News

As Berkeley’s redistricting process continues to advance, concern has been raised about whether the rules established in the city charter affect equal representation of minority voters and therefore violate the federal Voting Rights Act, though city officials said there are no credible claims yet.

Students and redistricting campaign coordinators spoke out at the July 19 Berkeley City Council meeting regarding the creation of a possible student supermajority district — one possibility being a single district containing a majority of voters of Asian American and Pacific Islander origin, who are currently spread across the city in different districts.

The city’s districts are adjusted every 10 years to accommodate variations in the population based on the latest census data.

If the council does not take these minority voters into account, the city charter may be in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 — which provides protection for voters who require assistance in voting due to race, color or membership in a language minority group.

“The bigger issue is whether students are identifiable in a community that is quite thicker than most of the rest of the city,” said Councilmember Gordon Wozniak. “A large fraction of students of Asian heritage are living in a compact area of Berkeley — whether they should be concentrated in one district or spread over many districts is an important principle that needs to be discussed.”

Michael Wagaman, a redistricting consultant with Golden State Consulting, said at the meeting that the city charter might be in violation of Section 2 of the act if a case can be made that minority voters are underrepresented and overshadowed due to being dispersed across the city and not in a single and unique voting district.

But Alejandro Soto-Vigil, a legislative aide in the office of Councilmember Kriss Worthington, said there was an inaccurate correlation presented between the act and the current situation of redistricting.

“The (Voting Rights Act) was created to prohibit intentional prevention of voting, particularly for members of the Southern states in the past,” Soto-Vigil said. “If the act was to be applicable here, you would find intent in the 1986 boundaries creation to minimize Asian American voting power — that is not the case.”

Kristin Hunziker, a former UC Berkeley student who has been working with the ASUC on the campaign for the creation of a supermajority student district, said in an email that the group is also pursuing the possibility of an “Asian district” because half of UC Berkeley’s population comprises Asian students, approximately one-eighth of the entire city.

“(Those of Asian descent) mostly live on Southside, so it is pretty reasonable to think that we could create a district that represents that eighth of the population under the Voting Rights Act,” she said. “It’s only something we are considering — the demographic data … indicate that it is possible to draw a majority-minority district on the south side of campus.”

Hunziker also said that if the council did not implement the idea of a “so-called Asian district,” there is a possibility that a lawyer could be hired to sue the city, and a judge would have to decide whether the claim was “valid” — but more legal analysis is required, she said.

According to Wozniak, there is a need for representation of the city’s Asian voters since there has not been a council member of Asian descent since Ying Lee Kelley in 1973.

At the crux of the redistricting issue lies the ASUC’s larger goal to get a student on the council — whether or not it results in a district with the majority of voters of Asian origin.

“The creation of an Asian majority district is something being considered along with an array of proposals,” said incoming ASUC Senator Shahryar Abbasi. “We believe it falls in line with the needs of the larger student population, and it allows students to have a majority in districts and have influence in the city.”

The deadline to submit redistricting proposals is Sept. 30 — extended by the council from Sept. 16 after students requested a later date. All proposals will be published Nov. 3, and the first redistricting public hearing will be held on Nov. 15.

Comment Policy

Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.

Comments

comments