Future City Elections Finalized

In Which: Districts get numbers and a sequence. The Mayor highlights Asian Councilmembers. And the Council still craves future unity.

City Districting Finally Settled

The City Council held its final public hearing on Tuesday, where they decided on the sequence the districts would come up for election starting in 2026. Although the City had already settled on a map at their last public hearing, when the different districts would be up for election was still an open question. There was a chance that incumbents like Councilmembers Syrop or Roche could have been forced out if their home districts weren’t up for election. 

The City also numbered the districts instead of using the letters. You can check out the map below to see how the numbers shook out.

The Public Weighed In

The first comment was from your humble reporter. I called in—even I have trouble making a 5:30 pm meeting on a Tuesday—and asked about changing the number of Councilmembers elected each cycle. This election, 4 Councilmembers are up for election and in the mid-term years only 2 are up for election with the Mayor. I asked Council to consider changing it to 3 Councilmembers during the mid-term and 3 Councilmembers and the Mayor during Presidential election years. 

I knew this was a long shot—there was little chance that the City Council was going to shake things up this late in the process. Attorney Scott Rafferty admitted it’s probably a good idea, but didn’t press the issue. “We made a deal and that wasn’t part of it,” he said. 

Other members of the public spoke, as well. One offered a further-adjusted map to try to balance out the populations. They also advocated for prioritizing unrepresented districts in 2026 and for Ranked Choice Voting. 

Another expressed concerns about fire danger in District 1 and how odd the borders for 1 and 4 look—Councilmember Syrop later explained that these are just Hayward’s city limits.

Attorney Scott Rafferty took to the podium as well, and congratulated the City on its map. “You did a better job than [HARD and HUSD],” he said, “but they’re all good.” He liked the way that all 3 maps had significant overlap in Western Hayward—the City’s District 4—and highlighted that people in that community could potentially run a slate for all 3 races.

Rafferty also highlighted the political cost that districting has on the current City Council. “I know this came at a price,” he said. “I respect the fact that you could have found ways to cut up Fairway Park and that didn’t happen.” But he also revealed that, because of historical voting patterns, sequencing was a political decision that the Council itself could make. “You have an unusual flexibility here,” he said. Outside Council for the City agreed, “You have a lot of leeway here.” 

Rafferty also highlighted that, although the lawsuit was brought because of racial disenfranchisement, it’s not necessarily about racial representation. “Your chosen candidate does not have to share your ethnicity,” he said. He said that Maxine Waters, for example, has been a powerful advocate for the Latine community in her Los Angeles district. “It’s about empowering those communities so that they have a voice,” he said, “So that they are equal in influence… I think you have accomplished that.” 

Council Keeps Status Quo—For Now

Council made no changes to the map they had decided on before. “I do think that the maps are strong,” Councilmember Bonilla said, “and that they're representative of our neighborhoods and communities of interest.” Written comments from multiple members of FAJ who reside in District 4 advocated for it to be part of the 2028 election in order to increase voter turnout. Referencing this, Councilmember Bonilla then proposed a sequence where Districts 1 and 6 go up for election in 2026, with Districts 2-5 in 2028. His rationale was that District 1 has the largest population and that District 6 is the second largest Asian-plurality district. 

Councilmember Zermeño supported the sequence and again questioned the focus on race/ethnicity. “From the beginning,” he said, “I thought I understood that none of this was to be ethnically-driven.” In previous meetings, the Consultant explained that race should be a factor in the decision, but not the only factor. 

Councilmember Roche celebrated the map and community input that created it. “I’m glad the mapping process was a community effort,” she said. “I appreciate the comments that we have created a map that is fair.” She also touched on the political cost. “We weren't supposed to think of ourselves when doing the maps,” she said, “We were supposed to think of the City and our future.” 

Councilmember Syrop asked about residency requirements. The ordinance states that someone needs to live and be registered to vote in the district at the time nomination papers are issued—less than 4 months before the election. Requirements currently exist in a number of cities, including Hayward, but the City Attorney explained that case law has made residency requirements unenforceable. The current Charter states that a candidate needs to reside in Hayward for 1 year before running for Council. It is assumed that this is also unenforceable.

Councilmember Syrop then asked how districts would be adjusted in the future. The City Attorney explained that Census data would be available in Spring of 2031 and that districts would be revisited in 2032. However, he did not explain what the process would be. It is likely, without community pressure for change, that adjustments would again fall to the City Council with the help of hired consultants. 

Councilmember Goldstein seemed confused about how those elected this year would fit with the plan. “There’s 3 of us that currently live in District 6,” he explained to Councilmember Bonilla during an exchange on the dais, “[of] which 2 of us are up for election this year. So that goes to… the one person who’s going to win that… and also the third person who lives in that district would not be eligible to run.” 

Councilmember Bonilla explained that the process was not as complicated as Councilmember Goldstein seemed to think. “If you win this election,” he said, “you get your full 4 years.” 

Councilmember Goldstein was also concerned about the unrepresented districts. Councilmember Roche said, “While we phase this in, whatever sequencing comes up, there is still at-large representation.” The number of active City Councilmembers wouldn’t change, and the at-large Councilmembers would all finish their full terms as representatives for the entire City—including the unrepresented districts.

Councilmember Andrews emphasized how representative the City Council already is, even without districting. “I’m very supportive of making sure there’s representation for everyone on this dais,” she said, “not just one group of folks. And I feel like our current Council does do that. So I just want to acknowledge that the community does see us as representative of their community.” However, she offered no evidence or anecdotes to support that claim. 

Councilmember Andrews then implied that representation wasn’t why they were up there, anyway. “We were all elected for a reason,” she said, “Not just for the diversity of our ethnic composition but our diversity of thought.” Long time readers will understand how diverse City Council opinions usually are.

And Now, Hayward Mayor Mark Salinas

Mayor Salinas, who has been critical of this process to the point of open hostility, listed the three Councilmembers from the past 16 years who would be considered a part of the AAPI Community—or 16% of Hayward elected officials. Anna May, who was elected for a 2-year short-term in 2008 and did not run again; Aisha Wahab, who was elected in 2018 and could identify as either AAPI or MENA if she chose; and current Councilmember George Syrop, who was elected in 2022. “I don’t want the community to think that we’ve not had Asian representation up here on the dais,” he said, “because we have.” 

After this, Mayor Salinas celebrated the current Council. “[It is] the best, the most highly qualified, the most competent, efficient, and most diverse group of Councilmembers and Mayor in the Bay Area,” he said. “We were elected because we’re competent.” This falls in line with his previous criticisms of the lawsuit, where he has insisted that any change for districting would be detrimental.

Finally, the Mayor again made the argument that at-large Councilmembers always take a holistic view of the entire city. “While we might come in from different districts, our responsibility is the entire city,” he said. “[the current Council is] thinking of all 64 square miles of this City.” Councilmember Andrews agreed in an earlier comment. “No matter who’s elected, they will be for the whole community, not just one district,” she said. “The rest of the Council will remind them and the Mayor will remind them.”