San Francisco Redistricting Process Power hit with lawsuit after lacking its deadline
Pressure mounted Tuesday on the volunteer group redrawing San Francisco’s supervisory districts to finish its work as soon as possible after failing to meet its deadline last week.
Three people sued the San Francisco Redistricting Task Force in response to the group’s delay, which could lead to a judge deciding on new district boundaries. Separately, city lawyers told the task force it must adopt a final draft map when it meets on Thursday.
Task force members narrowly voted last week to blow past the April 15 deadline that the city charter set for having new districts in place, opting to continue working on shaping the new district boundaries amid intense public scrutiny and political controversy.
Now, the lawsuit raises the possibility that the final map may be picked by a San Francisco Superior Court judge instead of the task force, a step that could have far-reaching consequences for city supervisor elections.
The City Attorney’s Office also contributed to the legal pressure Tuesday, publishing an opinion that said the task force must adopt a new final draft map when it meets again Thursday and approve it as the final map, after two additional hearings, on April 28. Lawyers for the city said in the memo that “there can be no further delays” now that the task force has missed its charter-mandated deadline.
The legal developments mark the latest twists in an unusually tumultuous process over which neighborhoods fall into which of San Francisco’s 11 supervisor districts. The result could affect the political balance on the Board of Supervisors depending on how the lines are drawn.
Todd David, a San Francisco housing activist and one of the people who filed the lawsuit, said he was motivated by a desire to defend the democratic process against what he saw as unwarranted political intrusion.
“It was very disturbing to me to watch a group of hardworking volunteers be bullied by the extreme NIMBY left,” David said, referring to people who oppose development. “From a political point of view, nobody loved the maps. It seemed to me that (task force members) did their job.”
The map that the task force had prepared to adopt last week was met with outcry from political activists, neighborhood leaders and other residents who viewed it as an attack on progressive representation. They specifically objected to proposals that would have put the Tenderloin and South of Market into different districts while also splitting up the Bayview and Potrero Hill, among other changes.
The suit filed by David, along with plaintiffs Jon Schwark and Drew Min, asks a judge to hold a hearing early next week and adopt a final supervisor district map before May 2, the date by which the Department of Elections needs the map to prepare for candidates running in the November election. In addition to the task force, the suit also names the city elections director John Arntz as a defendant.
Jen Kwart, a spokeswoman for the City Attorney’s Office, responded to the lawsuit with a statement saying her office continued to advise the task force “so that it can complete its work by May 2.” She said city officials had not been served with the suit but would “review it and respond appropriately.”
David said he hoped the task force would sign off on a map of new districts Thursday, rendering intervention by a judge unnecessary. But his suit will remain in the meantime as a “safety valve” in case the task force continues to delay, he said.
“The point of the lawsuit is to get a legal map done as soon as possible,” David said. “We would certainly come together and have a conversation and would seriously consider dropping the lawsuit if the map is done in a very quick time frame.”
The task force’s decision to take more time to work on the 11 supervisor district boundaries was met with praise by progressive leaders who saw the group’s earlier proposals as politically tainted. By potentially moving neighborhoods like the tenderloin out of the districts where they are currently located, the task force would separate communities with longstanding ties and shared interests, diluting their political voices, critics say.
For example, the draft map the task force voted down last week would have made the city’s Transgender District — which spans parts of the Tenderloin and SoMa — represented by different supervisors. It also would have done the same to thousands of Filipinos who live in San Francisco, said Raquel Redondiez, director of the community group SOMA Pilipinas.
“If you look at the wealth disparity between the communities they preserved and the communities they broke up, they went after the most vulnerable and marginalized communities,” Redondiez said of the draft map.
Redondiez was among more than 20 community leaders who signed on to an April 13 letter denouncing the now-failed draft map as “racist, anti-working class, and a blueprint for gentrification.”
The task force is in charge of updating the supervisor district lines to account for population shifts reflected in the last census. The group’s nine members are appointed in equal numbers by the mayor, the Board of Supervisors and the city Elections Commission.
As the task force’s deadline neared and controversy escalated around the proposed boundaries, the Elections Commission considered removing its three appointees but ultimately decided against doing so. The commission’s move was prompted in part by concerns raised by the League of Women Voters of San Francisco and Asian Americans Advancing Justice.
Alison Goh, the league president, called the next meeting of the task force a “positive sign” that members “really intend to listen to community input.”
“We really hope the community continues to show up and make their voices heard,” Goh said. “If any of the community members, especially the most vulnerable, underrepresented folks, feel unheard, this is really the meeting where they need to show up and give comment.”
Thursday’s task force meeting starts at noon in Room 406 of City Hall.
JD Morris is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jd.morris@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @thejdmorris