to be elected. As Justice Souter put it in Johnson v. De
Grandy, in such districts, minorities must “pull, haul, and trade to find common political ground.” Voters in cross-over districts are by definition not segregated or stereotyped, and the
10Whatever the validity of Justice O’Connor’s assertions as matters of political sociology or psychology, the weighted phrases for ethnic concentration that she used in Shaw v. Reno will no doubt echo through litigation over the 2001 round of redistricting. It would be unwise for the shapers or assessors of redistricting plans to ignore her words.
15 nature of the electorate cannot possibly cue elected officials to pay attention only to the majority ethnic group, for there is, among registered voters, no majority ethnic group, even within one political party. No member of any ethnic group in such a district can be guaranteed a seat; they can only be provided with an opportunity. All of these concerns that the Supreme Court mentioned in Shaw v. Reno and subsequent related opinions cannot apply to districts in which there is no ethnic majority of voters. Yet at the same time, as the figures from Tables IV and V demonstrate, cross-over districts with certain traits in California in 2001 may avoid either over- concentration or dilution of Latino political strength, satisfying Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act by providing Latinos an opportunity to elect more of their most preferred candidates.
The best way to evaluate the ethnic fairness of the 2001 redistricting in California is to concentrate on and closely evaluate the number and nature of the districts in which the state’s largest minority ethnic group constitutes between thirty and fifty percent of the registered
Democrats.
16 Appendix: Estimating the Ethnicity of Registered Democrats
The Statewide Database gives estimates, based on surname indices, for the number of
Latinos and Asian-Americans registered, by party. The rest of those registered must be African-
Americans and non-Latino whites. According to the 1994 Current Population Survey of the U.S.
Bureau of the Census, the registration rates of African-American and Anglo adults in California
are approximately equal. In fact, 60.0% of African-Americans and 58.4% of whites in the state
reported that they were registered to vote.11 There is no reason to believe that the registration rates of these two groups changed markedly over the decade. Let us therefore assume that whites and blacks registered in equal proportion to their proportion of the voting age population in each district. We then estimate the proportion of registered voters who are African-American in each district by the following formula:
1) B = (1 - L/T - A/T) * (BV/ (BV + WV)) * T, where B = number of blacks registered
L = number of Latinos registered
T = total registration of all groups
A = number of Asians registered
11The CPS data is at
17 BV = black voting age population,
WV = white voting age population, and
* signifies multiplication.
Similarly,
2) W = (1 - L/T - A/T) * (WV/ (BV+WV)) * T, where W = number of whites registered.
We then estimate the proportion of registered blacks who are Democrats by performing the following weighted least-squares regression over the relevant districts (the 1994 Assembly districts for the 1994 Assembly estimate, the 1998 Senate districts for the 1998 Senate estimate, etc.):
3) D/T = â0 + â1 L/T + â2 B/T + â3W/T + å, where D = number of Democrats registered.
We then calculate the number of black Democrats in each district (assuming that the proportion
Democratic within the blacks registered is the same in every district) by:
4) BD = (â0 + â2) * B, where BD = number of black Democrats.
And WD, the number of white Democrats, is simply the remainder:
5) WD = D - LD - AD - BD, where LD = number of Latino Democrats, and
AD = number of Asian Democrats.
I use weighted least-squares regression, instead of King’s “ecological inference” model, because EI does not seem to work well for more than two groups. The weight in each district is
18 the total registered, but unweighted estimates and estimates weighted by the voting age
population differ only slightly. Since the Statewide Data Base gives estimates of Latino and
Asian registration by party, and equation 3) above yields regression estimates of those quantities,
we have a natural test of the adequacy of the regression estimates for blacks and whites – how
well the regression estimates for Latinos matches the Statewide Data Base estimates.12 Table A-
1 compares the two sets of estimates. Regression more closely approximates the correct value
when the number of districts on which it is based is highest – that is, when it is based on 80
Assembly districts, rather than 40 Senate or 52 congressional districts. But all of the estimates
are fairly good, with the worst missing the mark by six percentage points and the best off by one-
tenth of a percentage point. This suggests that the estimates of the black Democratic proportion
are reasonably accurate.
12As scholars have understood for some time, ecological regression estimates of the behavior of small groups whose proportions vary little from district to district are often very inaccurate. See Kousser, “Making Separate Equal: Integration of Black and White School Funds in Kentucky,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 10 (1980), 427-28. This is the case with the estimate of Asian Democrats. In 1994, Asians accounted for only one percent of the registered voters, a figure that varied from 0.8 percent to only 15.9 percent across the 80 Assembly districts. By contrast, the Latino proportion of the registered voters, 11.5, is much closer to the estimated black proportion, 8, in that year, and the percentages of both groups vary a great deal more from district to district than those for Asian-Americans do. It is reasonable, therefore, to ignore the estimates of Asian Democrats.
19 Table A-1: Testing the Accuracy of Regression Estimates of the Percentage
Democratic among Latinos
% of Latinos who are Democratic,
according to Year Body Statewide Database Regression 1994 Assembly 65.8 67.7 1996 Assembly 64.2 62.9 1998 Assembly 63.1 63 2000 Assembly 61.8 59 1994 Senate 65.8 63.8 1998 Senate 63.1 59.8 1994 Congress 65.8 63.4 1996 Congress 64.3 58.8 1998 Congress 63.1 58.8 2000 Congress 61.8 55.7
It is also possible to perform a simple sensitivity test to determine how much difference it makes to the key estimates in Table IV just how accurate the regression estimates of the percentage of African-Americans who are Democratic are. Table A-2 shows that it does not affect any of the conclusions of this paper. The regression estimates of the percentage of blacks
who register as Democrats range from 93.6% to 100%. What if one substituted 80% for â2 in
20 equation 4) above, instead? The entries in Table A-2 compare the original estimates of the black and white percentages of the Democratic registration in districts that have between 30% and 50%
Latino Democratic registration with estimates based on substituting 80% for â2 in equation 4).
Each changes by about three percentage points, but since the shifts are parallel for the two sets of candidates, the conclusions are not disturbed.
Table A-2: How Sensitive are Estimates of the Proportion of Democrats Who are Black and White to Assumptions about the Proportion of Blacks Who are Democratic?
Party and Ethnicity of Winning Candidates Traits of Average District Latino Dem. Anglo Dem. Regression estimates Black 22.9 21.1 (from Table IV) of % of Democrats Anglo 31 36.4
Estimates of % of Black 19.3 17.8 Democrats Assuming Blacks are 80% Dem. Anglo 34.5 39.7
21 Tables
Table I: We Are Not Colorblind or Nonpartisan Yet:
Ethnic and Partisan Differences in Assembly Districts in the 2000 Election
Party and Ethnicity of Winning Candidates, Nov. 2000 Traits of Average District Latino Latino Dem. Black Dem. Repub. Number of Districts 4 16 4 Latino 16.1 41.8 20.8
% of Registered Voters Black 5.1 9.9 55.3 Asian 5.9 8.8 4.0 Anglo 72.9 39.4 19.9 % Latino of Voting Age Population 25.2 55.7 45.9 Democratic Registration Margin (D-R) -7.4 29.1 60.5
Party and Ethnicity of Winning Candidates, Nov., 2000 Traits of Average District Anglo Repub. Anglo Dem. Asian Dem. Number of Districts 26 27 3 Latino 12.3 13.3 10.1
% of Registered Voters Black 4.4 7.6 17.7 Asian 4.3 7.4 8.7 Anglo 79 71.7 63.6 % Latino of Voting Age Population 20.7 20.7 17.4 Democratic Registration Margin (D-R) -10.2 22.6 20.4
22 Table II: The Conditions of Latino Electoral Success
A. 1: The State Assembly, 1994
Percent Latino Number of Number of Number of Number of of Registered Districts in Districts in Districts in Districts in Democrats Each which a Latino which a Latino which a Latino Decile Democrat was Democrat was ran in the Elected Nominated, but Democratic not Elected Primary 0-10 29 0 0 2 10-20 29 1 3 4 20-30 6 0 1 1 30-40 7 2 1 3 40-50 5 3 0 5 50-60 3 3 0 3 60-70 1 1 0 1 70-80 0 0 0 0 80-90 0 0 0 0 90-100 0 0 0 0
23 II. A. 2: 1996 Assembly
Percent Latino Number of Number of Number of Number of of Registered Districts in Districts in Districts in Districts in Democrats Each which a Latino which a Latino which a Latino Decile Democrat was Democrat was ran in the Elected Nominated, but Democratic not Elected Primary 0-10 16 0 0 0 10-20 30 2 0 2 20-30 16 1 0 3 30-40 3 1 2 3 40-50 6 1 2 4 50-60 5 4 1 5 60-70 3 3 0 3 70-80 0 0 0 0 80-90 1 1 0 1 90-100 0 0 0 0
24 II. A. 3: 1998 Assembly
Percent Latino Number of Number of Number of Number of of Registered Districts in Districts in Districts in Districts in Democrats Each which a Latino which a Latino which a Latino Decile Democrat was Democrat was ran in the Elected Nominated, but Democratic not Elected Primary 0-10 17 0 0 1 10-20 29 0 3 3 20-30 16 1 0 1 30-40 2 0 0 0 40-50 7 3 1 6 50-60 5 5 0 5 60-70 3 3 0 3 70-80 0 0 0 0 80-90 1 1 0 1 90-100 0 0 0 0
25 II. A. 4.: 2000 Assembly
Percent Latino Number of Number of Number of Number of of Registered Districts in Districts in Districts in Districts in Democrats Each which a Latino which a Latino which a Latino Decile Democrat was Democrat was ran in the Elected Nominated, but Democratic not Elected Primary 0-10 15 0 0 1 10-20 29 0 3 5 20-30 17 3 2 6 30-40 4 1 0 2 40-50 6 4 1 6 50-60 5 4 0 5 60-70 3 3 0 3 70-80 0 0 0 0 80-90 1 1 0 1 90-100 0 0 0 0
26 II. B. The State Senate
B. 1.: 1994
Percent Latino Number of Number of Number of Number of of Registered Districts in Districts in Districts in Districts in Democrats Each which a Latino which a Latino which a Latino Decile Democrat was Democrat was ran in the Elected Nominated, but Democratic not Elected Primary 0-10 4 0 0 1 10-20 7 0 1 1 20-30 5 0 0 1 30-40 1 1 0 1 40-50 2 1 0 1 50-60 1 1 0 1 60-70 1 1 0 1 70-80 0 0 0 0 80-90 0 0 0 0 90-100 0 0 0 0
27 II. B. 2. : 1996 Senate
Percent Latino Number of Number of Number of Number of of Registered Districts in Districts in Districts in Districts in Democrats Each which a Latino which a Latino which a Latino Decile Democrat was Democrat was ran in the Elected Nominated, but Democratic not Elected Primary 0-10 5 0 1 1 10-20 10 0 1 1 20-30 5 0 0 0 30-40 0 0 0 0 40-50 0 0 0 0 50-60 0 0 0 0 60-70 0 0 0 0 70-80 0 0 0 0 80-90 0 0 0 0 90-100 0 0 0 0
28 II. B. 3.: 1998 Senate
Percent Latino Number of Number of Number of Number of of Registered Districts in Districts in Districts in Districts in Democrats Each which a Latino which a Latino which a Latino Decile Democrat was Democrat was ran in the Elected Nominated, but Democratic not Elected Primary 0-10 2 0 0 0 10-20 8 2 0 3 20-30 3 0 0 0 30-40 3 1 0 1 40-50 2 1 0 1 50-60 1 1 0 1 60-70 1 1 0 1 70-80 1 1 0 1 80-90 0 0 0 0 90-100 0 0 0 0
29 II B. 4.: 2000 Senate
Percent Latino Number of Number of Number of Number of of Registered Districts in Districts in Districts in Districts in Democrats Each which a Latino which a Latino which a Latino Decile Democrat was Democrat was ran in the Elected Nominated, but Democratic not Elected Primary 0-10 5 0 1 1 10-20 7 0 0 1 20-30 7 0 2 2 30-40 1 0 1 1 40-50 0 0 0 0 50-60 0 0 0 0 60-70 0 0 0 0 70-80 0 0 0 0 80-90 0 0 0 0 90-100 0 0 0 0
30 Table II. C.: Congress
C. 1.: 1994
Percent Latino Number of Number of Number of Number of of Registered Districts in Districts in Districts in Districts in Democrats Each which a Latino which a Latino which a Latino Decile Democrat was Democrat was ran in the Elected Nominated, but Democratic not Elected Primary 0-10 18 0 0 0 10-20 19 0 0 0 20-30 8 0 0 1 30-40 2 0 0 1 40-50 2 1 0 1 50-60 3 3 0 3 60-70 0 0 0 0 70-80 0 0 0 0 80-90 0 0 0 0 90-100 0 0 0 0
31 II. C. 2: 1996 Congress
Percent Latino Number of Number of Number of Number of of Registered Districts in Districts in Districts in Districts in Democrats Each which a Latino which a Latino which a Latino Decile Democrat was Democrat was ran in the Elected Nominated, but Democratic not Elected Primary 0-10 10 0 0 0 10-20 17 0 1 1 20-30 13 0 0 0 30-40 5 0 0 0 40-50 2 1 0 2 50-60 2 1 0 1 60-70 2 2 0 2 70-80 1 1 0 1 80-90 0 0 0 0 90-100 0 0 0 0
32 II. C. 3.: 1998 Congress
Percent Latino Number of Number of Number of Number of of Registered Districts in Districts in Districts in Districts in Democrats Each which a Latino which a Latino which a Latino Decile Democrat was Democrat was ran in the Elected Nominated, but Democratic not Elected Primary 0-10 9 0 0 0 10-20 19 0 1 1 20-30 13 0 2 2 30-40 4 0 0 0 40-50 2 1 0 2 50-60 2 1 0 2 60-70 2 2 0 2 70-80 1 1 0 1 80-90 0 0 0 0 90-100 0 0 0 0
33 II. C. 4.: 2000 Congress
Percent Latino Number of Number of Number of Number of of Registered Districts in Districts in Districts in Districts in Democrats Each which a Latino which a Latino which a Latino Decile Democrat was Democrat was ran in the Elected Nominated, but Democratic not Elected Primary 0-10 8 0 0 0 10-20 20 0 1 1 20-30 11 0 1 3 30-40 5 1 1 2 40-50 3 1 0 1 50-60 2 1 0 1 60-70 2 2 0 2 70-80 1 1 0 1 80-90 0 0 0 0 90-100 0 0 0 0
34 Table III: Where Latinos Run, Where Latinos Win (Summary of Table II)
Percent Latino Number of Number of Number of Number of of Registered Districts in Districts in Districts in Districts in Democrats Each which a Latino which a Latino which a Latino Decile Democrat was Democrat was ran in the Elected Nominated, but Democratic not Elected Primary 0-10 138 0 0 7 10-20 224 5 14 23 20-30 120 5 8 20 30-40 37 7 5 14 40-50 37 17 4 29 50-60 29 24 1 27 60-70 18 18 0 18 70-80 4 4 0 4 80-90 3 3 0 3 90-100 0 0 0 0
35 Table IV: Ethnic and Partisan Traits of Cross-Over Districts, 1994-2000 (Assembly, Senate, and Congressional Districts where the Latino Percentage of the Democratic Registration is between 30 and 50 Percent)
Party and Ethnicity of Winning Candidates Traits of Average District Latino Dem. Anglo Asian Dem. Anglo Repub. Dem. Number of Districts 24 22 2 25 Latino 42.2 39.2 42.1 37.1
% of Democrats Asian 3.9 3.2 25.4 3.1 Black 22.9 21.1 14.8 12.9 Anglo 31.0 36.4 37.8 46.9 Reg. Voters 33.2 30.5 31.3 24.9
% Latino of Voting Age 51.8 46.2 42.7 40.5 Population Population 56.8 50.9 47 45.3 % Anglo of Voting Age 28 32.5 27 43.9 Population Democratic Registration 23.8 23.4 34.9 5.6 Margin (D-R)
36 Table V: Cross-Over Districts in Detail A. 1.: The Assembly, 1994
Traits of Districts Districts Represented by a Latino Dem. Anglo Asian Dem. Anglo Rep. Dem. Number of Districts 5 2 0 5 District Numbers 31, 45, 46, 23, 39 28, 30, 61, 62, 79 69, 80 Latino 39.4 36.4 37.2 % of Democrats Asian 2.7 2.3 1.7 Black 26.1 16.9 13.4 Anglo 31.9 44.3 47.7 % of Registered Voters Latino 34.2 30.6 26.7 % of Voting Age Population 53.9 51.9 48.6 Latino % of Population Latino 58.6 56.6 53.8 % of Voting Age Population 24.8 27.3 39.8 Anglo Democratic Registration Margin 35.1 36 14.4 (D - R)
37 V. A. 2.: 1996 Assembly
Traits of Districts Districts Represented by a Latino Dem. Anglo Asian Dem. Anglo Rep. Dem. Number of Districts 2 0 1 6 District Numbers 62, 79 23 28, 30, 37, 60, 61, 80 Latino 43.6 44 41.2 % of Democrats Asian 1.2 4.9 2.4 Black 39.3 15.1 14.6 Anglo 15.9 36 41.8 % of Registered Voters Latino 33.4 31.7 26.6 % of Voting Age Population 48.8 42.2 41.5 Latino % of Population Latino 53.7 46.5 46.3 % of Voting Age Population 28.8 28.1 43.9 Anglo Democratic Registration Margin 25.4 35.2 7.2 (D - R)
38 V. A. 3.: 1998 Assembly
Traits of Districts Districts Represented by a Latino Dem. Anglo Asian Dem. Anglo Rep. Dem. Number of Districts 3 1 1 4 District Numbers 30, 61, 79 62 23 28, 37, 60, 80 Latino 46.1 44.3 40.1 37.9 % of Democrats Asian 1.2 1 5.8 2.8 Black 29.2 34.7 14.4 9.8 Anglo 23.5 19.9 39.6 49.6 % of Registered Voters Latino 35.2 32.6 30.8 25.7 % of Voting Age Population 51.1 49.6 43.1 39.6 Latino % of Population Latino 55.9 54.3 47.4 44.6 % of Voting Age Population 30.3 31.4 25.9 44.7 Anglo Democratic Registration Margin 17.7 28.5 34.5 6.5 (D - R)
39 V. A. 4.: 2000 Assembly
Traits of Districts Districts Represented by a Latino Dem. Anglo Asian Dem. Anglo Rep. Dem. Number of Districts 5 2 0 3 District Numbers 23, 28, 30, 26, 62 37, 60, 80 61, 79 Latino 45.2 37.2 37.9 % of Democrats Asian 5.8 2.8 4.8 Black 19 19.1 10.3 Anglo 30 40.9 47 % of Registered Voters Latino 35.7 30.5 25.7 % of Voting Age Population 50.3 45 38.2 Latino % of Population Latino 55.2 49.8 43.3 % of Voting Age Population 29.1 39.2 44.4 Anglo Democratic Registration Margin 20.2 19.3 2 (D - R)
40 Table V. B.: The Senate
1.: 1994
Traits of Districts Districts Represented by a Latino Dem. Anglo Asian Dem. Anglo Rep. Dem. Number of Districts 2 1 0 0 District Numbers 22, 32 16 Latino 37.3 44.4 % of Democrats Asian 3 1.2 Black 24.6 16.2 Anglo 35.1 38.2 % of Registered Voters Latino 31.3 34.7 % of Voting Age Population 52.7 50.6 Latino % of Population Latino 57.3 55.2 % of Voting Age Population 27 36.2 Anglo Democratic Registration Margin 29.8 25.6 (D - R)
41 V. B. 2.: 1998 Senate
Traits of Districts Districts Represented by a Latino Dem. Anglo Asian Dem. Anglo Rep. Dem. Number of Districts 2 3 0 0 District Numbers 38, 32 30, 34, 40 Latino 39.2 40 % of Democrats Asian 1.7 3.5 Black 20.7 18.2 Anglo 38.4 38.3 % of Registered Voters Latino 29.7 29.2 % of Voting Age Population 49.7 46 Latino % of Population Latino 55 51.1 % of Voting Age Population 34 34.2 Anglo Democratic Registration Margin 24.7 11.5 (D - R)
42 Table V. C.: Congress
1.: 1994
Traits of Districts Districts Represented by a Latino Dem. Anglo Asian Dem. Anglo Rep. Dem. Number of Districts 1 2 0 1 District Numbers 30 16, 20 46 Latino 43 40.3 31.2 % of Democrats Asian 5.4 2.4 4.2 Black 14 14.8 8.3 Anglo 37.7 42.5 56.2 % of Registered Voters Latino 37.4 31.2 21.2 % of Voting Age Population 58 44.5 50 Latino % of Population Latino 62.6 48.7 55.3 % of Voting Age Population 16.5 34.7 33.2 Anglo Democratic Registration Margin 40.5 26.3 8 (D - R)
43 V. C. 2.: 1996 Congress
Traits of Districts Districts Represented by a Latino Dem. Anglo Asian Dem. Anglo Rep. Dem. Number of Districts 1 4 0 2 District Numbers 46 16, 26, 42, 23, 41 50 Latino 42.7 38.2 32.2 % of Democrats Asian 7.1 2.7 2.7 Black 8.9 26.3 14.8 Anglo 41.3 32.9 50.3 % of Registered Voters Latino 25.5 28 19.3 % of Voting Age Population 52.2 43.3 32.2 Latino % of Population Latino 57.8 47.9 36.2 % of Voting Age Population 29.7 34.1 52.8 Anglo Democratic Registration Margin 6.6 21.7 -4 (D - R)
44 V. C. 3.: 1998 Congress
Traits of Districts Districts Represented by a Latino Dem. Anglo Asian Dem. Anglo Rep. Dem. Number of Districts 1 4 0 1 District Numbers 46 16, 26, 42, 41 50 Latino 43.6 38.6 35.3 % of Democrats Asian 8 2.7 4 Black 8 23 20.9 Anglo 40.3 35.8 39.7 % of Registered Voters Latino 29 32 23.5 % of Voting Age Population 54.3 45.2 35.2 Latino % of Population Latino 60.1 49.9 39.3 % of Voting Age Population 26.3 31.4 42.5 Anglo Democratic Registration Margin 6.2 24 -6.1 (D - R)
45 V. C. 4.: 2000 Congress
Traits of Districts Districts Represented by a Latino Dem. Anglo Asian Dem. Anglo Rep. Dem. Number of Districts 2 3 0 3 District Numbers 42, 46 16, 26, 50 23, 28, 41 Latino 41.4 39.8 32.6 % of Democrats Asian 7.6 7.3 5.5 Black 18.6 20.1 13.3 Anglo 32.4 32.7 48.7 % of Registered Voters Latino 31.4 33.1 22 % of Voting Age Population 51.3 47.3 32.6 Latino % of Population Latino 56.6 52 36.7 % of Voting Age Population 29.2 26.6 47.3 Anglo Democratic Registration Margin 13.7 26.7 -.6 (D - R)
46
APPENDIX E MALDEF - WCVI Senate Redistricting Plan - July 31, 2001 Latino Democrat Percentage of Total Democrat Registrants Latino Republican Percentage of Total Republican Registrants
District Total Latino Latino Democrat Latino Latino Registered Republican Latino Registered Registration Registration Registered Registration Registered Republicans Registration Republicans Democrats (Total Number) Democrats (Total Number of (Total Number) (Percentage of (Total Number of (Percentage of Registered Total Registered Registered Total Democrat Republicans) Republicans) Democrats) Registration)
1 481,001 22,295 11,112 166,711 6.67% 6,485 223,890 2.90% 2 463,536 34,831 21,029 227,624 9.24% 6,134 136,670 4.49% 3 522,328 27,003 16,897 278,699 6.06% 3,695 109,958 3.36% 4 427,078 36,085 21,504 174,301 12.34% 7,248 170,402 4.25% 5 383,466 56,061 34,864 173,598 20.08% 14,604 157,724 9.26% 6 413,457 39,376 25,485 200,529 12.71% 6,469 135,014 4.79% 7 456,252 37,008 23,032 204,657 11.25% 7,259 167,918 4.32% 8 436,840 58,592 37,400 238,407 15.69% 7,803 81,985 9.52% 9 416,941 34,058 23,014 268,949 8.56% 3,245 50,277 6.45% 10 342,777 50,938 33,309 172,614 19.30% 7,664 93,178 8.23% 11 470,266 32,909 20,094 209,499 9.59% 5,900 158,272 3.73% 12 351,535 76,383 46,900 160,039 29.31% 18,151 140,318 12.94% 13 336,796 66,237 44,113 168,574 26.17% 8,171 86,166 9.48% 14 411,645 55,797 31,844 151,205 21.06% 14,752 196,974 7.49% 15 396,484 76,941 51,806 192,953 26.85% 11,465 118,881 9.64% 16 245,508 100,392 64,090 122,138 52.47% 21,666 88,555 24.47% 17 382,218 55,996 29,666 133,984 22.14% 16,318 184,883 8.83% 18 469,166 63,627 39,538 188,245 21.00% 11,789 182,147 6.47% 19 419,731 62,004 35,767 150,353 23.79% 14,415 190,248 7.58% 20 264,873 92,476 61,704 149,091 41.39% 13,262 64,444 20.58% 21 464,731 62,197 37,316 211,162 17.67% 14,108 162,514 8.68% 22 223,599 104,144 74,070 141,663 52.29% 12,119 34,535 35.09% 23 525,779 30,743 17,512 264,249 6.63% 6,839 155,519 4.40% 24 302,845 137,842 93,071 163,957 56.77% 20,977 76,465 27.43% 25 338,948 70,633 44,968 223,884 20.09% 10,870 55,315 19.65% 26 381,588 51,519 35,549 265,702 13.38% 5,851 49,336 11.86% 27 261,432 110,875 74,960 162,226 46.21% 15,338 54,691 28.04% 28 476,479 58,529 35,207 210,603 16.72% 12,042 173,621 6.94% 29 423,783 71,133 37,966 157,032 24.18% 20,178 188,682 10.69% 30 336,763 162,694 112,411 185,384 60.64% 24,480 93,889 26.07% 31 350,597 64,089 34,439 135,673 25.38% 18,730 156,706 11.95% 32 271,074 102,233 65,372 147,140 44.43% 20,203 81,251 24.86% 33 449,582 45,120 20,892 124,166 16.83% 15,732 245,367 6.41% 34 251,751 76,850 48,581 113,773 42.70% 16,319 93,794 17.40% 35 453,081 35,971 17,002 140,594 12.09% 11,833 223,482 5.29% 36 435,038 36,202 15,441 127,137 12.15% 12,054 211,553 5.70% 37 382,261 50,035 25,421 128,123 19.84% 15,652 191,470 8.17% 38 446,987 35,604 15,885 133,938 11.86% 11,471 216,827 5.29%
39 492,799 48,989 24,733 195,171 12.67% 12,678 180,140 7.04% 40 282,945 118,088 71,065 140,591 50.55% 22,500 82,039 27.43%
APPENDIX F
Summary of Methodological Approaches to Redistricting And Socioeconomic Considerations
Prepared by:
Ali Modarres, Ph.D.
July 30, 2001 This redistricting effort was constructed around two major sources of information: canned datasets (quantitative information) and the public view (qualitative information). While the former consists of various, commonly available demographic and political databases, the latter was collected through numerous public hearings and interactions with community representatives throughout the state. In this report, I will describe the quantitative process, the datasets used and the methodologies employed to generate the proposed plan. The qualitative information provided the redistricting process with an understanding of community-level desires for representation, particularly how people view themselves and with which communities they share a sense of common goals, identity and a perceptual proximity. Discussions regarding the qualitative information will appear in a separate report.
Considerations and Ground Rules of Redistricting:
The redistricting process for creating the proposed plan began with a number of basic assumptions and guidelines. The following presents a list, though not prioritized in any special order, of some of the major factors in this regard.
· Avoid substantially shifting the core of current districts · Make sure that population deviations are within acceptable ranges (Our fundamental criteria for achieving a balanced proposal was to assure that population deviations remained small. In fact, the proposed plan has an overall deviation of .27% and an average deviation of .07%.) · Create districts that are geographically compact (Every effort was made to avoid creating unacceptable geographies. Combined with population deviations, the proposed plan is not only within the required limits, but also avoids geographic boundaries that are either geometrically questionable or void of logical explanation.) · Consider the location of natural features such as rivers and avoid creating divisions and geographic isolation within any one proposed district. (Given that in certain locations, natural features act as barriers to community interaction, every effort was made to avoid creating small isolated sub-geographies within any single district.) · Acknowledge some of the elevated freeways, where communities are divided visually and geographically, as barriers to community cohesion · Avoid crossing census places/incorporated cities. (For political, as well as cultural considerations, every effort was made to avoid crossing census place boundaries. This common practice in redistricting is fully incorporated in our final proposed plan.) · Avoid crossing county lines, unless dictated by population requirements. · Use socioeconomic indicators, such as median household income and educational achievement, to assure that the proposed boundaries largely correspond with the topography of social class.
The latter category was used as a guiding principal; however, given that population deviation is of the utmost importance and that creating a perfectly cohesive district, with respect to socioeconomic indicators, is neither possible nor attainable, income and education provide a general background against which a core constituency with similar characteristics is sought. As far as the actual locations of specific boundaries are concerned, an attempt was made to not separate socio-economically cohesive communities, unless it became necessary due to the realities of population limits and the underlying characteristics of social geography (e.g., when 2 the contiguity of lower income population extended beyond the population limit of 846,792 person).
Overall Evaluation of the Plan
The proposed plan has clearly followed the redistricting guidelines outlined, here. Having achieved a population distribution that is within the permitted population deviation levels, the plan’s geography can be assessed for its attention to the issue of communities of interest. To a large extent, this includes creating compact geographies and generating districts that do not unnecessarily isolate a small group of people with obviously different socioeconomic characteristics.
The socioeconomic analysis for each district is included in the plan submittal document and it is clear that there are very few districts that have a mixture of widely distributed social classes. Though partially caused by the reality of American social geography, the proposed plan took every attempt to be aware of “communities of interest” as defined by socioeconomic characteristics.
Overall, this plan meets the set guidelines for redistricting and provides a viable option for California in the first decade of the new millennium.
Data Sources:
The information used for this redistricting effort includes:
· 2000 census data (P.L. 94-171), both at block group and block levels (Source: Caliper Corporation) · 1997 estimates of population and socioeconomic variables (Source: Caliper Corporation; See next section for a description of the Caliper dataset and its associated methodology) · Geographic boundary files: (Caliper Corporation)
Methodology:
Census Data
The Maptitude Redistricting software was used to generate the proposed plan. Block group maps were initially used as base maps, since they allowed us to create a quick calculation of the population distribution and demographic profiles of proposed districts. Additionally, this allowed us to incorporate the socioeconomic variables from the Caliper Corporation, which are available only at the block group level. Once the plan was finalized, the boundaries were refined using block maps in order to assure that the district boundaries comply with the established guideline of conforming to the boundary of incorporated cities.
Socioeconomic analysis
Data Sources and Methodology for Estimates and Projections Demographic Data:
3 The Caliper Corporation provides the population estimates along with its redistricting data. The 1997 estimates were used, since they are based on a number of data sources in that year and avoid the compounding effects of projecting to the year 2002, for which a set of demographic and socioeconomic variables is also provided. The 1997 data was provided at the block group level and was therefore compatible with the initial phase of plan preparation.
The Caliper Corporation provides a relatively detailed description of their methodology for creating the 1997 estimates and 2002 projection. For purposes of clarity, the information as it appears on the Caliper website is presented here. However, only those sections that have a bearing on the actual data usage are included. Note that Caliper Corporation population estimates are prepared by the Applied Geographic Solutions (AGS), and are referred to as such in this description:
Overview:
Applied Geographic Solutions (AGS) uses a wide range of data sources in constructing its estimates and projections, including:
Census Bureau estimates and projections of population characteristics at various levels of geographic detail, including the latest estimates of population at the city level Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates and projections of employment by industry and occupation at the county level Medicare eligible population counts at the ZIP code level, including population by sex and 5-year age cohorts, provided by the Health Care Financing Administration of Social Security. These counts provide a very accurate local count of the population aged 65 and higher. Internal Revenue Service statistics on tax filers and year-to-year migration The Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, which provides detailed demographic breakdowns and enables a thorough longitudinal analysis of demographic trends Experian's Performance Data System (PDS), a household level credit and demographic database which covers the vast majority of households
PDS is a vast database at the household and individual level that Experian provides to AGS for use in its demographic estimates. The PDS files were aggregated to the ZIP+4 and Block Group levels of geography for analysis and standardized to Census Bureau county level current estimates. A large number of demographic attributes from PDS were utilized in building the 1998 estimates, including:
Population Population by Age Households Household Size Household Type (presence of children) Marital Status Income Hispanic origin P 4 · Population of Asian origin · Dwelling Tenure (own/rent)
In turn, the AGS demographic estimates are used as the foundation of Experian's U.S. MOSAIC segmentation system.
Applied Geographic Solutions produces, on an annual basis, current year estimates and five- and ten-year projections for all Block Group and higher order geographic units. The methodologies employed in these projections represent the cumulative experience gained over the last fifteen years.
The estimates and projections methodology combines the best current and projected information from the data sources noted above. It is supplemented by the extensive experience of Applied Geographic Solutions in creating accurate and reliable estimates and projections. A summary of the methodology for each of the major variable groups is included in the sections that follow.
Population
The current population of the United States is obtained from the monthly Census population estimate. This is a very accurate and current estimate of the population and serves as the basis for projection and estimation at lower levels of geographic detail. The five and ten year projections have been derived from the middle-series projections of the Census Bureau.
State and county level estimates are based on the compilation of data from a range of Federal and State authorities, including the latest county population estimates from the Census Bureau, reviews of building permit statistics, the current population survey (CPS), and additional local sources. Where required, the resulting estimates are then ratio-adjusted so that the sum of the county estimates is equal to the state total, and the state estimates equal to the national total. For the five- and ten-year projections, a similar method is employed. However, rather than using simple straight-line techniques, AGS uses straight-line methods only for growing areas. For declining areas, a log- normal extrapolation is used. This has the effect of slowing decline over time, which is characteristic of long term population decline at the state level.
At the block group level, the population model consists of the application of a non-linear trend model which estimates population given historical patterns, PDS population counts, and the latest Census age distributions (using cohort-survival techniques). Special consideration is given to the population age 65+ by applying ZIP code level counts by age and sex of all Medicare eligible persons. This provides considerable improvement in the estimates of this important segment of the population. The final results are then carefully balanced to the county and city level population estimates to ensure consistency with current Census Bureau estimates. The result is a comprehensive set of population estimates and projections which includes the knowledge of State, County, and private agencies about their detailed areas but also ensures that the total population is consistent with the Census Bureau estimates, which 5 have proved extremely reliable over time.
Households and Household Type
Total households were modeled by: projecting trends in the population per household over time at the national level to provide a control total; reviewing currently available household size statistics at the State level; and utilizing the current estimates of population by age and sex to determine household formation rates for small areas All household based numbers are initially estimated / projected separately for family and non-family households. Non-family households have been growing in number at a higher rate than family households over the past several decades. Average household sizes for family households have been decreasing for several decades. However, during the 1990's, the decline has stopped in most areas and has actually reversed in several states.
The group quarters population, that is population which is not in households (such as persons in institutions, military barracks, nursing homes, college dormitories, and homeless persons), is expected to increase slightly during the decade, but remain relatively constant as a percentage of the total population. This is a reflection of two trends: the decreasing armed forces employment since the 1980's and the longer term increasing elderly population which results in high populations in nursing homes and other institutions which cater to the elderly population. As a result, the total group quarters population has been relatively constant.
Income
Income estimates include: aggregate income, aggregate income by household type (family households, non-family households, and group quarters), and income distributions (family and non-family households). Derived measures include per capita income, and various median income measures.
All income estimates produced by Applied Geographic Solutions are in current, rather than constant, dollars. In other words, a projection of income for the year 2008 includes both an inflationary component and a 'real' component, the latter being the difference between the change in income and the change in inflation during the period. The 'real' component is normally attributed to productivity gains in the economy and to differences in the competitiveness of the economy relative to other nations.
Aggregate income estimates for the current year are based on an analysis of changes in per capita income between the 1990 Census and the most recently available income statistics (Census Bureau and IRS) at the national, state, and county levels. The projections of aggregate income are based on a review of Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) projections, which assume an effective increase of 3.5% per annum in per capita incomes during the next ten years at the national level.
6 Income distributions are estimated and projected for both family households and non- family households separately. Total household income distributions are simply the aggregate of the two detailed distributions.
Income distributions were derived by using a complex distribution shifting technique which utilizes the changes in per family household and non-family household incomes as a means of adjusting the income distributions over time. The relative ratio between changes in per household average incomes and median incomes were used to adjust for above-average growth in high-income households within some geographic areas. The resulting distributions were then normalized to higher order totals and adjusted to national level expectations and were verified for internal consistency with respect to the mean and median measures.
District level analysis, using the socioeconomic data
In order to assess the degree of socioeconomic cohesion within each district, three variables from the 1997 estimate file were used. These were: median household income, per capita income, and educational achievements. While median household income provides a basis for understanding the overall socioeconomic status of a district, per capita income allows us to indirectly incorporate household size. This variable is calculated by averaging total income within a census enumeration (in this case block group). Educational achievement is used as an indicator of potential income and a surrogate variable for economic mobility. Since there is increasing evidence of commonality among people with similar educational backgrounds and an apparent correlation between educational achievement and income, this variable was used to assure that the cyclical nature of economy, as manifested in actual income, does not diminish our capacity for understanding the socioeconomic similarity of various census enumeration areas.
Since our final district plan was generated using block maps and the selected socioeconomic data is available only at the block group level, a methodology was developed for analyzing the socioeconomic characteristics of each district. The procedure is as follows:
· Attach the block group 1990 identifier, provided by the census bureau, to each block record. · Aggregate the data, using the 1990 block group identifier and thereby creating a geographic approximation of the proposed plan, based on 1990 block group geography. · Visually assess the district number assignment to assure that block groups are appropriately placed within each district. In other words, at least a portion of the block group is within the assigned district. · Use the block group identifier to join the 1997 estimates to this file. · Run frequency analysis using the final database.
Since aggregating the socioeconomic indicators by each block group may detract from their distributive nature within any single district, frequency analyses were run for each district and for each of the three variables. Along with each of these frequencies, which are represented as a histogram for each of the districts, central tendency statistics are also reported. Note that for 7 median household income, values of mean and standard deviation provide little statistical information and are therefore excluded from the report.
Interpretation of Charts and Tables
These charts and their accompanying tables provide a snapshot of each district’s socioeconomic profile. The histograms illustrate the block group frequency within each data range (i.e., the height of each bar corresponds to the number of block groups within each category). The histogram for per capita income is also useful in identifying the degree to which the block groups within a district are socioeconomicaly similar. A quick assessment is possible by comparing the size of the standard deviation in relation to the mean within each district. Smaller values for standard deviation are typically indicative of the similarity of large numbers of block groups to the mean. This indicates that the mean is largely representative of the socioeconomic characteristic of most block groups in a district. Overall, a large number of districts within the proposed plan enjoy such a socioeconomic cohesiveness.
The two tables following the charts provide a summary for the per capita analysis. Since there were 156 block groups for which the per capita value was reported as zero (or missing), the second table provides the results by excluding these block groups. Given that the 156 block groups make up a small percentage of all block groups in the state, the changes in central tendency information by district are minimal. These two tables provide a quick assessment of the socioeconomic profile of each proposed district.
8
APPENDIX G
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 1 California Senate District 2 200 120
100
80
100 60
40
20 0 # of Block Groups
# of Block Groups 0 0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income California Senate District 1 California Senate District 2 120 140
100 120
80 100
60 80
40 60
Std. Dev = 7060.54 40 20 Mean = 17260 Std. Dev = 8520.11 N = 655.00 20 Mean = 17987 # of Block Groups 0
0 0 N = 665.00 # of Block Groups 4,000 8,000 0 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 28,000 32,000 36,000 40,000 44,000 48,000 52,000 5,000 Per Capita Income ($) 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 1 California Senate District 2 Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Less Than 9th Grad Grad or Ph.D Less Than 9th Grade 4.2% Grad or Ph.D 5.8% 5.2% High School, No-Grad 6.7% Bachelor's Degree High School, No-Grad 8.9% Bachelor's Degree 15.8% 8.7% 16.8% Associate Degree High School Graduate Associate Degree High School Graduate 10.2% 31.0% 10.0% 29.1%
College, No-Grad College, No Grad 24.1% 23.5%
1
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income California Senate District 4 California Senate District 3 120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40 Std. Dev = 19702.62 20 Mean = 30238 20 N = 617.00 # of Block Groups 0
# of Block Groups 0 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000
Per Capita Income ($) Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income California Senate District 3 California Senate District 4 120 200
100
80
60 # 100 of 40 Bl Std. Dev = 19702.62 oc 20 Std. Dev = 7476.98 Mean = 30238 k Gr Mean = 15219 N = 617.00 # of Block Groups 0 ou 0 N = 569.00 0 ps 0 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 10 11 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0,0 0,0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000
100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00
Per Capita Income ($) Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 4 California Senate District 3
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
less Than 9th Grade Less Than 9th Grade Grad or Ph.D 5.4% 6.5% 6.9% Grad or Ph.D High School, No-Grad High School, No-Grad Bachelor's Degree 14.1% 5.6% 9.8% 14.8% High School Graduate 20.0% Associate Degree Bachelor's Degree 9.8% High School Graduate 26.7% 29.8% College, No-Grad College, No-Grad Associate Degree 20.1% 22.3% 8.2%
2
1997 Estimated Median Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 5 California Senate District 6 100 140
120 80 100
60 80
40 60
40 20 20
# of Block Groups 0 # of Block Groups 0 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000 170,000 180,000
Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income
California Senate District 5 California Senate District 6
160 200
140
120
100
80 100
60
40 Std. Dev = 11539.49 Std. Dev = 9982.90 20 Mean = 17486 Mean = 18067 0 N = 539.00 0 N = 546.00 # of Block Groups # of Block Groups 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 100,000 110,000 120,000
Per Capita Income ($) Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 5 California Senate District 6
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Grad or Ph.D Less Than 9th Grade Less Than 9th Grade 6.1% 9.2% Grad or Ph.D 5.5% Bachelor's Degree High School, No-Grad 7.4% High School, No-Grad 15.1% 9.5% Bachelor's Degree 8.5% 17.9% Associate Degree High School Graduate 10.6% Associate Degree High School Graduate 26.7% 10.6% 27.9% College, No-Grad College, No-Grad 21.6% 23.4%
3
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 7 California Senate District 8 120 200
100
80
60 100
40
20
0 # of Block Groups 0 # of Block Groups 0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 260,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 260,000 280,000
Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Household Income
California Senate District 7 California Senate District 8
140 200
120
100
80 100 60
40 Std. Dev = 12863.65 Std. Dev = 15967.45 20 Mean = 25972 Mean = 25264 0 N = 494.00 # of Block Groups 0 N = 612.00 # of Block Groups 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 Per Capita Income ($) Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment
California Senate District 7 California Senate District 8
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Less Than 9th Grade Less Than 9th Grade 2.8% 7.1% Grad or Ph.D Grad or Ph.D High School, No-Grad High School, No-Grad 11.2% 11.4% 5.1% 7.2% High School Graduate Bachelor's Degree Bachelor's Degree 24.4% High School Graduate 23.7% 25.1% 23.6%
Associate Degree Associate Degree College, No-Grad College, No-Grad 8.8% 9.6% 21.5% 18.5%
4
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 9 California Senate District 10 200 120
100
80
100 60
40
20
# of Block Groups 0
# of Block Groups 0 0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 260,000 280,000 Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income California Senate District 9 California Senate District 10 200 300
200 100
Std. Dev = 13442.18 100 Mean = 19933 Std. Dev = 12468.96 0 N = 789.00 Mean = 22309 # of Block Groups
0 0 N = 469.00 # of Block Groups 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Per Capita Income ($) 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 9 California Senate District 10 Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: AdultsAge 25 and Over
Less Than 9th Grade Less Than 9th Grade 6.5% Grad or Ph.D 5.0% High School, No-Grad Grad or Ph.D 14.3% High School, No-Grad 7.9% 8.6% 7.7% Bachelor's Degree Bachelor's Degree High School Graduate 20.8% 22.1% 22.5% High School Graduate 26.7% Associate Degree Associate Degree College, No-Grad 8.0% 10.1% 18.8% College, No-Grad 21.1%
5
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 11 California Senate District 12 140 100
120 80 100
80 60
60 40 40
20 20
# of Block Groups 0 0 0 # of Block Groups 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 260,000 280,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income California Senate District 11 California Senate District 12 120 200 100
80
60 100 40
Std. Dev = 19586.01 20 Mean = 36722 Std. Dev = 9488.46 N = 602.00 Mean = 14943 # of Block Groups 0
0 0 N = 540.00 # of Block Groups 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 Per Capita Income Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 11 California Senate District 12
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Less Than 9th Grade Grad or Ph.D 3.2% 4.6% High School, No-Grad Less Than 9th Grade Bachelor's Degree Grad or Ph.D 4.6% 13.3% 11.8% 17.2% High School Graduate High School, No-Grad Associate Degree 18.4% 8.8% 12.1%
Bachelor's Degree College, No-Grad 27.6% College, No-Grad High School Graduate 20.9% 28.4% Associate Degree 19.6%
9.3%
6
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income California Senate District 14
California Senate District 13 120 80 100 70
60 80
50 60 40 40 30
20 20
10 0 # of Block Groups 0
# of Block Groups 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income California Senate District 14 California Senate District 13 300 60
50
200 40
30
100 20 Std. Dev = 8763.75 Std. Dev = 9579.82 10 Mean = 16573 Mean = 22469 N = 635.00 # of Block Groups 0 0 N = 485.00 # of Block Groups 0 0 5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 100,000
Per Capita Income ($) Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 13 California Senate District 14
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Less Than 9th Grade Grad or Ph.D 8.0% Less Than 9th Grade 6.6% High School, No-Grad Grad or Ph.D 8.7% Bachelor's Degree 9.4% 10.1% High School, No-Grad 16.1% 8.4% Bachelor's Degree 22.0% Associate Degree High School Graduate 9.7% High School Graduate 21.7% Associate Degree 28.7% College, No-Grad 9.5% College, No-Grad 19.5% 21.5%
7
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 15 California Senate District 16 140 100
120 80 100
80 60
60 40 40
20 20
0 # of Block Groups 0 0 # of Block Groups 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 260,000 280,000 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income
California Senate District 15 California Senate District 16 120 140
100 120
80 100
60 80
60 40
Std. Dev = 13425.03 40 20 Std. Dev = 5678.22 Mean = 21902 20 Mean = 9734 0 N = 493.00 # of Block Groups N = 573.00
0 # of Block Groups 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 28,000 32,000 36,000 40,000 44,000 48,000 Per Capita Income ($) Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 16 California Senate District 15 Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Grad or Ph.D Less Than 9th Grade Grad or Ph.D 2.8% 9.9% 9.2% High School, No-Grad Bachelor's Degree 7.5% Bachelor's Degree 7.5% Associate Degree Less Than 9th Grade 19.3% 7.0% 24.6%
High School Graduate College, No-Grad High School, No-Grad Associate Degree 23.0% 16.0% 15.0% 9.4% High School Graduate
College, No-Grad 27.2% 21.5%
8
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 17 California Senate District 18 70 100
60 80 50
40 60
30 40
20 20 10
# of Block Groups 0 # of Block Groups 0 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000
Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income
California Senate District 17 California Senate District 18
80 160
140
60 120 100
40 80 60
20 40 Std. Dev = 7823.98 Std. Dev = 13226.61 Mean = 16175 20 Mean = 21986 0 N = 594.00 0 N = 394.00 # of Block Groups # of Block Groups 0 0 5,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 100,000 110,000
Per Capita Income ($) Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 17 California Senate District 18
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Less Than 9th Grade Grad or Ph.D Less Than 9th Grade 6.7% 5.4% 5.9% Grad or Ph.D High School, No-Grad Bachelor's Degree High School, No-Grad 9.4% 7.7% 12.3% 11.2% Bachelor's Degree Associate Degree 18.5% High School Graduate 9.8% 24.9% High School Graduate Associate Degree
College, No-Grad 31.2% 9.8%
24.2% College, No-Grad 23.0%
9
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 19 California Senate District 20 80 40
70
60 30
50
40 20 30
20 10 10
# of Block Groups 0
# of Block Groups 0 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 5,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000
Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income
California Senate District 19 California Senate District 20
50 70
60 40 50 30 40
20 30
20 10 Std. Dev = 11542.34 Std. Dev = 6807.93 Mean = 23417 10 Mean = 16229 0 N = 335.00 0 N = 436.00 # of Block Groups # of Block Groups 0 0 5,000 4,000 8,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 28,000 32,000 36,000 40,000 44,000
Per Capita Income ($) Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment
California Senate District 19 California Senate District 20
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Grad or Ph.D Less Than 9th Grade 6.2% Less Than 9th Grade Grad or Ph.D 6.4% Bachelor's Degree 15.4% 8.3% High School, No-Grad 15.3% Bachelor's Degree 7.6% High School, No-Grad 18.9% Associate Degree 11.6% High School Graduate 8.6% Associate Degree 24.7% 10.3% College, No-Grad High School Graduate College, No-Grad 18.1% 24.7% 23.9%
10
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 21 California Senate District 22 200 200
100 100
# of Block Groups 0 0 # of Block Groups 0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 260,000 280,000 Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income California Senate District 21 California Senate District 22 140 300 120
100 200 80
60
40 100 Std. Dev = 17034.17 20 Mean = 28206 Std. Dev = 8458.87 0 N = 649.00 Mean = 10653 # of Block Groups
0 0 N = 518.00 # of Block Groups 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 Per Capita Income ($) Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 21 California Senate District 22
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Grad or Ph.D Less Than 9th Grade 6.0% 7.4% Grad or Ph.D Bachelor's Degree Less Than 9th Grade High School, No-Grad 11.6% 13.5% 25.5% 7.6%
Bachelor's Degree Associate Degree High School Graduate 22.9% 7.1% 21.6% High School, No-Grad College, No-Grad Associate Degree 13.0% College, No-Grad 13.7% 9.4% 19.5% High School Graduate 21.2%
11
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income California Senate District 23 California Senate District 24 120 100 100 80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 # of Block Groups 0 # of Block Groups 0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income
California Senate District 23 California Senate District 24
140 100 120 80 100
80 60
60 40 40 Std. Dev = 29590.27 Std. Dev = 6465.70 20 Mean = 46474 20 Mean = 14486 0 N = 529.00 # of Block Groups 0 N = 469.00 0 # of Block Groups 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 4,000 8,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 28,000 32,000 36,000 40,000 44,000 48,000
Per Capita Income ($) Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 23 California Senate District 24
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Less Than 9th Grade Grad or Ph.D 3.9% 5.9% Less Than 9th Grade
High School, No-Grad Bachelor's Degree 14.8% Grad or Ph.D 5.2% 14.1% 16.9% High School, No-Grad High School Graduate Associate Degree 12.6% 18.8% 9.1% Bachelor's Degree
27.6% College, No-Grad College, No-Grad High School Graduate Associate Degree 19.5% 17.3% 26.2% 8.1%
12
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 25 California Senate District 26 50 160
140 40 120
30 100
80 20 60
10 40
20
# of Block Groups 0
# of Block Groups 0 0 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income California Senate District 25 80 California Senate District 26 200
60
40 100
20 Std. Dev = 7017.34 Mean = 14396 Std. Dev = 16286.06 0 N = 570.00 Mean = 20602 # of Block Groups
0 0 N = 661.00 # of Block Groups 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 36,000 38,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 Per Capita Income ($) 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 25 California Senate District 26 Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Grad or Ph.D
5.5% Less Than 9th Grade Grad or Ph.D Less Than 9th Grade Bachelor's Degree 13.3% 9.8% 12.8% 13.8% High School, No-Grad Bachelor's Degree High School, No-Grad
Associate Degree 12.5% 17.0% 11.2% 9.1%
Associate Degree 8.4% High School Graduate College, No-Grad High School Graduate 23.1% 19.3% 26.5% College, No-Grad 17.7%
13
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 27 California Senate District 28 120 200
100
80
60 100
40
20
# of Block Groups 0
# of Block Groups 0 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income California Senate District 27 California Senate District 28 140 300 120
100 200 80
60
40 100 Std. Dev = 8379.43 Std. Dev = 18470.71 20 Mean = 13495 Mean = 29544 0 N = 506.00 # of Block Groups N = 677.00 # of Block Groups 0 0 2,500 7,500 12,500 17,500 22,500 27,500 32,500 37,500 42,500 47,500 52,500 57,500 62,500 67,500 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 Per Capita Income ($) Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 27 California Senate District 28 Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Grad or Ph.D 5.0% Less Than 9th Grade Bachelor's Degree 6.9% Less Than 9th Grade Grad or Ph.D 11.2% High School, No-Grad 19.8% 12.0% Associate Degree 7.2% 7.6% High School, No-Grad Bachelor's Degree High School Graduate College, No-Grad 14.1% 23.6% 21.5% 16.4% High School Graduate Associate Degree College, No-Grad 25.9% 9.3% 19.6%
14
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income California Senate District 30 California Senate District 29 80 100 60 80
40 60
40 20
20 0 # of Block Groups 0
# of Block Groups 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 260,000 Median Household Income
Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income California Senate District 30 California Senate District 29 100
60 80 50 60 40
30 40
20 20 Std. Dev = 8531.02 Mean = 15420 Std. Dev = 10558.80 10 0 N = 534.00 Mean = 22742 # of Block Groups 0 0 N = 384.00 # of Block Groups 5,000 0 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 Per Capita Income ($)
Per Capita Income
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 30 California Senate District 29 Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Grad or Ph.D
6.2% Less Than 9th Grade Less Than 9th Grade Bachelor's Degree 14.6% 4.6% Grad or Ph.D 14.4% High School, No-Grad High School, No-Grad 9.4% 7.3% Associate Degree 12.2% Bachelor's Degree 8.6% 20.0% High School Graduate 24.5% College, No-Grad Associate Degree High School Graduate 11.5% 17.5% College, No-Grad 26.5% 22.8%
15
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 31 California Senate District 32 50 60
50 40
40 30 30 20 20
10 10
0 0 # of Block Groups # of Block Groups 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000
Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income
California Senate District 31 California Senate District 32 80 40
70
60 30
50
40 20
30
20 10 Std. Dev = 8943.33 Std. Dev = 5710.88 10 Mean = 17162 Mean = 12318 0 N = 401.00 # of Block Groups N = 420.00 # of Block Groups 0 0 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 Per Capita Income Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment
California Senate District 31 California Senate District 32
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Less Than 9th Grade Grad or Ph.D Grad or Ph.D 4.0% 7.0% 6.3% Bachelor's Degree Less Than 9th Grade Bachelor's Degree High School, No-Grad 9.5% 11.5% 12.8% 10.5% Associate Degree High School, No-Grad Associate Degree 9.0% 13.9% 9.8% High School Graduate
29.9% College, No-Grad College, No-Grad 21.8% High School Graduate 23.7% 30.3%
16
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 33 California Senate District 34 40 100
80 30
60 20 40
10 20
0 # of Block Groups
# of Block Groups 0
0.0 10000.020000.030000.040000.050000.060000.070000.080000.090000.0100000.0110000.0120000.0130000.0140000.0150000.0160000.0170000.0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income
California Senate District 33 California Senate District 34
60 70
50 60
50 40 40 30 30 20 20 Std. Dev = 12301.44 Std. Dev = 7343.36 10 Mean = 28453 10 Mean = 15722 0 N = 463.00 0 N = 463.00 # of Block Groups # of Block Groups 0 0 5,000 4,000 8,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 28,000 32,000 36,000 40,000 44,000
Per Capita Income ($) Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 33 California Senate District 34
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Grad or Ph.D Less Than 9th Grade 5.6% 3.5% Less Than 9th Grade Bachelor's Degree 14.7% High School, No-Grad Grad or Ph.D 14.7% 11.5% 4.9% High School, No-Grad High School Graduate Associate Degree 10.4% Bachelor's Degree 20.4% 9.2% 25.9%
High School Graduate College, No-Grad Associate Degree College, No-Grad 25.3% 10.8% 23.0% 20.2%
17
1997 Estimated Median Housedhold Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 35 California Senate District 36 120 50
100 40
80 30 60 20 40
10 20
0 0 Frequency # of Block Groups 0 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000
Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income
California Senate District 35 California Senate District 36
120 60
100 50
80 40
60 30
40 20
Std. Dev = 19289.97 Std. Dev = 10277.37 20 10 Mean = 30527 Mean = 22176 0 N = 563.00 # of Block Groups 0 N = 374.00 # of Block Groups 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 5,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment
California Senate District 35 California Senate District 36
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Less Than 9th Grade Less Than 9th Grade
4.2% 4.4% Grad or Ph.D Grad or Ph.D High School, No-Grad High School, No-Grad 9.4% 10.7% 6.0% 6.8% Bachelor's Degree High School Graduate Bachelor's Degree High School Graduate 20.6% 21.8% 24.1% 24.8%
Associate Degree Associate Degree 10.1% College, No-Grad College, No-Grad 10.6% 22.6% 23.8%
18
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income
California Senate District 37 California Senate District 38 60 100
50 80
40 60 30 40 20
20 10
0 0 # of Block Groups # of Block Groups 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 260,000
Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income
California Senate District 37 California Senate District 38 100 80
80 60
60 40
40
20 Std. Dev = 17069.20 20 Std. Dev = 14945.05 Mean = 20003 Mean = 29590 0 N = 449.00 0 N = 312.00 # of Block Groups # of Block Groups 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000
Per Capita Income ($) Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 37 California Senate District 38
Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Less Than 9th Grade Grad or Ph.D Less Than 9th Grade 4.0% 5.5% 7.0% Grad or Ph.D High School, No-Grad Bachelor's Degree High School, No-Grad 10.7% 5.3% 12.6% 11.3% Bachelor's Degree High School Graduate Associate Degree 22.6% 23.6% 8.5%
High School Graduate Associate Degree College, No-Grad 30.6% 9.6% College, No-Grad 24.4% 24.3%
19
1997 Estimated Median Household Income 1997 Estimated Median Household Income California Senate District 39 California Senate District 40 100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20 0 # of Block Groups
0 0 # of Block Groups 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 Median Household Income Median Household Income
1997 Estimated Per Capita Income 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income California Senate District 39 California Senate District 40 200 100
80
60 100
40
Std. Dev = 13235.25 Mean = 24074 20 Std. Dev = 5952.22 Mean = 11615 0 N = 676.00 # of Block Groups N = 512.00 0
# of Block Groups 0 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 28,000 32,000 36,000 40,000 Per Capita Income Per Capita Income ($)
1997 Estimated Educational Attainment 1997 Estimated Educational Attainment California Senate District 39 California Senate District 40 Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over Universe: Adults Age 25 and Over
Less Than 9th Grade Grad or Ph.D 3.9% 5.1% Grad or Ph.D High School, No-Grad Bachelor's Degree Less Than 9th Grade 11.8% 6.0% 11.2% 16.2% High School Graduate Bachelor's Degree Associate Degree 23.1% High School, No-Grad 22.5% 8.5% 12.3%
Associate Degree College, No-Grad College, No-Grad 9.6% 19.6% High School Graduate 23.0% 27.0%
20 Senatorial Districts by 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income (calculated Block Groups) (Includes Block Groups with Per Capital Income of Zero) Senatorial District Mean ($) Std. Deviation ($) 1 17260 7061 2 17987 8520 3 30238 19703 4 15219 7477 5 17486 11539 6 18067 9983 7 25972 12864 8 25264 15967 9 19933 13442 10 22309 12469 11 36722 19586 12 14943 9488 13 22469 9580 14 16573 8764 15 21902 13425 16 9734 5678 17 16175 7824 18 21986 13227 19 23417 11542 20 16229 6808 21 28206 17034 22 10653 8459 23 46474 29590 24 14486 6466 25 14396 7017 26 20602 16286 27 13495 8379 28 29544 18471 29 22742 10559 30 15420 8531 31 17162 8943 32 12318 5711 33 28453 12301 34 15722 7343 35 30527 19290 36 22176 10277 37 20003 14945 38 29590 17069 39 24074 13235 40 11615 5952 All Districts Combined 21124 15011
21
Senatorial Districts by 1997 Estimated Per Capita Income (calculated Block Groups) (Excludes Block Groups with Per Capital Income of Zero N=156) Senatorial District Mean ($) Std. Deviation ($) 1 17446 6865 2 18096 8430 3 30635 19522 4 15354 7371 5 17617 11483 6 18100 9962 7 26184 12699 8 25472 15867 9 20163 13347 10 22598 12286 11 36905 19461 12 15111 9408 13 22656 9397 14 16731 8654 15 22309 13209 16 9837 5619 17 16258 7758 18 22098 13167 19 23700 11319 20 16267 6771 21 28381 16941 22 10841 8413 23 46474 29590 24 14517 6438 25 14472 6957 26 20664 16271 27 13495 8379 28 29987 18248 29 22861 10457 30 15655 8379 31 17291 8851 32 12377 5660 33 28638 12124 34 15756 7315 35 30801 19157 36 22235 10227 37 20067 14926 38 29656 17031 39 24110 13213 40 11661 5919 All Districts Combined 21281 14955
22
APPENDIX H MALDEF – WCVI COMMUNITY OF INTEREST REPORT
The Assembly, Senate, and Congressional Redistricting Plans developed by MALDEF and WCVI feature extensive community outreach as its centerpiece. Together, MALDEF and WCVI visited thirty-five communities throughout California to educate and listen.
The MALDEF – WCVI redistricting project is premised on the belief that community members can and should influence how district lines our drawn. Redistricting provides community members with a direct access to a process that has traditionally closed to --- public input.
The outreach component was designed to tap into the expertise and unique knowledge that people bring to the redistricting table. Outreach efforts sought to give voice to traditionally underrepresented communities – to help provide them with gain a place within the redistricting process.
The concept of an inclusive democracy underscores the MALDEF - WCVI redistricting outreach component. It is through participation in these sessions, that community members reflected upon issues of fair representation and inclusiveness in our democratic society.
The MALDEF – WCVI community outreach workshops conducted contained several important goals:
First, workshops sought to educate the community about the importance of community involvement in the redistricting process. A point of discussion was the relationship between the way districts are drawn to the ability of a community to elect a representative of its choice or its ability to influence whether or not an elected official is responsive to a community’s particular needs. Many times there were veterans of past redistrictings on the state and local levels aiding the dialog.
Second, an overview of the legal requirements governing redistricting was presented. While many people were generally familiar with the redistricting process and some of the basic legal concepts, there was uncertainty about the consequence of Supreme Court decisions during the past decade regarding the relationship between the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. Presentations explained the current state of redistricting law and provided community members with a description of the legal framework and fundamentals that MALDEF and WCVI planned to use in the proposals submitted to the legislature. The discussion of communities of interest and the relationship to the redistricting process was an important part of the redistricting workshop.
Third, workshops were designed to demystify the redistricting process and provide community members with the knowledge to actively participate in the process on the state and local level. The basic goal was to provide community members with hands-on redistricting experience. Using excercises based on their own regions, they set about redrawing district lines. Provided to them were the legal requirements and basic principles governing redistricting, as well as census statistics and socioeconomic data. People were also instructed to use their unique and personal knowledge of their communities in order to create districts around communities that shared
1 common interests. During these interactive exercises, community members explored and discussed the issues that were of concern to their communities – from the lack of affordable, accessible health care to the lack of responsiveness by elected officials. Participants also explored the ways in which communities shared the same concerns and had the same types of representational interest when deciding whether to include certain other communities in their plan.
Fourth, strategies for participation in local and state redistricting efforts were recommended to the community. This included discussion about what type of information would be useful to provide redistricting commissions and how to organize community members to testify at public hearings. The goal was to facilitate the grassroots development of complete local redistricting plans.
The report that follows includes highlights of selected areas throughout the state. It is not intended to be an exhaustive study of all the communities visited. Instead, it highlights the issues and gives voice to the concerns of a segment of the population that has only recently achieved sufficient numbers relative to the general population to represent a significant sociopolitical force with the power to affect the decisions concerning their communities.
The countless hours of discussions had at these workshops contributed to the congressional, senate, and assembly plans submitted. Where necessary, third party reports and materials that further reinforce the community of interest considerations incorporated into MALDEF – WCVI plans will be made available.
2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Southeastern Los Angeles: The Gateway Cities
A focal point of the MALDEF - WCVI congressional, senate, and assembly redistricting plans are the southeastern cities of Los Angeles County.
This region is a study in duality. While it is increasingly becoming more and more important part of California’s regional economy it also is an area afflicted by significant social challenges: low per capita income, low educational attainment levels, industrial pollution and health concerns, as well as high unemployment rates.
Over the past decade, southeastern Los Angeles has experienced significant demographic changes. The area has increasingly become the destination of immigrant communities. The growing need for services in the area are reflecting these changes. Several people at the Los Angeles Assembly and Senate Elections Committee hearings testified to the growing need for more bilingual services, including the hiring of bilingual law enforcement officers and personnel.
Recently, a consortium of business, labor, education, and public sector community members have joined together to address some of the pressing social concerns confronting southeastern Los Angeles. The Gateway Cities Partnership seeks to “[d]efine, develop and lead the collaborative efforts of business, education, labor, government and the expanded community in order to achieve regional economic revitalization and growth.” This includes the enhancement of educational opportunities, the diversification of the local economy, the elimination of air and water pollution, and the overall enhancement of the quality of life in the region, including the creation of housing and transportation alternatives, and the revitalization of local communities.
The Gateway Cities Partnership, Inc., published a comprehensive demographic report profiling various characteristics of the twenty-seven cities, individually and as a group, that comprise the “gateway cities.” The study identified several important trends that support the creation of districts that would provide desperately needed additional representation. These include:
· The gateway region contains a younger population, as a whole, than other parts of Los Angeles County and California. · Household income is lower in the gateway region than in Los Angeles County and California. · Nearly half of the gateway region residents hold blue-collar and service sector jobs. · Higher unemployment rates, lower labor force participation rates, and low-income levels correlate with less education in gateway region residents. · Los Angeles County and California have higher educational attainment scores than gateway region residents. · Manufacturing and service sector jobs account for nearly half of all employment in the gateway region. · Unemployment rates in some gateway cities are nearly double that of the Los Angeles County unemployment rate.
3 · Industrial land comprises a larger portion of the gateway region than in other areas of Southern California. · Redevelopment of the large number of brownfields in the gateway region, areas that are abandoned, idle, or underused because of environmental contamination, is necessary for economic growth and revitalization. · The gateway region is in short supply of housing options as revealed by high population density and high numbers of persons per household. · The gateway region has experienced a significant increase in the student population that has far outpaced school construction. · The gateway region has a high attrition rate that exacerbates the need for skilled labor. · Diesel emissions and the resultant air pollution is a problem in the gateway region. · Access to healthcare, including shortage of long-term healthcare, and lack of intra-agency cooperation has created problems for gateway residents.
This region of Los Angeles is the source of a sustained effort by the Gateway Cities Partnership, Inc. to improve the overall quality of life in the twenty-seven cites that comprise the core of the gateway cities. This alliance of business, labor, educational, and public sector community members seeks to confront and challenges facing these gateway cities, including the low per capita income levels, low educational attainment levels, high attrition rates, high unemployment, environmental pollution, and sustainable economic development.
The City of San Fernando and the San Fernando Valley
Community members from San Fernando reaffirmed their desire to maintain the city and surrounding areas intact in one assembly, senate, and congressional districts. San Fernando, which has a population of 23,564, is completely surrounded by the City of Los Angeles. Members of the community stressed the importance of keeping communities intact and not grouping large portions of the northeastern San Fernando Valley with areas of Glendale and Burbank.
Housing
San Fernando has born the brunt of two major natural disasters that have left their effect on the economic vitality of the city. Both the 1971 Sylmar Earthquake and the 1994 Northridge Earthquake caused substantial damage to the housing stock and other building infrastructure, requiring a focus on redevelopment activities, including the rehabilitation and production of replacement housing. Over 70% of the housing unites in San Fernando are single-family dwellings.
Half of the households in San Fernando earn less than 80% of the Los Angeles County median income. Twenty percent of households in San Fernando earn less than $15,000, far below the $32,128 San Fernando median, and the $34,965 median for Los Angeles County. The major occupations of San Fernando residents are in the manufacturing and service fields that are characterized by lower incomes than managerial/professional employment. San Fernando has nearly a 2% higher unemployment rate than the rest of Los Angeles city.
4 Overcrowding is a predominant characteristic of San Fernando households and many families are forced to convert garages and patios into living quarters. These large households (five or more members) account for one-third of all households and have exacerbated the increased demand for housing in San Fernando.
In addition, the low income levels in San Fernando have resulted in many households overpaying for housing costs. Rental assistance programs have helped San Fernando residents address these community needs. Homelessness has become an increasing problem for San Fernando and only two organization in San Fernando, Loaves and Fishes, and the Salvation Army provide emergency services to homeless or at-risk persons.
In 2000, the City of San Fernando adopted Resolution #6753, the “2000-2005 Housing Element” for the city. This report described the housing challenges facing San Fernando in the context of the characteristics of population demographics, households, housing stock, market and governmental, environmental, and infrastructural constraints. The resolution also set forth specific goals and programs to resolve the housing issues facing San Fernando.
In June 1998, the City of San Fernando Community Development Department published a comprehensive revitalization plan that outlined strategies for enhancement of the city’s economic and market growth that emphasize the integration of the neighboring communities of Sylmar and Pacoima, as well as the Santa Clarita Valley.
The San Fernando Valley
In light of the recent San Fernando succession movement, a significant amount of discussion by community members has been the relative lack of government services when compared to surrounding regions, most notably, Los Angeles city.
Advocates for succession argue that the San Fernando Valley receives an unequal share of police services when compared with Los Angeles, In the valley there are 1.1 police per1000 residents while in la they assigned 2.2 police per 1000 residents.
The number of former Mayor Riordan appointees to city commissions from the valley has slid from 33% to 25% even though the valley represents 34% of city’s population.
Transit decisions are made with little regard to where the transportation is really needed. Fewer than 6% of valley residents work downtown yet major transit networks such as Metrolink and metro rail serve the city center. Half of the residents who depend on public transportation live in the northeast valley yet few improvements are planned there. The non-Valley portion of Los Angeles has a Red line, Blue Line and Green Line all up and running. The movement toward a Valley Transit Authority must move forward. The City’s own analysis showed that if the Valley Transit Authority were created, the operating costs could be cut by 25%, more buses could be put on the streets to serve the transit dependent Valley residents and that bus fares could be cut from $1.35 to $1.00 per ride. This will benefit the transit dependent residents of the Valley.
5 The Sepulveda basin has become the city’s dumping ground for sewage and septic tank disposal. Valley residents must continually fight off attacks to use Basin open space for public facility projects.
Pico-Union Area
During several meetings with community members from the Pico-Union area of Los Angeles, residents expressed the overwhelming desire that their community no longer be divided among several assembly, senate, or congressional districts.
The demographics of the Pico/Union community reveal a vibrant and growing Latino community facing similar obstacles and concerns such as gang violence, language barriers, and government services.
For example, many who reside in he Pico/Union use the services of a non-profit community based clinic, La Clinica MSR. Oscar A. Romero. The majority of the patients are the working poor who have jobs in restaurants, garments, and other service industries that make up the backbone of the Los Angeles economy, but have no insurance for either themselves or their families.
Service organizations have developed in the Pico/Union community who support the community of Pico/Union. For Example, the Institute of Popular Education of Southern California (IDEPSCA), the Salvadoran-American Leadership and Educational Fund (SALEF), the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN), the St. Vincent Community Youth center along with many others help with the Pico/Union community concerns and obstacles.
The programs that the organizations offer vary from violence reduction and prevention to teaching technical skills. CARECEN works with teachers from Belmont High School and volunteers form Occidental College to provide tutoring, computer instruction, skills training, and art programs for students from Berendo Middle School in Pico/Union; the program also incorporates a family integration workshop for students and their parents. Half of the students that participate in CARECEN's Safe Heaven program are Mexican American; the rest are Central American. SALEF concentrates in civic participation and representation of the Salvadoran, Central American and other Latino immigrant communities, as well as to advocate for their economic, educational and political advancement and growth. IDEPSCA concentrates on Adult Spanish and English Literacy as a second language (ESL) programs, a large Day Laborer Project, a Computer Literacy Project and a Women's Project; all of the Literacy and ESL classes are volunteered taught. The St. Vincent Community Youth center concentrates on violence Reduction and Prevention, learning and school performance, development and family enrichment, development of community pride and health education.
Health Ninety-five (95) percent of the people who use the services at La Clinica MSR Oscar A. Romero (located in the Pico/Union community) have no public or private insurance coverage. La Clinica obtains its an annual budget of $2.8 million from individual donations, corporations, private foundations, City, County, State and Federal contributions. It provides services to very
6 linguistically diverse cultures and provides assistance in native language of Kanjobal, Quiché, Zapoteco, Mixteco and other languages from southern Mexico and Central America.
Social/Youth Services: The service organizations such as IDEPSCA, SALEF, CARECEN, St. Vincent Community, La Clinica MSR. Oscar A. Romero have developed in the Pico/Union community to support the need for social services in the Pico/Union community.
The Institute of Popular Education of Southern California, or IDEPSCA, is a non-profit organization founded by a group of Chicano and Latino immigrant activists in 1991. In Los Angeles County 1,643,000 persons (30% adults) did not complete high school. Of these 61% are Latinos. The specific mission of IDEPSCA is to organize and educate low-income Latinos through leadership development and educational programs. IDEPSCA’s programs include adult Spanish literacy, English as a second language, Day Laboror Project, Computer Literacy Project, and Women’s Project.
In East Los Angeles IDEPSCA has 3 literacy classes and 2 English classes. IDEPSCA is also active with Union y Fuerza to address issues of affordable housing and transportation and also in working to stop the demolition of low income housing units. In Pasadena, IDEPSCA has La Escuelita de la Comunidad (the little community school) which is IDEPSCA’s oldest project. The programs IDEPSCA has in Pasadena include, English as a second language classes, the Latino Neighborhood Association of Pasadena, Mujeres en Moviemiento (Women in Action), the Pasadena Day Laborers Association and the Pasadena Job Center.
IDEPSCA’s other programs include, Concilio de Mujeres, whose goal is to develop, with the Latina Immigrant Federation, the potential of Latina women in the Los Angeles area in order to impact critical socio-economic conditions. Volunteers for this programs work weekly in East Los Angeles and in Pasadena. In addition IDEPSCA currently operates 3 other day laborer sites in Hollywood, Downtown Los Angeles and West Los Angeles. IDEPSCA also has the Computer Literacy Project that provides access to new technology for low-income Latino workers.
Wilmington and San Pedro
Community residents the San Pedro and Wilmington areas of Los Angeles testified that their communities should be kept together as a cohesive community of interest within a single assembly, senate, and congressional district.
One person described the harbor communities as worlds unto themselves. The residents of these areas described the commonalities they share with each other. Both Wilmington and San Pedro have large Latino immigrant populations that began settling in the area during the late 1970’s and early 1980. San Pedro and Wilmington share very few demographic similarities with the affluent neighborhoods located in the Palos Verdes peninsula to the west.
7 The cities were originally incorporated cities that were consolidated by the City of Los Angeles in 1909. Recently, there has been discussion about the possible succession of San Pedro and Wilmington from the City of Los Angeles. Activists in three harbor-area communities are trying to break away from the city of Los Angeles and form a new municipality of about 140,000 residents. San Pedro, Wilmington and part of Harbor City would make-up the new independent city.
Today about 90% of Wilmington's 60,000 residents are Latinos, many of them poor, living in a community dominated by industry and its byproducts, such as giant shipping containers and auto wrecking yards. In addition to five nearby refineries, Wilmington residents share their neighborhood with two major freeways and the Alameda Corridor, which all cause large amounts of air pollution. The community does not want any more large oil refineries in their backyard. There have been numerous complaints of explosions, intolerable smells, and respiratory problems that the community believes are linked to the health and environmental hazards present in this area.
The principle community college for residents of Wilmington and San Pedro area is the Los Angeles Harbor College. Both San Pedro and Wilmington are part of the Los Angles Harbor Police Division. The residents share many concerns about rising crime rates. The area have higher numbers of calls for emergency service than the rest of Los Angeles and use of police services have been higher than average in the Harbor Division.
8 ORANGE COUNTY
Santa Ana, Anaheim, Garden Grove
Residents from Santa Ana expressed their desire to keep the city of Santa Ana in a single assembly, senate, and congressional district. They also described the commonalities they have with portions of neighboring eastern Garden Grove and central Anaheim, forming the core of a community with like interests. The community runs along the Interstate Highway 5 corridor, where housing values are more affordable. Residents also stated that the western portion of Garden Grove is home to a large Asian American- Pacific Islander community that relates closely with the neighboring community of Westminster.
The central and northern areas of Orange County is one of the most ethnically and diverse communities in the state. Many people mischaracterize Orange County as being entirely conservative and affluent, when in reality the demographic changes that are happening in north and central Orange Country will eventually occur everywhere else in the county.
Members of the community reiterated the need to elect representatives that understand the diverse assets and contributions of the growing ethnic population. They described the disturbing and growing gap between Orange County’s wealthy, predominately white areas, located largely but not exclusively in the southern and coastal regions, and a generally poorer, heavily immigrant core region centered around Santa Ana, Garden Grove, and Anaheim. Residents form a community of interest with common representational needs.
Education Although the County has become a leading center for high-tech industries, the increasingly complex skills required for these industries will widen the disparity between the highly educated and those with relatively limited schooling. Nearly half of all students in Orange County are Latino, roughly ten percent are Asian, and two percent are African-American. Latinos now account for nearly 44% of all kindergarten students, even in such affluent districts as Newport-Mesa. In Santa Ana, Garden Grove, and Anaheim, students suffer from average SAT scores as much as two hundred points below those in such areas in Irvine or Newport. Housing Concerns
The context of the housing affordability crisis in Orange County is broad. The County population is growing rapidly, far outpacing growth in other counties. Much of the recent growth represents minority populations concentrated in northern areas of Santa Ana, Anaheim, and portions of Garden Grove. By 2020, the population of the County will reach 3.24 million, and population growth is outpacing the housing supply. The County’s housing is increasingly overcrowded and rising housing prices have put homeownership out of the reach of most residents. The median price of a home in Orange County rose to $289,000 in the last quarter of 2000. Additionally, rental housing is increasingly pricing lower income households out of the market, in particular senior citizens with limited incomes who face rising rents. The average two-bedroom apartment
9 rents $900. There is also a lack of affordable housing - and almost non-existent public - is a tremendous hardship for Orange County’s working poor, who frequently pay more than 30 percent of their incomes for rent. Many working people are forced to share quarters or live in garages or motels.
Crime Successful moves by community residents and local law enforcement to reduce crime throughout the county have been particularly shown some results. This widespread reduction in crime has included some county neighborhoods, such as the Flower Street Park zone of Santa Ana and the Buena Clinton area of Garden Grove. Orange County’s inner city communities such as Anaheim, Fullerton, and Garden Grove have led the area’s plunge in crime rates, which has outpaced the national average. Santa Ana has seen a 50% reduction in crime over the past five years and its homicide rate has dropped a remarkable 70% over the past two years. It now ranks among the nation’s twenty-five safest of the nation’s 202 largest cities.
10 SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Barrio Logan
During the 1990 legislative redistricting, the small and primarily Latino community of Barrio Logan was divided from the neighboring Logan Heights community by a district boundary running along Interstate Highway 5. The residents of Barrio Logan testified at the Assembly Committee hearing that their community must be reunited with Logan Heights in all assembly, senate, and congressional districts.
Residents from the Barrio Logan and Logan Heights community in San Diego have faced more than their share of issues that have literally, tried to divide their communities in half. During the 1970’s, the Barrio Logan and Logan Heights community protested to create and preserve Chicano Park, a small but symbolic patch of green space, buried under Interstate 5 and the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge. Adorning the multitude of concrete supports are painted murals depicting scenes of activism, celebrations of Mexican culture, as well as commentaries on the effects of “urban renewal.” Chicano park has become a focal point for the community. As such, Barrio Logan and Logan Heights have come to represent the heart and soul of this San Diego community.
Although Barrio Logan and Logan Heights are divided by highway overpasses, the communities remain tied to one another through its shared history, by virtue of the similarity of problems each community faces -- health, environmental, employment, etc, and through community organizations that provide services to both communities.
For example, Barrio Logan and other cities joined together in 1980 to form the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) whose goal is the prevention and clean up of toxic pollution in the area. The proliferation of shipyards, junkyards, and sewage pumping stations has directly affected the Barrio Logan community. For example, the EHC alleges that a nearby sewage pumping station has illegally dumped chemicals resulting in the contamination of Perkins Elementary School. Five years of intense community organizing has resulted in the enactment of a policy banning the use of the toxic pesticides to fumigate imported perishables in areas adjacent to poor Latino communities.
City Heights
Another area of concern raised at the San Diego community workshop is that the City Heights neighborhood of San Diego City remain within the current assembly, senate, and congressional districts. This area is reflective of San Diego's cultural crossroads because of its location in the middle of the city and high diversity index. Residents first moved into this area as a result of affordable housing. It has been termed the “virtual Ellis Island of San Diego County.”
City Heights shares many of the economic and social concerns of Logan Heights and National City. Large portions of City Heights residents receive public assistance, and many of these are persons who may not have a permanent or even temporary residence who are receiving General Relief from the County.
11 Two thirds to over 80% of housing units in some neighborhoods are rentals with a high rate of absentee landlords. Much of these properties are one bedroom or smaller units. The Vacant Properties Program manages has targeted City Heights and Barrio Logan/Logan Heights for grant programs to rehabilitate vacant and boarded structures for low income level individuals.
Reports indicate that almost 50% of the children in the City Heights community live in poverty. Schools that were designed for 300 students have nearly 1,000 students enrolled on the average. Parents lack adequate employment. Many families are linguistically isolated. Few after school activities exist. This area of the City was overbuilt while it has been severely underserved by public services and facilities. Programs to address some of these problems are lacking in City Heights. Most of the residents of the area are very low income and are not employed or are not fully employed, and do not own their home. Two of the causes of high unemployment in City Heights is the lack of employment opportunities and inadequate training programs.
City Heights does not offer employment opportunities that are career centered. There is a lack of large employers (e.g., large department stores and manufacturers) and a majority of the businesses are family based businesses that employ only family members. Thus many of the residents who seek employment must take low-paying part-time jobs within the community or travel outside City Heights to seek full-employment.
In addition, there are no formal training programs located in City Heights other than the local Community College. The largest provider of job training funds in San Diego, the San Diego Consortium and Private Industry Council (which allocates $40 million in job training funds), has no presence through contractors in City Heights.
Finally, there is a perception that residents of City Heights are "unemployable." Over $200 million worth of public improvements are being currently constructed in City Heights. This includes the construction of two new schools, the completion of the SR-15 Freeway and the development of the City Heights Urban Village. In public meetings residents have strongly expressed their demand for local hiring on these projects. This has not occurred.
Residents of the City Heights believe that their representational interests are best served by being included in a district with communities facing similar social and economic issues.
12 INLAND EMPIRE
Riverside County - Coachella Valley - Imperial County
MALDEF and WCVI have traveled to Calexico several times over the past months to discuss the shape of assembly and congressional districts. The persistent theme during these meetings has been the desire by community members that districts have a north-south orientation. Community members in Calexico and El Centro more strongly identified with their neighbors to the north along the Hwy 86 into the Coachella Valley. Riverside County Coachella Valley residents also advocated for north-south-oriented districts. Residents from these areas have described these areas based on strong, cohesive, community of interest consideration and have provided us with detailed information at our numerous outreach workshops we have conducted as well as directly to the Senate and Assembly Elections Committees.
The communities in the Lower Desert area are mostly rural, desert areas, share a predominantly agriculturally- based economy and, especially in the Coachella Valley area, provide service workers supporting the tourist industry. Community members have observed that the Imperial County - Coachella Valley share the following characteristics:
Income levels Job retention and employment rates Renter/Owner occupied housing patterns Per capita income Spanish as a native language
Community members also felt strongly that certain areas were economically, socially, and culturally dissimilar from the rest of the Coachella Valley and Imperial County. These included the most suburban areas of the Coachella, specifically, Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage. Community members stated that the differences were reflected by:
Drastically higher property values; Drastically lower average household size; Twice the percentage of registered voters per population; Significantly higher average age of population; About half the percentage of children under 18
Community members argue that the rest of the Coachella Valley should be kept together. This includes the communities of Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs in the west, Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, La Quinta, Indio, Coachella, Mecca, Thermal, eastward thru Desert Center to Blythe on the far eastern boundary of Riverside County & all of Imperial County to the south including the Salton Sea, with the surrounding community of Salton City, Salton Sea Beach, and southward all the way to El Centro & Calexico in the Mexican border.
The areas proposed to be excluded from the district include the Idyllwild/Hemet area to the west and the Palm Desert/Indian Wells/Rancho Mirage on the southern edge of the Coachella Valley. These areas, community members argue, are more similar to portions of Central Riverside
13 County than with the other parts of the Coachella and Imperial Valleys, and thus were not included in proposals or discussions about potential assembly and congressional districts.
Diversity index analyses that measure the probability that two people chosen at random from a geographic area would be of different racial or ethnic backgrounds also reaffirm the division of cities that community members have outlined. The chart below was produced by community members outlining the justification for moving certain cities from their proposed Assembly district.
Groups of Cities/Areas Diversity Index Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage & Palm Desert 27.8% Eastern San Diego County 37.7% Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indio, 52.8% Bermuda Dunes, Palm Springs & La Quinta Unincorporated portions of Coachella Valley 52.4%
Health Issues Bilingual clinics serve the entire Coachella Valley and Imperial County. Imperial County holds the unenviable distinction of having the highest poverty rates in California. Portions of eastern Coachella Valley also have extremely high poverty rates. This, combined with high rates of persons lacking insurance, has created a higher demand for city, county, and state medical assistance
Many residents of the Coachella Valley and Imperial County regions use physicians in Mexicali, Mexico, which is just across the U.S.-Mexico border near Calexico, as their primary health and dental providers. The Coachella Valley-Imperial County area is also characterized by high rates of teen pregnancy and respiratory illness.
Recently, the Heffernan Memorial Hospital District trustees unanimously voted to work with with Clinicas de Salud del Pueblo Inc., in opening an “after-hours” urgent-care center at the long vacant Highway 98 hospital building. Clinicas de Salud del Pueblo, has provided services to the community since 1970 and has its headquarters in Brawley and currently operates five-health care centers in the Imperial Valley and two in Riverside. Clinicas seeks to provide both daytime and after-hours services. Daytime services could include mental-health counseling, child-care training and other services not dependent upon doctors. After-hours service would involve the presence of physicians. Aside from pediatric, dental, family planning, Clinicas provides a host of specialty medical services. In addition, Clinicas provides immigrations physicals and also assists individuals and families to enroll in medical and social service programs for which they are eligible.
Education Issues Imperial County and most of the Coachella Valley have high rates of populations under the age of 18. Accordingly, school age population have increased dramatically over the past decade. These students face many similar educational and social service needs, including language assistance, counseling, family support, and social support structures. This is evidenced by the
14 large number of elementary schools in Palm Springs and Cathedral City having a majority Latino student population.
Economic Development The Mexican American Chamber of Commerce has a large membership that services Imperial County. The Board of Supervisors has recognized the need to work with local cities, chambers of commerce and private industry in the Imperial and Coachella valleys to find out how Imperial Irrigation District can help spark growth. To this end, the Board recently hired Tom Topuzes to spearhead the effort. Topuzes is tasked with analyzing economic development issues in Imperial County and determining how it can bring in new industry and growth.
Native American Cultures Community members also testified about the significant concentration of Native American cultures, reservations, and tribes extending across Riverside and Imperial County. The current and ancestral homelands of numerous Native American peoples follows the north-south orientation to Hwy 86 and along the east-west portion of the I-10 Hwy.
In Riverside County these include: The Aqua Caliente reservation in, around & throughout the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City & Rancho; The Cabazon reservation in & around Indio; The 29 Palm Indians in & around the city of Coachella The old Mission Creek reservation in & around Desert Hot Springs; The St. Augustine reservation south & east of Coachella; The Torres-Martinez reservation in the Mecca, Thermal area – which even extends under the Salton Sea & into parts of Imperial County
In Imperial County these include: The southern portion of the Torres-Martinez reservation; The Fort Yuma reservation that runs along eastern Imperial County all the way to the Mexican border next to an established Port of Entry. The historical, ancestral grounds of the Yuma Indians along with the related Quechan Indians extend north along the river all the way to Blythe & west into the interior of present day Imperial County. The historical, ancestral grounds of the Kamia Indians are throughout central & extend towards the western part of Imperial County.
This concentration of Native American cultures, reservations & tribes also compels the drawing of district lines that will provide Native Americans with an opportunity for representation in the State Legislature.
Community members have drawn plans that encompass all of Imperial County, the desert areas of Riverside County as well as parts of the Coachella Valley that are most like Imperial County and the other desert areas of eastern Riverside County. This area is commonly known as the Lower Desert.
15 San Bernardino County and City of Pomona
The Pomona – San Bernardino corridor was an identifiable community of interest. Many of the communities in this area are represented within one senate district, one congressional district, and two assembly districts. The community identified a cohesive community of interest along the Interstate Highway 10 corridor comprised of the cities of Pomona, Montclair, Ontario, Fontana, Rialto, and San Bernardino, as well as the unincorporated areas of Muscoy and Bloomington.
Latinos have formed small lower-middle-class enclaves fed by ongoing immigration from inner city areas. However, some minority communities are also depressed neighborhoods that are segregated from the rest of the community to the extent that they are frequently not even provided with basic public services. These are heavily populated by new undocumented immigrants who have settled near communities where low-wage, unskilled employment is available.
Poverty is rampant, with high concentrations of low-income, unemployed and underemployed workers that serve labor intensive service and manufacturing industries and informal labor markets. As a result, increasing problems relative to housing, health, education, and law enforcement are prevalent.
On the western end of the corridor, community members identified a strong community of interest between parts of Pomona, Chino, Claremont, and Ontario. These cities are characterized by a high degree of ethnic and cultural diversity. The high level of development in these cities over the past decade has attracted new residents to the affordable homes and transportation corridors.
Community members specifically identified the Pomona neighborhood of Phillip’s Ranch and the city of Chino Hills as areas that do not share many of the same concerns regarding education, availability of affordable housing and unemployment.
They characterized Phillip’s Ranch as a community of expensive homes that related more with the northern cities in Orange County and eastern cities of Los Angeles County. The housing stock in Chino and Pomona east of the Highway 91 is older and has lower median value than the housing stock in Phillip’s Ranch and Chino Hills. Chino Hills was described as having economic, social and educational differences.
In the central areas of the corridor, residents described the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga, particularly portions north of Foothill Boulevard, as an area that did not share the same interests or challenges of Pomona, Ontario and Fontana. Rancho Cucamonga boasts the highest median income in the San Bernardino and Riverside County areas and rivals that of Orange County. It is formed of planned communities of primarily single-families along with community parks. The Rancho Cucamonga area has undergone intense development over the past decade, and the majority of residents in Pomona, Ontario, and Fontana cannot afford to live in those areas.
16 On the eastern side of the corridor are the cities of Rialto and San Bernardino, as well as the unincorporated areas of Bloomington and Muscoy. These areas share common concerns about employment, government services, vacant housing, and language barriers. These areas also share concerns
Community members identified Grand Terrace and Loma Linda as areas more closely tied with Redlands and Riverside than with the city of San Bernardino and Rialto.
17 CENTRAL VALLEY
MALDEF and WCVI conducted extensive outreach in Central Valley along the Highway 99 corridor. Community members who attended these workshops highlighted the common challenges that their communities faced in the areas of health, education, and poverty. Residents stated that their communities should remain together in state legislative and congressional districts so that they could have the equal opportunity to elect representatives who could address their concerns.
Agriculture remains the core industry of the Central Valley, but there are concerns about seasonal unemployment, and the environmental and water impacts of agriculture. Residents stated that the status quo is not acceptable: if current growth increases, the Central Valley is more likely to have a mix of poverty and prosperity that does not offer opportunities of upward mobility to all residents.
The population increase is driven by two major factors: immigration and spillover population growth from both the Bay Area and Los Angeles. Population growth is directly associated with poverty: Fresno and Bakersfield have some of the highest poverty levels in the country. About 30 percent of the adults in the San Joaquin Valley have not finished high school, and 25 percent of the children in the San Joaquin Valley live in families well below-poverty level incomes.
Community members advocated that their communities should be kept with the congressional, senate, and assembly districts that run along the Highway 99 corridor. For the most part, these districts grew with a faster rate than the state average, and needed to lose areas of population. An overriding concern of the residents is that new district boundaries continue to include common communities that share similar concerns throughout the Central Valley. The community of interest is identified as a population that needs common representation to address issues such as:
Health
The Central Valley counties have fewer doctors and less access to hospitals and clinics, in comparison to California averages. The Central Valley also has higher rates of births to teenage mothers, and higher rates of inadequate prenatal care than the state as a whole.
Educational Attainment
In general, Central Valley counties show lower educational attainment than does California as a whole. This is reflected by high school completion, possession of a bachelor's degree, rate of taking the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), and enrollment of graduating high school seniors as college freshmen. Central Valley counties have a significantly lower rate of adult population without a high school education than the state as a whole.
Poverty and Unemployment
18 Most Central Valley counties have higher rates of poverty than the California average. Median household income lags behind the state average and unemployment rates are unusually high. Almost all Central Valley counties exceed the state average, some by two or three times.
Kern County and Kings County
Currently the western region of Kern County and the southeast side of the City of Bakersfield are within the same assembly, senate, and congressional district as Kings County. Community members reiterated that these areas should be kept together.
During the 1990 redistricting, the City of Bakersfield was divided into areas representing distinct communities of interest. Bakersfield has the 8th fastest growing population in California and is the 78th most populous city in the country. Bakersfield has 91 schools, of which 25 are high schools, one city college and one state university. The southeast side of Bakersfield is characterized as working class neighborhood that face challenges with regard to crime, education and affordable housing.
The community issues affecting southeast Bakersfield have strong commonalities with the communities of Delano, McFarland, Lamont, and Arvin. These cities have large farm-worker communities that face strong language barriers. The vast majority of the residents in these cities are working in service and agriculture related industries. The population is characterized by median low-income, and high unemployment. Arvin and Lamont are located in the southeast and Delano and McFarland are located in the northwest.
Residents stated that the cities of Taft and Maricopa share few commonalities with the agricultural dependent cities described above. This area of the county is heavily dependent on the oil industry and is described as a conservative community where the issue of gun control is of prime importance to these residents.
Likewise, the east side of the county is largely desert and mountainous, where the community is also considered conservative. There are two military bases on the east side of the county that contributes to the economy of the region. With recent downsizing of military bases, the area has seen population decreases over the past ten years and has experienced some economic downturns.
Tulare County
Tulare county residents expressed their concern that legislative districts enable them to elect the representatives of their choice. Tulare County is currently divided into three assembly districts, three congressional districts, and two senate districts. Some residents expressed their desire to see Tulare County form a larger and more important part of a legislative district, as long as the districts formed in neighboring counties were not adversely affected.
At the congressional level, there is sufficient population growth in the greater Central Valley to warrant placing the new 53rd congressional district in Tulare and Fresno County. The residents
19 analyzed the population demographics of the Central Valley counties, and concluded it was not feasible to put an additional senate or assembly district in Tulare County with jeopardizing the residents of neighboring districts to elect the representatives of their choice.
Residents also concluded that it was acceptable to keep western Tulare County in one senate district, and realign the assembly districts so that they reflected more compact districts that comported with communities of interest. Southwestern Tulare County (Earlimart and Porterville) is placed in a same assembly district as Bakersfield and Kings County, and northwestern Tulare County (Dinuba, Visalia) is kept with the neighboring towns in central Fresno and western Fresno.
The residents of Tulare County form a community of interest with the residents of western Kern County, rural Fresno County, and portions of Kings County. Members of the community described some of the common issues they face with neighboring communities.
Economy The Tulare County economy is defined by the predominance of agricultural businesses. They are the source of employment for a significant portion of the county’s labor force. The two major agriculture businesses are dairy and citrus. Tulare County is one of several central valley counties forming part of the “Citrus Belt”.
Tulare County’s heavy reliance on farming and agriculture has created a disparity in the economic fortunes of its residents. A majority of the agricultural employees in Tulare are either migrant or permanent farmworkers. Many of those employed in the agriculture industry have seasonal employment contracts. Most of the seasonal employees travel as far north as Selma, Kingsburg, Reedley, Parlier and Orange Cove in Fresno County and as far south as McFarland and Delano in Kern County.
Despite the robust work force of Tulare County, it has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state. To exacerbate the problem, there are no programs in the foreseeable future that will target or address the unemployment issue of Tulare County. The majority of the population of Tulare County lives outside of the three of cities Visalia, Tulare and Porterville.
Health Care Access to health services remains an elusive prospect. Health services are generally only available in Visalia, Tulare, and Porterville. The City of Lindsay had a medical facility that closed down two years ago. Tulare County receives less than 1% of what is made available to Fresno and Kern Counties for funding health care in the county
Education Tulare and Kings County, together, have a population of nearly half a million people yet only a small percent of the population attend a four year college institution. This exacerbates the chronic problems of a large unskilled workforce in Tulare County. Fresno and Bakersfield are the closest areas offering four-year institutions to the residents of Tulare County.
Transportation
20 Tulare County receives a disproportionately low share of funding for road and highway improvements that would aid in moving products from the fields to storage to market. Tulare County officials as well as municipal elected officials have expressed the need for major road improvement for the southern part of the county. Given that the state allocates funds based on population instead of road miles, Tulare County receives less than 1% of the total state funds allocated for road improvements.
Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin
The counties of Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin form another area of the Central Valley where residents expressed the need to keep communities of interest intact.
Community members in Madera voiced their concern that areas of Madera remain with communities that share common interest in either Merced County or Fresno.
Residents of Stanislaus County described the community of interest that primarily resides west of Highway 99. The large Latino community on the west side of the county has no representation on the Board of Supervisors, and only recently have they gained some representation in the city council of Modesto. The community on the southwest portion of the city face common economic and social problems with the neighboring cities of Merced and Stockton.
Stanislaus County has had faster job growth than the state over the past 40 years, but the unemployment rate in the county, which used to be the same as the state's unemployment rate, was two or three times higher than the state's rate in the 1990s. The agricultural practice of having workers rely on unemployment insurance benefits for part of their annual income has spread from farming to nonfarm sectors - nonfarm employers in farming areas often to lay-off workers, expecting them to collect unemployment insurance benefits, and then be ready to return to work when needed.
Community groups from Stockton also stated that their legislative districts contain communities with common interest. They were concerned that parts of San Joaquin County are increasingly becoming a bedroom community for the San Francisco Bay Area as a result of lower home values. There is already a worsening housing shortage for the farmworker community as a result of the increased number of farmworks in the region and the few housing units being built by farmers.
The four counties are heavily dependent on agricultural businesses that are serviced by seasonal and permanent farmworkers. Similar to the southern Central Valley, these counties face challenging issues with regard to health, education, housing, and employment. All community expressed their support for the construction of a new University of California campus in Merced County. It would offer a nearby transfer opportunity for low-income students who attend the community college system in the Central Valley.
Development is a major concern of the residents in these areas. There has been an increase in the number of community-based projects along the Highway 99 corridor that encourage and facilitate economic development throughout the cities serving the region. Residents shared the
21 concerns that these cities need to retain and expand existing businesses, attract new industries, increase local wages, create jobs and redevelop blighted areas.
Some residents also cited traffic is an important issue in the community. There has been an increase in the number of licensed drivers, however, because of new "proof of insurance" laws total vehicle registration has declined in most areas.
22 CENTRAL COAST
Watsonville, Salinas, Gilroy
Members of the community stated that they have started making representational gains in the state legislature and want to ensure that the current district lines continue to contain the diversity of the region. Specifically, they were concerned that the unincorporated city of Pajaro and surrounding areas were not included in the same assembly district as Salinas and Watsonville, even though they share many demographic and social commonalities.
Residents also stated that the city of Morgan Hill and surrounding neighborhoods have little in common with the predominantly agriculture based towns of Gilroy and Watsonville. They described Morgan Hill as an area of high home values that is rapidly becoming a distant suburb of San Jose.
Residents identified certain key issues pertaining to housing, education, healthcare, and employment. Residents also identified both social and demographic issues as well as environmental and land use issues. The following section summarizes the main points that emerged from the meetings with the community.
Residents highlighted several characteristics typical in the region. Residents pointed to the diversity and community pride among. They described the strong family values, “small town” feel, and community commitments as assets of the area. Community members also described the Valley's thriving and dominant agricultural industry and the economy that supports it as an important asset.
Community Concerns
One of the major challenges identified by numerous participants is the need for a better education system for the youth. The lack of adequate facilities, vocational training, bilingual programming and small class size are all challenges that workshop participants identified. Related issues concerning unemployment, economic development and social inequities were also discussed. Participants also cited the lack of affordable housing, minimal workforce development, and low agricultural wages as important issues that the residents must address.
The latest census indicates that the Central Coast region has seen a dramatic increase in the Latino population as a result of high immigration rates and high birthrates. The community faces special concerns, particularly in the area of healthcare and education. The teen pregnancy rate is one of the highest in the state. For example, in 1999, 66 percent of the births in Monterey County were to Latina mothers and 85% of teen mothers were Latinas.
Affordable Housing
Residents shared common concerns regarding strengthening neighborhoods and increasing housing opportunities. All available data indicate that the supply of housing for lower-income persons is extremely limited, and adequate affordable housing is not being constructed as growth
23 proceeds. No agency is responsible for tracking county wide affordable housing. For individuals who are low-income, housing is available through a variety of programs such as those offered by the Housing Authority of Monterey County. These programs generally help low-income individuals, the elderly, handicapped, and farm-labor families.
Residents stated that preservation of agricultural land while providing additional housing is one of the underlying crises the region needs to address. Several community members also described the issues associated with sustaining environmental resources while promoting economic opportunities. Protecting farmland and the quality of the environment while assuring a healthy economy was a challenge that residents faced.
24 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
Alameda County
Alameda County contains many of the diverse communities reflected by the entire state. During the outreach meetings, residents identified the East Oakland region and the Fruitvale community in Oakland as a strong, cohesive community of interest that should be kept together and kept within the same state legislative and congressional districts. Community members also observed that East Oakland’s population has more in common with communities of Fruitvale and San Leandro than the communities of Castro Valley and Dublin.
The demographic characteristics of Fruitvale reveal a vibrant multicultural community, especially along International Boulevard and Fruitvale Avenue. African American, Latino, Asian, and Anglo populations reside within the Fruitvale region and share common socioeconomic characteristics. An examination of socioeconomic data, particularly high school graduation attainment, per capita income, and renter/owner housing patterns, reveal a high degree of similarity in Fruitvale and East Oakland, between the estuary and MacArthur Blvd. Within the Fruitvale community resides a large immigrant population that share common representational issues with regard to language barriers, the lack of available, affordable housing, and access to government services.
The residents are the working poor and working class families of the greater Oakland area. Many people indicated that the communities in Oakland view each other not only as neighbors, but as friends and allies. As such, they expressed the desire to keep Fruitvale intact and united so that they can continue to work together towards their common goals of making the community healthier, stronger, and safer.
Over the past decade, the Fruitvale community has moved south into parts of San Leandro and Hayward. With the population migration, business, social, and community and grassroots organizational support systems have also followed and now service both the Fruitvale and San Leandro communities.
For example, in terms of provision of health services, 37% of the people who use the Services at La Clinica de la Raza, located in the Fruitvale community, come either from East Oakland or San Leandro. La Clinica receives about $3 million dollars from Alameda County and is the only provider of mental health services in Spanish. San Leandro and East Oakland residents are receiving more and more Spanish services from La Clinica. La Clinica develops outreach and education campaigns for the Spanish-speaking community. Recently, La Clinica has focused its efforts on Fruitvale, East Oakland, and San Leandro to address the need for bilingual health- related programs.
Community members on local school boards have stated that due to the large shifts within East Oakland, Fruitvale, and San Leandro, students face similar problems, including the need for language assistance, counseling, family support, and social support structures. East Oakland youth use many services in Fruitvale including the Spanish Speaking Citizens Foundation and Clinica de la Raza.
25
The service organizations that developed in the Fruitvale community to support the Latino community of Fruitvale have expanded their services to a great percentage of people from East Oakland and San Leandro. These organizations include Clinica de la Raza, the Spanish Unity Council, Centro Legal de la Raza, and the Spanish Speaking Citizens Foundation.
A majority of the 350-member Alameda County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is located in Oakland and San Leandro. The Asociacion de Comerciantes Profesionales de Oakland is a Chamber of small businesses located principally in the Fruitvale area and in East Oakland. The Hispanic merchant/commercial area extends from around 23rd Avenue to San Leandro along the International Boulevard corridor. The East Oakland Flea Market has become a hub for commerce and draws people from Fruitvale, East Oakland and San Leandro.
Of equal importance to the community members was the need to keep the City of Oakland wholly in one congressional district and senatorial district. In the smaller assembly jurisdiction, community members were concerned that the City of Oakland be kept intact as much as possible. Although the Fruitvale and East Oakland communities share many common interests with San Leandro and Hayward, community members were equally concerned that the City of San Leandro not be divided into multiple districts unnecessarily.
Additionally, there was support for uniting the diverse community in West Oakland that had previously been divided by the assembly district boundaries. The proposed plan would include more working class portions of West Oakland into the Oakland-based assembly district, and include more affluent areas in the Montclair region with the Claremont and Berkeley Hills areas of the neighboring assembly district to the north.
Contra Costa County
During out outreach workshops in Contra Costa County, residents from the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, and Brentwood stated that these cities, collectively referred as East Contra Costa, should remain within one congressional, senatorial, and assembly district based on the presence of a strong, cohesive community. These cities have grown more diverse over the past 10 years, with minority populations ranging from 20% to 40% of population. They share concerns with regard to language barriers, the lack of available and affordable housing, proximity to transportation, and access to employment.
The demographic profiles of East Contra Costa reveal a growing community of Latino families, many of whom are seeking lower rent values or are first time homeowners. The 2000 Census reports that the average household family size is above 3.0 for each of the cities in this area, whereas the Contra Costa County has an average size of 2.78 and Central Contra Costa County has significantly smaller family households. Additionally, the median age of the population is lower than the median age for the county and for the cities in Central Contra Costa County.
The East Contra Costa cities share common concerns regarding high unemployment levels in the area. The California Employment Development Department unemployment data for July of 2001 reveals that the East Contra Costa cities all have unemployment rates of 4.3% of higher, whereas
26 the Contra Costa median unemployment is 3.2% and cities in Central Contra Costa County have unemployment rates of below 3%. The high levels of unemployment can be attributed to the lack of major employers in the area. EDD reports that only one out of the top fifteen major employers is located in East Contra Costa County. A higher proportion of residents in East Contra Costa are participants in the CalWorks programs compared to other areas of the County.
In the past decade the Bay Area Rapid Transit system has been expanded to reach the Bay Point area of East Contra Costa, and residents can now use public transportation to commute to work in the larger job centers of Oakland or San Francisco.
San Francisco County
Community members called for a redistricting proposal that presents a well-balanced approach towards establishing an equitable and competitive Assembly Districts for the diverse communities of interests that reside in the southern and eastern portions of the San Francisco. They stated that portions of northern Daly City mirror the demographic and economic characteristics of the geographically adjacent southern and eastern portions of the San Francisco, and constituted a community of interest.
They further described this community of interest as anchored along the Mission Street corridor. Mission Street runs the entire geographic length of the proposed assembly and senate districts. The demographic characteristics of the Mission Street Corridor reveals a vibrant multicultural community that includes strong representations from the Latino, Asian, Gay, Filipino and African American communities. From the San Francisco Civic Center through to Daly City, the Mission District Corridor links the Inner Mission, Outer Mission, Excelsior and Daly City. Those communities have substantial Latino and Filipino populations that have traditionally been divided by political boundaries. For example, the current boundaries of the 12th and 13th Assembly Districts divide the Latino communities residing in the Mission, Outer Mission and Excelsior Districts.
The issues concerning these communities include housing, economic development, transportation, education, health, and immigrant rights. The past decade has seen the working class population of San Francisco move southward as cost of living has increased. The neighborhoods along the Mission corridor share more in common both politically and economically with their neighbors in Daly City than with the Western half of San Francisco.
Residents of the Mission Street Corridor on both sides of the San Francisco and Daly City lines shop, worship, and participate in civic organizations within each others communities. The Mission Street Corridor is a commercial area that stretches from 16th Street in the North to Daly City in the South and is the commercial hub for Latinos, Filipinos and African Americans.
The southward migration of the Latino community is reflected in the increased demographic presence of Latinos in the Excelsior District and Daly City, many of whom are homeowners. The southern portion of San Francisco and Northern Daly City are pro-labor strongholds with the highest union memberships in the area. The existence of the Seramonte Mall, Costco, Target and
27 Kmart in Daly City have become shopping beacons for the residents of southern and eastern San Francisco who are economically compatible with the residents of Daly City
In terms of religious worship, residents throughout the Mission Street Corridor attend church together. The Latino, Filipino, Italian-American, and Irish-American predominantly Catholic constituencies of the region mix and congregate at St. Emydius, Ephiphany, and Corpus Christi Catholic parishes at the southern edge of the border between Daly City and San Francisco.
Legislative districts with the Mission Street Corridor as their core are well-balanced approach to addressing the issues of San Francisco’s diverse cultural communities.
28