"The People's Guide to Redistricting" (CAUSE Leadership Academy 2012 Group Project)

7/29/2019 "The People's Guide to Redistricting" (CAUSE Leadership Academy 2012 Group Project)

1/40

the PEOPLESG U I D Eto redistricting

Wajenda ChambeshiGrace HsiehKaitlyn JeongKrishnanand KelkarGloria KimLisa LeiMary Zhou

CAUSE LEADERSHIP ACADEMY 2012


2/40

The CAUSE Legislative interns are pleased to present the 2012 Redistricting ResearchProject. This project encompasses extensive research on the redistricting process onthe local, state, and federal level in the state of California. We have conducted variousinterviews with prominent Asian American leaders in the Los Angeles Community whohave opened our eyes to see the intensive process that redistricting includes.

Although redistricting is a public affair, many citizens are often unaware that thisprocedure takes place. The new legislative lines on the local, state, and federal level affectthe general population in many different ways. It can unite or divide communities, help

or hurt incumbent elected ofcials and challengers; it may even displace elected ofcialsliving in the very districts that they represent. Often times, it creates confusion for citizenswho may be unacquainted with new representatives in their new respective districts. Wechose this project about redistricting as we felt many were unaware of the complexity ofthis subject. The redistricting controversy in Koreatown also stood out for us to furtherpursue in-depth research into this particular topic. It is our hope that this project willempower the public to engage in redistricting and feel condent in their abilities to affect

change.But this project would not be what it is without the contributions of other supporters.

The CAUSE Leadership Academy Class of 2012 would like to extend its gratitude to a fewspecial people without which we could not have made this project. Without the existenceof CAUSE and its Leadership Academy, we would not have had the impetus to puttogether this booklet. Further, a special thanks goes to CAUSE Executive Director CarrieGan, the intern supervisor, and Charlie Woo, Chairman of the Board of CAUSE, who bothspent countless hours and made great efforts to provide us with resources necessary tocompleting this labor of love. We would also like to thank the many interviewees: RobertAhn, John Gee, Mariko Kahn, Deanna Kitamura, Paul Mitchell, Winston Wu, GraceYoo, legislative staffers and friends, cited as resources in the text. These important civicleaders took time out of their busy schedules to give us the details we needed to bring this

project to a higher level of professionalism and sophistication. Without the help of thesementioned, we could not have gotten this project completed.

Sincerely,The 2012 CAUSE Legislative Interns

Foreword

FOREWORD


3/40TABLE OF CONTENTS

ContentForeword 1Abstract 41 Introduction 41.1 What is Redistricting & Why is it Important? 4

1.2 The Relationship Between Race, Minorities, and Rules 5

2 The Process 92.1 Redistricting on the Federal and State Levels 9

2.2 About the Local Commissions: A Closer Look at the Los

Angeles City Council Redistricting Commission 13

3 The Case Study: Koreatown 153.1 History of Koreatown 17

3.2 A Dissection of the Recent Redistricting Controversy 18

3.3 Whats Next? 22

4 Civic Action 244.1 Resources for Staying Informed 25

4.2 Methods of Civic Action 26

5 Conclusion 31

6 Works Cited 33

About the Interns 35


4/403 INTRODUCTION

introductionto redistricting


5/40INTRODUCTION

This research paper discusses the importance of redistricting on all levels of government:

federal, state, and local. First, it explores the history and background of redistricting.Next, it compares different approaches to redistricting, analyzing the pros and cons of

each approach. At Californias state level, an independent commission of community

members is used to draft the lines, whereas at the local level for the City of Los Angeles,

a commission of community members is appointed by elected officials to propose the

new districts. Keeping the comparisons in mind, this paper takes a closer look at the

redistricting controversy over Koreatown at the city level. Through in-depth investigation

of the reasons behind the controversy and its effects on Koreatowns constituents, this

paper aims to provide insight on the role redistricting plays in communities. The final part

of the paper offers different ways that citizens can contribute to the redistricting process,

fulfilling our purpose of educating the public and empowering the public to engage in

politics. Ultimately, the paper posits a change at the local level of redistricting in the

City of Los Angeles; appointed commissions should be abolished and transformed in the

direction of the independent commission used at the state level in California so as to best

represent the needs and rights of each individual in the community.

Abstract

1. Introduction

Redistricting is the process of drawing new electoral district boundaries in order toequalize district populations. Since the 1960s, redistricting has been conducted every tenyears after the U.S. Census Bureau releases data showing where people reside aroundthe country. The census is a national survey that aims to statistically assess the makeup

of the American population. The overall purpose of redistricting is to review districtsand, where necessary, redraw districts in order to address any changes in populationconcentration. Because redistricting has the power to provide the people the voice crucialto the advancement of their interests, analyzing the redistricting process is paramount. Therst step in understanding the process is to learn the specic rules for various jurisdictions.

Ignorance of the process has detrimental consequences. For example, the CaliforniaCitizens Redistricting Commission website reports that until fairly recently, minorityresidents have often had little say in the creation of redistricting plans approved by state

1.1 What is Redistricting & Why is it Important?


6/40

legislatures. As a result, people of color communities have had their power mitigatedthrough cracking, the division of the community into many different districts. In othersituations, they were unnecessarily concentrated in a small number of districts, decreasingfair representation across a greater number of districts, known as packing.

5 INTRODUCTION

Across this spectrum, redistricting bodies, from state to county entities, apply differentrules for what criteria, other than equal population, should be used to decide how andwhere lines are drawn.

Federal government gives power to the states to redistrict their respective jurisdictions.

States then decide how the lines are drawn and who is responsible for drawing them,adhering to guidelines outlined in the U.S. Constitution that allow people to challenge themaps if they feel that their constitutional rights have been infringed upon. According toFairvote, these guidelines include the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, and theVoting Rights Act of 1965, Section 2 and 5.

The roles that race and the rules of redistricting have played in communityrepresentation are intertwined. The Voting Rights Act stipulates that all minorities haveequal opportunity to elect their representatives so that the needs of individuals from allethnic backgrounds are met. For the Voting Rights Act to come into effect and result in

the creation of district comprised of a minority group, however, the minorities mustconstitute at least 50% of the population in that district, as determined by SupremeCourt Ruling Bartlett v. Strickland(Public Mapping Project).

By being aware of these inuential policies, people of color can wield the tool of

education to ght injustice and protest corrupt redistricting. But why is the topic of racial

minorities so scrutinized in the practice of redistricting? By its nature and its periodicalupdate of once every 10 years, redistricting is intrinsically tied to the process of the census.As it deals with race, socioeconomic status, and geographic location, the census survey

plays a key role in the redistricting process. The U.S. Census Bureau believes that bothU.S. congressional districts and state legislative districts must be drawn so that theirresidents have a fair and equal share in the way they are governed (U.S. Department ofCommerce 10). Backed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, this duty of the census is meantto protect the power of every single vote through accurate information that will manifestitself in inuence over redistricting lines. Further, the Voting Rights Act itself plays an

integral part in ensuring that the process of redistricting is done in a manner to preserveand empower minority voices in the political process (NAACP 9).

1.2 The Relationship Between Race, Minorities, &Rules


7/40INTRODUCTION

Figure 1. There has been a rapid increase in the minority population in the United States since the 1960s. Asian andLatino population have experienced rapid growth in the period between 1960 and 2010. This growth has resultedin more demand for fair representation for the minority and has somewhat complicated the drawing of district linesbecause the minorities are now calling for better representation.

Figure 2. Another representation showing the growth of the minority population attributed mainly to Latino andAsian population growth.Source: U.S Census Bureau, 1960, 1970,1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010 Decennial Census


8/40

As it echoes the 15th Amendment, written to ensure that every citizen has a right toparticipate in government through voting, the Voting Rights Act has been used in defenseof many legal battles to protect lines drawn during the redistricting process that keep racein mind. In citing the Voting Rights Act, many ethnic groups have rallied and successfully

ensured a say in the political process by having these lines drawn conscious of ethnicenclaves. People of color naturally will inhabit an area as a community. It is not racist todraw lines around a set community if it naturally exists. But there is a ne line between

empowering minorities and racism. This tension was brought to light in the SupremeCourt case ofShaw v. Reno, where the ultimate conclusion was that districts cannot bedrawn in unusual shapes in order to accommodate race. Moreover, with the Shaw v.Reno as precedent, Miller V. Johnson determined that race cannot be the predominatingfactor in the redistricting process (Forest 143). This is not to say that considering race inredistricting is always a racist endeavor, but in an interview, Paul Mitchell, a redistricting

specialist, mentioned that redistricting causes people to talk about race and ethnicity ina way that is almost un-American in its openness. He went on to say that in America,a land of many races, cultures, and ethnicities, race is intrinsically tied into redistrictingbecause voting patterns are often colored by racialized experiences. If it were Romaniaor a Middle Eastern country where racial homogeneity exists, the religion of a districtsconstituents would not be a salient topic.

7 INTRODUCTION

But this entanglement seems to have brought America into a Catch-22 withredistricting. There is the law of the Voting Rights Act, which works to protect people ofcolor and preserve the power of minorities in acknowledging concentrations of minorities,but by contrast, court decisions have long upheld the reality that making districtscompletely based off of race is essentially racist. Where does this leave us? in needof change. And change is happening. Due to recent Propositions, 11 and 20, passed inCalifornia in 2008 and 2010 respectively, the new Voters First Act was created. The Voters

Source: http://wallpaper.diq.ru/


9/40INTRODUCTION

First Act shifted the responsibility of state and federal redistricting in California fromlegislators with a stake in the new districts to an independent commission of voluntarycitizens without political bias (CA Board of Equalization 1).

Ideally, this means the unafliated agents who design the new district lines would take

a non-partisan approach and truly serve the people. Without being muddied by politicalclout and inuences from their appointees, this independent commission could be held

responsible to walk the line of balance between court-determined racism and protection of

the minority voice as dened by the Voting Rights Act.

Figure 3. Population distribution in Los Angeles County as of the 2010censusSource: U.S Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2010


10/40

theprocess.

9 THE PROCESS


11/40

Often times, a legislative body is responsible for redrawing its own lines. Theresponsible party for redistricting any jurisdiction will be stated in the laws governingthat jurisdiction. In most states, the lines are drawn by the legislature under what maybe called a legislative committee because the elected ofcials effectively decide where

the lines will be drawn and they do so while seeing to it that their seats are protected.Many states may have what they call an Advisory Commission or Backup Commission,which act more as advisors rather than the nal authority. In some cases, independent

commissions are formed to draw and adopt a redistricting plan for a jurisdiction, which

is the case in eight of the 50 states, including California (CA Board of Equalization 3). InCalifornia in particular, thanks to the Voters First Act, after the 2010 census, redistrictingis carried out by an independent commission called Citizens Redistricting Commission ofthe State of California (the commission) as pursuant to provisions of Article XXI of theCalifornia Constitution. This was a move from the traditional gerrymandering in whichthe legislature drew lines to establish political advantage. The mandate and provisions forredistricting are now contained in Section 1 and Section 2 (a), (b) and (c);

SEC. 1. In the year following the year in which the national

census is taken under the direction of Congress at the beginning ofeach decade, the Citizens Redistricting Commission described inSection 2 shall adjust the boundary lines of the congressional, StateSenatorial, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts (alsoknown as redistricting) in conformance with the standards andprocess set forth in Section 2.

SEC. 2. (a) The Citizens Redistricting Commission shall be created

no later than December 31 in 2010, and in each year ending in thenumber zero thereafter.(b) The commission shall: (1) conduct an open and transparentprocess enabling full public consideration of and comment on thedrawing of district lines; (2) draw district lines according to the

redistricting criteria specied in this article; and (3) conduct

themselves with integrity and fairness.

THE PROCESS

2. The Process2.1 Redistricting on the State & Federal Level


12/40

As the third largest state in the United State, California stands as a hub of cultural,economic, and social diversity. Comprised of various ethnicities, languages, andbackgrounds, reected in a population of 37,691,912 people, the State of California

and local municipalities face the ultimate challenge of meeting the needs of each of these

unique individuals (wedrawthelines.ca.gov).Using the information provided by the federal census, this independent commission, agroup of 14 individuals, must create district lines that accurately reect and represent the

new data gathered; as the populations and demographics change, which elected ofcials

can best project the needs of the new communities follow suit.The process to be one of the 14 members of the Commission begins in February with

the availability of the supplemental application and is nalized in December with the

nal selection of the last six members of the Commission (wedrawthelines.ca.gov). While

this application is available to registered California voters who not only will have been

continuously registered in California with the same political party, or with no politicalparty for the ve years immediately prior to being appointed to the commission, but also

have voted in at least two of the last three statewide general elections, specic guidelines

to protect the objectivity and fairness of the commission are implemented (cavotes.org).Applicants that have previously served as or been a candidate in federal or state ofce,

been employed by a political party or campaign of a candidate for elective federal or stateofce, served as a member on a political party central committee, acted as a registered

lobbyist, or been paid as a congressional, legislative, or Board of Equalization staffer are

considered to have a conict of interest and are usually deemed ineligible to serve on theCommission (cavotes.org).

From a list of those who are determined to be without conicts of interest, the

Application Review Panel (ARP) interviews 120 of the most qualied applicants,

narrowing the pool to 60 people--20 registered Democrats, 20 registered Republicans,and 20 who are not registered with either party--to be presented to Legislative leaders(cavotes.org). Majority and Minority Leaders in the State Senate and Assembly havethe power to remove two applicants from each pool, and in November, the Secretary ofState and the Chief Clerk of the California State Assembly narrow down the pool onceagain to a group of 36 individuals. On November 18, 2010, the very rst members of

the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (the commission) under this procedurewere randomly selected by California State Auditor, Elaine M. Howel, from a pool ofpre-screened applicants (wedrawthelines.ca.gov). These eight names, comprised of threeDemocrats, three Republicans, and two non-party afliated individuals from those

decided 36, were chosen in a landmark public drawing and were tasked with theresponsibility of selecting six other commissioners from a pool of 28 individuals, with the

1 THE PROCESS


13/40

nal group of 14 commissioners being selected by December 31 (wedrawthelines.ca.gov).

The varying opinions on what will help each community prosper and grow andhow different minority groups can exercise their opinions and ght for their needs

act as catalysts for conict, forcing some individuals to question the objectivity of the

commission and the capability of the selected individuals to make informed decisionsthat will both benet the population at large and promote smaller communities seeking

representation. What ultimately makes this process both accountable and ensures itsindependence, however, is the fact that California voters exercised their opinions andvoices in the November 2008 election by approving the criteria for the creation of theVoters FIRST Act. With representation from all political parties and opinions, and withthe elimination of political favoritism with the implementation of the standards preventingthose with conicts of interest from serving on the commission, some concerned citizens

hope to use the selection of the commissions at this state level to serve as a model for the

creation of redistricting commissions at the local level.

THE PROCESS

Voting Rights Act Established in 1965, this piece of legislation has two innovativepolicy implications regarding preservation of a citizens right tovote. One was Section 2, which was a blanket statement on acitizens right to vote. Section 5 requires preclearance for states tochange voting procedures a practice that mandates states to getapproval for these proposed changes by the Department of Justicebefore implementing them.

Voters FIRST Act Effective after the 2010 Census, the Voter FIRST Act is a piece ofCalifornia legislation that requires the state to commission a groupof citizens separate from the political process to draw the districtlines for the state, which includes districts for congressmen, statesenators, and assembly members.

14th Amendment This Amendment reassessed the denition of citizenship inAmerica. It was written in a manner to allow people of all races,religions, ages, and lifestyles to be eligible for citizenship and therights that are earned accordingly.

15th Amendment In accordance with the 14th Amendment, this amendment to the

Constitution reiterated the citizens unalienable right to vote. Itexplicitly prohibited states from eliminating this right from thepeople of the country.

Figure 4. Chart of relevant laws for redistricting


14/403 THE PROCESS

Although the redistricting commission at the local level is responsible for drawing lines toreect the needs of constituents found within the area, just as redistricting commissions

at the state level are, the selection process and the controversy that has arisen as a resultvaries greatly. The Los Angeles City Council Redistricting Commission, for example, iscomprised of 21 individuals, all of whom have been appointed to the commission bythe Citys elected ofcials. The 15 councilmembers from the 15 districts each appoint

a member to the commission (CA Board of Equalization 2). The President of the CityCouncil, who in 2012 happens to be councilmember of District 13: Eric Garcetti is given

the privilege to appoint a second member to the commission. Additionally, the Mayor isgiven the authority to appoint three members, and the City attorney and City Controllerappoint one each for a total of 21 members on the commission.

Because there is no open, independent application process, as found in the CaliforniaCommission, constituents who feel as if their communities lack representation arguethat the members of the local commissions have an inside agenda: beneting those who

appointed them to the prestigious commission in the rst place. Commissioner Robert

Ahn explained that often times those with political experience and who have had the

chance to interact with people who are politically involved and connected have theincredible opportunity to participate in this exciting process... and serve the communityas a member of the commission.

Ultimately, the method of redistricting used by Los Angeles presently is a renovatedversion of processes used in the past. In the past, elected ofcials who had the double

duty of representing their constituency as well as protecting their job when it came to thenext election were given the responsibility to draw the lines for new districts. This provedto cause conict, as disagreements either between politicians and the constituents ran

rampant and would often result in the courts having the nal approval over redistricting

proposals (NAACP 13).Although, the City of Los Angeles does not have elected ofcials themselves redraw

the lines of new districts, the responsibility of this chartered commission is to act as anintermediary between the Council and the people. Given the political task of drawingdistricts, they are to comply with public opinions and keep in mind the function of theCity Council when drafting proposed maps of new districts.

In order to maintain neutrality and exclude political bias as much as possible, the

2.2 About the Local Commissions:A Closer Look at the Los Angeles City Council

Redistricting Commission


15/40THE PROCESS

charter does specically state that no member of the commission can hold any ofce or be

employed by the city in any manner. Paul Mitchell, an expert on redistricting in California,spoke to this unusual set-up, mentioning that it puts the City of Los Angeles in aprecarious position: it cannot reap the true benet for the Council in using an independent

commission where constituents would have to face that the lines were unbiased. Further,it does not have the benet of the peoples ability to hold the City completely accountable,

as the Councilmembers themselves did not draw the lines.This form of chartering a commission, separate from the elected ofcials themselves

making these decisions, came into effect just last redistricting cycle for 2002. Now, in2012, Los Angeles is having its second try on this new method, designed to preventcouncilmembers up for election from prioritizing their jobs instead of protecting the voiceof their constituents (CA Board of Equalization 4). In the case of 2012, though, the humantendency for bias cannot be ignored. Being appointed by councilmembers already meansthat each member of the commission is tied to politics in one-way or another. Further, theLos Angeles Times accuses this new form of redistricting, as opposed to the traditionalmethod of elected ofcials drawing the lines directly, as continuing to be incumbent-

oriented rather than empowering to the people (Oh). In fact, even Councilman BernardParks, a current ofcial stated that the Redistricting Commission has been a farce fromday one, intended only to give the illusion that the public had any say in the process(Oh).

Drawing the lines with integrity to their original purpose, to benet members of

individual communities, is no easy task. The local redistricting commissions must upholdredistricting criteria as stated in the local city charters, Mr. Ahn elaborated. Some of theseguidelines and laws that must be followed include the Equal Population Principle, whichstates that council districts must contain... equal portions of the total population of the

Figure 5. Commissioners must adhere to strict standards so as to upholdexisting guidelines to redistricting as well as represent the needs of thecommunity.Source: house.leg.state.mn.us


16/40

City, the U.S. Constitutions Equal Protection Clause, which mandates that race cannotbe used as the predominant factor in drawing district lines, and the Voting Rights Actof 1965, which prohibits voting practices which result in a denial or abridgement of theright to vote on account of race, color or language minority status, all while upholding

traditional redistricting criteria like contiguity, compactness, existing boundaries, andcommunities of interest (redistricting2011.lacity.org).In addition, the publics needs and opinions must also be respected in the redistricting

process, something that Mr. Ahn emphasized as one of the biggest factors when drawingthe lines. With 15 public hearings occurring before the rst drafts of the Citys lines are

published, and another ve hearings happening after the drafts are released, there are

opportunities for members of the community to step forward and express their discontentor fears about lack of representation resulting from the placement of a certain district line.Even so, certain areas have become outraged after reading the published maps, includinginuential Los Angeles communities such as Koreatown. Leaders of Koreatown state that

the intention behind breaking up the community through the placement of district linesis to dilute the Korean-American voice, and intend to le a lawsuit before the end of the

summer.The following case study of the 2012 redistricting proposal which highlights the

conict with Koreatown is a manifestation of what some consider to be the farce of this

newer, less biased method of redistricting. During the planning process of the new design,hundreds of redistricting proposals were taken into account. Considering that many

supported a unied Koreatown district, constituents are skeptical that these new lineswere drawn without ulterior, incumbent-oriented motives. But, as Mr. Ahn explained, theguidelines to be followed when drawing districts are many and complicated. Finding abalance proves to be difcult.

5 THE PROCESS


17/40

theCase Study:

Koreatown

CASE STUDY: KOREATOWN


18/40

3. The Case Study: Koreatown3.1 History of KoreatownThe redistricting process affects all constituents, though there are varying levels of howdrastic these effects may be. Historically, people of colored communities such as AsianAmericans have struggled to have fair representation in the redistricting process (Ojeda-Kimbrough, Lee, and Shek 6). One notable area is Los Angeless Koreatown, which hasstruggled especially in the past decade on the city level. During the last redistrictingprocess, the neighborhood, despite being barely over one mile square, was split into fourcity council districts and ve state assembly districts (6). The division, still currently in

effect, makes it difcult for Koreatown constituents to have their voices heard because of

the inherent lack of accountability from their multiple representatives. Instead of goingto one person to get something done, you have to go to four, Grace Yoo, the director ofthe Korean American Coalition, [noted]. And getting four different council members tosign off on something is not an easy task (Linthicum par. 9).

To further complicate matters, there are varying ideas of what boundaries dene

Koreatown. There are six commonly referenced borders that are determined by the LosAngeles Police Department, the Los Angeles Fire Department, the Los Angeles Unied

School District, neighborhood councils, and community organizations (KoreAm).Unfortunately, these borders all differ. As a result, Koreatown [actually] spans three

or four city council districts, depending on which set is used. Anything from a businesspermit to a pothole requires a glance at the map to determine which councilmember tocall (Yi).

This division only adds to the various obstacles that Koreatowns constituents face.One such obstacle includes the difculty in communicating with the different council

ofces. The area is populated with many immigrants, and the encompassing language

barrier often discourages people from seeking the help that they need. As Yoo mentioned,some council ofces dont always have Korean speakers available (Linthicum par. 10).

Despite this, getting more accessible, Korean-friendly ofces will be an uphill battle, seeingas councilmen and women have little reason to prioritize this need when the dividedKoreatown constituents make up a small minority of their district.

Furthermore, despite the appearance of economical stability because of its abundanceof privately owned small businesses, Koreatown has a lack of community programs andresources. As Helen Kim, an attorney assigned to the redistricting panel by Los AngelesController Wendy Greuel, said, Koreatown, with its potholes and lack of green space,is really a very needy community (Linthicum par. 12). Indeed, Koreatown is in need of

7 CASE STUDY: KOREATOWN


19/40

many more parks, senior centers, affordable housing, public works projects (Yi).This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that Korean-Americans living in the

area have yet to develop a central agenda. Justin Kim, a Koreatown developer who wasrecently appointed to the City of Los Angeles Planning Commission, comments, We need

to decide for the long term: Is it going to be a balance, a little more tilt toward business, or[are we] really going to try to have affordable housing [and] senior housing? (Yi). Oneway in which these goals can be dened is through writing a community plan. Though

Koreatown is a part of the broader Wilshire Plan, it has yet to form a Koreatown-specic

plan, [which] would allow many of the varying concerns in the neighborhood to attemptto form a consensus, rather than working through their individual channels, whether it beprotest or donation, to accomplish their ends (Yi). However, the process of assemblinga community plan would require a politician to take an active interest in Koreatownsfuture, and despite the neighborhoods longtime importance to its elected ofcials, no such

plan has yet emerged (Yi).

3.2 A Dissection of the Recent RedistrictingControversy

Having experienced this uncomfortable situation for a decade, the usually politicallyinactive Korean-American constituents and activists were motivated to act. When theredistricting commission held public hearings in every city council district in December[2011] and January [2012] to eld public comment, hundreds of Korean Americans

took advantage of their multiple opportunities to speak (Yi). The turnout was bothunexpected (to the outside world) and unprecedented, and was made possible through theefforts of local organizations, including ethnic media sources, such as The Korea Times,who covered the issue in-depth. Though the numbers were not ofcially documented, at

Source: Eugene Yi; KoreAm



20/40

one point, Alex Cha, a [Wilshire Center-Koreatown Neighborhood Council] (WCKNC)board member, said activists contacted all the major Koreatown organizations to tryand ll the theater (Yi). That day, they had 600 Keep Wilshire Center Koreatown

Neighborhood Council Whole sashes; afterwards, the supply had been depleted (Yi).

During the hearings, many speakers suggested using [the boundaries] of the WilshireCenter-Koreatown Neighborhood Council [] (WCKNC), particularly since theredistricting commission had asserted its aim to preserve as many neighborhood councilsas possible (Yi). Furthermore, the speakers requested that this area be combined withtwo other Asian enclaves [in Council District 13]: Thai Town and Historic Filipinotownin order to more easily elect an Asian American (Zahniser). Unlike Councilman HerbWessons District 10, District 13 would not only have a larger percentage of AsianAmericans but also have an open seat for its council member. Despite this extensive effort

from an impressive range of organizations, in February 2012, the new proposed andlater approved redistricting maps were disappointing and infuriating for many Korean-Americans. The new redistricting lines, approved in a vote 16-5, split Koreatownusingthe citys tighter boundaries, rather the broader neighborhood council boundaries

Figure 6. Koreatown map overlay that shows the boundaries of different parties, including that of the WilshireCenter-Koreatown Neighborhood Council (WCKNC). The proposed boundaries of Koreatown and LittleBangladesh are circa 2009 when there was a conflict over their respective boundaries.Source: Korean American Coalition - kacla.org



21/40

between areas represented by Councilmen Herb Wesson [of Council District 10] and EricGarcetti [of Council District 13] (Nakamura, Muranaka; Yi; Linthicum par. 3). These

maps technically united Koreatown according to its boundaries as dened by the city, but

separated the residents in the northern portion of WCKNC (in Council District 13) from

Koreatowns nancial base (in Council District 10) (APALC).Many Korean-Americans spoke out about these new maps, and one reason was

their increasingly tense relationship with Councilman Herb Wesson of District 10. ManyKorean-Americans maintained that Wesson does not provide KoreatownwhereLatinos are the majority and Asians a large minoritywith the public works, services, andnonprot funding it deserves (Aron). In fact, many activists went so far as to accuse

Wesson of ignoring neighborhood needs while treating their area like an ATM [by]raising tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Korean Americanbusinesses, many of which need conditional-use permits issued by the city government

(Zahniser). Though these statements were worded strongly, it is notable that Koreatownand the Korean-American business community were indeed critical to Wessons success,considering that an estimated one-third of his political contributions, or more than$84,000, had come from Korean donors (Zahniser). The amount is particularly signicant

when put into context; Korean-Americans make up around 10% of the district (CSUN).

Furthermore, it is understandable that no elected ofcial would want to lose such a key

support group. In response, Wesson dismissed the allegations, saying he has workeddiligently on plans for a new Koreatown park, a new senior center and new real estate

projects (Zahniser).Despite being upset about the perceived lack of attention in the past, Korean-

Americans main grievance with the redistricting process was a lack of transparencyand fair judgment. The process is awed if you have all of these public input hearings,

and you dont take that public input into account, said Ben Juhn, a staff member of theKorean American Coalition (Yi).

Added Robert Ahn, a lawyer and one of the two Korean-American redistrictingcommissioners: All these other neighborhood councils, [the other commissioners] movedheaven and earth to try and unite. Theyre like, Oh, theres overwhelming testimony

When they talk about strong testimony, theyre talking about like 10 people that cameout and said, Hey, we want to be whole. But when you compare that to the hundreds ofKoreans that came out, advocating for WCKNC boundaries, that somehow got ignored(Yi).

And though redistricting is an inherently political process, other factors suggestthat L.A.s redistricting commission may also have been inuenced by political conicts

among the City Council. For instance, in the recent redistricting process, L.A. City



22/4021 CASE STUDY: KOREATOWN

Council[members] Bernard Parks and [Jan] Perry, two of Wessons critics, faredextremely poorly. The commission remove[d] almost all of the booming downtownskyscraper district from Perry and hand[ed] it to Eastside Councilman Jose Huizar, aWesson ally. And coveted Leimert Park considered the heart of the black community

[was] moved out of Parks District 8 and [instead placed in] Wessons District 10(Aron, Stewart). As a result of this move and one involving Baldwin Hills, African-Americans [would then] account for 50.6 percent of registered voters in the TenthDistrict, up from 43.2 percent (City Maven). As mentioned in the Minority Report andRecommendations of the Los Angeles City Council Redistricting Commission, submittedby Commissioners Robert Ahn, Bobbie Jean Anderson, Helen Kim and David Roberts,

the heavy emphasis on race in drawing the boundaries of CD10 is particularlyproblematic, because it appears to place a priority on bolstering the African-American population in CD10, a historically African-American inuence district

that has always relied on cross-racial alliances with other similarly-sized groups,with little apparent regard to the impact on CD 8, the citys only council districtwith a majority African-American (citizen voting age population). (Ahn, Anderson,Kim, Roberts).

Further evidence of potential backdoor deals or emphasis on political motivationsincluded the case of Councilman Ed Reyes District 1, [which ended up] includ[ing] thehome of Reyes ally and chief of staff, Jose Gardea, who is running to replace termed-out Reyes in 2013. The commission neatly chopped out of the district the home of state

Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, who also is running for that seat (Aron).Unfortunately, other questionable situations have also emerged throughout the

process. Early on, the commission voted to break into three closed-door committeesto draw maps of the 15 new council districts, rather than working in public (Aron).The choice, whether ill-intentioned or not, undoubtedly created more suspicion aboutthe possibility of backroom deals. And yet another problematic situation involvedCommissioner Amber Martinez, who was appointed by [Mayor] Villaraigosa to replacea commissioner who fell ill just hours before a meeting. [Despite being new,] Martinezdidnt ask any questions, voting on complex new boundaries without hesitation (Aron).

Many other parties, including those not directly involved or personally invested,have since spoken out about the redistricting process. Commissioner David Roberts, anappointee of Councilwoman Perry, did not vote to support the nal map, which was also

very unfavorable to his appointer, and called the process dysfunctional.We lost credibility with the public, which is sad, really sad, said Roberts. I think

theres going to be a strong push for redistricting reform similar to what weve seen atthe state level. That you do have an independent commission, a commission that does


23/40CASE STUDY: KOREATOWN

Figure 7. The final redistricting mapSource: City of Los Angeles Redistricting 2011

not reect political interests and representatives on the commission pushing political

agendas (Nakamura, Muranaka). And although an independent commission is not

a perfect solution, it has served the constituents of Koreatown well, having united thegreater Koreatown area in the State Senate and Assembly districts.

Reecting a similar sentiment, Eric Schockman, a political science professor who

helped create the process by which city ofcials appoint redistricting commissioners,

recently expressed regrets about his input a decade ago. In retrospect, it was wrong and Iapologize, Schockman said. We should never have allowed the politicians through theirsurrogates to redistrict the City of Los Angeles (Nakamura, Muranaka).

Surprisingly, many commissioners, who voted for the nal map, also expressed regret


24/40

3.3 Whats Next?Though the new redistricting maps have been approved, Korean-Americans have refusedto concede defeat and have proceeded to working within the courts by preparing for a

lawsuit. L.A. law rms Akin Gump and Bird Marella have taken on the case pro-bono(LA Weekly). The lawsuits legal claims will fall into two buckets: The rst is the nal

map itself, which splits Koreatown in half. In particular, attorney [Hyongsoon Kim]cited complaints that City Council President Herb Wessons self-appointed redistrictingcommissioner [Andrew Westall] might have been unfairly focusing on making Wessonsdistrict as black as possible (and therefore a shoo-in for a black candidate) (L.A. Weekly).

In Grace Yoos words, the lawsuit will likely be a somewhat of a hollow victory(Yoo). I understand that [the lawsuit] is not going to remedy the situation the waythat I would have liked, Yoo said. But were not going away saying We give up. Shecontinued to say, My map will not change for the 2013 city elections. But its certainlynot going to take us until 2021 for us to make movement. Its going to happen soonerthan that (Yoo). In a sense, this may be the most important message to take away fromthe whole situation. Redistricting is a controversial process that will inevitably happenevery ten years. The process will be redone, but one key effect may be that 2012sredistricting process could mark the political coming of age of Koreatown, which couldbe followed, if history is a guide, by a more deft and sophisticated forging of coalitions(L.A. Times).

over how Koreatown was handled, though they thought that their maps were a goodeffort (Aron). Commissioner David Roberti, appointed by Councilmember Paul Koretz,voted to approve the map, but acknowledged guilty feelings over Koreatown: I amterribly guilt ridden over the concerns of the Korean community, they did not win here.

Ten years ago, they didnt win either and I was on that commission as well, said Roberti.The problem is not that theyre not heard, because they are heard. The problem is thatthis is a political process. And they havent developed that weight yet and maybe theresgot to be another way for them to develop that weight (Nakamura, Muranaka).



25/40CIVIC ACTION

civicaction.


26/4025 CIVIC ACTION

4. Civic Action4.1 Resources for Staying InformedFirst, the public must be made aware of the new redistricting lines that will affect themfor the next ten years. Some thorough and helpful online resources are the League ofWomen Voters of California, Education Fund website and RedrawLa.org, through whichthe public can educate themselves and see what lines have been drawn in their respectivecities. This specic site gives citizens the option to map out your own district proposals

or draw the boundaries of your community of interest (RedrawLA). FairVote.orgis another website where citizens can learn the history of redistricting and utilize otheronline resources such as a redistricting glossary, litigation, reform legislation, resource list,

news, and alternative approaches on redistricting. It is imperative that the public gainsthe knowledge necessary to know the changes that are being made from the 2001 to the2012 maps, and possibly change these maps if they feel that these maps are not accurate.As stated in this remark from the League of Women Voters of California, If districtsare drawn that keep communities intact, people are better able to elect representativeswho will further their interests (League of Women Voters of California). In this way,redistricting is done in hope of creating more precise and detailed maps of the geographicchanges and shifts in populations that has occurred within the past ten years. The ofcial

change in local, state, and federal lines will take into effect at the beginning of 2013.

Other resources that may help to educate the public include several Universities likethe University of California, Berkeley, which has created and helped fund six differentphysical locations where citizens can visit and have a hands-on experience in theredistricting process. These centers located in, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Bernardino,Fresno, Sacramento, and Berkeley are conveniently located throughout all of California


27/40CIVIC ACTION

to encourage the public to use computers that have actual redistricting software in whichcitizens can develop map submissions or testimony for the states Citizens RedistrictingCommission while the Commission was deliberating (The Redistricting AssistanceSites Project). These centers are effective resources for community members to come

together and learn about the various aspects of the redistricting process. The Universityof Berkeley, School of Law has a group of law students who are available to answer anyquestions that citizens might come across in the area of redistricting (The RedistrictingGroup at Berkeley Law). Universities are very resourceful places where citizens canglean information on the process of redistricting from experts in this specic eld. When

using these research computers however, citizens must be wary of using ethnicity as acriterion; the computers can track what you use to draw your lines, and prevent you from

presenting gerrymandered districts in court. Using factors such as socioeconomic factorsare more useful (Gee, Wu).

4.2 Methods of Civic ActionThe redistricting process is not only a process that citizens must be aware of and educatedon, but it is also part of our civic duty as citizens to participate in the process throughdifferent means. Participation is not limited to only political groups. As wedrawthelines.org explains, Anyone may participate! Interested partiesincluding non-prot

organizations, community leaders, and political partiesmay use maps and populationcounts of their states, counties and cities to advocate for where they believe districtboundaries should be drawn, thus illustrating the potential of power in the commonpeople.

Professor Justin Levitt from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles shares several different

ways the public can engage and be a part of the redistricting process. He shares thatcitizens can identify local communities, demand and attend hearings, present communitymaps to those who draw the lines, educate the media, and ask questions (Levitt).Professor Levitt argues that when citizens identify local communities they are able toassist those in charge of the process by mapping out the boundaries of local communitiesthat should be kept together (Levitt). In this way, the community can come togetherand agree on boundaries that will affect their own communities of interest. In terms ofcitizens demanding and attending hearings, Justin Levitt states, many community

Source: All About Redistricting - redistricting.lls.edu


28/40

organizations and nonprots are coordinating attendance at these hearings, to make sure

that the members of the communities they serve are heard in the redistricting process(Levitt). Logically, the more voices that are being heard throughout these hearings, themore inclined community leaders and commissioners will be to listen to these concerned

citizens. Citizens can also present community maps to those who draw the lines bybringing relatively small maps of individual community boundaries (Levitt). In manycases, citizens do not have the time or money to spend all their efforts redrawing the linesfor the entire state, but citizens can very well bring their own local community maps tothose who draw the lines, for points of reference. The California Citizens CommissionBoard advises to nd out who is drawing the maps for districts and what information

besides the census they are using to make their determinations about where lines shouldbe drawn. Ask your county registrar and county superintendent of schools. In addition,you can consult your county counsel, city clerk, city attorney, special district managers or

legal departments for information about local redistricting.

Professor Levitt also explains that if in the case that the maps are brought into courtjurisdiction for further review, the local maps with the petitions may also be reviewed forconsideration. One of the most valuable tactics citizens can use is educating the media.The media is an effective tool that citizens can use to highlight or bring to light certaindisagreements with the new redistricting lines for other citizens to learn and see. Citizens

can contact the local media, such as radio stations, television stations, or print mediaresources in their area. The media can help reach out to the rest of the community whomay be unaware of the disproportionate lines that may have been drawn. The media isparticularly important because it is accessible to many groups, including minorities. Ethnicmedia can play a powerful role in empowering and educating ethnic communities, whooften struggle with language barriers. Lastly, the most important thing that the public cando is ask questions. If citizens just ask the right questions and keep their community

27 CIVIC ACTION

Source: RedrawLA.org


29/40

leaders and commissioners accountable and transparent, by actively holding meetings andlooking up the archived information the process of redistricting would be favorable for allcitizens.

One of the most effective ways that citizens can participate in the redistricting process

is by actually being appointed to the Citizens Redistricting Commission that is held onthe state level. The State of California Redistricting Commission Final Report on 2011Redistricting, which was nalized on August 15, 2011, states, the Independent Citizens

Redistricting Commission will draw districts based on strict nonpartisan rules designedto ensure fair representation (State of California Citizens Redistricting CommissionFinal Report). One of the requirements, however, is that those chosen to be a part ofthe Citizens Redistricting Commission are prohibited from holding elective ofce at the

federal, state, county or city level for a period of ten years from their appointment, andfrom holding appointive public ofce for a period of ve years (State of California

Citizens Redistricting Commission Final Report). These regulations and limitations arein place to ensure that there is no conict of interest if one of the citizen commissioners

were in elected ofce. This commission consists of: three who are Democrats, three who

are Republican, and two who are either Decline-to-State or are registered with anotherparty (California Citizens Redistricting Commission). It is an extensive process topick these candidates through several pools of eligible commission candidates. However,this is the most effective way citizens can get involved in the actual redistricting process.Those chosen to be on the commission will serve for the next ten years, until new lines are

drawn, and the process starts again.Another way citizens can get involved is through starting a referendum, which can

challenge the newly drawn lines. For example, there was a recent referendum created bya citizen in Laguna Niguel by the name of Julia Vandermost in 2011, which challengednew Senate lines. Although this ballot was struck down due to insufcient funding,

this referendum was an example of citizens coming together to create and support areferendum against the lines that had already been drawn in California. Another way inwhich citizens can challenge new lines in their communities is through legal means. Themost current case would be the lawsuit that the citizens of Koreatown are bringing to the

City of Los Angeles. The citizens of Koreatown feel that they are not being representedfairly in the new district lines, and thus are in the process of seeing their lawsuit come intofull fruition.

Furthermore, Common Cause exemplies some of the helpful advocacy organizations

that make it straightforward and easy for citizens to participate in the redistrictingprocess. These organizations do more than collect donations; they actually empower the

public by educating them on how they can voice their concerns at town hall meetings,

CIVIC ACTION


30/40

how they can learn more about their representatives, and even construct their ownredistricting maps. The Public Mapping Project also seeks to increase transparency inredistricting by helping citizens voice their own opinions on how the lines should bedrawn. And myriad more organizations exist that provide citizens with instructions

on how to present their own maps at town meetings and communicate with theirrepresentatives. Most importantly, by contributing to the political process, constituentscan become more politically aware, thus opening the doors for future participation andengagement. Citizens will have a newfound incentive to vote and reform the government.Research conducted generally supported the idea that minority representation andmajority-minority districts are correlated with greater involvement in politics by Latinosand African Americans (Claremont).

Something else that could impact specically the voting behavior of minorities is

the recently established Independent Citizens Commission of California, which creates

the district lines of California. The racial breakdown of this commissioning boardis interestingly skewed towards ethnic minorities: the board consists of four Asians,three Hispanics, three Whites, two African Americans, one Pacic Islander, and one

Native American. While the state is roughly 50 percent White, the commission is 21percent White. Likewise, census data released in early March 2011 hinted at increasedrepresentation of minorities in the legislature. The California state legislature and thecongressional delegation are about to look a lot more like California. Youre going to seedistricts that are much more likely to elect minority candidates and a huge shift from the

coast inland, said Dan Schnur, director of the University of Southern Californias UnruhInstitute of Politics. More minority candidates means more similar political views andpolicy interests for minority citizens, a phenomenon that minority citizens can capitalizeon by vocalizing their concerns, knowing that their representatives have a higher chanceof listening. However, with the ethnic variety of California, its diversity can be diluted, asit has been in the past. For example, the San Jose neighborhood of Berryessa is more than50 percent Asian-American and Pacic Islander yet there are four state assembly districts

in the neighborhood (New America Media). This kind of situation exemplies the benets

of political empowerment among the minorities. With more knowledge of how minoritiesare affected by their districts, they can realize their inuence in the elections, and can

vote for ofcials who will better represent their community needs. It is necessary that the

public voice its concerns, for no computer or machine that is employed for creating thecensus can express the interests of the people better than the people themselves. DeannaKitamura, a lawyer for Asian Pacic American Legal Center (APALC), cites lack of

transparency as one of the biggest issues in redistricting that have yet to be resolved. Byproviding ofcials with socioeconomic data, citizens can prevent politics from corrupting

29 CIVIC ACTION


31/40

the system. In the past, ofcials easily made deals with one another and created their lines

with no public input (Kitamura).In conclusion, citizens have a wide range of resources available to them. These

resources include: online resources, redistricting guide books, universities, town hall

meetings, local legislative ofces, and media resources to help educate the public on theprocess of redistricting, and how it affects them in their communities. However, the mosteffective strategy for civic engagement, is for the public to be a part in the actual processof redistricting itself, by either attending hearings, presenting their own maps of theircommunities, utilizing the media, holding their community leaders accountable, askingquestions, and by actually becoming one of the independent citizen commissioners. Ifthe public engages in civic action throughout the redistricting process, it will be the rst

steps for communities to receive fair and accurate representation for years to come. Andof course, by contributing to the redrawing of lines and increasing ones chance of beingrepresented by a favorable ofcial, citizens increase their chances of having their issues

xed.

CIVIC ACTION


32/40

conclusion.

31 CONCLUSION


33/40

5. Conclusion

CONCLUSION

Redistricting divides neighborhoods in ways that can possibly change the entire dynamic

of a region. Historically, underserved and underrepresented communities of color havebeen deprived of many resources and opportunities compared to their fellow Americans.This stems from the deeply rooted and persistent systematic racism that has remained forcenturies. However, in recent years, what was once the minority has grown substantiallyto become the majority. Therefore, redistricting is one of the most important aspectsof democracy that truly dictates the governance of our community. Every ten years,redistricting occurs and consequently changes the political climate of a community.Redistricting can also alter the opportunities for resources such as the accessibility tohealth clinics, schools, and other public services. Redistricting is a crucial obstacle that

prevents communities from taking responsibility of their towns and accessing theseresources. By dividing up the land and separating communities of interest, redistrictingsplits up the voices of the people who nd it difcult to stand united when their space

has been physically carved up. Since redistricting is an important reoccurring procedure,laws have been changed to foster a more transparent and democratic process for thecommunity to be involved in.

In an attempt to implement a transparent process and stray away from the traditionalproblem of gerrymandering, which consistently served the legislatures political agenda,the appointed position at the local level was created to represent the people. However,

this process leaves room for scrutiny because the members of the redistricting commissionare appointed by elected ofcials and tied to politics. Although appointed commission

may seem ideal in theory, the fact of the matter remains that neither the public nor thepoliticians can be held accountable for the outcome of the commission.

Therefore, we recommend that the tradition of an appointed commission bealtered to model the independent commission at the state and federal level. This way,the process of redistricting would become more unbiased, transparent, and fair. In thepast year, the state adopted an independent commission of members who serve as an

Source: CAUSE


34/4033 WORKS CITED

unbiased team that decides the redistricting lines. This process has proved to be a betterform of state redistricting that shows a lesser degree of political residue. Though politicscan be mitigated, it is still inevitable in a process that is inherently political; and although

representation can be improved with an independent redistricting commission, people will

always nd some fault in the system.Despite the current redistricting efforts of the legislature, appointed commissions,

and independent commissions, the process would not be complete without the essence ofa community. Thus, the most important factor to redistricting is community involvementand civic participation. The community must become involved with the redistrictingprocess, regardless of the style of the commission; if not, the peoples voices will be at

risk of being unheard or misheard. There are many ways to engage the public aboutredistricting, such as participating at public commission meetings, educating thecommunity about redistricting through public forums, conversations, and other means.

In addition, the community should propose its own maps that will prove the best forgoverning its people and present them to the commission. Public participation is crucialat this time because these communities of color are at risk of being divided again.Community reactions to the splitting of Koreatown are prime models of how people canstand in solidarity to gain political power in redistricting. And the unity and communityparticipation that have risen from the redistricting controversy, whether in the form ofprotests, lawsuits, or testimonials, are admirable for civic engagement in our communities.

Although redistricting is one of the most complex forms of governance, it is also one

of the most dening aspects of political representation. Therefore, the responsibility forattaining proper governance and maintaining the true voice of the community falls uponthe peoples shoulders, for strong governments ultimately derive their strength from thepeople.

6. Works CitedAhn, Robert. Robert Ahn. Telephone interview. 12 July 2012.Altman, Micah, and Michael McDonald. Public Mapping Project. Public Mapping Project. N.p., n.d.

Web. 07 July 2012. .APALC Expresses Disappointment With Los Angeles City Council Redistricting Map. Asian Pacic

American Legal Center. N.p., 20 June 2012. Web. 4 July 2012. .

Aron, Hillel. Helen Kim Takes on L.A.s Old Guard. LA Weekly. N.p., 1 Mar. 2012. Web. 22 June 2012.CA Board of Equalization. Rep. N.p., 15 Aug. 2011. Web. 28 June 2012.California Citizens Redistricting Commission. California Citizens Redistricting Commission. N.p., n.d.

Web. 07 July 2012. .City of Los Angeles Redistricting 2011. City of Los Angeles Redistricting 2011. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 July


35/40

2012. .FairVote - Voting Rights Act Text. FairVote - Voting Rights Act Text. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 July 2012..Forest, Benjamin. Mapping Democracy: Racial Identity and the Quandary of Political Representation.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91.1 (2001): 143-66. Print.

Gilliam, Frank. Exploring Minority Empowerment: Symbolic Politics, Governing Coalitions, and Tracesof Political Style in Los Angeles. Midwest Political Science Association 40.1 (1996): 56-81. Jstore.Web. 26 June 2012.

Kitamura, Deanna. Deanna Kitamura. Telephone interview. 19 July 2012.KoreAm. Reimagining Koreatown. Web log post. The Korean American Experience. N.p., Mar. 2009.

Web. 12 July 2012.L.A.s Flawed Redistricting Process. Editorial. Los Angeles Times. N.p., 17 Feb. 2012. Web. 3 July 2012.League of Women Voters of California | Education Fund. League of Women Voters of California

Education Fund. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 July 2012. .Levitt, Justin. How Can the Public Engage? All About Redistricting: Justin Levitts Guide to Drawing the

Electoral Lines. Loyola Law School, n.d.Web. 14 July 2012. .Linthicum, Kate. Proposed Koreatown Redistricting Debated. Los Angeles Times. N.p., 1 Feb. 2012.Web. 13 July 2012.

Nakamura, Ryoko, and Gwen Muranaka. K-Town, Little Tokyo Lose in Redistricting Vote. The RafuShimpo. N.p., 24 Feb. 2012. Web. 4 July 2012.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Asian American Justice Center, andMexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The Impact of Redistricting inYour Community. Publication. N.p.: NAACP, 2010. Asian Pacic American Legal Center. NAACP.

Web. 3 July 2012.Oh, Hansook. Quit Gerrymandering Koreatown: The API and Immigrants Communities Wont Let the

L.A. City Council Play Games. Daily Sundial. N.p., 14 Mar. 2012. Web. 28 June 2012.Ojeda-kimbrough, Carol, Eugene Lee, and Yen L. Shek. The Asian American Redistricting Project.Publication. UCLA Asian American Studies Center, July 2009. Web. 29 June 2012.

Redistricting. The Redistricting Group at Berkeley Law. University of California,Berkeley, n.d. Web. 13 July 2012. .

Redraw LA. RedrawLA. Healthy City and Advancement Project, n.d. Web. 14 July 2012. .

The Redistricting Assistance Sites Project. Statewide Database University of California, Berkeley, n.d.Web. 14 July 2012. .

United States of America. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau. Strength in Numbers. U.S.Census Buereau, July 2010. Web. 5 July 2012.

Walton, Alice. Redistricting Minority Report Says Commission Ignored Public Input, Relied on Race toDraw District Lines. The City Maven. N.p., 1 Mar. 2012. Web. 26 June 2012.

Wilson, Simone. Koreatown to File Redistricting Lawsuit Against L.A. City Council; 2 Pro-Bono Firms on

Board. La Weekly. N.p., 28 Mar. 2012. Web. 28 June 2012.Wu, Winston, and Gee John. CACA Interviews. Telephone interview. 23 June 2012.Yi, Eugene. How K-Town Lost and Won. KoreAm 9 May 2012: n. pag. Web. 3 July 2012.Yoo, Grace. Grace Yoo. Interview. 16 July 2012.Zahniser, David. Koreatowns Bond to Herb Wesson Is Breaking Amid Redistricting. N.p., 7 Mar. 2012.

Web. 24 June 2012.

WORKS CITED


36/40

About the Interns

35 ABOUT THE INTERNS

Year & School:Junior at University of California, Los AngelesOfce Placement: Senator Curren PriceRole o Project: Staff Writer for Introduction and The Process

Wajenda Chambeshi

Year & School: 2011 Graduate of University of California, San DiegoOfce Placement: Assemblymember Don WagnerRole o Project: Staff Writer for Civic Action and Conclusion

Grace Hsieh

Year & School: Freshman at Harvard UniversityOfce Placement: State Controller John ChiangRole o Project: Copy Editor, Staff Writer for Introduction andThe Process

Kaitlyn Jeong

Year & School: Sophomore at Brown UniversityOfce Placement: Senator Carol LiuRole o Project: Archivist, Staff Writer for Introduction andThe Process

Krishnanand Kelkar

2012 CAUSE Leadership Academy


37/40

About the Cause Leadership AcademySince its inception in 1991, the CAUSE Leadership Academy (ormerly called CASIC, Caliornia AsianAmerican Student Internship Coalition) has prepared elite student leaders to be in the oreront o Caliorniaslegislative arena. Tis program is especially dedicated to developing the leadership skills o college students whoare interested in exploring a career in public oce, public service or community advocacy.

Previous students have been selected rom Ivy League schools, the University o Caliornia system,community colleges and local high schools. Graduates o the program have gone on to run or elected oce,work as legislative sta or work in the nonprot sector.

Year & School: Sophomore at University of Southern CaliforniaOfce Placement: Senator Lou CorreaRole o Project: Design Editor, Staff Writer for Case Study:Koreatown

Gloria Kim

Year & School: Senior at University of California, IrvineOfce Placement: Congresswoman Judy ChuRole o Project: Project Lead, Staff Writer for Conclusion

Lisa Lei

Year & School: Freshman at University of California, BerkeleyOfce Placement: Congressman Adam SchiffRole o Project: Copy Editor, Staff Writer for Civic Action

Mary Zhou

ABOUT THE INTERNS


38/40

CAUSE Mission StatementCenter or Asian Americans United or Sel Empowerment (CAUSE) is a 501(c)(3) nonprot, nonpartisan,

community-based organization with a mission to advance the political empowerment o the Asian PacicAmerican (APA) community through nonpartisan voter registration and education, community outreach,and leadership development.

Founded in 1993, CAUSE is comprised o committed proessional, business, community and politicalleaders, and has established itsel as a unique nonpartisan APA organization dedicated solely to APA civicand political participation. Based in the Greater Los Angeles area, CAUSEs infuence reaches throughoutCaliornia.

About CAUSE

CAUSE Board MembersCharlie Woo | Board Chair

Megatoys

Marcella Low | Vice ChairSouthern Caliornia Gas Company

Kenny Yee | Vice ChairImuarock Partners

Victor I. King | Legal CounselCaliornia State University, Los Angeles

Ben Wong | SecretarySouthern Caliornia Edison

Gary H. Arakawa | Board MemberCovington Capital Management

Ling-Ling Chang | Board MemberCity o Diamond Bar

Sandra Chen Lau | Board Member

University o Southern Caliornia

Alan Key Kims | Board MemberArdmore Medical Group

Kenneth K. Lee | Board Member

Jenner & Block LLP

Fred Rowley | Board MemberMunger, olles & Olson LLP

Nita Song | Board MemberIW Group, Inc.

K. Luan ran | Board MemberLee ran & Liang , APLC

Emily Wang | Board MemberEast West Bank

Ron Wong | Board MemberImprenta Communications Group

Robert Yap | Board Memberotal Call International

Albert Young, M.D. | Board Member

Network Medical Management

CAUSE Staf

Carrie Gan, Executive Director

Sophia Islas, Director o Communications

Breanna Lam, Executive Intern

Anna Wang, Executive Intern


39/40

A Special Thanks to Our Sponsors

MR. NELSON TANMR. PETER WOO


40/40

rces (from left to right): KCET, sgvtribune.mycapture.com, Rafu-Shimpo, L.A. Times, L.A. Times, examiner.com

CAUSE Leadership Academy

Center for Asian Americans United forSelf Empowerment (CAUSE)260 S. Los Robles Ave. #118Pasadena CA 91101

Documents

"The People's Guide to Redistricting" (CAUSE Leadership Academy 2012 Group Project)