Map, Map, Who’s Got the Map?

If you’ve been attuned to the recent flurry of maps across your screen or TV recently having to do with redistricting, then you’ve been paying attention to an important process that will affect all voters.

It’s redistricting season and everybody’s been yelling, “Map, map! Who’s got the map?” Even in San Diego. And even for District 2 — the district that OB and Point Loma are in.

Here’s a good question to ponder: are there changes for District 2 coming with whatever map is eventually selected? We’ll have to see.

The volunteer panel that is redrawing San Diego’s City Council boundaries will debate 3 maps on Saturday that have floated to the top of the pile of maps submitted or drawn up by private citizens, lawyers and consultants.

The San Diego Redistricting Commission is expected to choose one preliminary map, then hold five public hearings before finalizing new council district boundaries before a December 15 deadline.

Okay, so, there’s 4 key maps (thought I said 3 didn’t you); there’s the map with the Current city council boundaries. It’s done because of changing demographics and voter clout.

Then, there’s what’s being called, the “Chair’s Map,” because presumably the chair of the commission came up with it.

The Chair’s Map would make little significant changes. One thing though, it would keep Clairemont divided between Districts 2 and 6. District 2 would get a slim chunk of Clairemont (and Jen Campbell wouldn’t have to move). And D2 would retain its Pacific Beach neighborhoods. The Chair’s Map also would keep Rancho Penasquitos divided between Districts 5 and 6.

Another one of the top 3 options is what’s called the San Diego Communities Collaboration Map (or Collaboration Map). It would supposedly strengthen the voting power of Asians, Latinos and African Americans, but guess what. It would push all OB and Point Loma D2 people into District 1, creating an all new District 2, centered mainly in Clairemont.

That would be unsettling for D2 folks. Yet it would unite San Diego’s northern coastal communities into one district. Some people at the beach feel that the coast needs to be represented by two districts, two councilpersons. Back in the mid-1970s, the coast was in one district. And this writer helped initiate a coalition called Common Ground (no, it wasn’t a coffee house) that tried to unite progressives and liberals behind one council candidate in the new coastal district. Hundreds from OB, PB and Mission Beach were involved in a “community convention” and workshops hammering out a set of principles and goals (free health care, mass transit – those pre-trolley days, municipalize the electrical utility, ‘rein in the developers’). In the end, we couldn’t unite behind one candidate.

This map of “collaboration” is a non-starter. Too many people are unhappy with it and the business forces pushing it, and believe it would turn San Diego back a decade.

Then there’s the “Compromise Map” that is also one of the top options. Reportedly, the Commission recently praised the Compromise Map as “a solid middle ground” between the other two main options. According to David Garrick of the U-T:

The Compromise Map would reunite those neighborhoods, strengthen minority voting power nearly as much as the Collaboration Map, and shift the districts of a much smaller number of city residents.

Its main shortcomings appear to be that Scripps Ranch would be divided between Districts 5 and 6, and Pacific Beach would shift from District 2 to District 1. The new District 2 would unite Clairemont with Mission Beach and Point Loma.

The compromise map also is likely to face criticism from UC San Diego students who have been lobbying since summer to be severed from La Jolla and placed into a heavily Asian district.

The compromise map would make District 6 a heavily Asian district including University City, but it would leave the university campus in District 1 with La Jolla.

With this map, current District 2 disappears into Clairemont and District 1 engulfs what was D2.

So, if the Compromise is favored, without any changes, District 2 would lose PB and gain more of Clairemont. PB would move into District 1.

Garrick:

The Collaboration Map would move the citizen voting-age population of District 9 to 31.45 percent Latino, while the Compromise Map and the Chair’s Map would both make it 28.63 percent Latino.

The Collaboration Map would move the citizen voting-age population of District 4 to 21.46 percent Black, while the Compromise Map and the Chair’s Map would both make it 21.64 percent Black. …

Numerically speaking, the Chair’s Map is superior to the Collaboration Map and the Compromise Map in terms of how close it comes to evenly dividing population. The overall deviation from the ideal population per district of 154,433 people is 5.28 percent in the Chair’s Map, 5.35 percent in the Compromise Map and 7.77 percent in the Collaboration Map.

For details, go to sandiego.gov/redistricting-commission.