A Community Divided: Chaldean Coalition Sues San Diego County Over Illegal Maps
Vince Kattoula, President of the Chaldean Coalition, speaks at a rally opposing the proposed district map.
By Cal Abbo
When San Diego County’s Independent Redistricting Commission published its election map, the Chaldean community came out in droves to oppose its finalization. The new district lines put the Chaldean community in a completely new district, further west and closer to the city.
After countless meetings, public comments, and public protests, the commission compromised in a way that further disenfranchised Chaldeans. Its map separated Chaldeans in El Cajon from those in smaller, unincorporated communities just down the road. The areas neighbor one another and are heavily populated by Chaldeans.
That’s when Vince Kattoula, president of the Chaldean Coalition, decided to pursue legal action. With the help of law firm LiMandri and Jonna, he identified numerous illegal actions surrounding the redistricting commission and their process. On March 4, the Chaldean Coalition filed a lawsuit bringing these findings to light.
San Diego is home to the second-largest Chaldean community outside Iraq, after Detroit. Kattoula estimates its size is around 50,000 people. The first Chaldeans migrated there in the 1950s, and the community grew quickly in the following decades because of unrelenting political and religious persecution in Iraq.
Chaldeans initially settled in Rancho San Diego, and in 1973, began construction on the beautiful St. Peter’s Church located there. In 2002, St. Peter’s became a cathedral and the headquarters of the Chaldean Diocese in San Diego and the western United States.
Chaldeans spread out from Rancho San Diego, naturally expanding to the large cities of El Cajon and La Mesa as well as other surrounding unincorporated communities. San Diego Chaldeans have hundreds, maybe thousands of businesses, three churches, and a strong community centered in El Cajon and Rancho San Diego.
A Community of Interest
The petition submitted by the Chaldean Coalition asserts that the Chaldean community falls under a specific designation called a “community of interest.” California election code protects these communities from rash and insensitive map-drawing, as occurred in the most recent redistricting.
The law defines a community of interest as “a population that shares common social or economic interests” and requires that the redistricting commission preserve the geographic integrity and minimize the division of the Chaldean community.
The ‘community of interest’ principle is written in the election code as the second highest priority, only after keeping districts continuous. This means district boundaries can and should disregard city boundaries in order to keep the Chaldean community together.
The lawsuit estimates that 25% or more of Rancho San Diego’s population is Chaldean, 10% of the total Chaldean population in San Diego. In total, the suit claims that more than 20% of the Chaldean population has been disenfranchised and split off from their community of interest.
A Problematic Commission
The new redistricting commission, following the most recent census, featured many differences from a decade ago. Kattoula and attorney Paul M. Jonna, who is representing the coalition, both agree that the key change was using randomized citizens on the commission.
In 2012, San Diego confirmed its new procedure for redistricting would place five retired judges on the commission. Five years ago, that procedure was overwritten by a new law in the California Legislature that replaced the judges. Now, fourteen citizen-residents are selected to be on the commission.
In 2017, as the law made its way through California’s Legislature, many citizens worried that the new style of redistricting could leave some communities in the dust. These citizens may represent, demographically, the county they are drawing lines for; they may not understand, however, the intricate dynamics of community relations that a judge would.
The commission also violated several rules and norms aside from disenfranchising Chaldeans. The new map has District 4 “jutting” into District 2. California courts have ruled in the past that compactness itself is a principle to follow when drawing districts, but the commission’s map seems to disregard it.
The 2011 map shows compactness and continuity.
The new map redesigned District 4 (purple) so it juts into District 2 (green).
In addition, the lawsuit calls out directly some commissioners who should have been disqualified according to the commission’s rules. Amy Caterina, for example, ran for a school board position in 2020; in fact, she dropped out from the school board race because she was selected for the commission.
California election code, however, disqualifies residents who have run for or held office in the last ten years. On her application, which is available to the public, Caterina was asked if she had ever been a candidate for office. She replied that she had not.
Normally, the redistricting commission must wait four months after the census data becomes public before they release a map so that community groups have time to propose their own. Due to COVID-19, the California Legislature shortened that required period to three weeks.
Still, the commission violated that rule, releasing four potential drafts less than two weeks after the census data was made public. A nonprofit called PANA (Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans) proposed a map that included El Cajon in District 4 and kept the Chaldean community mostly intact. The community, however, came out against this new map because it put them in a liberal district.
Once the commission heard the complaints, they finalized a version of the map that split up East County, where Chaldeans live throughout, surprising everyone. El Cajon would remain in District 2 while La Mesa, Rancho San Diego, and other Chaldean-populated regions were included in District 4.
Finally, there are significant population differences the way the map is currently drawn, with District 5 representing 53,000 more people than District 2. Kattoula hopes to remedy the disparity by moving Rancho San Diego and perhaps Spring Valley back to District 2. If the district can’t settle on a new map, however, Kattoula argues they should just revert to the 2011 districts for this year’s elections, which are still more demographically proportional than the new map.
Time is of the essence for San Diego Chaldeans. Candidates for District Supervisor have already been submitted, and reverting to the old map or altering the new one will already have a dramatic effect on the election, but the Chaldean Coalition’s priorities are clear: keep the Chaldean community alive and together.