Kim tries to Kill District Elections/Council Expansion in Irvine Citing California Voting Rights Act

At the last Irvine City Council meeting, a long night with much on the agenda, the final discussion point was taking the city of Irvine — now third in the County in population — from At-Large city council representation to district elections and possibly expanding the council by two.  City Council member Tammy Kim was a frim “no” on district.  She tried to make the case that going from at-large elections to district elections would be a possible violation of the California Voting Rights Act by disenfranchising voters in the city.

Vice Mayor Anthony Kuo also chimed in to say while he lives in Woodbridge, he likes to patronize restaurants in the south part of the city, take in a high school basketball game at Portola High or a dramatic theater production at Northwood High.  Going to district elections would not be an obstacle for Kuo to do any of those things.  A smart city council member should get around the city because even if they represent a district, they still vote on issues that matter to the entire city.

Kuo sought guidance from City Attorney Jeff Melching who wants to keep the discussion in closed session for the next meeting.  And there’s a possible threat of litigation against the city for not moving to districts.  Kim suggests it impossible to start drawing lines without skilled demographers but would not even move to hire these professionals to begin the process.

And to make the excuse of disenfranchising voters or residents in the city is laughable for Kim.  In 2021, she held a Town Hall in one of the buildings at the Great Park on the issue of a veteran’s cemetery at ARDA but only for those residing in the Great Park Neighborhoods.  This effectively disenfranchised anyone in Irvine who supported a Veteran’s Cemetery in Irvine; the pre-registration for the event to confirm resident addresses is quite the privacy violation as well.

Additionally, in 2021, Kim delivered a PowerPoint presentation to the DPOC’s e-Board coming out firmly against district elections showing a precinct-by-precinct breakdown of where those who voted for her came from and suggested going to district elections would result in the election of more Republicans.  I’ve been told by a couple of noted demographers that Irvine doing to districts would likely create two Asian-majority districts North of the 5 freeway, of which Kim residents.  That said, the guess is even being placed in an Asian-majority district, Kim knows her support there is weak.

So the person most likely to be disenfranchised by districting is Kim herself.

Lost in the debate was the idea of expanding the council from five members to seven — six council districts and one at-large mayor.  The Irvine Unified School Board is already districted with five members and there’s been no lawsuit filed for disenfranchising residents via the California Voting Rights Act.  Demography for that districting session was likely done around neighborhood schools and school capacity, but even with that, the city is already casting ballots in a district election.

So the city should move to hiring demographers and start drawing lines that is inclusive of minorities in city’s diverse population.  Let’s take Kim at her claim.  Hire demographers, create maps, and let voters decide.

Additionally, going to district elections for city council, county supervisors, or school board elections has long been the policy of the California State Democratic Party and the Democratic Party of Orange County.  Supervisor Dog Chaffee has already earned the distinction of being the first Democratic incumbent unable to secure the endorsement of the local party for re-election.  Will Kim be the second?