Creating a Nine-Member Board, with Cost-Containment
Is Sound Public Policy

by Alan Clayton

This November 7, the voters in Los Angeles County will be able to vote on a measure that could lead to smaller, more regionally compact Board of Supervisor districts. In 1850, there were five districts and each district had about five thousand residents. The current number of residents in each district has grown to approximately 2,000,000 residents per district. Los Angeles County has a current population of nearly ten million and is larger than forty-two states. Now is the time for reform because the census will be conducted this year and reapportionment will occur in 2001. If voters approve this ballot measure in November, the Board of Supervisors in 2001 would use the 2000 data to significantly reduce the size of each current district by drawing nine districts instead of the current five districts.

Currently, Board of Supervisor districts are too large, with each Supervisor representing approximately two million residents. Each Board of Supervisor seat is larger than three congressional districts and is as large as five California State Assembly seats. A majority of the Board of Supervisor districts have over twenty cities within their boundaries. Supervisor Mike Antonovich’s district has 26 cities, Supervisor Don Knabe’s district has 25 cities and Supervisor Molina’s district has 22 cities within their respective boundary.

Many of the cities within these districts often are widely separated and located in different geographic regions. For example, Supervisor Antonovich’s district contains cities located in the Antelope Valley, the San Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley and also includes the cities of Burbank and Glendale. These cities and regions often have different interests and different priorities such as how to deal with local water and transportation needs. The City of Palmdale in the Antelope Valley has different interests and needs from the City of Alhambra in the San Gabriel Valley. Supervisor Don Knabe's district stretches from Marina Del Ray on the coast, to the City of Diamond Bar in the San Gabriel Valley. Again, these supervisoral seats encompass very different areas with different needs. In addition, Supervisor Gloria Molina’s district extends from the Eagle Rock area to the City of Southgate and stretches to the City of Pomona.

The current Board of Supervisor districts are so large and geographically dispersed that the cost of Board of Supervisor elections is immense. In the last election, three incumbent Supervisors ran with no opposition. It is prohibitively expensive to run against an incumbent in a huge district. An effective campaign against an incumbent boardmember would cost from two to four million dollars. Only a very wealthy candidate or a candidate aligned with powerful special interest money could afford to run against an incumbent.

In addition, no incumbent has been defeated for reelection in the past twenty years. As a result of the cost of running against incumbents, it is likely that no incumbent will lose re-election to office in the next eighteen years. Not surprisingly, no incumbent would publicly support our modest term limit proposal of three four-year terms in office or a total of twelve years in office.

The majority of the Board of Supervisor members want the status quo and will fight vociferously any attempt to have any significant reform of the current system, such as a significant reduction to the size of their districts.

Because a majority of the Board of Supervisors want the status quo and will fight any attempt to enact significant reforms of the current system such as reducing the size of the board districts with cost- containment, it took an eighteen-month campaign to get a majority of the Board of Supervisors to allow the local voters to cast a ballot on this issue. State Senate Majority Leader Richard Polanco with bipartisan support introduced Constitutional Amendment (SC7) with Republican Assemblymember George Runner as its principal co-author.

The constitutional amendment was designed to force the Supervisors to allow the local voters the ability to vote for board reform. The amendment passed the California State Senate by a two-thirds margin and passed out of the Assembly Local Government Committee by a bipartisan 6-to-1 vote. It would have allowed the entire state of California to vote on this issue. Senator Polanco said, however, that he would not move it forward if the Board of Supervisors allowed the local voters to cast a ballot on the reform measure. This political pressure tactic forced the Board of Supervisors, after stalling for eighteen months, to put the measure on the local ballot. Without such pressure, you, the voters, would most likely have been denied this vote and democracy would have been ill-served.

It is obvious that there was a concern by some board members that if this measure passed they would have to give up part of their immense power and would have a significant cut in their current budget of $3.1 million for each board member. In addition, many board members appear to be so concerned about this ballot measure passing that even though cost-containment is one of two significant issues that is mentioned in the ordinance’s analysis, the board majority refused to place it on the actual ballot. Hopefully, the voters will not be fooled by this tactic.

Alan Clayton is flanked by Sen. Polanco aide Bill Mabie, left, and Marshall Diaz, Chair of LA City/County Redistictin cCoalition, as he addresses the board of supervisors on expansion.

Our reasonable reform proposal that substantially reduces the size of supervisoral districts by increasing the number of supervisoral districts to nine and includes cost-containment language. We also have twice publicly spoken on the Board of Supervisor’s agenda asking that each current board member sign the pledge to contain County costs if expansion passes. Even if the incumbents do not sign the pledge, we will strongly request future candidates for a board seat to sign a cost-containment pledge with its goal to attempt to keep the cost for nine supervisors as close as possible to the costs for the current five supervisors. We will make it a campaign issue if they refuse to sign the pledge. The signing of this pledge by the current members of the Board of Supervisors will be a major campaign issue.

Under our reform proposal, significant regions of the County would receive better representation. The San Fernando Valley would have strong influence with two seats. The first seat would be in the Antelope Valley/West San Fernando Valley area and the second seat would be in the Northeast San Fernando Valley/Hollywood/Wilshire area.

The coastal area would have two Board of Supervisor members which would result in more focus on environmental issues.

Our reform proposal would also provide better bipartisan balance. One member most likely would be a Democrat and one would most likely be a Republican, so hopefully there could be bipartisan cooperation in seeking funds from the State of California or the Federal government or in passing legislation that would benefit the coastal areas. The Antelope Valley would finally have strong influence in a smaller district that would enable it to have strong advocacy on its local issues. The San Gabriel Valley would have two districts with a large block of voters from the San Gabriel Valley. There would also be a third seat that would have a significant amount of its voting strength coming from the San Gabriel Valley. Currently, the San Gabriel Valley is divided up three ways with no current supervisor having a majority of its voters residing in the San Gabriel Valley.

Our reform proposal will allow cities and their residents to receive more individual attention from their local supervisor. For example, the City of Lancaster is one of 26 cities in Mike Antonovich’s current district, however, the Board of Supervisors map could be redrawn so that Lancaster is only one of eight cites in a new Antelope Valley/West San Fernando Valley district. Lancaster with an estimated 1997 population of 123,174 would be much more influential in a smaller Board of Supervisor district. This Board of Supervisor district’s size would be reduced from the current approximately 2,000,000 residents to a district with approximately 1,100,000 residents. The same situation occurs with the City of Pomona (estimated 1997 population 136,000). It currently comprises approximately 7% of the current supervisor’s district within which it is located, but it would comprise approximately 13% of a new potential supervisorial district. Obviously, the city council and the residents of the City of Pomona would have increased clout and more input on local and regional issues in a nine-member district. Our proposal also deals fairly with the diversity of Los Angeles County. The African-American community would have a seat where it would have the ability to elect a candidate of its own choice for the next 20 years. The African-American estimated population in 1997 in Supervisor Burke’s district was 31%. If a nine-member plan had been in place in 1997 the African American representation in that district would have been 44.7%. The voting strength in this smaller district would be significantly over 50% African American. However, without a smaller district, the African-American population in Supervisor Burke’s current district would decrease to 29% by 2002 and would continue to decline every year.

The Latino community will have an opportunity to elect candidates of its own choice in two districts out of the nine districts. In 2002 the Latino population in Los Angeles County will be over 46% which would most likely result in Latinos having 22% representation on the Board of Supervisors with a chance to influence the election in another district. The Latino population in 1997 in our draft plan in one district would be 75.3% and 75.9% in a second district. The Latino community has its strongest geographical concentration in these two areas. Compare this potential outcome with the Latino community’s current ability to only elect a candidate of its choice from one district at the present time and until 2012 if expansion is not adopted.

In 1997, the Asian Pacific American population in Los Angeles County was estimated to be 12.8%. Los Angeles County has the largest Asian Pacific American population of all counties in the nation, yet there is no Asian Pacific American representation on the Board of Supervisors. It is projected that the Asian Pacific American population will continue to grow. Currently, with only five supervisors, Asians have very little influence in any of the district, making it virtually impossible to elect an Asian Pacific American supervisor. Because the Asian Pacific American community that is located in the San Gabriel Valley is split into three different supervisoral districts, the Asian Pacific American community will continue to have very limited influence over county policies. If a nine-member plan had been in place in 1997, a district could have been created in the San Gabriel Valley uniting the Asian Pacific Islander community that would have had an Asian Pacific Islander estimated population of 31.4%, which could increase to over 35% by the end of 2002.

The Anglo community would be treated fairly under this ballot measure which if passed by the voters in November would substantially reduce the size of each district. In five of the nine districts Anglo incumbents or candidates for Board of Supervisor seats would be favored to win reelection or to be elected for the first time. This is in a County where the Anglo population in 2002 would be less than 32% and will continue to decline in the future.

In sum, all regions of the County of Los Angeles would benefit from smaller more regionally compact districts. As a result, expansion of the Board of Supervisors with cost containment has broad-based support. Among the supporter of expansion of the Board of Supervisors to nine districts are current incumbent Board of Supervisor members Yvonne Brathwaite Burke and Gloria Molina, Senate Majority Leader Richard Polanco, Assemblyman George Runner, the California Democratic Party, the Chicano/Latino Caucus of the Democratic Party, the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus of the California Democratic Party, the Labor Caucus of the California Democratic Party, the Latino Republican Coalition, the Los Angeles City/County Latino Redistricting Coalition and the Southern California Asian Pacific Islander Health Caucus, the Mexican American Bar Association of Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Chapter of the Society of Professional Hispanic Engineers, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Chapter of the Mexican American Correctional Association and the Latin Business Association.