Government
Jun. 25, 2002
Latinos Weigh Appeal Of Voting Rights Suit
LOS ANGELES - Latino advocates are weighing in on whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court the recent dismissal of their voting rights lawsuit.
"It's a difficult strategic decision because, as bad as the [U.S. District Court for the Central District ruling] is, it's not a controlling precedent at this point," said Thomas C. Saenz, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
If the organization appeals, it runs the risk of losing once again - setting a precedent in which even intentional discrimination would be allowed in other regions where Latinos and minority groups have attained a level of political power, Saenz said.
However, Saenz believes the organization stands a good chance of prevailing because the District Court's decision is directly contrary to several recent decisions involving reverse discrimination cases in which the Supreme Court held that all discrimination, even benign discrimination, is unlawful.
"We have to balance that against the fact that this case is direct discrimination, not reverse discrimination," Saenz said. "It's results-oriented versus principles - an interesting set of issues. In this case, principles are what we're arguing."
The organization has 30 days in which to appeal. Saenz said the organization will make a decision in a "week to 10 days."
The suit accused Gov. Gray Davis and other key administrators and state legislators of redrawing district lines in parts of Los Angeles and San Diego counties that diluted the ability of Latinos to be elected by creating districts that no longer had a Latino majority. Cano v. Davis, CV-01-08477 (C.D. Cal., filed 2001).
A three-judge panel on the District Court granted summary judgment to the state, saying in part that the number of Latino representatives in the state Legislature and Assembly had grown to the point that protection under the federal Voting Rights Act no longer was required.
Lawyers consider the panelists who decided the case - 9th U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt and U.S. District Judges Christina A. Snyder and Margaret M. Morrow - highly sympathetic to civil rights. If appealed, the case would be decided by Supreme Court justices who have proved more hostile to voting rights claims by minority groups.
From a political perspective, however, Antonio Gonzalez of the William C. Velasquez Institute, which is supporting the suit, said he doesn't see how the organization can decide not to appeal.
"I think the [District Court] decision is absolutely ridiculous," Gonzalez said. "I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the District Court panel can say with a straight face that polarized voting no longer exists in Los Angeles County ... but they did."
"In my mind, I have to think it was a decision where politics took precedence over the law," Gonzalez said. "I don't see how we cannot go on appeal."
Jonathan Steinberg, counsel for Davis, also described the case as a watershed moment in California's electoral history but for different reasons.
"This litigation should be a cause for celebration. We may not be at the promised land of a colorblind society, [but] ... the result was compelled by facts that we ought to be happy about," Steinberg said.
Steinberg, who helped the organization on the landmark case Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 756 F.Supp. 1298 (1990), which transformed county Supervisorial District 1 into a Latino majority district, said the court "utterly rebutted" the idea that discrimination was a factor in the latest round of redistricting.
"What MALDEF is complaining about is that the Legislature failed to discriminate by saying that we are going to create a district where Latinos and only Latinos are able to win," Steinberg of Irell & Manella said. "If you do not do that, then you are guilty of discrimination."
Steinberg, who tried the case with Irell colleagues Laura Brill and Bruce Wessel, placed the organization's chances of winning on appeal at "zero."
Michael Alvarez, a Caltech political science professor, testified as an expert witness for the state of California about the characteristics of the state's Latino voters.
The state based its defense on the three-pronged test for voting rights claims put forth in Thornburg v. Gingles 478 U.S. 30 (1986), to prove that the organization did not have a valid claim for protection, Alvarez said.
The prongs were whether the proposed district could be construed as a majority Latino district, whether the Latino minority voted as a block, and whether the white majority was able to block Latino candidates from being elected. Two of the challenged areas were in the San Fernando Valley, while the third was north of San Diego.
"They are not necessarily a cohesive political group," Alvarez said. "On some issues, they vote with blacks, and with some, they vote with whites. We found a lot of data that found that Latinos weren't cohesive."
The state's data showing the emerging power of the Latino vote and the ability of Latino candidates, such as City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, to win proves that Latino voters are past needing support from the Voting Rights Act, Alvarez said.
"It's just not clear that the Voting Rights Act that primarily came out of the situation of blacks and whites in the South in the '60s applies to Latinos in California in the 21st century," Alvarez said.
The organization had tried unsuccessfully to halt the 2002 March primary election until a jury could decide whether the state had discriminated intentionally in redrawing political boundaries after the 2000 census.
In its suit, the organization charged that the Legislature violated the Voting Rights Act by removing thousands of Latino voters from the district of Rep. Howard Berman, D-Mission Hills, and placing them in a neighboring district represented by Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks.
Organization plaintiffs also claimed gerrymandering in the congressional district now held by Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, and the state Senate seat held by Betty Karnette, D-Long Beach.
Susan Mc Rae
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com