The litigation filed against Riverside County opposing its December 2021 redistricting of the five supervisorial seats has been settled and no changes to the current boundaries of the supervisorial districts will occur.

Thursday, Sept. 14, Yaoska Machado, senior public information specialist for the county, provided the following statement, “The County has entered into a settlement agreement with IE United and other plaintiffs regarding the 2021 Redistricting process. This agreement preserves the map of the current Supervisorial District boundaries, which was adopted after extensive public participation over several months, and reflects the County’s ongoing commitment to increase participation in the electoral process.”

The proposed settlement was initially announced Wednesday, Sept. 13, in a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Southern California. This stated, “Today, Inland Empire United and six county residents reached a settlement with Riverside County that will increase political access for historically underrepresented communities in the tenth most populous county in the U.S.”

While the plaintiffs and their attorneys negotiated and agreed to the settlement, it still fell short of their goal.

“We still do not believe that the county chose the most fair map and we would’ve loved for this suit to end with a new one, but the map was a symptom of a larger problem,” said Sky Allen, executive director of Inland Empire United. In an email to the Town Crier, Allen wrote, “The reason we entered this fight was to make our local government more fair and more accessible, specifically for Latine residents and voters. I’m proud that this settlement achieves such strong commitments to improving education, outreach, and access.”

While the county does not have to revise its current supervisorial districts, it did agree to significantly improve its service to Spanish-speaking residents and outreach to them during elections and primaries.

In the settlement, the county agreed to expand voter outreach and education. Examples of this include voter workshops or community forums in advance of elections. The use of media — social, print or video — to advertise these sessions or an upcoming election, how to register to vote or how to vote is another option.

For these efforts and initiatives, the county has agreed to spend a minimum of $1.75 per voter in any district where the turnout rate — ballots divided by registered voters — in the most recent statewide primary election in a nonpresidential election year was lower than the countywide voter turnout rate for that election.

The county also agreed to translate notices, agendas and minutes of board of supervisors’ meetings into Spanish.

And also to offer Spanish interpretation during board meetings or hearings. This may be accomplished with headsets for members of the public attending the session in person or via software for those watching or listening remotely.

“Despite the size of our Latine community, we’ve yet to fully ensure folks can see themselves in our local governing chambers,” Allen said in the ACLU press release. “This settlement guarantees, for the first time, that our neighbors are welcome to participate as equals in future meetings. This is a really meaningful step towards full representation of everyone who calls Riverside home.”

The county concurred in its statement, “The agreement demonstrates the County’s continued effort to ensuring equal opportunity for all of its residents to participate in the voting process by providing additional investment to enhance education and outreach in those communities with low-voter turnout and providing Spanish translation of Registrar of Voters official notices and forms, legally required documents, and public meetings.”

And Julia Gomez, staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, concurred, hoping these types of services would expand to other California counties.

While both the ACLU of Southern California and Inland Empire United concurred in the proposed settlement, there was some disappointment that new maps for supervisorial districts were not part of it. Both Gomez and Allen expressed similar sentiments.

“Communities need information to fully participate in the democratic process, whether it is information about how to vote or about what the board will be discussing at a meeting,” said Gomez in the press release. “While we are disappointed that the County did not adopt a new supervisorial map, this settlement opens more doors for our Latine community members in Riverside to participate in the future health and success of their home regions.”

And Gomez added, “Our goal was to ensure that Latine voters have equal opportunities to participate in the political process, and the settlement includes many important commitments that move us towards that goal.”

“I’m disappointed that litigation was needed to get these Spanish translation services, but with full context I’m not surprised,” Allen wrote in an email to the Town Crier. “To my knowledge, there isn’t a jurisdiction in all of California that is offering full language translation services, so hopefully Riverside County can become a model and start a trend where government takes language access more seriously.”

The lawsuit challenging the December 2021 board-approved redistricting plan for supervisorial seats based on the 2020 census was filed in June 2022. The basis of the action was Inland Empire’s argument that the redistricting plan did not comply with the California Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. The new districts diluted the voting power of Latines in Riverside County.

During the board’s redistricting discussions and debates in December 2021, District 4 Supervisor, V. Manuel Perez was the lone vote against the current redistricting plan.

But this January in an interview with the Town Crier, Perez acknowledged that the current board does reflect diversity of the population. Yxstian Gutierrez, 5th District supervisor, joined him on the board, so there are two Latinos. Chuck Washington, of the 3rd District, is black and Karen Spiegel, representing the 2nd District, is a female.

“It was a different time back then. Is the litigation still necessary? That’s up to the ACLU. But I don’t think so; that’s just me. It’s far better now,” Perez concluded.