Citizens group doesn’t believe SLO County supervisors turned over all redistricting messages
A local citizens group may have a new avenue to uncover documents related to San Luis Obispo County’s redistricting map adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2021.
At a hearing on Friday, SLO County Superior Court Judge Craig van Rooyen denied a motion to require the county to produce more personal emails, text messages and other communications gathered from the Board of Supervisors and their legislative aides related to redistricting under the Civil Discovery Act.
Van Rooyen did, however, approve a motion to add allegations to the lawsuit that the county violated the Public Records Act and the California Constitution during court proceedings.
This gives the citizens group a new path to request messages sent by board members and their aides about redistricting, according to San Luis Obispo County Citizens for Good Government representative Linda Seifert.
“It gives us, potentially, another opportunity or option to attempt to seek them,” Seifert said of the records.
What has happened in the case so far?
In January, SLO County Citizens for Good Government filed a lawsuit to overturn the new map, which was designed by citizen Richard Patten and drastically redrew the county’s supervisor districts. The group argued that the county violated the Fair Maps Act by gerrymandering districts to benefit Republicans and breaking up communities of interest.
In February, SLO Superior Court Judge Rita Federman ruled that the county could use the map for the 2022 midterm election, saying that pausing use of the map would disrupt the county clerk-recorder’s ability to prepare for the election and be “detrimental to the democratic process,” The Tribune previously reported.
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,” The Tribune reported.
The California Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal on Federman’s decision, and in October, Judge Craig van Rooyen was re-assigned to hear the remainder of the case.
What documents are SLO Citizens seeking?
On Feb. 24, SLO Citizens requested that the county provide “all personal e-mails and text messages concerning the redistricting process sent or received by every member of the county Board of Supervisors and aides to board members,” according to van Rooyen’s tentative ruling posted on the court website.
The group asked for these messages to see if they contained evidence that the board chose the new district map to advantage Republican voters, which would violate the Fair Maps Act.
On May 27, the county provided those records, which included personal emails from Supervisors Bruce Gibson, Lynn Compton, Debbie Arnold and John Peschong, along with one text message from Lynn Compton, according to court documents.
Gibson was the only supervisor who shared “more than a handful” of emails, the court document said.
The citizens group said that the emails produced suggested that Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg received emails that she didn’t share — showing that there could be more personal communications from all of the supervisors and their aides that they withheld, a court document said.
County Administrative Officer Rebecca Campbell released a statement supporting the validity of the records. She explained that her office didn’t handle the records request, but confirmed that county counsel “directed the supervisors and each of their legislative aides to thoroughly review their e-mails and files, including any e-mails of text messages on their private devices,” the tentative motion said.
Unsatisfied with the records, SLO County Citizens for Good Government then filed a motion to require the county to again release all personal messages related to redistricting, and to “provide evidence that a reasonable and diligent search for these communications has been made,” the tentative ruling said.
“The county really should be required to go back and do another look and just do a better job of producing documents,” attorney Ellison Folk said at the hearing.
At the very least, Folk said, the petitioners want a statement from the county that explains when and how the search for the messages were conducted.
The county’s attorney Jeffrey Dunn, however, said that the county produced all the messages they were required to. He said the idea that the county didn’t release all of the messages is “speculation.”
Van Rooyen said he can see why the petitioners think there are more messages.
“I understand the skepticism,” van Rooyen said at the hearing. “I also would have expected that there would be documents or communications similar to what Supervisor Gibson produced.”
Still, van Rooyen “denied both requests,” explaining that the county complied with the Discovery Act when it provided the original e-mails and text messages, the tentative ruling said. The Discovery Act also doesn’t allow the court to require the county to fact-check Campbell’s statement, van Rooyen said.
Meanwhile, van Rooyen did allow SLO Citizens to update the lawsuit to include allegations that the county violated the Public Records Act.
As a result, the citizens group can pursue more records of private communication about redistricting through the Public Records Act claim, Seifert told The Tribune on Monday.
“It gives us, potentially, another opportunity or option to attempt to seek them,” Seifert said of the records.
The group can uncover more information in a variety of ways, including sending questions to or interviewing people of interest about the records, or they could ask the county for more documents, Seifert said.
The next hearing in the case will be Wednesday, Jan. 11, at 1:30 p.m. in SLO Superior Court.
How do election results impact the case?
According to the county’s final election results, incumbent Supervisor Bruce Gibson defeated Dr. Bruce Jones for the District 2 Board of Supervisors seat by 13 votes.
Last week, the Jones campaign said it may request a recount for the District 2 race.
The new District 2 is home to more conservative voters, with 14,586 registered Republicans and 13,162 registered Democrats — which SLO County Citizens for Good Government says is a product of gerrymandering.
Still, Gibson was able to win the election as a Democrat.
The group still plans to proceed with the lawsuit, Seifert said.
Regardless of the election results, the group maintains that the map was intentionally drawn to advantage Republicans and should be overturned, she said.
“Our plan is to continue our efforts to pursue a fair map until it’s implemented,” Seifert said. “We want to advocate for the rights of citizens to be able to elect their supervisors from fair districts.”
