SF poised to rethink redistricting after major controversy

A new effort has set its sights on remaking how San Francisco draws the borders of its 11 supervisorial districts through a change to The City’s primary governing document.

The proposal aims to prevent gerrymandering, which is when electoral districts are unfairly drawn to favor certain political factions or demographics.

Board of Supervisors Aaron Peskin and a coalition of good-government groups backing the proposal say they want politicians as far away from the redistricting process as possible.

“There were a lot of lessons learned from the last redistricting exercise that SF engaged in, which had left a foul taste in a lot of people’s mouths about issues of transparency, issues of trust, and lack of clearly defined processes,” said Pedro Hernandez, legal and policy director for California Common Cause, a nonprofit government watchdog.

Peskin, California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters are backing a proposal to fundamentally alter the process of drawing district lines for the Board of Supervisors.

Their proposal is a direct response to the wildly controversial and chaotic redistricting process that unfolded in 2022 and set the shape — geographically, at least — of San Francisco politics for the next decade.

Redistricting is established in the City Charter — akin to San Francisco’s constitution — so advocates for the changes must win voter approval of their idea.

Pointing to the bedlam that unfolded in 2022 , supporters of the proposed reforms said they hope to depoliticize the once-every-decade process that establishes the boundaries of San Francisco’s supervisorial districts.

Even the Redistricting Task Force — which took the brunt of criticism in 2022 — advocated for improvements to the process in its final report. It noted California’s system for appointing people responsible for drawing legislative boundaries features a selection process “managed by the California State Auditor, an independent nonpartisan office.”

“San Francisco’s process should likewise be removed from real or perceived political pressure,” the report stated.

The proposal is largely the result of a thorough rethinking of redistricting spearheaded by The City’s Elections Commission that began in 2022. A monthslong discussion of redistricting practices ensued, with input from experts and the public, culminating in a set of recommendations approved by the Elections Commission late last year.

That report forms the foundation of the charter reforms sponsored by Peskin and — pending board approval — poised to appear on the November ballot.

It’s one of several reforms voters will likely decide on this year on what is set to be a voluminous ballot now that mayoral and federal elections coincide in even-numbered years.

But proponents of the reform said they believe it’s worth paying attention to, even in a year with a long ballot, and note that San Francisco is just one of many cities that have adopted or are considering changes to how it draws district lines.

At its core, the redistricting proposal aims to distance city politicians from the people responsible for drawing district maps and to make the criteria under which they are drawn more transparent to the public.

California Common Cause published a report in 2023 examining the 2020 redistricting process in cities across the state.

“Jurisdictions that had a clear independent process were the ones that had the [fewest] controversies and had the most, we would say, fair outcome in terms of actual incorporation of the input from communities of interest,” Hernandez said. “And those are the ones where you had people draw the lines, not politicians.”

Instead of having supervisorial districts drawn by people appointed by the mayor and Board of Supervisors, Peskin and his allies want independent San Franciscans to carefully plot out the borders of the board’s territories.

Under the current system, the Redistricting Task Force — which is responsible for drawing district boundaries — consists of nine members. Three are appointed by the mayor, three by the Board of Supervisors, and three by the Elections Commission.

The proposal would establish a new process that replaces the current appointment of task-force members — which is subject to the whims of the appointing bodies — with an open application process.

The Redistricting Task Force’s members would be decided by an entirely new five-member selection panel, which would consist of city bureaucrats, not elected officials. Leaders of the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the Ethics Commission, the Controller’s Office, the City Attorney’s Office, and the Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs would each select a staff member — or themselves — to serve on the panel.

The proposal dictates that The City engage in a robust public outreach process that attracts well-qualified candidates.

San Francisco’s last redistricting process drew 35 applicants, though the number of applicants for the mayor’s appointments was not disclosed. By contrast, Long Beach — which has a process similar to what has been proposed in San Francisco — saw more than 400 applicants.

Once the redistricting task force is established, the proposed reforms also include provisions to clarify the guidelines for drawing the maps and push up the deadline for publishing draft maps in an effort to give the public more time to weigh in and avoid the kind of late theatrics that occurred in 2022.

The proposal includes requirements that the line-drawing process be discussed in public meetings — never in private.

Political influence on redistricting, perceived or real, is at the heart of the discussion.

The 2022 process has been a thorn in the side of progressive political organizers in San Francisco, who view the redrawing as the reason why then-incumbent Supervisor Gordon Mar lost to current Supervisor Joel Engardio later that year.

Engardio, who had run thrice for the board of supervisors unsuccessfully in District 7, was redistricted into District 4. He proved a formidable and ultimately superior challenger to Mar, who became the rare incumbent supervisor to lose a reelection bid.

Engardio maintains that District 4’s size had to grow based on its population, and the extension of its boundary south to include his neighborhood made the most sense. It couldn’t grow west into the ocean, and it would’ve crossed a major transportation artery in 19th Avenue had it moved east.

But regardless of what happened in 2022, Engardio said he’s doubtful that the redistricting process can ever be apolitical, regardless of what reforms are made, though he has yet to delve into the specifics of the reforms proposed by Peskin.

“It’s San Francisco, and we’re such a small geography, trying to pack too many things into too many districts, and the maps are incredibly difficult to draw,” Engardio told The Examiner.

Peskin introduced the proposal late last month. If it wins approval from the Board of Supervisors, it will head to the November ballot for voters to decide. It would require a simple majority to pass.