WEST SACRAMENTO, CA (MPG) - Armed with more than 150 signatures and a breakdown of why the Broderick/Bryte area of West Sacramento should be considered one community of interest, the Broderick/Bryte Neighborhood Association took the City of West Sacramento to court to fight the decision of which map was chosen for the upcoming redistricting. Historically, the two have always been considered one neighborhood. In addition, the BBNA declared that Map 4A was chosen to avoid changing the status of the existing city council.

Map 4A was the map chosen by the city council. The problem with Map 4A was that it split Broderick and Bryte right down the middle. By doing this, it put Bryte in a district with the state streets and Broderick in with the bridge district. This didn’t make sense to community members, the school district or even the county supervisors.

The idea behind redistricting is to set it up so that people with like interests and situations are grouped together. That group then elects a representative from that area to be their voice in decisions that will affect their community. In the past, Broderick and Bryte have not really had a chance to be heard because the population of the rest of the city outnumbered them by such a large margin. There has also been a huge difference in economic status between the north and south side of town. Most people in the south part of West Sacramento own their homes. In the Broderick/Bryte area it is a much higher likelihood that they rent. In redistricting, there will have to be a representative from each district, giving each community of interest a voice.

The plaintiffs in this case stated that Map 4A was so unfair because more than one fourth of the city’s population lives in the Broderick/Bryte area, and it would be highly unlikely that they would ever be able to elect a representative if the area is split in half. They also brought up that Orozco and Ledesma’s area would then have two representatives on the city council.

Councilmember Dawnté West explained that if Broderick and Bryte were combined into one district, it would make that area a “super-majority”. However, together they make 34 percent. That is not a super-majority, but it is enough to be heard. Dawnté said that the area would be better off being with “two voices” from weaker districts. If the area was split as planned, neither area would consist of a big enough population to have any voice in those separate districts.

Judge Samuel McAdam agreed with the plaintiffs and deemed Map 4A non-compliant according to the Fair Maps Act, and that the North area of town should be considered as one. He wrote, “This is the exact type of neighborhood the FAIR MAPS Act was designed to protect—namely, a geographically continuous, compact, easily identifiable, and historically disadvantaged, low-income neighborhood with a long history and a common social and economic profile.”

In addition, he wrote, “It is also apparent that when the parties entered into the Settlement Agreement, the plaintiffs would have reasonably believed that the City would not divide, or at least would have minimized division of its neighborhood when drawing the district lines.”

The judge reviewed the alternative maps provided and said that by comparing several categories, the plaintiff’s map was the most fair, then the equity map, then Map 4A. He also stated that he believed the plaintiff’s map had district lines drawn with the idea of preserving neighborhoods and communities of interest, not how it affects the incumbents (city council). He decided on the plaintiff’s map.

A closed session emergency City Council meeting was held, and the city attorney said they will not be appealing it. Mayor Martha Guerrero was very tight lipped about the rest of the meeting. Mayor Guerrero abstained when the council voted on Map 4A because she said she was not happy with it and took into consideration the input of the community.

“Congratulations to the plaintiffs on their victory. I applaud their passion for what’s best for their community,” said Mayor Guerrero.