In a front-page article Thursday LA Times readers learned Supervisor Zev Yaroslavksy has blundered badly by choosing to fight a redistricting plan backed by influential Latino leaders, including the plan's author, Supervisor Gloria Molina.
The Times warned Yaroslavsky's choice was a "risky gambit" that would alienate Latino voters and could cripple his plans - if he had them - to run for mayor in 2013. By the story's third paragraph, Yaroslavsky's decision had been called not only a "risky gambit" but also a move that "could hurt (his) political future" or even - worse yet - "haunt his political prospects." By this time, it was clear Yaroslavsky should be placed on a political suicide-watch and seek out an exorcist.
But wait, Yaroslavsky a high-rolling risk-taker? Certainly he has not been afraid of controversy. His opposition to LAPD abuses (when bracing the LAPD was risky) and coastal oil drilling; his support for rent control and growth-limits. All divisive issues, and Yaroslavsky was in the front-lines. But had he ever crossed his liberal, Westside constituents? What about being a risk-taker at the ballot box? Not really. In fact, for years, Yaroslavsky's reputation has been that of a Hamlet, crippled by political inertia. He has held two offices in his life: councilman and supervisor. He has had only one risky fight - running for city council that first time in 1975. And the shaggy-headed Jewish 26-year-old really had little to lose in that battle - other than his political virginity. Ever since Zev has played it safe. In fact, some wondered if he'd sit out the 2013 mayor's race to succeed Antonio Villaraigosa, content to drift into retirement (he's termed out of his supervisor's seat in 2014). Yet there are serious signs Yaroslavky will throw his hat into the mayor's race; one of his most faithful liegemen, Rick Taylor, has said as much in quotes he's given the Times; and no one truly believes Taylor, a private political operator, says anything about Yaroslavsky unless it has his pal's full imprimatur.
Okay, that brings us to the Times' assurances that Yaroslavksy took leave of his political senses by opposing Molina's plan to dismantle his 3rd supervisorial district. From several Latino leaders, we heard in the Times piece, Yaroslavsky's decision would haunt him, have dire political consequences.
In Molina's redistricting kitchen, Yaroslavsky's 3rd district starts out as a pastrami sandwich but comes out a tamale, with a 50 percent Latino population district. The 3rd would lose the Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, Westwood and all of the West San Fernando Valley as it's shoved eastward. With a little luck, it could - if adopted - provide the demographics for a 2nd Latino to be elected to the Board of Supervisors. That's Molina's game plan.
Some have wondered - why should Yaroslavsky care what happens to the 3rd? Term limits mean he can't run again for supervisor anyway. So what's the big deal?
But it can be argued Yaroslavsk's decision was not a mistake, not a Sophie's choice with no good results either way, but his best choice - especially if he is running for mayor. Publicly, Yaroslavsky says his choice was dictated by principle; he and his people have argued 3rd district constituents have a happy alignment of interests, constitute a "community" of sorts and that splintering "their" community would disenfranchise them, dilute their voice. There's truth to that. But the cold-blooded realpolitik here is: how would it go down if Yaroslavsky turned his back on his liberal constituents? A cardinal rule of politics: protect your base, by all means don't abandon it, especially if you're blessed with constituents who are deep-pocket campaign contributors, high-propensity voters who have an out-sized impact on city-wide elections and are disproportionately represented among the city's opinion-leaders. And the 3rd district is all of that. And more.
If we dare to get even more cold-blooded (warning: the following may be too graphic for anyone but adults), where is the great Latino vote-getter out there, running for mayor, who'll give Yaroslavsky fits at the polls for his opposition to Molina's plan? At this late date, it is highly unlikely there'll be a Latino-surnamed candidate of any stature on the ballot in March 2013. City council president Eric Garcetti will try to capitalize on his Spanish-speaking ability and his part-Latino ethnicity. But will he go so far as to embrace Molina's redistricting plan? He hasn't yet. Yaroslavsky's has probably calculated Garcetti won't play this card, nor will the other big-shots in the race - controller Wendy Greuel, councilwoman Jan Perry or businessman Austin Beutner, ex-deputy mayor to Villaraigosa.
So, Zev will probably be just fine as long as he is never caught publicly espousing any of the aforementioned-political calculations and sticks to the talking points outlined on Zev's Blog, the supervisor's richly-talented, taxpayer-supported internet tip-sheet on all things Zev.
On that website, Yaroslavsky has called the Molina-Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas plan (actually two plans) bad public policy and legally unnecessary.
"Both of the proposed maps create two districts in which Latinos would comprise more than half the voting-age citizens, instead of one such district now."But contrary to the arguments put forward by supporters of the proposed maps, their adoption is not required by this law. The Voting Rights Act requires an equal opportunity for minority groups; it does not require the creation of districts in which a single minority group comprises more than 50% of the voting age citizenry. The Federal courts have ruled that "fifty percent" districts are only required when voting is so racially polarized that non-minorities consistently vote against minority-preferred candidates to such an extent that those candidates are denied an equal opportunity to win."
And here's the kicker:
"Frankly, the notion that non-minorities won't vote for a minority candidate in L.A. County is antiquated. Los Angeles in 2011 is not the same as the Los Angeles of forty, thirty or even twenty years ago. Our county is politically and socially far more mature and broad-minded."
What Yaroslavsky doesn't say - can't say - is that if Molina gets her way, he would be a fish out of water, in a new district he tried to abort and no longer representing his core-constituency. That's not a comfortable place to be in if you are going to jump into a highly competitive mayor's race.