San Diego Minority Representation Hinges on End to At-Large Voting

For Latinos, the 1980s was to be the decade that America fulfilled the expectations that had been denied by legal disenfranchisement and other exclusionary practices that denied opportunities in employment, education and housing.

It was to be the era when corporate America and politicians took notice of our growing numbers, which would manifest themselves into purchasing power and votes. It was to be an enlightened time when negative and demeaning stereotypes of Mexicans and other Latinos would disappear as we took our place in the mainstream of American life.

The reality of the 1980s, in fact, has been quite different. Though corporate America has come to recognize the significant purchasing power of the Latino marketplace, Latinos remain a population with marginal political participation. With rare exception, Hispanic Americans are a population without political representation approximating their numbers. In California, despite the fact that 23% of the population is Latino, no Latino holds a statewide constitutional office, and no major city in the state is governed by a Hispanic.

In San Diego County, the status of Latinos holding elective and appointive positions is far more stark than in other California communities. Though Latinos have served on the San Diego City Council, not one currently serves, nor has any Latino been elected without first being appointed. A Latino has never served on the county Board of Supervisors, the San Diego Unified School District or the Community College District.

Not surprisingly, virtually all institutions of social control, such as the administration of schools, courts, judgeships and law enforcement, have been, and remain, beyond the reasonable reach of Latinos and other minorities.

In 1980, before conclusive census data had been compiled, the City of San Diego redistricted its eight councilmanic districts to achieve, supposedly, an equitable division of its nearly 1 million residents. The laws governing political subdivisions dictate that such redistricting should be accomplished in a manner respecting the racial, ethnic and geographic interests that exist in the affected areas.

No Latino sat on the council at the time and what resulted was a disaster for Latino hopes of maintaining a presence and a district where their election would have a high probability of success. The City Council amended the 8th District, which went from Balboa Park to San Ysidro, to include the community of Hillcrest, thereby diluting whatever Latino voting advantage may have existed. What occurred was a blatant example of gerrymandering.

The method by which the council determined where it would make the district changes can only be described as purposed. The City Council created a task force consisting of the planning director, city clerk, assistant city attorney, and the Rules Committee consultant to prepare a redistricting plan. The task force presented two alternatives to the council with the recommendation that said, “The boundaries of District 8 required no adjustment at all.”

Requests were later made by council members, however, resulting in several adjustments to District 8’s boundaries with Districts 2 and 4. Part of Middletown was moved to District 2 and part of Hillcrest was moved from District 2 to District 8. Also, part of Golden Hill was moved from District 8 to District 4.

These changes were both deliberate and calculated. At the time, Assemblywoman Lucy Killea represented District 8, and was contemplating a race for the Assembly district she now represents. The addition of a mostly Democratic bloc of voters, who would also be part of an Assembly district she hoped to represent, fit her political ambitions quite conveniently. Needless to say, the mostly Republican Point Loma 2nd District was not unhappy to see this realignment. The loser, once again, was the city’s Latino community.

In the recent municipal elections, all of these factors became evident. The eventual winner, Bob Filner, moved into the Hillcrest area and declared his candidacy. Neil Good, also a resident of Hillcrest, ran with the near-unanimous support of the area’s sizable gay community. In the southern part of the district, the Latino candidates in the primary received more than 60% of the votes.

Clearly, without Hillcrest, the Latino vote would have been a decisive factor in the outcome of the runoff election between Filner and Latino candidate Mike Aguirre. This election, absent any foreseeable election reforms, could result in the absence of an Hispanic presence on the City Council for the next eight years.

The point must be clearly made and understood that Latinos are not indifferent to the political power structure and system, which have shut them out. There is also great dissatisfaction with Mayor Maureen O’Connor, who has benefited from Latino support in all her elections but refuses to reciprocate by providing the leadership necessary to educate the public that all sectors of the community benefit from the full participation of San Diego’s diverse population.

What is being asked of the mayor is simply fairness. Latinos want recognition that they have legitimate demands and issues that can only be satisfied by participation in a political partnership. Latinos want only what other Americans want--a little reciprocity and a little recognition for our labor, our taxes and our contributions to the culture, development and prosperity of this community and country.

The inequities of a system that prevents political representation for Latinos and other Americans must be corrected by a series of reforms.

Foremost, is to change the at-large system of elections. In a city of 1 million people, this system no longer has validity, if it ever had; its existence only serves to maintain the status quo. History has demonstrated that minorities can effectively achieve political representation when the system does not dilute their vote or impede participation.

Other needed changes would be to expand the council to 10 districts and to require elections to fill all future vacancies.

While most Americans can take suffrage for granted as a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, Latinos and other minority Americans who have been victims of racism and discrimination at the polls must look to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other legal challenges to prevent the suppression of their vote and involvement. The Voting Rights Act has no doubt been instrumental in stimulating minority participation at the polls.

Though Latinos account for about 21% of the nation’s population, we still hold fewer than 5% of the public offices. This disparity is the result of district lines drawn to divide the minority vote and the institution of at-large elections, which was clearly intended to discriminate.

In the past few years, the at-large system of elections has been effectively challenged by Latinos and blacks throughout the Southwest. In Texas alone, San Antonio, Dallas and Houston have abandoned this system of electing council members. In New Mexico, the state Legislature has mandated that all school districts, counties and cities must now change to district elections.

Democracy flourishes when all citizens participate in their own self-determination. Hispanic Americans welcome this responsibility. The at-large systems of elections and obstacles which prevent our successful participation in the political process is wrong and intolerable. The time for change is now.