Council votes on potential boundaries for fifth voting district

The Downey City Council voted 3-1 Tuesday to redraw its district boundaries. A final vote is scheduled for March 11.

In a majority vote, council members voted in favor of a potential redistricting map to add a fifth voting district to Downey during their meeting Tuesday night.

Following allegations of violating the California Voting Rights Act, the city is transitioning from a mixed voting system with four districts and one at-large district, to a five-district electoral system. Creating the fifth district will replace the at-large district which encompasses Downey and shift the borders of the existing districts, according to city attorney John Funk.

“The current direction is for these maps to be implemented upon the November 2028 elections,” said Funk. “Districts two and four will be elected in November of 2026, and they would remain governed by the current boundaries.”

Douglas Johnson, the president of National Demographics Corporation, explained the state and federal requirements each district needed to meet to ensure there were no disparities in population size, no division of “communities of interest” and that no district favored a political candidate.

The four maps Johnson presented were not the final designs, but aimed to provide an idea of the new district boundaries. He said if the council favored one of the maps and wanted to adjust it, they could before the next meeting.

On the maps, districts were marked A through E, representing districts one through five.

“The reason for the letters is because we’re not looking at where the incumbents live,” said Johsnon. “But then at the end of the process, after you pick a map, we have to do the election sequence and the numbering. It would be very confusing for a council member today in district one to tomorrow be in district two. So we’ll match them up at the end, after you choose a map with where the council members are and how they fill out.”

In the presentation, the four potential maps were described:

Map 101: Districts A, B, C and D consist entirely of territory currently in Districts 1, 2, 3 or 4, respectively. Then a central piece of each current district is used to create a new district E, which has the downtown / Cherokee Drive / north industrial areas of the city.

Map 102: District C is highly compact and entirely west of Downey Avenue. District B is south of district C, also highly compact and almost entirely west of Brookshire Avenue. District D is the north and a corridor down and through downtown. E is east of Lakewood Boulevard. District A is the Southern I-105 corridor of the city, entirely east of Downey Avenue.

Map 103: District D takes in almost everything north of Florence Avenue. District C is a center-north district running from the western border to Woodruff Avenue north of the railroad. District E is the east/southeast from Woodruff Avenue/ Lakewood Boulevard to the eastern border. District A and district B divide the south from west of Lakewood Boulevard. They are separated by Downey Avenue and Paramount Boulevard.

Map 104: District E is the same as in Map 103 except it follows Firestone Boulevard instead of the railroad. District C and district D now run vertically next to each other, divided by Downey Avenue. District B is a highly compact southwestern district bordered by the railroad, Downey Avenue and Imperial Highway. District A is an L-shape south of Imperial Highway west of Lakewood Boulevard, then between Downey Avenue and Lakewood Boulevard up to the railroad.

Johnson said that residents can draw their own maps for the council to consider using the redistricting website.

Councilmember Horacio Ortiz, district one, expressed his preference for Map 101, since it does not deviate too far from the original district boundaries.

Councilmember Horacio Ortiz, district one, shares his preference for the redistricting map that does not drastically alter the original district boundaries during the public hearing on February 25, 2025. (Photo by Vince Medina)

“I think Map 101 really does, from what I see, places district 5 in the middle and takes equally from all our districts,” said Ortiz. “I think when you start looking into the other Maps, 102, 103, 104, the districts dramatically do change. I think (Map 101) is much more cleaner.”

Councilmember Dorothy Pemberton, district three, and councilmember Claudia M. Frometa, district four, shared their favor in Map 104. They agreed that the fourth map had clearer drawn district boundaries.

“By delineating large streets (districts are) not an unusual geometric figure in a sense,” said Pemberton. “I do like (Map) 104, because it’s easier to tell major streets and where (the district) is being cut. It gives a nice variety of socioeconomic areas.”

Councilmember Frometa acknowledged her shift in stance on the fifth district being in the center of Downey.

“I initially indicated it would be a good idea to look at the creation of a fifth district right in the middle,” said Frometa.”Upon really studying this, I also see that Map 104 has a much closer break in the way the current districts are. Right now, some of the districts go over the railroad tracks, Map104 seems to be a little bit better delineated.”

Councilmember Ortiz tried again to advocate for Map 101, arguing the shift in district one would push him away from the community members he represents.

“I think if we do go to Map 104, I think it’s just pushing the district I represent and it’s shifting me away,” said Ortiz. “I ran to represent my district and I heard my residents’ concerns. I know we represent Downey as a whole and I’m proud to be here with you guys and vote for items that will affect Downey as a whole, but when I see Map 104, I see it as you shifting my district.”

Despite his objections, mayor Hector Sosa, district two, joined Pemberton and Fromenta to vote in favor of redistricting Map 104. Ortiz was the only council member to vote no.

Councilmember Mario Trujillo, district five, did not attend the Tuesday meeting.

The final decision on the redistricting map is expected to be made during the fourth public hearing, as legally required under CRVA. The next formal public hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 11.