The leaked audio recording of an October 2021 conversation among a former labor leader and three LA City Councilmembers was alarming due to their racist and discriminatory comments, but also because of the purpose of the discussion: City Council Redistricting and how the respective Councilmembers could protect their power. This incident has amplified calls for LA City governance reform, such as establishing a truly Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) that removes elected officials from the process. We expect redistricting reform to be a topic of discussion among city leaders this year, along with other potential reforms. We offer this background on the existing redistricting process, an overview of other jurisdictions’ process and some important considerations for LA’s reform efforts to deepen our members’ understanding and enrich the public discussion.

Existing Redistricting Process

Redistricting is the process of redrawing electoral district boundaries – from US Congress to local school boards. It happens every 10 years following the release of the US decennial Census. As populations change over time, redistricting is intended to help ensure that electoral boundaries are amended to provide communities with fair and equally distributed political representation. Despite the need for redistricting to comply with various laws, such as the Voting Rights Act, jurisdictions generally have wide latitude over how they manage their redistricting processes.

In the City of Los Angeles, per the rules established by the City Charter, the City Council is substantially involved in the drawing of districts and maintains the final approval. This makes the process inherently political. First, the City Council appoints 16 members of a 21-member Redistricting Commission,¹ which act as proxies for their appointing Councilmembers and are tasked with leading the public outreach and drafting of proposed new Council District maps. Councilmembers can remove their commissioners during the process and appoint replacements if they’re dissatisfied with their actions. The Redistricting Commission then submits a report and the proposed maps to the City Council for their review, amendments and final adoption.²

There were warnings of the pitfalls of the City’s redistricting process well before the 2021 cycle, particularly from former Councilmembers who once represented the Downtown LA area but were removed from their districts in the 2012 redistricting cycle.³

Achieving Independence in Redistricting

There is now momentum and public focus to bring a ballot initiative before the voters to amend the City Charter and make meaningful changes -- this is a critical moment. First, the City must understand and define what “independence” means in the context of redistricting, and what the goals and tradeoffs of reforms are.

To help inform this public discussion, CCA analyzed redistricting processes used in six other major cities as well as LA County’s system for redrawing Supervisorial Districts as summarized in the diagram below. We found that there is a spectrum of independence, or more specifically, the level of elected officials’  involvement in redrawing their own districts.

In general, less independent processes are marked by a greater degree of involvement by elected officials, namely through control over the process, via:

• powers of final map approval,
• the ability to object to or change maps,
• having appointments to a redistricting commission (particularly where there is an imbalance of appointment allocation among legislative bodies vs. other appointing officers).

On the other hand, more independent processes are characterized by:

• the absence of elected officials, including no abilities for legislative bodies or other elected officials to amend or approve maps,
• no powers to appoint redistricting commissioners (or at least balanced and distributed appointing powers),
• empowered citizen involvement and authority over the process and the incorporation of lotteries into appointment process.

Regardless of the level of City Council and other elected officials’ involvement, all processes should have some amount of public outreach and opportunities for public input, which may or may not be incorporated into the drawing and determination of new district maps. Ultimately, answering the following questions is core to defining independence:  

• Are City Councilmembers and/or elected officials involved in the process at all, whether through appointments to a commission and/or in the legislative process to amend and adopt the maps?
• If there is an appointed commission, how many appointments does the City Council get? How many appointments do other elected officials get? What is the balance of power?
• Who can be appointed to redistricting bodies and how are those members selected?
• Are citizens empowered participants in the process, or is their involvement limited to public comments?

The City Council will be faced with these questions and more when deciding what model to put before voters on the 2024 ballot. We present this information to provide a framework that can offer clarity for discussions that move the City toward an IRC.  

CCA will continue to be deeply engaged in redistricting reform as well as broader City of LA governance reform. We will publish detailed redistricting analysis in a forthcoming white paper along with other issues related to governance that may be considered for a future City Charter amendment ballot initiative to improve the fairness, transparency, accountability and effectiveness of LA City government. CCA strongly believes that governance reform must also include consideration of making the land use and transportation approval processes more inclusive and balanced.