The fight over SLO County redistricting is just beginning. Here’s a Q&A on what’s next

Let’s hear it for grassroots power.

An ad-hoc group — SLO County Citizens for Good Government — continues to fight to have the county’s gerrymandered redistricting map put on hold, to prevent it from being used in the June 7 primary.

That map, approved by the three conservative members of the Board of Supervisors, radically adjusted decades-old boundaries to give Republicans the advantage in three of the five districts, even though Democrats hold a countywide majority.

Practically overnight, outraged residents organized and decided to take the county to court.

Rarely have we seen such a strong rebuke from such a wide variety of individuals — Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents, retired police chiefs, attorneys, teachers, engineers, medical professionals, retirees — to a decision made by local politicians.

Citizens should not have to go to court — and put up their own money — to force their elected officials to obey election law, but we’re grateful some are willing to do so to stand up for democracy.

The battle against this power grab is likely to be long and complicated and there are lots of unanswered questions.

Here’s what we know so far:

What’s the next step?

Citizens for Good Government is appealing a local judge’s denial of a restraining order necessary to prevent the new map from being used in the primary election. The case will be assigned to the Ventura branch of the Court of Appeal.

There could possibly be a hearing as early as this week, or the decision could be based on written arguments alone.

But isn’t there a deadline coming up?

The county clerk-recorder is supposed to file a final map with the Secretary of State by Tuesday, but that could be adjusted to allow the appeal to move forward.

Once there’s a decision on the appeal, is the case over?

No. The ruling on the restraining order is a preliminary step aimed at putting a hold on the disputed map. Think of it as a first round.

There will still be a trial on the merits of the case, which will be heard by San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Rita Federman.

There is no estimate of how long the entire case may take; Judge Federman has scheduled a case management conference for March 9.

So who’s footing the bill for all those attorneys?

The county’s liability insurance covers some types of lawsuits, but this is not one of them.

“Legislative decisions are generally not covered by the county’s insurance and thus, there is no insurance coverage for this case,” County Council Rita Neal wrote in an email.

That means taxpayers are on the hook for the legal bills from Best, Best & Krieger, the private law firm representing the county.

Neal did not have a cost estimate for attorneys’ fees.

Citizens for Good Government is funding the litigation through private donations. It has a goal of $400,000, and has so far raised $325,000 from 1,900 donors.

Can the winner be awarded attorneys’ fees?

The prevailing side in a lawsuit can request attorneys’ fees, but in this case, Judge Federman has tentatively indicated that the county is likely to prevail on one claim, and Citizens on the other, making it unlikely there will be a clear-cut “winner.”

Besides, granting attorneys’ fees to the county would send a horrible message to citizens who have a valid case against their government — something we hope the county would recognize.

What are the main issues in the case?

Citizens for Good Government alleges the Board of Supervisors violated the Fair Maps Act by approving district boundaries that give a clear advantage to Republican voters. The act specifically prohibits counties from adopting maps that favor or discriminate against a particular political party.

The group also says the board majority erred when it carved up the North Coast, which had been in a single district for several decades. The Fair Maps Act requires counties to keep communities of interest together, “to the extent practicable.”

Did the judge already find that the board did something improper?

Yes. In her ruling on the restraining order, Judge Federman wrote that the board “failed to comply with the procedure required by law” when it refused to consider the partisan makeup of the proposed new districts.

The conservative board majority has attempted to fend off accusations of gerrymandering by pointing out that it never so much as considered the partisan makeup of the redrawn districts.

Judge Federman took issue with that.

“Once (the board) is presented with evidence of a possibility of a discriminatory impact, the board must receive the evidence and evaluate its weight, reliability and relevance,” she wrote in her decision.

That sounds serious ... yet she ruled the new map could still be used?

The judge wrote that if she granted the restraining order and the new map was ultimately allowed to stand, “Such an outcome would be detrimental to the democratic process and contrary to the principles of judicial restraint. ...”

She also pointed out that her decision calls into question “only the correctness of the procedure” — and not whether the board’s decision to adopt the map was in error.

What does the citizens group say?

Citizens for Good Government says it’s voters who would be irreparably harmed if a map that was approved in violation of state law — a map described by the group’s attorney as “heavily stacked in favor of Republican voters” — is used in the primary election, then later overturned at trial.

What happens if an election is held using a map that is later ruled invalid? Would the election results have to be thrown out?

That’s unclear.

“We are still researching options the court will have if the adopted map is overturned and the board is ordered to conduct further hearings to adopt another map. On thing to be aware of — the court (Judge Federman) stated that if the board is ordered to conduct further hearings, the parties will be permitted to propose remedies to redress any injury that is established by the record,” County Counsel Rita Neal wrote in an email.

What does all this mean for the candidates?

For two candidates in particular, it’s a huge question mark.

Templeton resident Bruce Jones and Atascadero resident Geoff Auslen are challenging incumbent Bruce Gibson in District 2, which used to encompass the entire North Coast.

Under the new map, the coast has been divvied up among three different districts, and District 2 now includes Atascadero and other inland areas. If the restraining order is granted and the old boundaries are used, neither Jones nor Auslen will reside in District 2 and will be ineligible to run.

Is Citizens for Good Government prepared to fight to the end?

“We’re in it until we’re sure there is fair democracy for San Luis Obispo County,” said Quinn Brady, a spokesperson for the group. “We’re going to see the case through to fruition and our belief is we’ll be in successful in that.”