Editorial: Whittier’s District Map Should Be Reviewed Before the Courts Force the Issue

Whittier’s move to district elections was not, by itself, a mistake.

I supported district elections when the issue was first debated because I believed then, as I believe now, that neighborhood-based representation can make City Hall more accountable to residents. A citywide at-large system can make it harder for distinct neighborhoods to have their voices heard. District elections, when drawn fairly, can give residents a councilmember closer to their own community concerns.

But supporting districts is not the same as supporting race-based districting.

That distinction matters today because Whittier’s current district map deserves renewed scrutiny. The question is not whether Whittier should have districts. The question is whether the current district boundaries, especially District 1, were drawn in a way that subordinated traditional districting principles to racial electoral goals.

Whittier’s district system came about after a California Voting Rights Act lawsuit challenged the city’s former at-large election system. At the time, the City Council was resistant to districts. The shift was made under legal pressure, not because the Council had originally set out to restructure Whittier’s elections around district representation.

But during the original debate, the Whittier Latino Coalition and supporters of the lawsuit pushed for districts that would be majority Latino. One of the plaintiffs stated at the time that the goal was to create majority-Latino districts. From what I observed as someone who participated in the original discussions, the demand was not merely for neighborhood representation. It was for districts drawn in a way that only one racial group, Latinos, could be competitive and win.

The final result did not produce multiple districts where only Latino candidates would be likely to win. But District 1 has long been understood as the district drawn to satisfy that demand — a district designed in a way that only a Latino could win in that district.

That history now matters. Recent Supreme Court rulings have placed renewed constitutional scrutiny on district maps where race may have predominated over traditional districting criteria. The law does not prohibit minority voters from electing candidates of their choice. Nor does it prohibit cities from considering communities of interest, demographic realities, or the requirements of voting rights law. But there is a constitutional line: government cannot sort voters primarily by race unless it satisfies the highest level of judicial scrutiny.

The current district map itself raises questions that deserve answers. District 1 is a narrow, irregularly shaped district running through the central-western portion of Whittier, bordered closely by District 2 to the north and District 4 to the east and southeast. Its shape does not, by itself, prove racial gerrymandering. But given the history of the CVRA lawsuit, the public demand for majority-Latino districts, and the long-standing understanding that District 1 was the district drawn to satisfy that demand, the City should explain why those specific boundaries were selected and whether racial targets played a predominant role. That is why Whittier should review its map now, before litigation forces the issue.

The City’s strongest defense may be that it acted under pressure from a lawsuit and used formal criteria such as compactness, continuity, geography, topography, and communities of interest. But if records show that District 1 was shaped primarily around Latino population targets rather than neutral neighborhood-based criteria, then the map becomes illegal under United States law.

This is not an argument against Latino representation. It is an argument against racial sorting.

Whittier has recently become a diverse city. Latino residents are an important and large part of the community. But Whittier’s voters should not be placed into districts on the assumption that race determines political identity, community interest, or candidate preference. Latino voters, white voters, Asian voters, Black voters, mixed-race voters, and voters of every background are United States citizens first. They deserve districts drawn around neighborhoods and communities, not racial expectations.

There is also a historical problem with the way the original lawsuit was framed publicly. Supporters emphasized that Whittier had elected only one Latino councilmember in its long history despite being 65.7% Latino by the 2010 Census. But that framing compresses 115 years of history into one modern demographic snapshot. Whittier was not 65% Latino for most of its history. For most of its history, Whittier was majority white. Latinos became a much larger share of the population only in the second decade of the 21st century, with major demographic change beginning after the 1987 earthquake and the growth of higher-density multifamily housing.

That does not mean Latino voters had no legitimate concerns by the time the lawsuit was filed. It does mean the historical claim should be treated carefully. A city that became majority Latino only in recent decades should not be described as though it had denied representation to a Latino majority for its entire municipal history.

The better question is whether Whittier’s modern electoral system, under modern demographics, needed reform. I believe districts were a reasonable reform. But I do not believe the remedy should have been racial engineering.

That is why I will be requesting records from the City of Whittier under the California Public Records Act and the federal Freedom of Information Act. Those records should include meeting minutes, staff reports, consultant records, draft maps, demographic tables, communications, public comments, and records concerning the role of the Whittier Latino Coalition, the plaintiffs, and their representatives in advocating for majority-Latino districts.

The purpose of this request is not to attack the current City Council. The current council inherited this problem from the previous council. Most current officials inherited this map. The Council at the time was resistant to districts, and the City was responding to litigation pressure. But the current Council now has an opportunity to examine the issue openly and correct any legal or constitutional problem before it becomes more serious.

Whittier should not wait for a lawsuit. As part of the territory of the United States Whittier like all other cities is required to obey the laws of the United States and rulings of the United States Supreme Court. The charter cannot shelter the city from these requirements.

The Council should consider initiating a transparent review of the district map, with clear race-neutral principles:

Districts should be compact. Neighborhoods should be kept together where possible.

Communities of interest should be based on shared local concerns, not racial assumptions. Boundaries should follow recognizable geography where practical.

No district should be drawn primarily to guarantee an electoral outcome for one racial or ethnic group.

Whittier can preserve district elections while rejecting race-based districting. Those two positions are not in conflict. In fact, that is the fairest path forward. District representation should belong to all residents. It should not be a tool for any coalition, faction, or political group to divide the city by race.

Whittier has a chance to fix this constructively. The City Council should take that opportunity before the courts, attorneys, or outside political forces take it out of the city’s hands.