Anaheim Council Adopts ‘The People’s Map’

The Anaheim City Council Tuesday night unanimously chose a council districts map for the 2016 fall election that had broad support from members of the community and was dubbed “the people’s map.”

Adoption of a districts map is a crucial step in the process of changing the city’s at-large council elections to a districts-based system. Council members still have to approve an ordinance implementing the map at a future meeting and also decide which of the new districts will be first to go up for election.

Anaheim leaders agreed to put a districts-based election system before voters in last November’s election when it settled a California Voting Rights Act lawsuit brought by Latino activists and the ACLU. The suit alleged that the at-large elections left Latinos, who constitute 54 percent of the city’s population, without adequate representation.

Voters overwhelmingly approved the measure and another that called for increasing the size of the council from four members and a mayor to six members elected by district and a mayor who will still be elected at large.

Currently, all five council members are white. The map council members chose, which was recommended by a panel of retired judges after months of hearings, has three districts where Latinos are considered to have strong chances at winning a seat.

The map also has other benefits that supporters touted, including a very small population deviation between districts. It also kept “communities of interest” – like the Arab-American business corridor known as Little Arabia and elementary school districts – in the same districts. The districts are also geographically contiguous.

“Every single district carefully addresses all the things that are important,” Martin Lopez, an Anaheim resident and representative with the hotel workers union UNITE HERE Local 11.

Council members are next expected to decide which four districts go up for election in 2016 at their Nov. 17 council meeting. The remaining two districts would be up for election in 2018.

Please contact Adam Elmahrek directly at and follow him on Twitter: @adamelmahrek

  • Philmore

    “Community” map ??? HILARIOUS! HOW MANY of 350,000 residents ( only 127K registered, with 258K over age 18!)will get their FIRST news of this when opening their 2016 Election Sample Ballot? Will the “community” get a vote on it? Nope. Did the “community” get a dedicated mailing about it? Nope. did the “community” see any of the precinct walking, etc. aluded to in the hubris of activist groups, ( for those OUTSIDE of areas in-play for constructing Latino majority districts? ) Nope. And the cherry-on-top is that 2 “lucky” districts (yet to be picked) will get NO VOTE until 2018 – hows THAT for 1/3 OF THE CITY now being “unable to elect the representatives they desire” for two years ?? Will THEY have to file a lawsuit? (GOOD LUCK getting the ACLU’s attention for THAT! It was part of Measure M that voters approved! Next time read the fine print! )

    “The Plan that we are forwarding to the City Council has received the overwhelming support of residents who testified from throughout the City at our 10 public meetings held in various locations in the City.”

    “OVERWHELMING” ???? Well, ALSO from the Committee’s own report, THESE are their “Overwhelming” numbers-
    Meeting 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 9 – 10
    Date 5/12- 5/27- 6/4 – 6/9- 7/1- 7/8 – 8/19-8/26-9/8 – 9/16
    # Pub Atnd 25 – 45 – 38 – 35 – 74 – 45 – 130 -120 -115- TBD
    # Pub Spkr 8 – 14 – 16 – 6 – 19 – 16 – 22* – 22* – 26*- TBD
    These numbers are of 350k residents and of 127K registered !

    * the report notes that “Many of those who spoke were speaking in support OF THEIR OWN SUBMISSIONS” (Caps added)

    WELL 22% (typical turnout?) OF 127k REGISTERED VOTERS IS ALMOST 28,000! (45K voted on measures L and M.)

    What beyond hubris could call the meeting numbers above “OVERWHELMING Support” ???? I guess it LOOKS BETTER when compared to the FIVE informed(?) votes that WILL be cast instead of 28,000 – 45,000 + that SHOULD BE!

    Anaheim CONTINUES its heritage (following the Angels’ Team Name fiasco, the Disney Parking Structure Giveaway, etc.,) of hubris, chasing its “goals” unimpeded by pauses for thought of the unintended consequences. (Such as the fact that the (fairly) demonized Tourism Industry now has ITS election spending (under Districts) cut by 1/2 to 1/3 vs whole-city elections, or can CONCENTRATE the overage! ) I plan to vote early this time around – WITH MY FEET.

  • Paul Lucas

    This is good news.

  • RyanCantor

    After $2,000,000 in legal fees, an ad-hoc committee, and an overwhelming public vote, the Anaheim City Council FINALLY did the right thing.

    This should have done over three years ago, but perhaps that’s just the pace of progress in Anaheim.

    • David Zenger

      No, no. This was a project of the vast left-wing, fifth column, radical Shining Path-oriented, Che Guevara-leaning Maoist infiltrators that fooled two-thirds of the voters into turning their backs on their own self-interest – the honest plantation paternalism of Disney and PringleCorp.

      The $2,000,000 is the fault of Jose Moreno, notorious Communist infiltrator and his race-hustling co-conspirators. No, not the fake candidate Jose Moreno that we ran against the real candidate.

      Our noble trio of Kring, Murray and Eastman had no choice but to spend all that loot protecting the people of Anaheim’s inalienable right to be governed by corporate America as dictated by Judaeo-Christian ideals and the Founding Fathers.

      Don’t you read history? Sheesh.

      • Jacki Livingston

        LOL…Zenger hits a home run for the win!