The boundaries of Riverside County’s five supervisorial districts have been challenged in litigation filed June 14. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the suit on behalf of Inland Empire United (IEU) and six individuals. The first hearing about the litigation will be Aug. 15 in Riverside.

The suit alleges that the redistricting plan the board of supervisors adopted Dec. 21, 2021, is discriminatory and unrepresentative of the county’s population. The suit argues that the board should have chosen a plan that would have created two districts with a majority Latino population. By failing to make that decision, the board and county is diluting the Latino vote and limiting the Latino population’s opportunity to equally participate in the county political process, according to the ACLU filing.

“… the 2021 Redistricting Plan splits up politically cohesive Latino communities among districts 1, 2, and 5, shutting out Latino voters in cities like Jurupa Valley and Moreno Valley from the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice,” the filing claimed.

Prior toBefore receiving the legal papers, Brooke Federico, the county’s director of communications, said in an email to the Town Crier, “It’s important to note that the county went through rigorous statistical analyses by well-respected experts and consultants to ensure that all voters have a meaningful opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice. This method included analyzing citizen voting age population data, a racially polarized voting analysis and an opportunity to elect report [elect a minority candidate], in addition to holding many community meetings and public hearings, to ensure that residents have fair and equal representation.

“The new supervisorial map is fully compliant with the Federal Voting Rights Act and the California Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities and Political Subdivisions (FAIR MAPs) Act, and it has at least two effective Latino opportunity-to-elect districts,” Federico wrote.

According to the 2020 United States Census, Riverside County has a total population of 2,418,185 residents, of whom 49.7% are Latino.

Consequently, plaintiffs argue that the California FAIR MAPs Act expressly requires county redistricting plans to comply with Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act and the United States and California constitutions.

During the redistricting process, IEU had submitted several proposed maps to the county’s Executive Office Technical Redistricting Committee (EOTRC). Their preference was Community Map 1.4, which created two districts with a majority of Latino-registered voters. Also, a third district had a Latino voting age population of more than 40%, thus creating a significant opportunity for Latino voters in three districts.

Prior toBefore the board’s final vote on which map to adopt, on Dec. 6, 2021, the ACLU sent a letter to the county urging the board to choose a map with two districts having a Latino majority of voting-age residents. This was its second letter advocating for two Latino districts.

The final paragraph of the letter warned the board of possible litigation. “The Board must adopt a map with at least two LCVAP-majority districts where Latino voters have an effective opportunity to elect candidates of choice. Compliance with the Voting Rights Act must take priority over almost all factors except equality of population. Map 1.4 shows that it is possible to draw a map with districts substantially equal in population and that complies with the Voting Rights Act. We therefore urge you to adopt Map 1.4.”

During the discussion of the three maps, separately, board Chair Karen Spiegel (2nd District) and Chuck Washington (3rd District) asked counsel and the EOTRC whether the maps being reviewed met the criteria of the Voting Rights Act.

Washington posed the question early in the discussion. Later, after the choice was narrowed to Map F and the Community Map, Spiegel again asked counsel to confirm the maps’ status.

“Each of the three maps satisfies the Voting Rights Act. With respect to potential litigation, each map carries its own degree of risk,” EOTRC counsel Ronak Patel said, responding to Washington. He was supported by special counsel.

The board’s final vote was 4-1. 4thFourth District Supervisor Manuel Perez voted against Map F. During his comments in favor of the Community Map 1.4, he insisted it was the only choice that met the Voting Rights Act criteria. Therefore, selecting this map would avoid having a redistricting decision made by a judicial body.

As of Friday, June 17, neither Washington nor Perez were willing to comment on the proposed litigation.

“As this concerns ongoing litigation, it would be inappropriate to comment. Any potential impacts of this litigation are unknown at this time, including any impact on elections,” wrote Joe Pradetto, Washington’s chief of staff.

The EOTRC had an analysis done of the racial polarization of past elections within each district. The consultant concluded that racially polarized voting had occurred in every district of the county.

“We find that racially polarized voting between Latino voters and non-Hispanic white voters occurred in the last decade. Our evidence shows there to be racially polarized voting in both board of supervisor elections and exogenous statewide elections held within Riverside County. In addition, there is evidence that some Latino candidates of choice lose in Riverside County because white voters support white candidates of choice who defeat Latino voters’ preferred candidates,” the report stated.

Besides the ACLU and IEU, several local Democratic Assembly members objected to the draft maps the EOTRC staff created and presented to the commission. Sabrina Cervantes (Corona), Eduardo Garcia (Coachella) and Jose Medina (Riverside) expressed their dismay at the board’s decision.

“Numerous civil rights organizations joined me in publicly warning the county about the dangers of violating the Voting Rights Act,” Cervantes stated on her Facebook page.

In February 2021, Cervantes had already introduced Assembly Bill 1307, which would place future redistricting decisions in the hands of a citizen commission rather than the board, similar to the redistricting process in Los Angeles and San Diego counties.

After the board’s decision, Cervantes wrote in her Facebook page, “… The need for [AB 1307] is illustrated by the fact that this week, a majority of the board of supervisors approved a district map that intentionally dilutes the voting power of our Latino community, which is a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”

On Jan. 27, AB 1307 passed the Assembly 53-15 with eight members nonvoting. It is currently with the Senate’s Committee on Government and Finance.

The complaint the ACLU is making alleges, “The 2021 Redistricting Plan perpetuates this history of disenfranchisement and marginalization by abridging Latino residents’ fundamental right to vote on account of their race, color, or membership in a language minority group in violation of the California ‘FAIR MAPS’ Act and the equal protection provisions of the California Constitution.”

The solution, according to the plaintiffs, is “(1) A peremptory writ of mandate compelling Respondents/Defendants to adopt a supervisorial district map that comports with the FAIR MAPS Act, [and comports with Article I, Section 2 and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution] including by ensuring that neither the Latino community of interest centered around northwest Riverside and Jurupa Valley nor the Latino community of interest centered around Perris and Moreno Valley is split across different supervisorial districts.”

How this litigation will affect the June 7 primary results, which included Perez being unopposed as supervisor for the new 4th District, is unknown. Neither the ACLU nor the IEU responded to inquiries from the Town Crier.

If the courts were to encourage or require new district boundaries, similar to Community Map 1.4, Hill voters would be in a new and different looking district. The IEU’s map created a geographically larger District 3. It would stretch from the county’s southern border, Temecula and Menifee, all the way to the northern border, including Calimesa and Cherry Valley. The middle of this district would have been Valle Vista and East Hemet along with Idyllwild, Pine Cove, Mountain Center and south to the Anza line.