Ballot Proposals That City Ignored Return to Haunt It

Opening the door to a possible delay of next month’s San Diego City Council races, a federal judge Monday issued a ruling that clears the way for the Chicano Federation to seek a postponement of the city’s first-ever district-only election.

Saying it appears that “the city made a promise . . . and didn’t keep it” with regard to placing proposed election changes on this November’s ballot, U. S. District Judge John S. Rhoades agreed to permit the Chicano Federation to broaden its 20-month-old lawsuit aimed at altering the city’s electoral system.

A hearing on those amendments to the lawsuit has been scheduled for Aug. 28, when Rhoades will decide whether he has the authority to order the city to place the election changes sought by the Chicano Federation on the November ballot.

If the judge sides with the Chicano Federation on that legal question, the group will probably then ask that the Sept. 19 council election be postponed until June, 1990, on the grounds that the election system now in place is unconstitutional. Rhoades also pointedly told the city’s attorneys that, even if he allows the race to proceed, he could later declare it invalid and order a new election.

‘Itself to Blame’

“If the judge does push back the election to next June, the City Council has only itself to blame,” Chicano Federation Chairman Jess Haro said after Monday’s two-hour hearing, adding that his group prefers that timetable. “The city could have taken care of these problems much earlier. But it didn’t, and that’s why it’s in this position.”

Filed in January, 1988, the Chicano Federation lawsuit contended that the two-tiered council election system then in place--district primaries, followed by citywide runoffs between the two top vote-getters in each district--unconstitutionally diluted the impact of Latino votes.

San Diego voters’ narrow approval of a district-only election initiative in November accomplished one of the suit’s major objectives by eliminating the at-large runoffs, which many political activists argued minimized minority candidates’ chances of being elected.

While the city’s lawyers argue that the impending switch to district-only council elections essentially renders the lawsuit moot, Chicano Federation attorney Patricia Meyer stressed to Rhoades on Monday that the suit seeks additional remedies designed to enhance minority political clout. In particular, the group favors expansion of the number of council seats and the creation of an independent board to draw district lines, a politically sensitive job now handled by the City Council.

“The adoption of a district system solved only part of the problem,” Meyer said. “By itself, it doesn’t rectify the system’s inequities.”

Reneged on Agreement?

A key point of contention in Monday’s hearing was whether the city reneged on an agreement aimed at settling the questions raised in the Chicano Federation lawsuit at the ballot box rather than in the courtroom.

During a meeting last year with Magistrate Harry McCue, Mayor Maureen O’Connor and retired Justice Ed Butler, then chairman of the city’s Charter Review Commission, pledged that any election changes proposed by the panel would be placed on the 1989 ballot, according to Meyer. That pledge was little more that a reiteration of an April, 1988, council resolution promising that “all recommendations made by the commission shall be placed directly on the ballot.”

Combined with the district-election initiative, that approach held out the possibility that voters might approve the changes sought by the Chicano Federation, precluding the need for a lengthy, costly lawsuit.

Based on that agreement, McCue put the case on hold until after last November’s vote on Proposition E, the district-election measure.

However, in June, the council, contrary to its earlier resolution, refused to place the review panel’s proposed charter changes, which included an expansion of the council from eight to 10 seats and an impartial redistricting board, on the ballot. In so doing, Meyer argued, the city voided the agreement on which the lawsuit had been stayed, forcing the issue back into court.

In response, John McDermott, an attorney hired by the city to defend it in the lawsuit, offered a two-pronged argument. The 1988 council resolution pledging to forward the proposed charter changes to voters was “totally independent of this case,” McDermott said. Furthermore, McDermott claimed that it was McCue’s “own idea” to stay the case; the decision was not directly based, he said, on any promises made by O’Connor and Butler.

Although the council resolution specifically stated that the panel’s recommendations “shall” be placed on the ballot, McDermott said the city interpreted that to mean that any such proposals “would come back to the council for a ministerial decision.” Adding yet another wrinkle to his defense, McDermott also characterized the resolution as simply a legislative act that could be altered through later action, not a legally binding contract.

‘Didn’t Keep’ Promise

Clearly unpersuaded, Rhoades told McDermott that, after carefully reading the council resolution, “I can’t even get close to what you’re saying.”

“ Shall means shall, not will or maybe or might ,” Rhoades said. “I have a very hard time accepting your explanation, Mr. McDermott. The city made a promise to someone and didn’t keep it.”

As a result of Rhoades’ ruling, the lawsuit’s plaintiffs will be expanded to add blacks to Latinos as the primary groups allegedly harmed by the city’s election system. The judge’s decision also permits Meyer to raise additional legal arguments--notably, the contention that, even under a strictly district system, San Diego’s electoral process violates the one-man, one-vote principle.

Because of population disparities among the eight districts, votes in larger districts are, statistically, if not politically, worth less than votes in smaller districts, Meyer argued. The 4th and 8th council districts, which have the highest concentrations of minority voters in the city, also are among the most populous districts, exacerbating that problem, she added.

Therefore, permitting next month’s elections in four council districts to proceed would result in the victors being selected through a legally flawed system, Meyer said.

Although the city acknowledges that, because of growth and other factors, some districts are numerically larger than others, it argues that the differences are within federal standards--a contention that Meyer disputes.

“Are the districts . . . imbalanced? You bet,” McDermott said. “Is that a reason for (postponing) an election that is weeks away? No.”

The final answer to that question, however, will be made by Rhoades later this month.

From Dismay to I Told You So

At City Hall, Rhoades’ ruling drew predominantly negative reactions among council members, with most expressing doubt that the judge will, in fact, produce the worst-case scenario by halting next month’s election.

Councilman Ed Struiksma, for example, argued that an eleventh-hour postponement would be unfair to the candidates in the four odd-numbered districts at stake in next month’s primary.

Noting that candidates already have made significant investments of time and money in their campaigns, Struiksma said: “It would be virtually impossible to stop the political process at its current juncture.”

Reiterating a point made by the city’s lawyers, Councilwoman Gloria McColl pointed out that, because elections are scheduled to be held in only half of the council districts this fall, the city would have to spend up to $500,000 more to hold a citywide race if Rhoades orders the Chicano Federation’s preferred electoral changes on the November ballot.

“If the judge would like to come up with the money to put it on the ballot, I’d be happy to reconsider it,” McColl said. “We’re trying to build courts and jails. If that judge thinks a special election is more important than courts and jails, I want to hear about it.”

Mayor O’Connor, meanwhile, displayed an I-told-you-so attitude about the potential legal-electoral quandary now facing the city, noting that she was one of only three council members to vote to place the Charter Review Commission’s recommendations on the ballot.

Times staff writer Leonard Bernstein contributed to this report.