Expansion of the Board of Supervisors from 5 to 9 is Critical to the Latino Community
by Alan Clayton

The LACCEA is currently taking a leadership role in the most important advocacy effort that it has undertaken since its establishment over 28 years ago. Our association is advocating for the passage of a constitutional amendment that would provide that any county in California with over 5,000,000 residents must have a minimum of nine board of supervisor seats. If this constitutional amendment passes the legislature (the senate and the state Assembly) by a two-thirds vote of each elected body, it would be placed before the voters the November 2000 general election. This constitutional amendment already passed the senate by the necessary two-thirds vote.

The author, Senate Majority Leader Richard Polanco, pointed out in a press release, "The County of Los Angeles was created in 1850. They had a five-member board back then, and about 5,000 people lived in the county. That made sense in 1850. But a lot has changed since then. For starters, nearly 10 million people now live in L.A. County, "Polanco said. "L.A. County is the largest in America. In fact, Los Angeles County has a larger population than 42 states," he added. He also stated that he was leading the effort to expand the board now because the census will be conducted in the year 2000 and reapportionment—the redrawing of districts—will be done in 2001. "This is the smart time to expand the board. It makes perfect sense and allows local control. If approved by the voters, the board of supervisors themselves would simply use the 2000 census data to draw nine districts rather than five in 2001," Sen. Polanco explained.

Sen. Polanco also stated that he would withdraw his legislation if the County Board of Supervisors would allow the Los Angeles County voters to vote on whether or not they would support expanding the board to nine seats. The board has declined so thus far to put this measure before the voters. On four separate occasions I appeared before the board and asked them to place this measure on the local county ballot. This measure may come up for a vote in April 2000. We are working very hard to ensure three votes for this measure when the supervisors place it on its agenda. One of the key components of Sen. Polanco's constitutional amendment and our recommendation for inclusion on the county ballot is cost-containment language. His language and the language that we are requesting the board to adopt would set the budget for the board offices at the same level for nine-members as it is currently set for five members. The total number of staff for five would be the total number of staff for nine-members because each seat would represent approximately 44 percent less residents. In addition, the LACCEA is proposing term limits of twelve years—three four-year terms for each supervisor.

There are a number of excellent reasons that an expanded board makes sense. Additionally, there is a compelling reason that the Latino community should strongly support board expansion: The current lack of Latino representation on the present board of supervisors and the almost certainty that this situation will get increasingly worse without the expansion of the board to nine seats. For example, while in 1997 the Latino population in Los Angeles County was estimated at 43.8 percent, the Latino representation on the board of supervisors was 20 percent. Significantly, the Latino population in Los Angles County grew from 37.8 percent in 1990 to 43.8 percent in 1997, a 6 percent Latino increase in population over seven years. This Latino population percentage increase averaged over .08 percent a year. If we project the same level of Latino population increase into the future years, it could be estimated that the Latino population in Los Angeles County could be approximately 49 percent in the year 2004 and up to about 55 percent by the year 2011. Without expansion, the Latino representation on the board of supervisors would remain at 20 percent. Without the increase in the number of board of supervisor seats and the inability of the Latino community to elect candidates of their own choice, the Latino community will continue to have only limited influence over county policies.

With the expansion of the board of supervisors many positive things can happen. I have been able to demonstrate with a map that the Latino community will have an opportunity to elect candidates of its own choice in two districts. In addition, the Latino community will be able to influence elections in two other districts because of the significant Latino population and Latino voter base in those districts. 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.

Additionally, the cost of a candidate running for office will decrease significantly. If the board expands from 5 to 9 districts, each district would decline in size from approximately 1,930,000 to 1,070,000. It would lose over 44 percent of its population or approximately 855,000 residents per district. Because of the large decrease in voters the cost of an election should decrease by 44 percent. The cities and the residents of each city in the district should get more attention from their individual supervisors. For example, the city of Lancaster is one of 24 cities in Mike Antonovich’s current district. However, the map of the board of supervisors could be redrawn so that Lancaster is one of nine cities in a new Antelope Valley/West San Fernando Valley district. The city of Lancaster would be much more influential with this new smaller board district. The same situation would occur with the city of Pomona (population 136,000). It currently comprises approximately 7 percent of the current supervisor's district where it is located in but it would comprise approximately 13 percent of a new potential supervisor district. Obviously, the city council and the residents of Pomona would have increased clout with this smaller district. A third example would be the city of El Monte. In 1997, El Monte had a population of 127,393. It currently has approximately 7 percent of the population of its current district. However, it would have approximately 13 percent of the population in a new nine-member district. El Monte would have more input with a board member on local and regional issues in a nine-member district.

In response to our argument in support of expansion, the following cities support SB 7 as sound public policy: Pomona; West Hollywood; Southgate; La Puente; El Monte; Artesia; Baldwin Park; Bell Gardens; and Cudahay. With a 44 percent reduction in residents in his or her district, each board member would have more time to take part in activities that are occurring in the cities of the smaller district. Each board member would have more time to use their expertise and influence in lobbying the Legislature and the U.S. Congress for revenue to allow the county to increase services to its residents. We would have four more experienced members that would come from the Republican and Democratic Party that could help lobby in a bipartisan fashion for increased funding for county programs. Various significant regions of the county would receive better representation. The Antelope Valley would finally have influence over its local concerns. The San Gabriel Valley would have two districts with a majority 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. 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. In addition, the San Fernando Valley would have two seats where it would have influence. 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.

The Asian Community in the San Gabriel Valley would be united into a district in which the Asian population in 1997 is estimated to be 31.4 percent which should grow to approximately 35.4 percent by 2003 and approximately 39.4 percent by 2008. Currently, the Asian community is divided into three separate board seats. In 1997, under the current five-member board, the district with the largest percentage of Asians is the fifth district. The percentage of the population in that district is only 16 percent, so Asians have very little influence in that district. As mentioned, with nine-districts, a district can be created that no longer fragments the Asian community. This district would not split-up the Asian community concentrations in the San Gabriel Valley that are contiguous with each other. This district would allow the Asian community to exercise influence in an area where it is geographically concentrated. 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 25 years. The African-American representation in 1997 in Supervisor Burkes's district was 31 percent. The African-American population in Supervisor Burkes's current district would decrease to approximately 28 percent by 2003 and to 25 percent by 2008 if we do not go to a nine-plan. This nine-member plan would result in an African American population of 44.7 percent in one district. The coastal area would have two board of Supervisor members which would result in more focus on environmental issues. One member would be a Democrat and one 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.

There would be no net increase costs in adding additional board members. The total cost for a nine-member board and staff would remain almost the same as the current five-member board and staff. In fact, each current board member would have approximately a 44.0 percent staff cut because the district’s population would be about 44.0 percent smaller than the current district’s population. We would have four more very experienced elected officials at no additional taxpayer cost. Also, the nine-member plan would most likely maintain the same partisan balance. Currently, there are three Democrats and two Republican board members. The nine-member plan would most likely have five Democratic seats, three seats for which Republican candidates would have a strong chance of being elected to office and one swing seat where either a Democrat or a Republican could win.