Judge issues ruling on SLO County redistricting map. Here’s what it means for the election
A San Luis Obispo County judge on Wednesday ruled officials can use a recently approved redistricting map in upcoming elections — a loss for the citizens’ group fighting to prevent its use.
Superior Court Judge Rita Federman gave the ruling in response to a request for a preliminary injunction made by attorneys for SLO County Citizens for Good Government, who wanted her to prohibit the Patten redistricting map from being used during the 2022 primary election in June.
Arroyo Grande resident Richard Patten drew the five-district map, and members of the local Republican Party lobbied heavily for its adoption.
The Board of Supervisors approved the map in December after multiple packed meetings and a drawn-out battle between supporters of Patten’s redistricting plan and those who opposed it.
SLO County Citizens filed a lawsuit against the county over the map in January, saying it violates the California Fair Maps Act by advantaging Republicans and breaking up communities of interest.
SLO County judge allows Patten map to be used in 2022 elections
Federman heard arguments on Wednesday morning and assured all parties she would come to a decision by Thursday to help the county Clerk-Recorder’s Office meet Monday and Tuesday deadlines for the upcoming June 7 primary elections.
She issued her opinion on Wednesday evening, and she sided with the county in terms of not issuing the injunction and allowing supervisor elections in Districts 2 and 4 to proceed using the Patten map boundaries.
However, Federman wrote that the group “demonstrated a probability of success on their claim that the board did not proceed in the manner required by law when it failed to consider evidence that the adopted map favored or discriminated against a political party.”
Even though the organization could succeed in pursuing elements of its case down the road, Federman didn’t think that possibility outweighed the harm she could cause by preventing the Patten map’s use.
“In this case, if the county is provisionally restrained but ultimately prevails on the merits, the court will have prevented the 2022 election from proceeding on a map that it subsequently determines was duly adopted,” Federman wrote. “Such an outcome would be detrimental to the democratic process and contrary to the principles of judicial restraint articulated by case law.”
Judge says supervisors should’ve looked at evidence of partisan favoritism
The question of whether supervisors were allowed to look at a partisan analysis of Patten’s map became a hotly debated topic during the redistricting process.
At the Nov. 30 redistricting hearing, Supervisor Bruce Gibson attempted to read into the record a partisan analysis compiled by a citizens’ group lobbying to keep Oceano in District 4. However, Supervisor Lynn Compton, the board chair, would not allow him to read it. The two argued back and forth until Gibson refused to cast his vote on the map until he could share the analysis.
When the board approved the Patten map in December, Supervisor John Peschong insisted on including a statement in the ordinance saying supervisors did not consider partisan data when they selected the plan.
But Federman said the board wasn’t following the Fair Maps Act when members decided not to view evidence claiming the Patten map provided a partisan advantage to one group.
She said the Board of Supervisors wasn’t required to “undertake an independent analysis to determine if a proffered map discriminates.” However, supervisors must receive evidence and evaluate evidence that claims to show a map disadvantages a partisan group, Federman wrote.
“In noting that it had received public comments concerning political demographics and the effect of the adopted map on political parties, but affirming that it did not ‘consider such data in its decision,’ the board failed to comply with the procedure required by law,” she wrote.
Federman also made it clear that the board was allowed to “(consider) partisan interests in creating the district boundaries,” because the Fair Maps Act only “prohibits the adoption of boundaries in order to favor or discriminate against a political party.”
Judge affirms county argument that city of SLO is a community of interest
Federman disagreed with SLO County Citizens’ argument that the Board of Supervisors “prioritized the geographical unity of the city of San Luis Obispo over local communities of interest.”
The group’s attorneys argued the board should have considered keeping North Coast communities of interest together over trying to keep as much of San Luis Obispo in one district as possible.
They pointed to a section of the Fair Maps Act that lays out boundary-drawing criteria to consider in order of priority, with maintaining communities of interest listed above keeping cities intact.
But “nothing in the language of (the Fair Maps Act) prohibits a city from constituting a ‘community of interest,’” Federman wrote.
“The Court is not persuaded that the board misapplied the legal requirements of (the Fair Maps Act),” Federman wrote. “Moreover, the board received ample evidence addressing the criteria in (the Fair Maps Act), and nothing in the record suggests that it acted arbitrarily or capriciously in weighing the evidence and arriving at its conclusions concerning these criteria.”
Attorneys’ arguments for and against Patten map
Ellison Folk, SLO County Citizens’ attorney, argued Federman should issue the injunction preventing the Patten map’s use because of the harm it would cause various groups of residents living in the new district boundaries. Folk said Federman should implement either the 2011 district map, or one that’s similar.
The attorney said supervisors ignored evidence that the Patten map significantly advantages Republicans over Democrats in violation of the California Fair Maps Act.
The new map will force large groups of Democratic residents who were supposed to vote for their supervisor in 2022 to wait two additional years until 2024, Folk said. On the other hand, it will accelerate the votes of many Republicans.
Daniel Lee Richards and Jeffrey Dunn, the county’s attorneys, argued SLO County Citizens want to “overturn the entire legislative process” by keeping the Patten map from going into effect.
The last-minute map switch would cause “chaos” and hurt the public, they said.
What happens next?
SLO County Citizens is still deciding on its next legal move, Quinn Brady, a spokeswoman for the group, told The Tribune in a text message.
She said the group is “gratified” Federman affirmed their argument regarding partisan favoritism.
“We are disappointed, however, that she did not grant a temporary injunction to postpone implementation of the Patten map,” Brady said. “We continue to believe there is demonstrated irreparable harm that will occur as a result of the implementation of the Patten map for the June 7 primary election.”
The county issued a release announcing Federman’s ruling but didn’t provide further comments.
Attorneys for SLO County Citizens and the county have a case management conference scheduled for March 14, according to the county’s news release.
The group could appeal Federman’s injunction ruling to a higher court while continuing their overall case in San Luis Obispo Superior Court.
“We have a very strong legal team looking at very option available to us and evaluating our next steps,” Brady said. “We remain committed to ensuring we have a fair and equitable democracy in SLO County.”
To read the full ruling, visit the San Luis Obispo Superior Court website at bit.ly/3Jbhd3s.
This story was originally published February 9, 2022 at 6:29 PM.
