INFORMATIONAL BRIEF
District Count
Steve Graves, PhD, California State University, Northridge
Core Question
This brief explores which ethnic groups in Los Angeles (a type of “community of interest”) are
large enough to be considered a viable voting block?
Summary of Topline Findings
In a 25-district configuration, districts could be drawn with much greater confidence that Korean
descendants would form something near a majority capable of electing a candidate of their
choice. Filipinos, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans could perhaps, especially if there are 25 or
more districts, but because people from these groups are dispersed across the city of Los
Angeles, it would be difficult to draw a district that was favorable to any of the three.
Assumptions & Calculations
These calculations assumed the following:
1) The ethnicities live in contiguous neighborhoods (we know that most do not)
2) An ethnic group is “viable” if it accounts for at least 50% of the population of any single
district.
a. A lower threshold for “viability” could be chosen. Consider, at just over 8% of
Los Angeles’ population, African Americans are well represented on Los Angeles’
City Council despite having no plurality in any of the districts represented by
Black councilpersons. In District 9, Blacks make up only about 13% of the
population in a district dominated by Hispanics (of multiple nationalities). So
perhaps 15% is worthy of consideration for “viability”.
As the number of city council districts increases, more ethnic or national groups are capable of
successfully meeting the 50% minimum.
The largest ethnic groups (Whites, Hispanics, Blacks, Asians) are each viable in the current 15
districts. Asians, however, are represented only by Lee, who represents a district that was around
20% Asian in 2020. Oddly, Lee’s 12th district in the mostly White northwestern corner of the
San Fernando Valley has the highest percentage of Asians among all districts. Other well-known
Asian regions, including Koreatown, Chinatown, and various Filipino neighborhoods have been
split, or ‘cracked’ rendering their strength or influence.
The “big four” L.A. categories (Non-Hispanic Blacks, Asians, Whites and Hispanics) are the
categories the US Census Bureau provides at the census tract level. The data is from a 100%
count.
2
In Los Angeles, linguistic and continental-level markers of identity are inadequate at best and
counter-productive at worst because some ethnic groups may find their interests poorly aligned
with another group whose ancestors once shared broad linguistic or geographic commonalities.
In Los Angeles, other, linguistic or nationality-based identities are worthy of consideration.
Groups including Filipinos, Guatemalans, and Salvadorans would probably constitute viable
communities of interest even in a 15-district configuration if they lived contiguously.
People of Mexican descent are viable as a group regardless of their contiguity or clustering.
However, controversial remarks made by former city council members strongly indicate that
even within national communities (Mexican Americans) that colorism or other ethnic biases may
preclude subnational groups from being effectively represented by elected officials with the same
nationality.
Based on national or linguistic identification, other groups may deserve attention as council
expansion is considered. Korean descendants, many of whom live in only two clusters (K-town
and Porter Ranch/Northridge) are probably numerous enough to constitute a viable community
of interest in a district, especially if the number of districts increases to around 20.
Koreans are probably the ethnic group currently most disenfranchised by the current
configuration of council districts and the current number of districts. In 2020, a favorably drawn
district around Koreatown (in a 15-district configuration) could have made Koreans a plurality
compared to other national-level identities (around 20%). However, people claiming either
Mexican or Guatemalan heritage who live in and near Koreatown are just as numerous as
Koreans. Compared to Hispanics, even in a district favorably created to encompass greater
Koreatown were drawn, Koreans, would likely be in a minority. White non-Hispanic voters are
also nearly as numerous as Koreans in such a district. So challenges persist for smaller ethnic
groups with only 15 council seats.
In a 25-district configuration, at around 150,000 population threshold a district could be drawn
with much greater confidence that Korean descendants would form something near a majority.
Chinese descendants become possibly viable in a 25-district configuration, but that may not hold
by 2030 because of the age structure in the Chinatown region and the outmigration of younger
Chinese-Americans to the San Gabriel Valley. Even at 30 districts, a district favorable to a
Chinese community of interest would be challenging to create.
Armenians are in a similar situation as the Chinese. They number around 80,000 in the city of
Los Angeles. They would likely be a good candidate for representation (they have been
historically well represented), but within the city of Los Angeles, do not form a majority in any
census tract. Instead, Armenians are dispersed throughout much of the San Fernando Valley,
with some higher concentrations in the Sun Valley region (cleverly included in Krekorian’s
District 2 boundaries). Much higher concentrations of Armenians do exist in neighboring
Burbank and Glendale, but those percentages fall off dramatically upon crossing the city limits.
3
Few other recognizable ethnic groups exist within Los Angeles are capable of forming a viable
geographically defined voting block. Filipinos, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans could perhaps,
especially if there are 25 or more districts, but because people from these groups are dispersed
across the city of Los Angeles, it would be difficult to draw a district that was favorable to any of
the three.
ETHNICITY Approx. 2020 % Minimum Districts to 50%
White Not Hispanic 28.08 15
Armenian 2.03 25
Black Not Hispanic 8.31 15
Hispanic/Latinx 48.40 15
Other Hispanic
(linguistic cat.)
23.48 27
Mexican 31.47 15
Salvadoran 6.89 15
Guatemalan 4.38 15
ASIAN Not Hispanic 11.56 15
Filipino 3.87 15
Korean 2.91 18
Chinese 2.47 25
CENTRAL AMERICAN 12.69 15
SOUTH AMERICAN 1.42 40
