The Color of Power: Racial Coalitions and Political Power in Oakland

5 The Redistribution of Power in Oakland

Holding the promise of more effective defense of minority interests, political representation, and political participation, was at the heart of black demands in the 1960s and 1970s. The conquest of power was not, of course, an end in itself but represented the possibility of finally creating the conditions for access to greater social and racial justice. It was also a sign of true integration. Progress is often measured by the elected offices and the political representation achieved by African Americans in the course of the last three decades, as well as by their accession to key economic and administrative positions and the proliferation of black businesses in sectors benefiting from preferential treatment after the election of a black or progressive coalition.1 The first black mayor of Oakland was not elected until 1977. In 1998, when blacks were still the largest demographic group in the city, municipal power fell again into white hands with the election of Jerry Brown as mayor, along with a city council that had only two black members, with two Asians, one Hispanic, and three whites; whites again had a plurality on the council. In the meantime, the political landscape of Oakland had substantially evolved with the entry of Hispanics and Asians into the arena. In the early 1990s, both populations had grown enough to constitute significant political forces in the city. But their share of the electorate was much smaller than their share of the population, which made the election of representatives challenging. They exercised political influence mostly through lobbying. Although the redistricting following the 1980 census had been a simple matter of administrative routine, the 1990 redistricting revealed new political power relations in the city. It also provided an opportunity for the leaders of these minorities to emerge politically and secure better representation and greater political power. 5 The Redistribution of Power in Oakland The Redistribution of Power in Oakland 125 The Redistricting Battle “Political representation . . . is the key, it’s the ultimate goal.” —Jose Arredondo, quoted in Bill Snyder, “City of Change,” Oakland Tribune, September 13, 1992 Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, and particularly since the 1982 amendment, cities have been required to redraw their electoral districts after each decennial census in order to offer fair political representation to minorities. The law makes it possible to guarantee demographic balance in minority representation by taking into account the growth of each major ethnic group in a given area. The configuration of districts at the outset of the 1990s was based on the 1980 census. But between 1980 and 1990 the population had grown unevenly, with respect both to the nature of the new residents and to their distribution around the city. Growth had occurred primarily in Fruitvale, San Antonio, and parts of downtown, West Oakland, and Central East Oakland. Electoral districts were therefore strongly out of balance numerically and racially. Redistricting is subject to legal requirements as well as to secondary criteria that are recommended but not mandatory. The first criterion imposed is equality of population. The seven districts thus had to be as equal as possible in numbers of residents. This equality of numbers referred to total population , not the number of potential voters, which is highly significant if one considers the population profile in each district. Immigrant neighborhoods had larger numbers of residents, but those residents were much younger and included a lower proportion of American citizens than the city average. The two other requirements were to create contiguous borders between districts and to follow the provisions of the Voting Rights Act requiring that all portions of a district be connected. It was thus impossible to select several areas scattered around the city and bring them together into a single district. The Voting Rights Act, with the 1982 amendment, provides that the right to vote of certain “protected” groups must be preserved. Ethnic minorities, including blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, are among them. But these groups had to fulfill certain conditions: each district had to be large enough to contain a majority citizen voting-age population; it had to be politically cohesive, that is, foster neighborhood unity by a tendency toward bloc voting; and it had to provide evidence that the electoral conduct of the majority group, for racial reasons, would have prevented the protected group from electing the person 126 The Color of Power of its choice in the absence of redistricting. In Oakland until...