Frustrations mount over redistricting in San Mateo County

Two weeks ago, the county Board of Supervisors unanimously backed a minimal change map after being presented with alternatives. Of those maps, were two backed by the advisory commission after months of community outreach. 

One was drafted by Commissioner Rudy Espinoza Murray who aimed to create a map with greater political power for minority groups. The other, titled the Unity Map, was drafted by the Unity Coalition in partnership with about a dozen nonprofits. That map prioritized grouping areas together based on their top priorities such as keeping coastal communities in one district. 

Petra Silton, the director of Advocacy and Education for Thrive, an organization that unites and supports the nonprofit sector, played an integral part in gathering the groups that developed the Unity Map.

She and Lawrence said they were shocked and disappointed to see the board opt for the minimal change map, retitled the Community Together Map, especially after tapping the League of Women Voters to help create the commission. 

“They kind of made it seem like they would listen and totally blew off everything everyone had said,” Silton said.

But David Canepa, president of the Board of Supervisors, pushed back on the criticisms, saying the board’s support of the minimal change map was based on its belief that it best honored community needs. 

The map largely kept cities whole, a top concern also addressed in the Espinoza Map but not in the Unity Map which prioritized communities of interest. The minimal change map also grouped areas by what supervisors believed to be key issues such as coastal living versus urban. 

Canepa argued the minimal change map was also more beneficial for minority voters by ensuring multiple districts had more voters of color than white voters. While the Espinoza Map and Unity Map also did so, Canepa said the Unity Map also created a super majority of white voters in one district that could prevent a person of color from ever winning a seat. 

“I have no bone to pick with the nonprofits. I just did what I thought was the right thing to do,” Canepa said. 

But the commissioners and Silton noted the minimal change map received no community support during the redistricting process and was ultimately not backed by the commission. Public comment shared during board meetings also favored either the Unity Map or Espinoza Map while very few comments signaled a support for keeping county districts as they are.

Unlike Lawrence and Silton, Espinoza Murray said he wasn’t surprised with the board’s support for the minimal change map. Having joined the redistricting process in hopes of contributing to political change in the county, Espinoza Murray said he saw two potential outcomes. 

Either the board would move with calls for something new or they encouraged more civic engagement by “highlighting their resistance to change.” Ultimately, he called the process a win-win because it put on display the number of issues facing communities of interest and the need for greater participation. 

“It really sparks a fire in people that they have to step up their game in changing things in San Mateo County. It creates more awareness of issues we’ve been facing for decades,” he said.

Similarly, Lawrence said he hopes to see a coalition of people push for a fully independent redistricting committee to be established before the next redistricting process after suggesting this year’s commission was “set up to fail” without the adequate time and funding to conduct outreach.

“It ties back into how the board maintains its control and how district lines support its control,” Lawrence said. “It’s like the fox watching the chicken coop.” 

Canepa took issue with assertions the board’s support for the minimal change map was political. He noted four of five supervisors are terming out aside from him and none of the maps up for consideration would have moved Canepa out of District 5, which he represents. 

Espinoza Murray disputed that reasoning washed supervisors clean of political motivation though, noting many of them have already endorsed candidates who are running to take over the vacated seats. 

“If they’ve done that, there’s skin in the game. There’s a conflict of interest there,” Espinoza Murray said. “I’m not saying it’s unethical but we cannot deny there are political connections to people running.” 

Still, the board is anticipated to vote in favor of the minimal change map at its upcoming meeting Tuesday, Dec. 7. The action would come back for a second reading and final vote the following Tuesday. 

While Canepa acknowledged opinions could change ahead of the votes, he doubled down on his support for the minimal change map and the benefits he believed it will bring to the county. 

“The bottom line is I have to listen to what the data is showing me as well as my constituents,” Canepa said. “This is an important vote. It shouldn’t be a divisive vote.” 

sierra@smdailyjournal.com 

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106