Redistricting

The U.S. Supreme Court justices ought to have their heads examined for their decision on redistricting in Los Angeles County ("High Court Clears Way for Vote in 1st District," Metro, Dec. 11). The whole theme of America is based on freedom and equality--where each and every person has an equal chance regardless of race, color, religion, sex or age. America is a melting pot of all people on this planet. Why do Latinos need to have "their" district? Aren't they Americans of Latino descent just like the rest of us who are proud Americans descended of European, African, Asian and every other country of this world?

Frank Clifford's article on redistricting is misleading in describing the process as a potential war between people of color ("Redistricting May Pit Blacks Against Latinos," news analysis, Feb. 18). An increase in the Latino population does not mean African-Americans will lose a council seat. While the African-American population has decreased in the past decade, so has the Anglo population. Pitting one minority group against another is an old and successful military strategy used throughout history--divide and conquer.

Re "Gov. Readies Special Election to Attack Legislature, Unions," May 17: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will hit the road again to mine the GOP faithful to raise millions for his special elections. Why will only Republicans give for the special elections; do they have something to gain? I hope the redistricting initiative passes so we'll finally be able to vote minority Republican obstructionists out of office -- the conservative anti-taxers who for 14 years blocked passage of California's budget.

In your Aug. 26 edition you report that I would redistrict Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson's seat so as to turn it Republican. This contention is totally false. While I may or may not have some input, I most certainly will not use what ever influence I may have to destroy the career of a fellow Democrat. Rep. Beilenson and I have been friends and colleagues for two decades. Had your reporter checked with me, he would have learned that I have no desire to bring about such a change. REP. HENRY WAXMAN 24th Congressional District

Daniel Hays Lowenstein's commentary "The Message That Voters Sent in Rejecting Props. 118 and 119" (Opinion, June 17) confirms once again that the left is incapable of telling the truth. Props. 118 and 119 were designed to make redistricting fair and equitable to all by removing the fox, the Legislature, from guarding the hen house. The system we have now is far from being just and equitable when legislators are allowed by majority rule to dictate their own districts virtually guaranteeing a lifetime tenure in office.

There was only one major flaw in your editorial "Slow Down and Get It Right" (Aug. 18) regarding the redistricting for the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. The three-man conservative majority on the board is not now nor has it ever been ready to reach a settlement. It is content to squander millions of taxpayer dollars on this and other lawsuits. It has an unlimited fund of money (the taxpayers), so why not? If these men had to use their own personal funds, they would be reasonable and try to reach an equitable settlement.

Are you ready for redistricting possibly as often as every year or so? That is one of the national ramifications embodied in U.S. District Court Judge David Kenyon's redistricting ruling you were so quick to embrace in your editorial "Outrageous Back-Room Deal" (June 29). Far from being contemptuous of the public, as the editorial charges, the majority of the board has a twofold purpose in openly saying it will appeal Judge Kenyon's findings, both mindful of the public. The original contention in the Justice Department redistricting lawsuit was that board discriminated against Latinos when it drew supervisorial districts in 1981.