Progressive supes' redistricting plan aims to block center-right candidates from running for county District 1 seat

In a shocking act of political chicanery, county supervisors are considering a redrawn county electoral map that would effectively prohibit two already-announced candidates (not labor-backed, of course) from participating in the election by redistricting them out of the communities in which they are currently campaigning. Two-term San Jose councilmember Johnny Khamis is one of the potentially-banned candidates and explains the wild county exploits in an exclusive Opportunity Now interview.

Opportunity Now: What groups are behind this transparent power grab? It looks like this proposal benefits people running for office that have been endorsed by the Supervisors' progressive bloc, Cindy Chavez and Susan Ellenberg. It certainly can be seen as a gerrymandering effort, as the labor-drawn map makes it impossible for center-right candidates like you (Johnny Khamis) and Rob Rennie to run in District 1. At the same time, it would keep the candidates Chavez and Ellenberg have endorsed--Claudia Rossie and Rich Constantine--in the race. Wow. Isn't that unethical and brazen?

Johnny Khamis: This map was submitted by county labor-aligned groups, such as South Bay Labor and Working Partnerships USA and the Asian Law Alliance. Here's a thought experiment: let's just say some business groups got together and submitted a map that mangles communities of interest in a way that favors business candidates--does anybody think such a map would be in the running? The Supes that have a vested interest in the outcome--and that means they support candidates that could benefit--should not vote on this motion. 

ON: Even looking at the proposed map, it appears dubious. There are weird boundaries, and it looks like somebody was trying to draw a pitchfork.

JK: The "Unity" name is a howler. It divides many geographic communities, including Rose Garden, Cambrian, Evergreen. It also rips the Vietnamese communities--historically a group that is not in labor's pocket--into smaller groups among District 1, 2, and 4, so Vietnamese voting power is diluted. Basically, groups and areas that tend to vote more conservatively are getting sliced and diced by this plan. Most obviously, rural areas like New Almaden get subsumed into the same district as liberal, urban Palo Alto. 

ON: Aren't there supposed to be state and federal guidelines to stop this kind of mischief and gerrymandering from occurring? A prominent local political observer told us, "Apparently, the clearly-established legal standard of protecting communities of interest doesn't apply if that's what it takes to shaft Johnny Khamis. Anybody who votes for a gerrymander that blatant should be ashamed of themselves."

JK: The labor map ignores the government guidelines. Two of the critical criteria for redistricting are supposed to be compactness and continuity of districts; it's not supposed to look too different from the last map. But the labor groups are not following the spirit of those guidelines. Take a look at their scheme for District 1. It goes from being a reasonably compact, contiguous district into some weird creature that cuts out Almaden Valley and New Almaden then snakes all the way up to central San Jose to include Communications Hill. 

ON: Tell me that at least the labor scheme provides districts of the same size.

JK: Nope, it doesn't. District 5 would have 25,000 more people--basically an 8% deviation-- than other districts in their plan. Other maps only have a 2-3% deviation. Their plan would incorporate voters into the authority of supervisors they have never voted for and have never represented them.

For more on county redistricting process read here.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity.