Dear Roseville City Council: Stop gerrymandering and fix your election map

Is it a squid? Or maybe a Praying Mantis? Is this some type of Rorschach inkblot test?

No, it’s the heavily gerrymandered District 1 in Roseville’s new five-district election map.

When the Roseville City Council saw other cities receiving demand letters to switch to district elections, it decided to act. Several cities using at-large election structures have been ruled to violate the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), because they disenfranchise minority voters. In cities where a minority group is concentrated in one place, a district voting structure that draws one district around that area gives that group more control over who they elect.

Roseville’s previously at-large council decided to get ahead of potential lawsuits by adopting districts. But there’s a big problem: The contorted new district map that the council approved in a 4-1 vote was clearly designed to ensure each incumbent council member gets their own a separate district. That’s benefits them if they want to stay in office.

It’s unethical, and also probably illegal. California law prohibits drawing districts based on where incumbents live. When district boundaries unfairly benefit one group, or dilute the voting power of another, that’s gerrymandering.

Here are some of the acrobatics of the map Roseville adopted last week, according to a story by Sacramento Bee reporter Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks:

Mayor John Allard’s District 1 was drawn as “a crescent shaped area that includes part of east Roseville, crosses a sliver of land over Interstate 80, and extends west across the city.” It stops just west of where the mayor lives.

Districts 2 and 3 each cut fat triangular slices out of District 1 at a narrow point along Interstate 80. That splits central and east Roseville neighborhoods into three separate districts.

People are mad.

“The people east of 80 deserve to have a representative that lives east of 80,” said Roseville resident Glenda Hay during a Nov. 20 council meeting when map options were discussed.

Some accuse the city of gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering? Impossible, says the city.

“The map the Council selected is a non-partisan map (opposite of gerrymandering), just as Roseville’s municipal elections are non-partisan,” said city spokesperson Megan MacPherson.

Mayor John Allard praised the map as being “community-focused.” Councilwoman Pauline Roccucci said it would help “maintain the will of the people who voted for the last council members” -- in other words, keep incumbents on the council.

But California’s constitution says, “The place of residence of any incumbent or political candidate shall not be considered in the creation of a map.”

City officials say they’re worried that if they don’t stick with a final map now, they’ll be at risk to receive a demand letter similar to what other cities received for not having districts. That could cost them up to $30,000 in legal fees..

What they should really be worried about is the more expensive prospect of getting sued for keeping districts drawn as they are. That’s what happened when Martinez tried the same thing. Kevin Shenkman, the civil rights lawyer who filed that case, says he’s monitoring the situation in Roseville.

His office is one of the main law firms in the state suing to force cities to adopt district elections. He also threatened to sue Citrus Heights and Elk Grove before the two cities changed their election systems.

He made it clear that an expensive lawsuit is likely if Roseville doesn’t fix its politically-rigged maps.

The city still has time to fix its mistake. Members of the public submitted three other maps for the council’s consideration, and they’re all better than the comically contrived map the city chose.

Roseville must adopt a map that does right by voters. If they’re worried about money, city councilmembers should be aware that a full-blown lawsuit over ill-conceived district lines will be more expensive than a demand letter.

This editorial has been clarified to include the breakdown of the council vote to approve the selected district map.

This story was originally published December 10, 2019 at 8:30 AM.