city hall

I’m going to start this story on a quiet tree-lined street in Mar Vista, where a couple I met with on Thursday — the day after the L.A. mayoral debate — have a problem.

It’s not an unusual matter, as things go in Los Angeles. On both sides of the street, the sidewalk rises and falls, uprooted and cracked by shallow roots because over many decades, the trees were not properly maintained.

John Coanda, 61, who grew up in Los Angeles, was never bothered by torn-up sidewalks as a kid.

“In fact,” he said when he first emailed me about his predicament, “my friends and I sometimes used the ramping pavement as jumps for our bicycles.”

But his wife, Barbara, was diagnosed in 2024 with ALS, and she uses a wheelchair. When John pushes her, they can’t use the sidewalk if they want to go to the store or meet with friends, or just enjoy a nice pass through the neighborhood without getting into a vehicle.

So John pushes Barbara’s wheelchair in the street, which creates an obvious safety problem. And despite John’s best efforts to get City Hall to fix the sidewalks, he’s not expecting help anytime soon.

I’ll circle back to this story in a bit, but first, about that debate.

I recruited a half-dozen L.A. residents to watch and send me their thoughts about how the candidates tackled the important issues. And then I felt guilty for having done so, because the candidates didn’t do much tackling at all.

Candidate Spencer Pratt is shown on a television while journalists work during the 2026 Los Angeles mayoral debate at Skirball Cultural Center.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

They hit their talking points, for sure, and Mayor Karen Bass, Councilmember Nithya Raman and TV personality Spencer Pratt each had their moments. But by the end of the debate, and two straight nights of gubernatorial debates as well, I came away thinking there were no clear winners, but there was a definite loser.

Voters.

This is the fault of the format more than of the candidates themselves. The deck is stacked against meaningful, substantive discussions, especially when moderators ask — as they did several times — for one-word answers.

“Moderator questions are so meaningless … and they make it easy for candidates to take potshots at each other,” said longtime political sage Darry Sragow. “The format is guaranteed to elicit nothing that matters.”

It’d be better to have single-issue debates, and to have candidates pressed for details by journalists who cover those issues and can push back against unrealistic promises and expose a lack of depth.

My debate watchers did some of that themselves. CSUN librarian Yi Ding had praise and criticism for each candidate, but was looking for concrete plans and didn’t get many.

Ding was also disappointed that two other mayoral candidates — Ray Huang and Adam Miller — were not invited to the debate, and I agree with her. Both have been polling low, but with so many undecided voters, and such high unfavorability ratings for Bass, they should have been in the mix.

Mike Washington, a retired pharmacist and West Adams resident, said Bass has done better than previous mayors on homelessness and he didn’t think Raman or Pratt came off as worthy of bumping her out of City Hall.

“The public would have benefited from more questions related to the challenges young people are facing,” said Juan Solorio Jr., president of the San Fernando Valley Young Democrats club. His colleague David Ramirez agreed, saying he was hoping for “more discussion about the cost of living for young adults,” but he and Solorio are both backing Bass.

West L.A. software developer Mike Eveloff asked the million-dollar question in one of his many observations during the debate:

“Why is LA spending record amounts on homelessness, fire, police, and infrastructure while results deteriorate? Streets and sidewalks crumble. Even the city emblem right in front of City Hall is deteriorated. With the World Cup and Olympics approaching, voters need to know: Do these leaders have the financial discipline and operational competence to manage a fourteen billion dollar city?”

Venice resident Dennis Hathaway, author of “An Octogenarian’s Journal,” said he thinks “these kinds of debates are pretty non-edifying.” And, as someone I wrote about two years ago regarding busted sidewalks in his neighborhood, he shared this lament about Thursday’s debate:

“No mention of broken sidewalks, potholed streets, other deteriorated infrastructure. To me, that’s a much more important subject than non-citizens voting in city elections.”

(Bass did say during the debate that there was a new infrastucture plan in place, and that’s a step in the right direction. But there was no discussion, and when you read the details, 2028 Olympics projects will be prioritized, and it’ll take years to figure out how to fund thousands of additional much-needed fixes.)

The Coandas live not far from Hathaway, and their lives have been upended first by Barbara’s diagnosis and then by John getting laid off in February from his job as a data analyst. Barbara still teaches French via Zoom, and John is tending to her needs. They started a Gofundme campaign to help pay their bills.

With Barbara in a wheelchair, John contacted the city’s Safe Sidewalks L.A. program last fall, and I think it’s fair to say that name is somewhere between a misnomer and a bad joke.

The “program” responded by email on Halloween, appropriately enough, informing him that under the City Council-approved “Sidewalk Repair Program Prioritization and Scoring System,” his request for help merits only 15 points out of a possible 45.

“Currently,” he was informed, “the estimated wait time for completion of an Access Request with a score of 15 is in excess of 10 years.”

Happy Halloween.

Over the years, responsibility for sidewalk repairs has shifted between the city and homeowners. There’s a rebate program available to people who repair their own sidewalks, but it’s capped at an amount that doesn’t always cover the costs. And ruptured pavement is keeping lots of lawyers busy with trip-and-fall lawsuits that cost the city millions each year.

Barbara Durieux Coanda, who has ALS, and her husband, John Coanda, make their way down the ramp in front of their home in Mar Vista.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Coanda told me he doesn’t have the funds at the moment to pay for repairs, and even if he did, there are several more sidewalk disaster zones on both sides of his street, so he’d still have to push his wife’s wheelchair in the street even if he fixed the cracks in front of his own house.

Barbara graciously said she thinks the city has other, higher priorities, but in November her husband contacted the office of Councilmember Traci Park, saying he was told that he would have to wait 10 years for repairs.

“Sadly,” he wrote, “I don’t think my wife will live that long.”

A Park staffer wrote back, saying, “The turnaround time does sound realistic given the budgetary crisis the city finds itself in.” But, the staffer added, maybe the council member’s office could “help move the needle on this request.”

Coanda said he’s been too busy with his wife’s issues to follow up. But Pete Brown, Park’s communications director, told me Friday afternoon that the office is exploring ways to pay for fixes that don’t take 10 years, including the use of discretionary funds.

I don’t know how that might play out, but I do know that L.A. doesn’t need another debate like the last one.

We need a mayor and council members who refuse to accept that it takes 10 years to create safe passage for a wheelchair.

In the national capital of broken sidewalks, we need concrete plans.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

WASHINGTON — When the U.S. Supreme Court sharply curtailed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act last week, Democrats in Washington had a message: The rules of redistricting have changed, and California — the nation’s biggest blue bastion — may have a further role to play.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Democrats should “play by the same set of rules” as Republicans. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) vowed to fight in “the Deep South and all over the country.” And Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat, was blunt: “I’ll take 52 seats from California, I sure would. And 17 seats from Illinois.”

The calls for action came as Republican governors in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississipppi and Tennessee called special legislative sessions to redraw congressional maps ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Florida has also approved new maps that could give the GOP four more seats in the House, and President Trump urged other Republican states to follow suit.

The Republican response has intensified the pressure on Democrats to act, including those in California — where the ruling could upend not just congressional maps, but also legislative and local races.

“We can’t allow this national gerrymandering effort of Republicans to go unanswered,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach). “If Republicans go for it, I think we have to leave all options on the table.”

For now, California’s response is far from settled.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) cautioned against “accelerating a race to the bottom.”

(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

The chair of the California Democratic Party said there are no current plans to redraw maps — just months after voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing a mid-decade redistricting backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The Democratic consultant who drew the state’s current congressional district boundaries says an all-blue map, while possible to create, would probably hurt Democrats more than help them in the long run. And some of the state’s congressional Democrats are worried the impulse to match Republican partisan efforts would be bad for the American electorate.

“Rather than accelerating a race to the bottom, the next step is to dial it down because you can reach a point of no return,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), one of the state’s most prominent Black lawmakers. “And that’s where we’re headed.”

What California decides — and when — will matter at the national level. With 52 congressional seats, no state has more to offer Democrats in a redistricting war. But experts, lawmakers and party officials say the path forward is more complicated than the calls from Washington suggest.

California could see 48 blue seats, out of 52

That’s in part because California already acted. In 2025, voters approved Proposition 50, which drew new congressional district lines designed to favor Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. The new maps, which could yield as many as 48 Democratic seats out of 52, are already in effect, and voters have begun receiving their mail-in ballots.

Going farther is not currently on the table — at least not yet.

“We have yet to fully win the seats in the map that was drawn in 2025. It seems a step too far to say we’re going to go back to the drawing board and redraw the map,” said Rusty Hicks, the chair of the California Democratic Party.

Hicks said it doesn’t mean the issue could not become part of a future discussion, but he said Democrats in other states should not look past what California has already done.

“We’re trying to pick up 48 of them. How much more do you want us to pick up? You want us to make it 52 blue? Well, you all should get into the fight,” Hicks said. “You all should pick up some seats. Let’s all do this together, because California cannot do it alone, it will take the rest of the country.”

Others are not convinced the most aggressive option makes the strategic sense in California.

Paul Mitchell, the Democratic redistricting consultant who drew California’s Proposition 50 congressional maps, said the push for a 52-0 delegation reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how a partisan map would perform in the state over time.

“A 52-to-zero map would have the potential of backfiring,” Mitchell said. “In 2026, we could pick up 52 seats. But then in 2028 or 2030 — a bad year for Democrats, let’s say — Democrats lose 11 of those seats. You’ve drawn these districts so demonically to a Democratic advantage in a good year that in a bad Democratic year, they don’t have the ability to withstand the challenge.”

Ruling could jeopardize state’s voting rights law

The political debate over congressional maps has so far dominated the conversation in Washington. But legal scholars and redistricting experts say the ruling could also have consequences in California’s city hall, school board and county supervisor races.

The justices’ ruling, decided by the court’s conservative majority, says states cannot consider race to create majority-minority electoral districts while allowing them take partisan interests into account.

“A purely partisan map is actually more defensible now than one drawn with racial considerations,” said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA. “It turns the world on its head.”

The ruling now puts at risk any district drawn at any level of government that relied on the Voting Rights Act to justify its boundaries, Hasen said.

And in California, that uncertainty extends to districts drawn under the state Voting Rights Act, which extends protections for minority voters beyond the federal law, he said. The state law was not directly at issue in the Supreme Court ruling, but Hasen argues the court’s reasoning could provide new legal grounds to challenge the state law as potentially unconstitutional.

Cities including Santa Monica and Palmdale have faced lawsuits alleging their at-large City Council elections diluted the Latino vote. Palmdale settled its case and agreed to switch to district-based elections; Santa Monica’s case is ongoing. Hasen argued that the cities, as well as other bodies, such as school boards, could now return to court to challenge whether district maps drawn as a result of the California Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional.

“That has not been tested yet,” he said, but he fears the same arguments made to challenge the federal Voting Rights Act could be made against the state law.

At the state level, Republican strategist Matt Rexroad sees the ruling affecting the California Legislature as well. He argues the boundaries drawn for the state Assembly and Senate districts are racial gerrymanders.

“Those legislative lines, I would argue, are unconstitutional,” Rexroad said. “And those lines are probably going to change by 2028.”

But Rexroad’s biggest concern goes beyond any single set of maps: It is the future of California’s independent redistricting commission, the nonpartisan body he has spent years defending.

A threat to independent redistricting

Rexroad sees a scenario in which the national political environment gives California Democrats little incentive to return the map-making power to the commission. If Republican states continue to aggressively redraw maps, Democrats will have another justification to keep power in the Legislature’s hands, the same argument made to pass Proposition 50, he said.

“I don’t think the California redistricting commission has ever been in greater jeopardy than it is right now,” he said.

J. Morgan Kousser, a historian who has testified as an expert witness in voting rights cases for 47 years, said California’s commitment to the commission may depend on how aggressive Republican states act in redistricting.

“If we go back to an all-white South in Congress, California may not go back to a fairness standard,” Kousser said. “It may not disarm. It may rearm.”

Mitchell, the redistricting consultant, said that he hopes California and other states choose the path of disarmament and that there is a national push for independent commissions in every state.

“This isn’t good for anybody,” he said. “This was all basically a nerd war over lines that didn’t actually improve any districts anywhere.”