Over the past few months, we’ve read a lot about new district maps across the county. Most recently, the city of San Mateo, Redwood City and Millbrae have passed maps that have left people scratching their heads, and with good reason — it only happens once every 10 years.
I had the opportunity of serving on two redistricting commissions: San Mateo County and Redwood City. Those two processes couldn’t have been more different in outcomes. Part of why we see such different ways of developing and choosing a map is because quite simply, many of our elected leaders don’t have the knowledge base or experience of why we have to district in the first place, and even less, the laws that govern the process.
And, when I read that leaders say things like, “I hate district elections. It has taken away my vote.” It’s quite off-putting. Especially when it comes out of the mouth of someone who has it many times easier to win an at-large election based on the color of their skin. District elections have shown that they can even the playing field and give minorities a chance at choosing their representatives. There are a few other things I’ve heard from electeds and residents that are incorrect and should be clarified.
“Districting is supposed to result in minorities electing other minorities.” Incorrect. Districting is meant to empower a minority group to choose the candidate they want, no matter if the candidate is a minority or not. When people don’t see minority representation in office after districting, they jump to the conclusion that somehow it failed. For the first time, minorities are able to choose their candidates and see them win. This result, repeated election after election, may lead to a narrative change from “my vote doesn’t matter” to “I feel represented.”
“Dividing a community of interest into separate districts allows them to choose more than one representative.” Incorrect. Many councilmembers in Millbrae repeated this fallacy. An experienced demographer once told me, “the way to eliminate the power of a group is by drawing a district line right through them.” If a group of people is not able to choose their candidate, election after election, over time they feel their vote doesn’t matter and the ultimate result is, they stop voting.
“We should split the downtown area so more councilmembers make their issues a priority.” Incorrect. Just because a councilmember is voted in by a district, it doesn’t mean they have no voice in the dais over issues in a neighboring district. At the end of the day, each councilmember has an equal vote. Splitting an important area, like the downtown of a city, disempowers the residents there.
“We must change the map because Councilmember X won’t be able to run next time.” Incorrect. The Fair Maps Act (Assembly Bill 849) and the Federal Voting Rights Act prohibit an incumbent or candidate being taken into account when drawing a district. Sorry for Councilmember X, but what’s better for democracy is that communities of interests are preserved over an incumbent’s ability to run for office again. Redwood City experienced this issue but that city council voted to pass a map that excluded incumbency as a factor. Good for them.
Redwood City is the quintessential example of the good that districting can do: there are homeowners and renters, conservative and liberal, white, Black, Latinx and Asian, old and young, gay, straight, male, female and nonbinary. The dais looks like its residents and it should be applauded. Districting, along with efforts like term limits, donation maximums, voter registration programs and diverse commissions and committees, can effectively change what representation looks like on an elected body. But, one thing alone will never solve the problem of lack of representation.
Rudy Espinoza Murray is a father, husband, Redwood City resident and community organizer. He is a co-founder of the San Mateo County Farmworker Affairs Coalition and a director on the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District Board.
(7) comments
Isn't FC technically a district, and potentially not subject to the rules?
While these Redistricting efforts are necessary and required by law, our process here in Redwood City raises many questions:
1. Of the 11 members on the Redistricting Committee, why do three of them live in Redwood Shores when there were 7 districts to be equally represented?
2. Why did we have a critical Council meeting on the subject during Christmas week when participation was undoubtedly impacted?
3. Why was the President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce on the redistricting committee? While she does live in RWC, the optics are poor, but business as usual in RWC.
4. Why is the chair of the RWC Redistricting Committee (Rudy Espinoza Murray) someone who is publicly vocal with his bias against white male politicians combined with the fact he failed to disclose during the selection process that he was also applying (and subsequently chosen) for the San Mateo County Redistricting Committee?
5. Why did the subcommittee recommend a map that puts four council members in the same district? It’s naive to think this won’t be a factor in the council's decision. We have been advised that district maps must not support incumbents but district maps shouldn’t discriminate against incumbents, which both ARC recommended maps do.
6. And finally, why didn't Mayor Hale recuse herself from this discussion given that her fellow exec at PDI heads up the redistricting effort? Not only did she vote for her coworker, Paul Mitchell, who works at PDI / Redistricting Partners, when she was on the three-member Council Subcommittee, she failed to disclose to that Subcommittee or Council of her work relationship with the head of Redistricting Partners, the vendor we selected for this process.
Given all these questions, is it any wonder that many RWC residents have lost faith in the process and questioned the legitimacy of these efforts?
While the objectives for Redistricting are pure, it’s a process easily manipulated by entities not looking out for the residents of RWC.
Bias against white male politicians? Do you mean the white male politicians I support and applaud all the time, like Scott Wiener, Kevin Mullin, Josh Becker, Marc Berman? I love those guys!! toodles! ❤️❤️
Oh, Rudy. So many questions. Why did you feel the need to be the Chair for both the county and city efforts? Interesting that you didn’t the lead role you had in your opinion piece. And why didn’t you disclose to the two selection committees that you were applying for a similar role with both the city and the county? And why do you support of a map in Redwood City that deferred the vote of over 2000 residence for another two years even though the difference in Latino voters between the two maps was negligible? And finally, no comment on Mayor Hale voting for a coworker to lead these efforts and not disclosing her relationship to Council?
I remain surprised at just how did Foster City avoid district elections. I don't know how. Not one meeting about it.
Perhaps FC viewed it as a farce and laughed it off. We should have done that in Belmont. It is a big joke and will only pay off yet another ambulance chaser.
I guess there are not development dollars at stake in FC for it to be a higher priority (unlike RWC and SM). That said, it’s just a matter of time.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.