The Redlands City Council disregarded public comments and suggestions at its Feb. 7 meeting, and unanimously opted for maps with gerrymandered voting districts.

In a slap to the democratic process and equal protection, council members each chose versions of district boundary maps developed by their consultant, National Demographics Corp., which allow most of the current council members who plan on running for re-election to live in separate districts and thereby prevent them from having to run against each other for the same district seat in the future.

As a result, those who plan on running for re-election would face a much easier task.

The council will try to adopt one of these maps at its meeting Tuesday.

To be clear, gerrymandering is the manipulation of the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class, which in this case is a group of council members — Paul Barich, Jon Harrison, and Pat Gilbreath, as well as Mayor Paul Foster.

Even if it is legally permissible gerrymandering, at a minimum it should be called “Barichmandering,” as the proposed boundaries make a concerted effort to protect Mayor Pro Tem Barich from having to run against Mayor Foster.

Aside from new Councilman Eddie Tejeda, four council members live within two miles of one another in South Redlands. If Councilman Jon Harrison does not run for re-election, that still leaves three current council members who live extremely close to each other.

Furthermore, if Councilman Harrison does not run for re-election, then it is misleading and disingenuous to suggest the current consultant maps favored by the council will ensure that one current council member is not re-elected.

That is not the reality — but something more akin to an “alternative fact” from those who dispute things that are self-evident.

There is simply no justification to have three or more different boundaries that cut into southeast Redlands, south of Highland Avenue. Those districts are home largely to white voters who have historically voted for white candidates. And that’s the sort of outcome that impairs the ability of minority voters to influence elections, which would seem to defeat the spirit and intent of the California Voters Rights Act.

The end result of this process appears to be limited voting options for our Hispanic/Latino population, which constituted 30.3 percent of the city’s population in the 2010 U.S. Census. That number is probably much higher today. The same logic applies to the many other minority groups who live in our diverse city.

If a minority voter doesn’t think his or her vote is going to translate into representation, why would they even bother to vote? When you have a sense of futility, it suppresses turnout.

The most effective way to increase turnout among minority groups is to get rid of that sense of futility. The redistricting maps currently under consideration by the City Council will only create additional and prolonged feelings of futility among minority voters in four out of five of the proposed districts. The maps also limit opportunities for increased diversity on future councils.

The City Council should be ashamed of itself. We expect better. We expect them to do what is best for the city — not to serve their self-interest.

Mike Layne is a Redlands resident and voter.