Now Reading
‘Crazy’ New Redistricting Map Outrages San Francisco’s LGBTQ+ Leaders 
Friday, May 20, 2022

‘Crazy’ New Redistricting Map Outrages San Francisco’s LGBTQ+ Leaders 

The first draft of new district boundaries for San Francisco supervisors was released Wednesday, and nearly everyone agrees: It’s a complete mess. The draft has especially alarmed the city’s LGBTQ+ leaders, who are raising concerns that the proposed lines will lead to a lack of representation for the community. 

The redistricting task force is faced with reconciling a population imbalance under the current district lines that has given certain voters, depending on the population density of their district, a disproportionate impact on supervisor races. The commission has been conducting outreach within each of the 11 districts since December, and the first draft was primarily concerned with rebalancing the populations of each district, task force chair Arnold Townsend said.

“People are calling and freaking out. People think we’ve gone too far into one district or another,” Townsend told The Standard.  “I know that’s how it’s going to be, that’s part of how politics work. And it might actually be better with more noise than less noise.”  

The city’s current district lines. | Leo Cooperband
The city’s district lines under the new draft map. | Leo Cooperband

The task force is assigned with ensuring each district has around 79,545 residents, while taking into consideration the cultural and neighborhood boundaries set by the Planning Department. The redrawing of district lines occurs every 10 years in accordance with population shifts found in the U.S. Census. 

Shrinking the size of District 6, which includes the Tenderloin, parts of SoMa and Mission Bay, has been at the top of the task force’s to-do list. District 6’s population has ballooned to over 30% of the ideal population density since 2020. Meanwhile, populations on the west side—in districts 1 and 4 as well as the northeastern corner’s District 3 have all decreased by over 8%.  

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, who oversees District 8, said that the new map was drawn in a way that would further block representation for the city’s queer community. Mandelman is the only member of the board of supervisors who is an open member of the LGBTQ+ community. 

“If this map were to hold, I don’t think you could expect that District 8 would continue to elect queer people,” Mandelman said.  “This map would be shockingly bad.” 

State Senator Scott Wiener echoed Mandelman’s concerns, pointing to the legacy of former LGTBQ+ supervisor Harvey Milk and the importance of representation on the city’s legislative body. 

“When Harvey Milk was elected to the Board of Supervisors, we had never had our own community at the table,” Wiener said. “[District 8] was specifically created to unite the LGBTQ community of interest. This map would severely undermine that.” 

Under the new draft map, District 8 would give up the northern parts of its current district in exchange for neighborhoods west of twin peaks. | Leo Cooperband

Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who is on his last term as supervisor and is therefore unaffected by the map’s political implications, said the first draft fails to serve any of the city’s diverse populations.  

See Also

“The redistricting task force seems like they’re out of touch or on crack,” Peskin said. “I am happy to represent, for the next three years, whatever the redistricting task force in its infinite wisdom decides. Provided, however, that it’s not done for political gerrymandering but pursuant to the law, in that it represents the diversity of San Francisco.” 

Lily Ho, a commissioner on the task force, told The Standard that the map is “crazy” right now because it was made as a preliminary resource to assist in picturing the impact of the city’s growth in District 6. 

Townsend said residents should be assured that the task force is focused on creating districts that create competitive elective environments while empowering the votes of distinct cultural neighborhoods. 

“I hope in the long run we craft districts that force supervisors to go out and to try to win people,” Townsend said. “We’ve got to have something to start with. This is simply something to start with.” 

Correction: The maps for this story have been updated to better reflect the proposed boundaries.

David Sjostedt can be reached at [email protected].
Contributor: Leo Cooperband.
  • What accounts for District 6’s growth? Possibly the influx of homeless/addicted and drug dealers? Do they get representation too?

  • If Mandelman is saying that the only reason he was elected to D8 was that he is gay then we defiantly have a problem. Anyhow D8 is not as gay as he may think.

  • The 20-year experiment of District elections has turned out to be a failure — resulting in a low-caliber of politician beholden to parochial neighborhood interests rather than the greater interests of the City.

    We should return to our historic system of the Citywide election of Supervisors. This would require the Supervisors to appeal to a broad spectrum of the electorate in all neighborhoods by having to garner 100,000 votes each rather than just 10,000 to get elected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.