Vandermost v. Bowen

Jan. S198387. 2012.] [No. Petitioner, VANDERMOST, v.

JULIE etc., BOWEN, State, Respondent; DEBRA COMMISSION, Intervener. CITIZENS REDISTRICTING Counsel Hiltachk, Bell, Jr., Hiltachk,

Bell McAndrews & H. Charles Thomas W. McAndrews, C. Colleen Paul T. T. Gough, Brian Hildreth and Ashlee N. Titus

for Petitioner. Harris, General, Woods,

Kamala D. J. Attorney Douglas Assistant Attorney General, Waters, General; Peter A. Krause and George Attorneys Deputy Lowell Finley Respondent. Foerster, Brosnahan, & J. C.

Morrison James Harris J. George Benjamin Fox for Intervener.

Remcho, Purcell, Johansen & Robin Johansen and A. Thomas Willis Senator Darrell as Amicus Curiae on and Steinberg behalf of Repondent Intervener. on behalf of Cause as Amicus Curiae Common

Kathay Feng for California Intervener. Leoni, Leoni and Marguerite Mary & Parrinello Gross

Nielsen Merksamer Jr., Curiae. T. as Amicus Munger, for Charles James R. Parrinello Opinion 9, 2011, to we issued an order

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, On December C. J. that must an election-related question show cause this matter to consider of the statewide to avoid potential disruption be addressed expeditiously 2012. A to held June and November elections be general primary 1499), signatures No. for which petition referendum proposed (designated officials, the would require have to election gathered been submitted election, decide, whether at the November 2012 general electorate that has been certified state Senate district or the California accept reject map (sometimes Commission).1 The the the Citizens Commission by Redistricting Commission, the by established voters entity recently new constitutional light draw of the voting (instead Legislature)2 district boundaries at the begin- in the census undertaken identified national population changes decade, its task in 2011 and August of each ning eight-month-long completed Senate, also for new the state but only certified district voting maps and the Board of Congress, Equaliza- the state the United States Assembly, using tion. of State and election officials have been county The Secretary 2011 in mid-August these four Commission-certified since preparation maps 2012 elections. for the June and November upcoming are in the State also currently election officials and County there determine whether are submitted to process verifying petitions referendum for sufficient valid placement signatures proposed If the referendum general on November 2012 election ballot. qualifies, will be automatically stayed, state Senate certified Commission by map should be used for of what Senate districts presenting question state view the numerous general elections Senate. primary Constitution, authority of the power refers to Under the California redistricting Legislature, or people require adopted that a statute that has been Commission, Redistricting a vote of the that has certified be submitted to been Citizens electorate, (Cal. before measure becomes effective. approved the electorate such contrast, id., Const., II, 9; XXI, (i).) power, by refers to the art. art. subd. The initiative § § amendments be submitted to authority people propose statutes and constitutional electorate, reject authority adopt and the of the electorate vote II, Const., (Cal. art. § measure. Constitution, 3. See article sections 1 to California interconnected election-related events that must occur after the soon end 2012 in order to January avoid the 2012 disrupting primary general elections,3 this action has been filed decide court to at this requesting which state juncture Senate district should be if the map utilized proposed referendum qualifies and a of the triggers stay Commission’s certified Senate district map.

Petitioner, Vandermost, Julie the interest of referendum emphasizes propo- nents and on an signers insisting or down” referendum vote “up by the statewide electorate districts that are voting of the subject before are utilized as state basis for senators. electing any asserts, she Accordingly, if the Commission’s state Senate ismap stayed ballot, of the referendum for the qualification November 2012 we should order use of the Commission’s state Senate district as an map interim Indeed, the 2012 remedy governing elections. primary general petitioner we should an argues, issue “alternative writ mandate peremptory [or] Bowen, commanding Debra in her Respondent as of State capacity Secretary California, of the State to . . . refrain from action . . taking any . the Citizens implementing Redistricting Commission’s certified Senate map.” Moreover, we should petitioner urges, establish new interim Senate state boundaries by (1) either the state Senate using district map Legisla- ture created in on 2001 based the 2000 census and that used has been for the decade; (2) last new using creating Senate districts map by using state districts recently certified the Commission and Assembly combining two adjacent (the districts to form each Assembly new Senate district “nesting” alternate, (3) proposal); establishing court-drawn boundaries as described in a new so-called “model” on based submitted proposal by petition- er’s consultant. redistricting petitioner an order Finally, prays directing 5, 2012, The calendar of steps preparation Primary June is Election available site, Secretary of State’s Web <http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/calendar/pdfs/ (as 2012). section-6-primary-election.pdf> Among particularly Jan. events relevant 30, 2011, 23, 2012, case present following: February are the From December state Senate obtain, fees, filing paying requisite signatures candidates in lieu of number words, registered eligible voters who are vote for candidate—in other those who are Code, 8106); registered (Elec. district in which the candidate will run and between § 13, 2012, 9, 2012, February and March candidates of Candidacy” must file “Declaration 8020, 8040, (id., 8041) papers nomination for the in which she §§ district he or will run. Lean, of State has submitted a declaration M. Jana Chief Elections Division, describing procedures implement According the new district used lines. to the declaration, (CVII) system up Throughout known “CalVoter II” “is to set used election. held, cycle, begins the election more five which than months before the election CVII certify used prepare statewide candidates the certified list of candidates.” The [and] CVII, steps program declaration describes the various that must be taken to and asserts— timelines, apparently assuming expedite those same internal and no effort to further them—that any six “approximately required implement changes weeks would be the Senate maps.” we new interim district boundaries of State to whatever implement

Secretary 6, 2012, 5, 2012, November Election and the select for the June Primary General Election.4 that even the both us hold State and Commission Secretary urge of eventually stayed by Commission’s map the certified state Senate district

if referendum, never- the Commission’s map the the of qualification proposed of State The Secretary for the 2012 elections. employed theless should be both of the election the need to avoid disruption planning process; stresses alterna- the legality petitioner’s the and the Commission contest the state Senate redistricting and Commission tive the maps; emphasizes deliberate, and nonpartisan is the of an it has certified map product open, the exercise of through that a of California voters created majority process the constitutional initiative in 2008 and 2010. power establish, that is directed at a newly

As decisions if a referendum past ballot, the the new triggering stay for adopted redistricting map qualifies referendum, the this the vote on redistricting electorate’s map pending be has the which district should responsibility determining voting map Assembly v. (See, the e.g., used for interim electoral cycle. upcoming Deukmejian (1982) 639 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 30 Cal.3d 657-658 [180 accord, Reinecke 939]; v. (1972) Cal.3d Legislature Cal.Rptr. [99 the 385].) P.2d should be used for interim determining which map elections, (1) what are and reasonably practi court must consider maps available, in (2) the cons of each viable cally potentially map and pros and criteria set out in amended light recently constitutional scheme If, article XXI of the California Constitution. after so each the analyzing the the court concludes that a other than one maps, currently potential map be for being election officials should used the implemented by upcoming ballot, 2012 elections for the event referendum proposed qualifies this court direct election a “dual would officials track” employ planning during the remainder verification Officials process signature process. would thus be with district if the referendum able the current proceed maps ballot, does not for the but would be to use the alternative qualify ready districts should the referendum for ballot. voting proposed As have been maps we case four alternative explain, present event the referendum for use in 2012 elections proposed qualifies three and the Commission’s for the ballot: the maps petitioner proposed of each certified state Senate district After cons map. reviewing pros of these alternatives the constitutional scheme light proposed agree any map decide parties All interim state Senate district that we should used general must used the November 2012 election. primary for June 2012 election also be for criteria, conclude, below, we for reasons discussed that the Commission’s certified the most to be clearly used in 2012 state appropriate map Senate elections even if referendum for ballot. proposed qualifies after

Accordingly, confirming first that we exercise properly may jurisdic- tion in this matter issues sufficiently petition presents ripe review, we conclude that if the qualifies November 2012 election and general ballot Commission’s certified stays state Senate the Commission’s state map, Senate should used on an map elections, interim basis for and the June November 2012 the outcome pending ballot, of the referendum. If the referendum does not for the proposed qualify the Commission’s state Senate will continue to be used the 2012 election and future elections until to article XXI of the state replaced pursuant Constitution new by drawn future constituted maps by newly Commission following 2020 census. and Background, procedure, summary conclusions

I. Constitution, Article XXI California amended ballot 11, measures approved by electorate November 2008 the Voters (Prop. Act) First and 20), November 2010 removes task (Prop. redistricting from the Legislature gives and it to the created newly Redistricting Citizens Const., XXI, 1, (Cal. art. 2.) Commission. The Commission required §§ Senate, adjust lines of California’s state boundary state con Assembly, and gressional, Board of districts Equalization voting year following “[i]n in which the national year census taken under the direction of Congress XXI, .” (Id., at the of each decade . . . art. beginning § create Commission selected to new districts in membership light 2010, of the 2010 census was finalized in late in the eight and first months of 2011 the Commission held more than 70 and business meetings public in 32 cities the state. The hearings throughout Commission draft produced comment, statewide on which it maps sought responded public 2011, it finally, in and certified all four mid-August approved required maps. (We describe the Commission’s structure and and the process requirements II.) art. XXI in post, detail Two greater challenges the Commission’s pt. certifications were initiated thereafter. shortly Commission,

First, and with certification roughly contemporaneously as Fairness and organization designated Accountability Redistricting sponsor- established. Under FAIR’S (FAIR), entity,5 was Republican-funded Vandermost, in this voter and registered Julie California petitioner ship, of attempting initiated process proceeding, measure, on the November state for placement Senate challenging map, a title and General Attorney election ballot.6 After general prepared on the referendum referendum for inclusion summary proposed which soliciting signatures, FAIR commenced referendum petition petitions, Const., XXI, art. (Cal. due 2011. were for submission November § (i).) subd.

Second, was while the referendum petition in September two of mandate were filed in this for writ circulating signatures, petitions congressional state Senate and district challenging the Commission’s to bar grounds, seeking on numerous constitutional statutory maps Const., (See art. of State from either Cal. map. implementing XXI, (b)(2) (hereafter 3(b)(2)) [authorizing article subd. § 26, 2011, in Vandermost v. Bowen (Oct. suits].) The S196493 such the den.)), the certified state Senate map; Commission’s (petn. challenged 26, 2011, v. (Oct. den.)), Radanovich Bowen in S196852 (petn. petition challenged the Commission’s certified After congressional map. preliminary Court, of 8.487) rule and consideration briefing (see thorough Cal. Rules the we determined that the lacked all issues raised by petitioners, petitions 26, merit and denied the writs on October 2011.7 requested 5 27, (as 2012). FAIR not <http://www.fairdistricts2012.com> See of Jan. is mentioned itself, petition petition sponsored the but the have and funded the “Republicans states: against plan.” the referendum Commission’s Senate 6 provision permits of a voters The constitutional earlier ballot submission referendum the Const., XXI, 2, (Cal. (i), referring to special by if a election is the art. subd. § called Governor. 9, 2011, Const., n, Code, 9016, (c); by ch. Cal. art. see also Elec. as amended Stats. § § subd. 558, 1, 7, [providing on Oct. that ail initiatives and approved § the Governor 2011 1, 2011, July placed be measures that are certified for the ballot on or after will referendum election].) general only special at a at a statewide the ballot Nov. statewide election or 7 Bowen, SI96493, supra, sought a writ petition The v. issuance of 126-page Vandermost State, officer, Secretary commanding as chief her to refrain from directed the the elections districts, refrain from maps the for the Senate and to implementing Commission’s certified hold, hold, using the taking any county any officials to election other action to to order maps that state constitu maps. certified Petitioner asserted the violate Commission’s Senate districts, XXI, (d) of the voting out in article section subdivision tional criteria for set Constitution, concerning contiguity, integrity, compactness, and and that geographic California choice under they Latino/Hispanic an to elect candidates of opportunity failed to afford voters (42 Voting Rights seq.). 2 the Act 1973 et Petitioner § sections and 5 of federal of 1965 U.S.C. the Court on the requested appointment special the masters to “advise also immediate unconstitutional, petitioner maps petition,” instant and if the court found Senate for the to draw new district boundaries requested special that this court direct masters emergency stay, petition did Although page petition requested of the Senate. cover acting separate emergency petition, on the we assumed plea not set forth a relief. any part Secretary implement of State to sought stay action on the petitioner 440

Thereafter FAIR completed signature-gathering process timely and submitted referendum signatures election petition county officials immedi- 23, 2011, ately to the November prior deadline. On filing November 504,760 of State confirmed at least (unverified) “raw” FAIR, referendum signatures had been submitted ordered petition determine, election officials to county random sampling, number qualified that result to the signers certify Secretary.8 2, 2011, On December Vandermost filed the petition,9 asserting present 710,000 collected, been approximately signatures have and that in 504,760 view of the circumstance that valid are signatures required qualify ballot,10 referendum for the November 2012 proposed referendum is “likely stay timely implementation map” [state Senate] and hence is she entitled to seek “relief’ under 3(b)(2). article section relief,12 The seeks immediate future petition well as relief contingent that would be in the event triggered referendum actually map. denying petition Commission’s certified state Senate Our order requests read: “The petitioner party and real judicial granted, party interest for notice are The motion of real [¶] denied, Quinn in interest to Anthony strike declarations of Dr. T. petition The for a [¶] denied, stay writ of request emergency mandate is for an [¶] denied.” events, Statutory concerning timing statutory schedules for such proce related dures, post, part are described III. matter, represented petition Petitioner is in this as she was in the filed in court in Bell, Jr., Bell, Hiltachk, September, by H. Charles of the Sacramento law firm McAndrews & general LLP. The site firm’s Web identifies Mr. Bell as to the Republican counsel California (See Party. 2012].) <http://www.bmhlaw.com/index.htm> of Jan. [as Constitution, n, (b) See California article subdivision (requiring a signed “certified to been by equal percent have electors in 5 number to of the votes for all election”). gubernatorial candidates for Governor at the last 11 3(b)(2) “Any registered Article in relevant part: reads voter in this state may ... file for petition a writ of mandate or writ of to prohibition seek relief where a subject likely certified final is to a map stay referendum measure that to the and timely of implementation map.” the 12 relief, petition (1) With to immediate respect granting the seeks an of suspension order Code, (Elec. 8103-8105) statutory filing “in-lieu-filing-fee petition” fees and §§ related procedures signatures (Elec. paying filing for candidates who wish to submit of in lieu fees Code, 8106, (a)(7)), procedures subd. which would have § otherwise commenced on December 30, 2011, (2) appointing special and an or expert master or masters to serve in in a effect role “standby/advisory” by advising determining court on “the process the interim Senate for Districts 2012.” relief, petition amounting The seeks a third of immediate request also form to a for an stay preliminary petition immediate map. Commission’s Senate asserts that “[t]he petitions signatures contain sufficient ‘raw’ the suspend temporarily [submitted referendum] the implementation map of’ Commission’s state Senate seeks as relief and it immediate an the “prohibiting Secretary county acting order and officials State election at her direction election, from implementing” map primary “for the June 2012 until interim new [a] implemented Senate been map by petition this Court.” Elsewhere the that the asserts [has] finding signatures November order adequate State’s 2011 an number of raw sought by the ballot. The relief contingent for on qualifies placement the Secretary and after election officials county would take effect only petition needed governed process the time-consuming, statutorily of State finish actually by referendum is supported determine whether for the ballot—a and hence signatures qualifies number of valid requisite submission following nine 17 weeks take process approximately certi- If the referendum Commission’s qualifies, signatures.13 of law.14 by would automatically stayed operation fied Senate map that, for in the event the proposed qualifies Petitioner asks ballot, interim state Senate district maps this court should establish new old (1) by using June and state Senate elections either November 2012 2001; new (2) or creating Senate created Legislature state map Assembly Senate two Commission-certified by “nesting” adjacent state map district; (3) a different new state establishing within one Senate districts consultant, redistricting Senate based map proposal by petitioner’s Commission’s in the Senate map.” “deficiencies ... addressing alleged 9, 2011, for all immediate relief On December we denied the request matter, an order to show this court’s eventual decision in issued pending relief, a motion contingent granted cause for future concerning prayer an extremely the Commission intervene. We established expedited schedule, oral briefing designed argument by this court to conduct permit also the end of that month. We and file early January opinion additional issues for resolution of briefing, expressly reserving specified written decision.15 threshold for our eventual question jurisdiction directing “immediately county sampling suspends random election officials commence signature until time as the operation maps of the Commission-certified Senate such state process complete.” preliminary stay verification Such of the Commission’s certified immediately planning that county preelection force election halt Senate would officials primary June 2012 they preparation have undertaken and continue undertake election. events, Statutory statutory proce concerning timing for such related schedules III. dures, post, part are described post, part See III. 9, 2011, Our stated: December order light imposed by cycle, time and the impending “In the short frame electoral clarify general elections conducting primary need to the districts that are to be used the in been filed with petitions for the California Senate 2012 should the referendum have the prove placement to the referendum for on November State sufficient map by and Citizens stay redistricting ballot to the Senate drawn certified and Commission, to Redistricting appropriate has to issue an order the court determined that it is juncture, reserving cause matter of this court’s question show in this this while jurisdiction for in in proceeding. resolution our eventual decision this relief, addressing any, in the relating addition to if this court should order “In to issues what regarding redistricting map qualifies for the November 2012 event the referendum the Senate ballot, (1) following jurisdictional standard parties are directed to address the issues: What qualify’ within determining ‘likely a is to apply or test should this court in whether referendum considered Having and oral subsequent briefing we conclude argument, (1) as follows: This court to jurisdiction has entertain writ and this proceeding (2) it is for our sufficiently ripe review. the event the referendum eventually qualifies for to the voters on presentation the November ballot, a of the triggering stay Commission’s certified Senate map by state law, operation election officials are nonetheless directed use set boundaries out in the Commission-certified state Senate on interim basis for the June 2012 election and primary November general election, a vote by on at the pending people referendum November 2012 election. Constitution, XXI, amended article and the

II. California Redistricting Commission Citizens We first describe and briefly workings structure the Citizens Commission. Redistricting 2008,

Prior in redistricting California was by performed Legislature courts, to the veto subject Governor—or power when v. Reinecke e.g., Legislature Legislature (See, Governor could not agree. Wilson v. Eu (1973) 718, 6]; 10 Cal.3d 396 516 P.2d (1992) Cal.Rptr. [110 XXI, 3, Constitution, meaning (b)(2) of article section subdivision of the California for purposes deciding petition may when a for writ of in mandate be filed this court under that (2) provision? authority constitutional Is this court’s petition entertain a for writ of mandate prior qualification to the petition formal limited to the forth circumstances set 3, (b)(2), in authority (including article subdivision this or does court have other authority) yet inherent entertain such even if cannot be determined such whether ‘likely qualify’ placement referendum is for the ballot? Redistricting “The motion of the proceeding Citizens Commission to intervene this preliminary granted. for leave to opposition file is the petition any pending “To the extent filed in this matter seeks interim relief this court’s matter, eventual request any decision such interim is denied. relief 2, 2011, request judicial granted. notice “Petitioner’s filed on December conducting argument early “To facilitate this court’s oral this matter as as the first two 2012, January filing early weeks in and the of an opinion this matter as the end of schedule, January extremely expedited briefing court orders an as follows: Redistricting “Respondent and each intervener Citizens Commission are directed to serve and file a opposition Wednesday, return order to show cause on or before December 14, 2011. may reply Monday, serve opposition “Petitioner and file to the return or on or before December 2011. “Any any application may to file an amicus curiae brief and amicus curiae brief be served Wednesday, and filed before on or December 2011. “Any reply any may or consolidated curiae reply amicus brief or briefs be served filed Thursday, on or before December 2011. filings be made original copies “All service facsimile with the and hard (415) follow mail. court’s fax number 865-7183. granted.” “No of time will extension

443 however, 379, electorate, 545].) R2d The 823 Cal.4th Cal.Rptr.2d [4 and Those in 2008 2010. by ballot measures dramatically changed process Constitution, XXI, transferring article amended California measures (Prop. Commission. Redistricting task to a created Citizens redistricting newly 4, 11, voters, 11); (Nov. 2008) (Proposition Prop. Gen. Elec. as approved 2, 20, voters, 20).) 2010) (Nov. Gen. Elec. (Proposition as approved and selection Commission Charge A. Constitution, XXI, the Com article section establishes California defines to be The constitutional provision mission and how is constituted. career reflects citizen that excludes body participation creates politicians, level, Accordingly, and to rise above every is expected partisanship. an (b) “conducting] the Commission with charges subdivision section of and and full consideration enabling public open transparent process lines; . . lines drawing] comment on the of district . district drawing article; . . . to the redistricting criteria according specified with fairness.” themselves Section conducting] integrity (c)(1) XXI selection subdivision of article further provides process “[t]he legislative commission that from designed produce independent of this State’s diversity.” influence reasonably representative has 14 Five must be with registered Commission members. be (based in California on voter five must largest registration), political party California, must with the and four registered largest second political party be who either the two registered largest individuals are not with political XXI, Const., are (Cal. (c)(2).) art. Commission members subd. parties. § state, federal, hold city elective office at the or ineligible public county their level for of 10 from date of period years, beginning appointment and, (id., (c)(6)), for a Commission art. subd. five-year period § federal, from their are to hold beginning ineligible appointive appointment, state, office, for, or local or as staff or as a public paid to serve paid to, the Congress, Legislature, any consultant Board of Equalization, federal, or to state or local legislator, register lobbyist individual as (Ibid.) California. in 2008

Government et enacted voters seq., Code selecting commissioners. part governs Proposition process how commissioners are to Government Code section 825216 sets forth Auditor, State that is independent legislative selected. The office to all (§ 8546), branches initiates an application process, open executive II) part to the statutory part in this and in III. are Subsequent (pt. unlabeled references Code. Government voters, registered is designed to a diverse and “promote[] qualified 8252, (§ applicant pool.” (a)(1).) subd. to the According Commission’s Final 15, on 2011 Report (Final Redistricting, August the State Report), Auditor “undertook a significant outreach the state process throughout utiliz- media, wide ing of variety communications mainstream and including media, media, website, ethnic social and staff assigned to all respond 2, (Final calls and e-mails.” telephone available on the Rep., p. Commission’s Web site 27, 8252, of <http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov> 2012].) Jan. Section [as subdivision (a)(2) authorizes the State Auditor to remove from the those pool with a applicants conflict of (a)(2)(A) interest. Subdivision (B) and of section identify that can create a relationships conflict of interest. Section 8252 also authorizes the State Auditor to establish an “Appli cant 8252, Review Panel” (§ to screen the (b).) applicants. subd. The panel consists of three auditors independent drawn from a randomly pool comprised of “all auditors the state and licensed employed by the California Board of (ibid.); one at the Accountancy time of the drawing” of three must be registered California, with the largest political party one must be registered with California, the second largest political and the party third must not be (Ibid.) registered with either of those two parties. members Prospective panel are to be screened for conflicts of interest under the same set of standards that 8252, are (§ constituted, applied applicants. (a)(2).) subd. Once the panel the State Auditor it with the provides applications commission prospective 8252, (§ members. (c).) subd.

The then panel selects “60 of the most 20 of qualified applicants,” whom must be with the registered largest 20 must be political party; with the registered second largest and the political party; final 20 must not be registered with either (§ of those two (d).) subd. parties. Selection is to skills, be made on the basis of “relevant analytical ability be impartial, (Ibid.) appreciation California’s diverse demographics geography.” its panel presents of recommended pool to the applicants of the Senate and to the officers, Chief Clerk of the and those Assembly, turn, Senate, the President permit of the pro Tempore Floor Minority Senate, Leader of the Speaker Floor Assembly, Minority Leader of the each Assembly to strike to two from each up applicants subpool for a total of eight (§ strikes (e).) subd. The State per subpool. Auditor then draws randomly eight names from the remaining pool three from the applicants: subpool with the applicants registered largest three from the political party, with the second subpool registered largest political and two from the party, These remaining subpool. eight individuals (§ turn, serve on the (f).) Commission. subd. review the They, remaining pool applicants final six to the Commis appoint complete sion: two are to be drawn from the of those subpool registered with the two are largest political to be drawn from the party, of those subpool drawn and two are with the second largest political party, registered at least must be The six remaining subpool. appointees approved from commissioners; those five votes eight five affirmative votes of original with the registered largest must include the votes two Commissioners the second largest Commissioners with registered political two political party, (§ not with either and one a Commissioner registered party. from party, to the commission subd. The six are to “chosen ensure (g).) appointees racial, ethnic, to, limited including, reflects state’s but diversity, Commission, however, (Ibid.) need The diversity.” and geographic, gender (Ibid.) with ratio or formula. any not comply specific B. The redistricting process Constitution, (b) article subdivision and California The constitutional redistricting process. related statutes establish public to “conduct an and Commission provision requires open transparent full consideration of and comment on drawing process enabling public lines.” 8253 and the Com charge, requires district Section implements and an for hearing process public input mission “establish implement open that shall notice and through and deliberation be subject public promoted in outreach solicit the redis thorough broad program public participation The shall include tricting hearings review public process. hearing process receive before draws and hearings the commission public input any maps addition, and commission following drawing display any maps. shall be with activities as to further hearings other supplemented appropriate increase for the and in the review opportunities observe public participate The for commission shall comment process. display maps public manner to achieve the widest access designed reasonably public possible. Public comment shall be taken for at from the date of days least public (§ (a)(7).) of any subd. display map.”

The month and January Commission was sworn during to hire counsel and bidding conducted open process independent experts (42 it on related federal Act of U.S.C. Rights advise matters to the Voting Act) held et and technical issues. It thereafter seq.) (Voting Rights § cities hearings through- more than 70 business and 34 in 32 meetings public (Final 4.) at were out the state. the Commission’s Rep., Generally, hearings p. hours at or locations in government scheduled school early evening center of a it for citizens” community, making “average convenient (Ibid.) It its allowed and comment at input participate. regularly public (Ibid.) were broadly as well. Its educational materials meetings business Chinese, and other distributed six English languages (Spanish, Japanese, received, Korean, Vietnamese), and in addition ultimately Tagalog, submissions, 2,000 than written reflect- testimony, including maps oral more statewide, Final at (Ibid.; other districts. see also ing regional, Rep., 3-5 pp. [listing submissions and other testi- representative groups providing comments, mony].) The Commission’s staff received “written input 20,000 (Id., suggestions from more than individuals and groups.” Commission held 23 public before a set of its draft input hearings issuing in June of 2011. After a maps review it held 11 more five-day public period, around public the state to collect input hearings reactions to and comments (Ibid.) those draft It held 22 concerning meetings business in Sacra- maps. mento to draft discuss the at which than more maps, appeared people “live-streamed,” commented. All of Commission’s were meetings public video, on captured on the Commission’s Web placed site public documents, All of the viewing. Commission’s and those of its completed staff, were site posted Commission’s Web as well. viewing public (Ibid.) site, All such materials remain on the archived Commission’s Web 27, (as 2012). <http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov> of Jan. Constitution, XXI, 2,

Pursuant to California article section subdivi- (c)(5), sion of the structure Commission’s vote on each mirrored map above, balanced described which the process under Commission’s members were selected. An affirmative vote on each was to be required supported members, of at least nine Commission three supermajority including members; from each registered those with the subpool largest political is, Democrats), (that California three those party with second registered is, (that largest political three and three who are not party Republicans), with registered either With to the major party. regard state Senate map—the subject referendum—the Commission’s vote 13 to 1 in was favor. criteria

C. Redistricting Constitution, XXI, 2, (d) California article re subdivision Senate, quires Commission “establish districts for single-member and State Assembly, Board of to a Congress, Equalization pursuant mapping with set process” criteria forth in article XXI itself. It complies expressly is of considerable to our that the consequence analysis constitutional provi sion ranks the criteria order of applicable priority.

First, shall the United with States Constitution. comply “[districts districts shall achieve as is Congressional nearly population equality Senatorial, State Board of dis practicable, Assembly, Equalization tricts shall have with other the same reasonably districts for equal population office, where deviation is with the federal except required comply Voting Const., XXI, (Cal. (d)(1).) Act or allowable law.” art. Rights subd. § Act Second, Voting Rights shall with the federal comply “[districts Const., XXI, (Cal. art. (42 § Sec. and following).” U.S.C. (d)(2).) subd. Const.,

Third, (Cal. contiguous.” shall be geographically “[districts XXI, (d)(3).) art. subd. §

Fourth, must geographic the Commission’s maps respect “[t]he local local or neighborhood, any city, county, city county, integrity their division to ... in a manner that minimizes of interest community violating any preceding extent without the requirements possible Const, (d)(4).) The Constitution (Cal. art. subd. subdivisions.” § which shares contiguous of interest” as “a population defines “community within a single that should be included common social economic interests (Ibid.) “Ex and fair district of its effective purposes representation.” area, an urban a rural of such shared interests are those common to amples area, area, area, areas in or an and those common to agricultural an industrial standards, share similar use the same living transportation which people facilities, to the media have similar work or have access same opportunities, (Ibid.) The term “com of communication relevant election process.” of interest” excludes with political parties, munities expressly “relationships incumbents, (Ibid.) candidates.” political

Fifth, and this does not conflict the extent where practicable, “[t]o above, drawn encourage with the criteria districts shall be geographical more not for nearby bypassed such that areas of are compactness population Const., XXI, (d)(5).) (Cal. art. subd. distant population.” § Sixth, does and and where this the extent finally, practicable, “[t]o above, of not with the criteria each Senate district shall comprised conflict districts, whole, and each Board of Assembly two and complete, adjacent whole, and adjacent district shall be of Equalization comprised complete, Const., XXI, referred (Cal. (d)(6) art. subd. [commonly Senate districts.” § to as “nesting” goal].) Constitution, XXI, 2, of (e) article the California

Subdivision of section or candidate that of residence of incumbent any political provides place “[t]he shall be drawn shall not be considered in the creation of Districts map. incumbent, or discriminating against political for the favoring purpose candidate, or political party.” Constitution, XXI, 2, of California (f) article section

Subdivision Senate, Board “[¿districts and State Assembly, for Congress, provides northern commencing numbered consecutively shall be Equalization ending boundary.” of the State and at the southern boundary derived, These are criteria for the most part, from standards developed by the masters this court in after the special appointed Legislature failed to pass legislative congressional bills that redistricting Reinecke, v. were (Legislature to the Governor. supra, acceptable Cal.3d at 400-402.) court Legislature v. pp. This of these approved use criteria in Reinecke, were added to the they subsequently Constitution as article XXI when the voters 6 in 1980. The current approved Proposition version article XXI, as 11) amended voters in in 2010 (Prop. again (Prop. 20), expands original criteria articulated masters in upon special 1973, based, decisions this court large part, criteria applying Eu, e.g., Wilson v. (See, masters. supra, developed by 1 Cal.4th special XXI, Unlike article former section on which judicial decisions based, however, was the current version provision of article (d), subdivision ranks criteria in order of expressly priority, stating lower-ranked criterion is to be when explicitly only followed so doing does not conflict with a criterion higher-ranked or criteria. Did this have to issue an order

III. authority to show cause in this writ in the original absence proceeding that the showing “likely was proposed referendum the ballot?

qualify” for And does court at this have juncture authority to determine state which Senate district should be used

the event the the ballot qualifies stays operative state effect of Commission-certified Senate map? relief, we considering must first address the petitioner’s request threshold whether this court had issue an order show question authority cause in this writ in the absence original of a proceeding showing by that the to the petitioner referendum was for ballot. proposed “likely qualify” In her to the filed to this court’s preliminary opposition petition, prior consideration of the of State that petition, Secretary maintained in this was not filed and petition should be proceeding summarily properly denied because had not demonstrated that the petitioner underlying proposed to “likely referendum was for the ballot within the of article qualify” meaning XXI, 3(b)(2). section We will threshold of the light this in analyze question on circumstances that were before this court December when we cause, issued the order to show both to this court’s December why explain and, action to was authorized provide appropriate, importantly, on for in the event circum- guidance this the future similar procedural point of stances arise in the course efforts. redistricting subsequent ad allegations we the petition’s As will conclude we explain, VI, under article extraordinary authority writ invoked our traditional equately is, was, and for a that ripe the state Constitution over question section reason, this to apply it is not for court necessary For this our decision. XXI, a voter . . . that 3(b)(2) “registered section providing in article language relief where a mandate ... to seek file for a writ of ... may petition that likely measure qualify referendum certified final map subject XXI, 3(b)(2).) (Art. stay timely implementation map.” § above, filed this case on December stated As noted in petition had submitted total of approximately that the of the referendum proponents 710,000 to local of the referendum (unverified) raw signatures support because only the state. The asserted that throughout election officials petition 504,000 the referen- were signatures qualify valid approximately required ballot, that had been submitted signatures dum for the the number of referendum was “likely place- established that proposed qualify” thus was on the November 2012 ballot and that petition properly ment XXI, 3(b)(2) section and should filed under of article provisions 3(b)(2) acted this court. Article provides entertained and on by for a writ this that . . . ... regard registered voter “[a]ny petition file to a subject to seek relief where a ismap mandate ... certified final likely measure that is qualify stay timely implementa- added.) (Italics tion of the map.” above, As also filed Secretary noted preliminary opposition took with the contention that the number of raw State issue petition’s that had submitted to election officials that the signatures been established referendum was for the ballot. The likely preliminary proposed qualify out in the that mandate filed separate opposition pointed prior proceeding ante, text), and related had asserted that she (see petitioner fn. 7 780,000 more than raw on the referendum anticipated obtaining signatures 710,000 but raw that instead submitted petition petitioner only approximately a 2008 noting that initiative signatures. opposition, study preliminary to 40 of gross initiative “lose proponents up [percent] petitions reported Studies, check” Center for Governmental (citing verification signatures Initiative: California’s Fourth Branch of Government Democracy by Shaping number raw 2008) 149), ed. low (2d given relatively asserted submitted, whether had been it was too soon tell signatures the November likely referendum was placement reason, took the that the For this State position 2012 ballot. be summarily filed should denied. was properly (ante, 441), to cause in this As we our order show have out pointed issue for our eventual resolution of this threshold matter reserved specifically issue, the directed to brief two opinion parties related to this questions (1) regarding the test or standard this court should in apply determining whether a referendum is proposed “likely to within the qualify” meaning XXI, article 3(b)(2), (2) section and whether this court’s to entertain authority a for writ of petition a mandate to the formal prior qualification XXI, referendum is limited the to circumstances set forth in petition article 3.17 section

The briefs to the order to show cause filed responding the State and the that in Commission order to argued with the to comply “likely XXI, of article section qualify” provision 3(b)(2), must demon- petitioner strate “a of the evidence” it is that “more than preponderance probable not” that the will the petition qualify placement for on ballot. Both briefs further contended that because the low of raw relatively number signatures submitted in the referendum left it unclear support proposed whether there sufficient number was of valid the signatures qualify ballot, referendum for the failed to meet petitioner “likely qualify” addition, standard. In both that asserted if the failed satisfy petition XXI, “likely to standard in 3(b)(2), set forth article section this court qualify” lacked to entertain mandate both authority proceeding. Accordingly, maintained that the should be dismissed petition on this basis.

In her with the of the reply, petitioner disagreed proposed interpretation that “likely qualify” language, arguing light provision’s purpose, not be phrase should to mean that a “likely qualify” interpreted petition writ for of mandate be filed when be only it can shown that it is “more than not” that a referendum will for probable proposed placement ballot, but that filed instead such a on a petition may showing. lesser (The did not reply specify showing lesser quantify petitioner addition, believes is contemplated by “likely qualify” language.) that, event, maintained the number of raw reply any had signatures been submitted in of the referendum was support sufficient establish that it was more than not that referendum would probable that, asserted Finally, reply from article section qualify. apart VI, 3(b)(2), this court under article 10 of possesses authority this court’s “in Constitution—establishing original jurisdiction proceedings relief’—to for a entertain writ of mandate in extraordinary this case because of great matter petition presented public importance had to be resolved of the electoral light impending promptly cycle. below,

For the reasons discussed we conclude that there is no need this court meaning “likely to decide term used in qualify” ante, reproduced are full 15. questions two at footnote to XXI, qualify” whether the 3(b)(2) “likely or to determine article section in this case at time the 3(b)(2) petition was satisfied the standard of section light As we in the time. explain, filed or is satisfied at present was for and the need the petition of the issue presented statewide importance matter, authority, court had this this resolution of an expeditious judicial Constitution, VI, an order to to issue of the California under section 10 article the was filed at the time petition in writ original proceeding show cause this determine, through at the time to authority and also present possesses should Senate district map its writ what state jurisdiction, exercise of original if the referendum qualifies.18 be used as an interim measure proposed XXI, to “likely in 3(b)(2) section question—containing sentence article intended, be reasonably interpreted, and cannot language—was qualify” VI, to under article section 10 authority or restrict this court’s limit for ripe an is appropriately determine that writ original proceeding such time. the facts of this case and at an earlier in As resolution adjudication point illustrate, the electoral in interest and light exigencies great public and act jurisdiction expeditiously this court need assume process, retain the to render ability when is filed if the court is to such petition This is so even that can be realistically implemented. decision meaningful whether reasonably under circumstances in which it cannot predicted back- Nothing referendum is for ballot. likely proposed XXI, 3(b)(2) that the suggests provision of article section ground purpose its and long-standing was intended to this court of fundamental deprive and act in a setting constitutional such authority accept filing such it and to do so. when the court is determines appropriate prudent issue, outset that this it recognize analyzing important in the “jurisdiction,” that this established court firmly possesses funda sense, mental of mandate that is to entertain a writ original petition her duties related to State concerns official directed to relief in such a proceeding. the electoral and to process, grant appropriate VI, this Article section 10 the California Constitution explicitly provides this court “original jurisdiction proceedings regard possesses certiorari, mandamus, in the nature of prohibition,” relief extraordinary extraordinary jurisdiction exercised such writ long original has (See, e.g., of their official conduct. with officials’ exercise respect public Warren, 354—357; ex supra, generally People Hollman v. 32 Cal.2d at see pp. authority granted by Although petition that it was filed under the this case asserted 3(b)(2), petition demonstrated that representations article disclosed registered referendum in proponent as a voter and the official petitioner, seeking standing original for an writ of mandate question, unquestionably had file applicable to question “public-interest exception” under so-called mandate relief in 562]; (See, (1948) 32 Hollman v. Warren P.2d see proceedings. e.g., [196 Cal.2d 356-357 Writs, 970-973, Witkin, (5th 2008) Extraordinary pp. generally § Cal. Procedure ed. cited.) cases rel. S. F. etc. v. Bay Com. Town Emeryville 533, (1968) 69 Cal.2d 537-538 of 790, 446 P.2d state Cal.Rptr. [discussing [72 1966 constitutional amend 790] “ ment that the ‘deliberately broadened constitutional relating language cases, in jurisdiction ”].) writ extraordinary this has proceedings’ past court exercised to entertain decide repeatedly authority for original petitions referendum, initiative, writs of mandate related the and redistricting process in circumstances in which an was the expeditious ruling necessary Senate the (See, of the State orderly functioning system. electoral e.g., of of Cal. v. Jones (1999) 810, 1089]; 21 Cal.4th 1142 988 P.2d Cal.Rptr.2d [90 Wilson v. Eu 625, (1991) 890]; 54 Cal.3d 546 Wilson v. 817 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [286 Eu, 707; v. 638; 1 Cal.4th supra, Assembly Deukmejian, supra, 30 Cal.3d Reinecke, v. 396; Legislature Silver Brown supra, v. (1965) 10 Cal.3d 63 308, Cal.2d 132].) 270 P.2d 405 Cal.Rptr. [46

Accordingly, we with the of State and the disagree Com mission’s argument and analysis this court’s lack of regarding alleged to issue an order to cause writ authority show in this of proceeding light asserted failure to petition’s establish that the referendum was for the ballot. likely issue does not Properly analyzed, implicate Rather, this jurisdiction court’s fundamental over mandate action. petitioner’s and, claim, issue of the of presents question “justiciability” petitioner’s more whether action is under the specifically, adjudication “ripe” doctrine that one “ripeness” justiciability. constitutes of As this court aspect Foundation v. Coastal Com. Legal explained (1982) 33 Pacific California 104, 158, Cal.3d 170 655 P.2d “The Cal.Rptr. ripeness require [188 306]: ment, a branch of the doctrine of issuing courts from justiciability, prevents It purely advisory is rooted the fundamental opinions. concept [Citation.] that role does not extend proper judiciary resolution abstract differences of It legal is in opinion. part designed regulate workload of courts consideration of lawsuits seek judicial preventing than only general obtain rather to resolve guidance, legal specific disputes. However, doctrine is bottomed on the ripeness recognition primarily judicial best conducted in the context of an actual set of decisionmaking facts so that issues will be framed with sufficient definiteness to enable the court make a decree On the other finally disposing controversy. hand, should not requirement resolving courts concrete prevent from disputes decision will be uncer consequence lingering if deferred law, tainty in the when there is interest in the especially widespread public answer particular legal to a (Italics added.) question. [Citations.]” As County Water & Co. v. Court of Telephone observed Appeal California Los 16, 618], Angeles (1967) 22 253 contro Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [61 “[a] when it has reached ... versy facts have ‘ripe’ point congealed to useful decision to sufficiently permit intelligent made.”

453 held that cases this court has repeatedly In past for an writ original its over jurisdiction exercise appropriately and must great importance issues are of public mandate when “the presented Hickman (1967) Cal.2d Sacramento v. 66 (County be resolved promptly.” Air Constituency v. 609, see, Clean 593]; e.g., P.2d Cal.Rptr. [59 Bd. (1974) 11 State Air Resources Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d [114 California Witkin, Procedure, supra, Extraordi 617]; P.2d see Cal. generally Writs, found 1043-1046.) challenges ripe We have frequently nary pp. § under this of our writ original jurisdiction for the invocation and exercise the electoral issues involving legal affecting standard in cases significant of the underlying controversy necessary when a resolution process, speedy v. Eu Wilson (1991) (See, election. e.g., to avoid a of an upcoming disruption 1306]; Assembly 471, 280, 816 P.2d v. 54 Cal.3d 472-473 Cal.Rptr. [286 v. Mellon 646; Deukmejian, (1973) Cal.3d supra, Thompson 30 Cal.3d at 9 p. Reinecke, 96, 20, supra, 628]; Legislature 507 P.2d v. 6 98 Cal.Rptr. [107 565, 570, 598; Mihaly Jolicoeur v. (1971) fn. 1 Cal.3d at 5 Cal.3d [96 Brown, 277-278; 697, Silver v. 1]; 63 Cal.2d supra, 488 P.2d at pp. Cal.Rptr. 47].) v. Jordan P.2d Perry (1949) 34 Cal.2d 90-91 [207 case, the by plainly presented this the issue legal posed petition that a The noted significant petition of statewide public importance. question the Senate had redistricting map referendum state petition, challenging implemented the and that was currently being been certified Commission by state, for election the had been circulated throughout signatures officials by a number of raw and had been filed with election officials with timely the for signatures required that was than number verified signatures greater if the referendum also out that proposed qualification. petition pointed have sufficient number of verified for signatures qualify proves ballot, Commission-certified on the November 2012 the existing placement law, would, stayed a matter be automatically state Senate pending map (See vote the referendum measure. Cal. the electorate’s November 2012 on Const., II, Deukmejian, supra, v. (a); 30 Cal.3d at Assembly subd. art. § 654-657, cited the cited constitutional [construing provision cases pp. of the chal- mean that a referendum” stays implementation “duly qualified that if the existing electoral And the further lenged maps].) explained petition referendum, this by state Senate stayed qualification proposed which state Senate deciding court would bear direct responsibility for the interim June 2012 primary districts are to be used election officials by (Assembly Deukmejian, v. election. general election and November Thus, 657-658.) legal is no that the Cal.3d at there supra, question pp. districts should used for state Senate presented by issue petition—what the event those elections proposed qualifies to warrant importance an of sufficient statewide public ballot—is issue clearly original court’s exercise of its writ jurisdiction. this filed, however, At the time the was referendum had petition proposed (indeed, yet ballot at the time qualified this it filing opinion, still has not and the qualified), raised question informal opposition was petition whether the matter was sufficiently to render it ripe appropri- cause, ate for court this to issue order to show establish briefing schedule, matter, proceed or whether the was adjudicate petition premature. (see,

As we post, 455-457), will on explain both December pp. (when the court), for writ mandate filed this on was (when December considered whether to issue an order of cause), (1) show it was awas close whether a apparent question sufficient number of valid had been filed to signatures ballot, referendum for (2) November 2012 placement ultimate resolution of that not be determined until question might early however, March 2012. As we also will under circumstances explain, shown our petition, timely intervention was critical because of impediments faced election officials practical for the 2012 preparing election cycle. Code, (Elec.

Under the California statutes et applicable 9030 seq.), § when, case, the in this of a filed with referendum election proponents officials of petitions number raw than the containing signatures greater number of valid signatures required local election officials qualification, were to conduct a random the required signatures of raw to make an sampling initial determination of the of raw that would be percentage signatures found Here, to be valid signatures.19 the day last counties random complete 10, Code, 9030, (Elec. (e).) was 2012. sampling January (d), subds. § Thereafter, certificates, based on the the county of State was Secretary the to determine statewide of required result the random sampling by January 18, 2012. Under the the governing statutory if random provisions, sampling a number of total valid of projected that was less than signatures percent 95 the of number valid the would fail without required signatures, any petition further count. If the signatures valid was 110 or more of projection percent number, the the required any would without further count. If petition qualify of valid the projection signatures was between 95 and 110 percent, of State would that a full Secretary notify counties count of all submitted would be had signatures required number valid verify signatures Code, 9031, 9030, (Elec. (f) (a).) been submitted. subds. & If a (g), subd. §§ full count was the last for counties to determine the number of day required, 19 sampling county regard signatures Random percent is conducted each with to 3 presented, signatures, greater. signatures If than are whichever number fewer Code, (Elec. county, county signature. submitted in a election check officials must each 9030, (d).) subd. § (Id., (c).) (b) & subds. would be March 2012. signatures §

qualified 12, 2012, determine Thereafter, of State would Secretary March on the November for placement qualifies whether referendum petition (Id., (d), subd. 2012 ballot. §§ filed, all in this parties case was in the present

At the time petition random sampling data indicated that the that the available agreed proceeding falling in a was to result signatures very likely projection petition Thus, signatures. of valid number between 95 and 110 percent required data that it the available demonstrated whether disagreed although parties would referendum qualify, more than not that probable proposed was there was at least a substantial that the data established that agreed parties And for the ballot. ultimately that the referendum would possibility it the final result of that was likely because the also agreed quite parties the verification would would mean that process the random sampling process at very count of all that time signatures, appeared have to full go known whether it would not definitively probable However, until March 2012. early for the ballot qualified the court that a number of actions for the State informed that date. begin electoral were well before cycle required Thus, at was and this court had to decide whether the time filed cause, timing to issue an we faced a serious problem order to show Eu, As noted in Wilson v. supra, Cal.3d page coordination. for elections is complex ‘sequential’ process, requiring “preparing begin, including various tasks be before others performed identifying boundaries, election assigning various district developing county precincts, voters, ballots, designing printing such districts to all ballot registered styles, delays and workers. in one Early polling training precinct providing places, out, Secretary all other As the points function can functions. impact [of State] front end of the the need know boundaries ‘is district precise here, State words are Secretary ....’” According process “[t]hese elections to the 2012 election where officials cycle, particularly applicable also two’ new but the new or only redistricting plans, ‘top will implement 2010).” (June ‘voter-nominated’ election scheme by adopted Proposition filed, in mid-August by At was four certified maps the time all the legally the state Senate then Commission—including map—were and the of State and Secretary and election officials county applicable maps, for of state election were them upon purposes others using relying Rights of the federal Voting under section 5 “preclearance” planning Act,20 and until the state Senate map and would continue do so unless or referendum by automatically stayed proposed qualification See post, footnote 44. State, orders otherwise. The Secretary a declaration the chief citing by division, the elections to six weeks would explained up be “for required state local elections officials to implement [any] changes might be [that to the new maps.” This court was also informed that the ordered] State and election county officials needed to know the end of by January 2012 whether they would be required implement the state any changes Senate districts in the event referendum proposed and automati- qualifies cally stays the Commission-certified state Senate redistricting map. demonstrate,

As the circumstances of the case present even when the available data be insufficient may show how or just it is likely probable ballot, that a referendum will for proposed on the detri- qualify placement mental to the of an election if consequences orderly process result may court fails to jurisdiction exercise and the referendum does expeditiously ultimately ballot. The qualify detrimental potential consequences from this resulting court’s action until deferring later signature verification may process reasonably support judicial determination that the mandate action is proposed sufficiently this court to “ripe” exercise permit jurisdiction over mandate action at that earlier juncture.

The combination redistricting process embodied California Constitution, article XXI and the electoral schedule often very leaves little time between the deadline for filing referendum petition signatures and the beginning of the numerous tasks be that must undertaken candidates and election officials during the upcoming election primary general electoral Thus, cycle. it be may for this court to issue an order necessary to show cause, elicit and hold oral briefing, argument before it can be determined with any substantial or confidence degree accuracy how it likely probable will for the ballot. Such immediate action this court be essential in order for this court retain the to render a ability decision what districts (regarding should be used event the referendum aat time when the court’s qualifies) decision can be If issuance of an actually implemented. order show cause is deferred until in the later signature-verification then time a process, judicial matter, decision ultimately may, is rendered as a practical impossible election officials to than any use districts other the districts that the officials have been until the date on utilizing which Commission-certified up maps are the official of the stayed by qualification referendum. In other proposed words, if this court were to conclude that other in districts should be used the event the referendum it too be late at that time to qualifies, may apply court’s decision to those other districts. implement that, we conclude in to

Accordingly, order this court’s preserve to render a ability meaningful realistically enforceable decision regarding referendum qualifies, in the a be used event proposed

which districts should is mandate proceeding determine that a proposed court may this properly a such show cause in an order to may issue for adjudication “ripe” to referendum is “likely that the the absence of a showing in proceeding of the timing the realities of the ballot. Given for qualify” placement court has we hold that this electoral and the redistricting statutory process, when we doctrine a action satisfies ripeness to find that mandate authority that, referendum that the proposed in of the relative light probability conclude detrimental the time limitations and potential for the ballot and qualify will time, at that point to consider a mandate petition of refusing consequences should and decide which districts it to issue an order to show cause is prudent does referendum elections in the event proposed be used the upcoming (Accord, Bay rel. F. etc. ex S. People for on the ballot. qualify placement at appellate 69 Cal.2d 537-539 supra, Town Emeryville, pp. [an Com. v. of its jurisdiction to interim relief aid own has inherent order court power decision].) its and to the effectiveness of ultimate preserve Furthermore, cause an order to show not this court issue may only referendum is “likely a that the showing in the absence of proposed ballot, districts this to decide what authority for the but court’s qualify” to grant does qualify should be used in the event relief referendum a showing based that decision also upon contingent upon the ballot. Even when cannot referendum proposed “likely qualify” a referendum will the available data how it is that likely be determined from there is a substantial for the ballot—or when possibility qualify than not” that referendum will but it is not “more qualify probable proposed determine, at that it is it will conclude that prudent qualify—a time, qualify used in event the referendum does which districts should be if are not left without meaningful guidance so that election officials Thus, as at the order stage, just at the relief ultimately referendum qualifies.21 court may properly of an writ original proceeding, to show cause stage earlier, submitted a full count all explained As current California statutes mandate validity project signature sampling process signatures whenever the results of random (Ante, signatures. of valid percent required and 110 of the number rate between 95 454-455.) sampling process pp. indicates even when the random statutory This scheme only signatures percent required projects that the of valid submitted will number chance that signatures, Legislature is of the view that there is a sufficient number of valid actually has obtained signatures proposed will show that the full count of all time-consuming require that a signatures qualify sufficient number of valid ballot Accordingly, suggestion advanced one expensive full count be conducted. adopt proposed a rule under which a petitioner’s briefs—that this court should supplemental required percent of less than sampling referendum that obtains random rate signatures permit this court advise of valid should be considered insufficient number referendum does that should be in the event election officials the districts used (see post, 22)—would underlying appear premise with the fn. conflict statutory scheme. 458 relief before a

grant referendum proposed actually for the ballot qualifies when is view that there is a sufficient chance that referendum will to make it proposed qualify for the court to prudent advise election officials of the districts that should be used on interim basis if the referendum proposed for the ballot. ultimately qualifies court,

We also that it is emphasize perfectly for this after appropriate the issuance of an order to show cause and while a such is proceeding court, before to continue to all pending consider relevant that factors may affect both the need for relief and the prudence timing of appropriate affording the relief that the court determines be warranted.22

Thus, case, cause, if in after we this issued an order to example, show the completed random sampling had less than of process projected percent valid it would have required signatures, been clear that the proposed referendum had failed to for the ballot qualify and that there no longer was a any. need for decision by this court because there was no chance longer any that the Commission-certified state Senate would be automatically circumstances, stayed. Under such notwithstanding the fact that had this court case, In the present example, parties during we asked the pendency of this proceeding supplemental addressing to file significance signature briefs what rate validity the completed sampling process regard from random would have with to the issue of whether a proposed “likely to qualify” 3(b)(2). is under article In response, parties signature informed the court of the then current validity rate of proposed referendum based on the incomplete sampling process random had been that supplemental briefing Although conducted date the parties reported was filed. Secretary same site—they disagreed data—obtained from the of State’s Web whether the signature validity rate obtained from the sampling process sufficiently random is a reliable concerning “likely qualify” indicator whether a referendum to is for the ballot. regard Petitioner maintained in “a petition that that a [percent] attains less than signature validity rate completed sampling ‘likely’ from the random cannot said to be to qualify,” whereas petition [percent] likely qualify.” attains more than 100 is “[a] State, contrast, Secretary The explained although sampling process random is adequate designed process do—namely do what that is determine the number “whether signatures range, of valid is petitions [percent] [percent]”—“the within broad sampling give technique designed greater precision.” is not reliable results at a level Secretary sampling State the court that “to use the completed process advised to determine likely at what or point qualify, [percent] becomes to determine whether a 101 sample petition likely [percent] random is more petition, than 100 random sample beyond (Italics added.) Commission, capacity process.” is On this point the in its argument, supplemental filing agreed own and at oral deferred to with the State. text, For the reasons discussed in the we conclude that need there no to determine whether likely the current available data that it is probable establishes more than not that the proposed qualify. referendum will There probability sufficient the referendum will prudent qualify to make it to decide at this time which should be districts used the event (See, post, qualify. referendum does cause, have simply this court would an order to show issued .properly moot. this writ as dismissed proceeding an writ

Furthermore, original such relevant factors that while develop other nature of the and may timing affect is this court also proceeding pending and oral briefing as the example, that this court will For provide. the relief deliberations, court, its through and as this argument process progresses, the of what districts at a substantive concerning question arrives consensus and the referendum qualifies stays be in the event should used proposed districts, the relative will continue assess the court Commission-certified of for the ballot and prudence that the referendum will qualify probability the referendum’s actual qualification. resolving proceeding prior court, deliberation, that even if the proposed If concludes this after effect and automatically stays operative for the ballot referendum qualifies use be directed to the Commission-certified election officials should map, has because the court the Commission-certified on an interim basis map mandated best with the complies constitutionally concluded that that map scenario, we (a as criteria embodied in federal state Constitutions decisionmaking later that reflects this court’s process discuss in this opinion, its case), it should issue reasonably this also conclude that this court could inevitably uncertainty as as so as eliminate early decision possible and the arises from the verification ongoing signature process pendency case, has when this court the writ in this court. In such proceeding used, there be so long concluded that the Commission-certified should map the ballot the referendum will for remains a substantial possibility qualify whether it is more probable would not be for the court to decide necessary it if, the court will Even after than not that referendum qualify. proposed does not for ballot ultimately its the referendum opinion, issues court’s issuance of the is not stayed, Commission-certified map effect have no adverse the Commission’s map—could decision—approving the Commission-certified upon map. contrast, and the on the Commission’s

By processes based come into may play different considerations statutory State’s responsibilities, deliberation, court, concludes briefing, argument, when this after oral should used in interim other than the Commission-certified map map the ballot. referendum for qualifies elections in the event the proposed decision favoring that the issuance of Because the possibility the event might—in over the Commission-certified map alternative map legitimacy cast cloud over the does not qualify—unnecessarily decade, this court ensuing that Commission-certified it that the to consider how just likely proposed determine that it is prudent whether determining ballot. referendum will not qualify to issue its decision advance prudent referendum’s so, qualification notwithstanding (and adverse if potential consequence advance), how far in this court would take into account undoubtedly reasons its particular underlying determination that an analysis alternative is more the map consistent with based constitutionally criteria than the Commission-certified then decide map, and if and when to issue its opinion based in on such part considerations. illustrate,

As the foregoing under this examples court’s traditional Constitution, VI, California article section 10 authority over writ original this court retains broad proceedings, discretion to take into account properly all such considerations as well as other relevant factor in any deciding what relief is in such appropriate a and when it proceeding should be ordered. future, of of Because the variety circumstances that be in the may presented the of impossibility the nature of the that predicting may controversies context, arise in this it we conclude that would not be wise or to appropriate establish fixed and inflexible rule or standard that would restrict this court’s to discretion take action all light of appropriate may circumstances Thus, be in a presented case. we particular reject any that this suggestion court may determine which districts are to be used for interim elections in the only if, event a proposed ultimately for ballot qualifies decision, the time its issues the available data demonstrate that the referendum is to “likely the ballot. qualify” briefs,

In their of State the Commission do not Secretary deny VI, under general of article provisions section 10 of the California mandate, Constitution writs of and the regarding original discretion courts doctrine, exercise under generally this court ripeness ordinarily would have to issue an order to authority setting show cause in this and to case, circumstances relief of all of the provide appropriate light even if fails to petitioner demonstrate that is more than that the probable referendum measure will proposed for the ballot. The qualify Secretary maintain, however, State and the Commission that the provision specific XXI, 3(b)(2) article section . . file a authorizing registered voter . “[a]ny [to] for a of mandate or writ writ to seek relief where prohibition certified final subject to referendum measure that is to likely stay timely should be to limit implementation interpreted map” this court’s to issue an order show cause and authority relief an grant writ in this original setting instances which a proceeding petitioner establishes that referendum measure is “likely qualify” (As above, the ballot. discussed both the of State and the Commis- XXI, sion maintain that in article “likely 3(b)(2), as used section qualify,” not.”) means “more than this advancing argument, briefs probable rely decisions this court that when constitutional upon holding provisions conflict, recent, “a is deemed carve out specific provision exception Court Superior (Izazaga older, v. general provision.” limit an

and thereby Greene 304]; see v. P.2d (1991) Cal.Rptr. 54 Cal.3d [285 & Dist. Flood Water Conservation County (2010) 49 Cal.4th Marin 350].) P.3d Cal.Rptr.3d [109 its assumption lies in implicit fundamental flaw in argument XXI, the briefs 3(b)(2) which section upon within article sentence limitation intended, reasonably interpreted, impose was and may

rely order to to issue an this court authorized under which circumstances view, it In our is evident—both setting. or to relief in this show cause provide and from the 3(b)(2) judicial itself of article language from (see Assembly v. was drafted which background against provision Deukmejian, supra, 638)23—that this section was intended 30 Cal.3d limit, or expand, ability supporters to the of referendum sponsors rather than court by to in this explicitly providing institute an writ original proceeding ballot, for the any a referendum is to “likely qualify” that when proposed the right in this court before the file such a voter has to registered petition for that the referendum has qualified of State certifies Secretary formally XXI, 3(b)(2) does not the The article section on ballot. of placement language determine, át a time ability limit or its to jurisdiction to this court’s purport a case within falling to the referendum is to that “likely qualify,” when prior in the ballot adjudication, nothing is for jurisdiction ripe pamphlet its to this court’s this initiative measure indicates an intention limit related to Constitution, VI, 10 in such a authority broad California article section Indeed, defeat, further, rather than the of purpose fashion. it would clearly XXI, the as this court’s 3(b)(2) limiting article section to section interpret earlier at an earlier time when an authority to entertain a writ petition matter, a to the action be may necessary, practical commencement of relief the in the should such sought petition enable the court to relief provide XXI, we the that article reject argument be found appropriate. Accordingly, traditional 3(b)(2) authority section be to limit this court’s should interpreted Constitution, VI, 10 in the manner suggested under California article section Commission. the of State and the by render the in this does not regard pertinent Our determination XXI, In 3(b)(2) the meaningless sentence of article section “surplusage.” Deukmejian, supra, Assembly gathered an proponents the referendum v. 30 Cal.3d (well signatures required times the number of valid extraordinarily large number of over two id., Richardson, J.)) (conc. exceptionally short opn. dis. of an signatures—see & post, (see 29), may able even before the period fn. and thus have been to demonstrate time than not that probable that it was more petitions were filed with election officials XXI, the relevant sentence article would for the ballot. The drafters of qualify referendum registered 3(b)(2) any circumstances apparently to make it clear that in such section wanted though the right writ in this court even have to file an action for relief voter would may yet formally qualified for the ballot. proposed referendum not have XXI, absence 3(b)(2), of article section any ripeness petition seeking an writ original of mandate is filed to a prior qualification referendum would be this court’s proposed question discretionary Constitution, over writs of authority original mandate under California article VI, XXI, however, section 10. Under 3(b)(2), article section when a petitioner is to able show that likely referendum is to proposed qualify placement law, ballot, is, as a matter on sufficiently to petition ripe permit Thus, XXI, be entertained.24 petition 3(b)(2), virtue of article section it when is shown that a referendum is likely this court qualify, contrast, for lack of properly deny petition ripeness. By prior is determined filed the time that can the proposed XXI, is likely 3(b)(2) is unaffected article section and continues to be evaluated this court under all considerations taken into account ordinarily under doctrine. our ripeness Accordingly, XXI, conclusion 3(b)(2) does not render article section surplusage.25 XXI, 3(b)(2), When a petition properly filed under article section required court is XXI, give ruling (See 3(b)(3).) course, priority petition. any art. case § Of which this original proceeding court issues order show cause in an writ because of decision, importance presented naturally gives issue the need for a prompt this court proceeding priority provide ruling. to the in order to an expeditious present proceeding an apt example. Relying upon “likely qualify” language 3(b)(2), in article concurring opinion proposes adopt general that the court presumption— “as rule—indeed a that petitioner where a has not a likely shown that referendum is to the court qualify, should (Cone, post, not decide the the mandate petition.” opn., p. merits of at Because the concurring opinion “likely qualify” language also concludes that the to is properly interpreted “ ” (conc. 493-494), likely opn., post, to mean ‘more than pp. concurring not’ at under the court, rule, opinion’s general a approach this as decide map would not which should be used a proposed petitioner for interim elections if referendum the qualifies for ballot unless a has Thus, that probable qualify. shown it is more than not that the proposed referendum will in the showing, of a provide timely guidance absence such this court would often be to unable to officials, leaving election them implement ruling without sufficient time to this court’s eventual the ultimately qualify should referendum the ballot. reasons, a concurring For number we believe that the opinion’s approach is untenable. First, {ante, 46CM-62), as we have at explained pp. “likely qualify” language above the to XXI, intended, 3(b)(2) may article section not be reasonably interpreted, was not to limit VI, authority this court’s under article of the section 10 California Constitution to issue an original to to the order show cause or decide merits in an mandate at a proceeding point likely time earlier than when a referendum to qualify concurring opinion is for the ballot. identify anything language provision accompa- fails to in the in the or ballot materials nying the language indicating initiative measure that added this to the California Constitution provision type limiting authority. that the was intended to have this effect this court’s circumstances, XXI, 3(b)(2) these provides support concurring Under article section no for the opinion’s “likely qualify” language that the provision’s appropri- conclusion that to constitutes VI, grant ate against standard which this court’s discretion to relief under article section should be measured or limited. Second, although concurring “likely opinion the maintains that the to qualify” standard general adopted determining should be as the standard for when court will “decide the this proceeding, “likely qualify” language a merits” such mandate the to article section that, above, conclude under sum, we for the reasons discussed 10, VI, is to issue Constitution, this court authorized article

California event be in the should used and decide which districts an order show cause Commission-certified redistricting map at a a directed referendum proposed ballot, a that showing proposed the absence of for the even in qualifies for the ballot. likely is to qualify referendum doctrine to of the ripeness considerations

Finally, general applying case, sufficiently was ripe claim petitioner’s facts of this we conclude 9, December to show cause on court’s of the order this issuance support which court determine to be for this and that continues appropriate in the event be used in the interim elections state Senate districts should for the ballot. referendum proposed qualifies above,

First, December at time the was filed on as discussed petition that there was substantial possibility facts established undisputed ballot, for the but ultimately qualify referendum would proposed be not might determination or not the referendum would qualify whether would, matter, be as a practical made until March when it early terms, may 3(b)(2), by or should decide the merits directed to the time when its not may such a registered petition time voter petition, of the mandate but rather when file registered may . . mandate ... to seek (“Any court. voter . . . . writ in this file likely stay the map subject to a that is relief where a final certified referendum (Italics added.)) Although concurring opinion contests timely implementation map.” 3(b)(2) argues ‘likely qualify’ language in section is better read point, this that “the (conc. at granted by opn., post, . .” when relief is available and this court. specifying 492), plain reading language, purpose as well as the p. in our view of the constitutional contrary provision, concurring opinion’s interpretation. belie Third, not concurring opinion ultimately apply that “we need because the concludes (conc. opn., ‘likely qualify’ disposition . . .” standard in case because of our ultimate is, post, 496)—that that the Commission-certified p. because of the court’s determination cone, (see post, ballot qualifies opn., if the for the state Senate should be used 488)—the likely-to-qualify “general clear rule” is opinion makes that its only where court] cases but “in circumstances apply [the find[s] intended all map.” finding map the should be the interim contemplate[s] that an alternative to Commission only in such limited (Ibid.) advocating applies the rule that adoption likely-to-qualify In of a circumstances, substantially language from of article concurring opinion again departs the the XXI, 3(b)(2), apparent response section which draws no such distinction. concurrence’s case, when, writ in it issues a granting court is “relief’ this point—namely, this this not officials, stayed by map is directing election in the event the Commission-certified of mandate referendum, by sought a specified map petitioner a than map of the use other qualification merit; 1)—is clearly granting this is (see post, totally conc. at fn. without court opn., stay, not the map be the event of a whether or relief when it directs which is to used in seeking. by petitioner is the outcome ordered relief particular sum, 3(b)(2) concurring not support that article does we conclude {ante, 450-462), this fully pp. For in the text approach. the reasons set forth opinion’s be or decide districts should authority either an to show cause what court’s to issue order is not limited to circumstances proposed qualifies in the a referendum ballot used event “likely for the ballot. proposed qualify” in which referendum is implement decision this court impossible use state requiring Senate district other than maps those certified the Commission. Under by circumstances, these we conclude that the was doctrine satisfied and ripeness that this court had on December an authority to issue order to show in this original cause writ proceeding.

Second, the relevant factors that have this while matter was developed not this court do alter our pending conclusion that appropriate determine in this what proceeding state Senate districts should be used in the event referendum for the ballot proposed qualifies stays operative of the effect Commission-certified state Senate map. During pendency this the random verification proceeding, was sampling process completed, 10, 2012, resulting a determination of State Secretary on January that the referendum had signature rate a total validity projecting number valid between and 110 signatures percent required number of valid signatures. As a of State consequence, Secretary has directed local election full officials to conduct a count of all submitted that the will signatures, process Secretary State indicates be completed no by those officials later than to the February According 2012. however,

of State’s if this court were to wait until it is representations, finally determined whether the referendum has for the proposed actually qualified ballot, it would be too late this court’s decision to be permit implemented if the court were determine that a other than the map Commission-certified should used for the June and 2012 elections. map November Given these circumstances, that, conclude we even referendum though has proposed ballot, for the it is for this court to yet qualified determine at appropriate time state which Senate district should be used for the 2012 state Senate general elections the event the referendum does primary for the ballot and the effect of the automatically districts certified stays Commission. we now turn to that

Accordingly, question. triggering stay

IV. qualifies, If the Commission’s under which Senate map, certified district map should 2012 elections proceed?

A. Relevant case law Petitioner the interest that referendum and petition emphasizes proponents have down” referendum vote signers insisting “up the She statewide electorate that measure becomes effective. subject before years ago Assembly Deukmejian, supra, that 30 30 Cal.3d acknowledges v. held, vote, this court a four-to-three that that had redistricting by maps

465 Governor, but stayed by the by enacted and by Legislature approved been be as those should used maps, referendum challenging qualification Peti- vote on that referendum. measure the electorate’s an interim pending here, instead not that course but should tioner we should follow asserts (1) ordering Senate district boundaries either new interim state establish that created in 2001 based Legislature Senate use state expired years ago census—a similar to the one 40 adopted on 2000 remedy Reinecke, (2) Cal.3d use one Legislature supra, ordering v. 6 595—or (other than the Commission- redistricting two alternative state Senate maps Indeed, suggests certified has proposed. petitioner map) petitioner 11 and 20 to article XXI of the amendments made by Propositions Deukmejian v. holding Assembly Constitution “vitiate” the main California In order to of using stayed map. put with respect permissibility context, describe the fully past into we more argument relevant petitioner’s decisions of this court to which refers. petitioner Reinecke, Legislature Governor supra, Republican v. Cal.3d Senate, had state and districts that Assembly, congressional vetoed new state census, after the Democratic-controlled the 1970 Legislature been passed old that had been based leaving voting upon districts place only filed, this in Reinecke was did not have When the court 1960 census. dis- masters and establish special court-approved sufficient time appoint circumstances, those for use in the elections. Under tricts upcoming state Senate Legislature-passed court concluded that new unanimously should not be districts that had been vetoed the Governor Assembly and elections, held that the old interim for the instead used basis districts, census, should be used which had been based on prior legislative elections, shifts, due the old districts even though, population embodied in the the “one one vote” did with comply person, principle v. (Legislature clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. equal protection Reinecke, Reinecke expressed at the view 601-602.) court supra, pp. will far less destructive of that under the circumstances “it presented, districts, legislative the existing of the electoral allow integrity process be, two than for this years for an additional they survive imperfect are truncated even at best products court accept, temporarily, plans (Id., 602.)26 congressional With legislative respect process.” 26 Thereafter, Legislature agree on new district following the failure of the Governor new district lines special to recommend to appointed lines in we three masters eventually adopted through accepted succeeding elections in 1974 we Reinecke, (Legislature supra, Cal.3d adjustments. v. those recommendations with minor 466

districts, however, used, the court held that vetoed the should be on an basis, interim in the upcoming elections.27 in Assembly v. later, Deukmejian, supra,

Ten years 30 Cal.3d the three Senate, statutes at issue the redistricting (again, covering case state’s districts) and had been Assembly, congressional by Democratic- passed controlled Legislature signed by Democratic Governor in mid- A referendum drive September signature 1981. the California by Republican thereafter, the Party next three began day, all challenging Shortly maps. legislators who the legislative statutes and who supported reapportionment court, the referendum filed a writ opposed the petition challenging referendum on grounds.28 various Republican-sponsored procedural were Although and submitted to election signatures gathered the officials of State able very quickly was to determine Secretary that the referendum had sufficient valid expeditiously to for signatures qualify ballot,29 the statewide of the writ placement light challenge pending the referendum the of State announced that she had refrained from Secretary 27 explained: The court . . . compelling impel adopt “There are considerations that as a us to temporary plan, only, by for the the passed Legislature 1972 elections bill the reapportion congressional (Assembly Bill Extraordinary districts. No. 1971 First Session.) senators, assemblymen unchanged, Unlike the numbers of and state which remain number of representatives Representatives in the United States House which California is following entitled Accordingly, increased census from 38 to 43. congressional 1970 unless districts are reapportioned, representatives the offices of five will have unfilled either to be left alternative, Congress filled cannot accept expressly statewide elections. We either for has provided representatives single California shall elect 43 from 43 member districts. We only congressional fully agree need add that we with wholly mandate. It would be unacceptable congressional by depriving represen to avoid statewide elections the state entitled, congressmen tation of five to which it is but conduct statewide elections to fill five congressional large in a geographical population seats state of California’s size and would not but, only tremendously increase the burdens expenses campaigning of effective increasing confronting the choices electorate from the for one to the candidates candidates seats, congressional impede six seriously casting for would ballots.” informed Reinecke, 602-603, omitted.) (Legislature supra, v. Cal.3d at fn. pp. 6 28 ripe (1) preelection directly Three issues for review were presented: Because vote,” petitions signers referendum directed “address registered use their as rather than address,” Code, existing their “residence required petitions then Elections were the defective, (2) petitions defective? allowed placement If should for of the (3) May process challenge reappor referendum before the voters? referendum be used (See supra, 643.) Assembly Deukmejian, p. tionment statutes? issue v. Cal.3d at A fourth subsequently qualified approximately arose after the referendum weeks before six the court light intervening opinion: qualification consequent filed its of the referendum and the stay challenged maps, automatic maps upcoming under what should the election be (Id., conducted? days—30 days days signature gather fewer only Within than the 90 authorized ing—the Secretary proponents completed signature their lists to the submitted later, reviewing Approximately days signatures, after State State. duly qualified placement on the announced that the referendum was before voters ballot, on the June primary clerks to the referendum county place

directing The the referendum. challenge of the writ to this court’s resolution pending interim, election officials that in the county of State also directed use either track, newly adopted a dual should preparing proceed ante, election. 26) for the June 1982 (see the old from fn. 1973 maps maps a timing problem: Assembly Deukmejian v. thus faced This court in and election away, a few months only elections were June 1982 primary so, needed they In order to do needed lead time ballots. officials prepare outdated and had become the district boundaries. The boundaries prior know shifts, “one one violated they person, of unconstitutional—because population however, boundaries, by had been stayed The new vote” requirements. Deukmejian, v. (Assembly of referendum. “duly law operation by qualified” 654-657.) supra, 30 Cal.3d at pp. decision, noted, in a four-to-three this ultimately,

As already for the decided that the new boundaries should be used as interim measure June election and for November 1982 subsequent general 1982 primary new, election. The concluded that use of the albeit challenged maps, majority data, then nearly which were based on current 1980 census “more comports and and is with the federal state clauses requirements equal protection least of the electoral in view the limited disruptive options process” 665-666.) (Assembly 30 at Deukmejian, supra, time v. Cal.3d pp. constraints. voice 5 of the The court also reasoned that permitting percent electorate who “to signed delay implementation had the referendum petition of a for two four constitutionally plan years” required reapportionment on the of the injustice majority would “perpetrate potentially grave people (id., 670): state” Constitution of our state “Although grants at p. voters, it to 5 of the does initiate power percent does that the of that referendum articulated in a manner that effect be require such serious constitutional injury conflicting equally compelling (Ibid.) mandates.” Deukmejian v. Assembly

The three dissenting justices argued with would be the new boundaries although proper apply respect (Assembly Deukmejian, supra, v. place at Prior statutes in statewide ballot. 30 Cal.3d Assembly Deukmejian provided required signature v. at time lines for the the time shorter Code, 9030, current Elec. stage process. (Compare §§ verification at each of that [allowing county eight days counting signatures, for of raw election officials business days days signatures, and 30 for sampling percent for of 3 of raw business business random Code, (as by signatures verifying §§ all a full with Elec. former amended count] 11.3, 11.4, 4358-4360) [allowing five county ch. election officials pp. Stats. §§ days counting, days percent random of 5 of raw sampling for raw 15 calendar business count].) longer signatures, days verifying signatures and 30 a full calendar all statutes, mid-August deadline for certifica timing schedules the current combined with the Commission, by the exacerbate the time we face now. tion crunch (because the congressional elections number of seats had Cal. increased by two, there would be no to elect way valid the new number of congress- boundaries), without the new the court abide persons using should its Reinecke, Legislature v. decision supra, 6 Cal.3d use decade-old boundaries for state Senate and Assembly elections despite federal constitutional flaws those old (Assembly concerning boundaries. v. Deukmejian, Richardson, supra, 679-694.) 30 Cal.3d pp. Justice speaking Kaus, also for Justices Mosk and argued decision to majority’s “can employ stayed only as an official perceived alignment court with one side in a as to which we should dispute remain partisan (Id., Mosk, neutral.” at Justice scrupulously p. writing separately, the become deplored majority’s having “entangled in thicket’ ‘political by issue, their on a ignoring obligation neutrality that can partisan neutrality be observed only maintenance the status in legislative quo districting (Id., until the people at the election.” speak forthcoming [on referendum] 693.)30 p. v. from the in dissenting opinions Assembly Deukmejian, supra, 30

Quoting 693, now, Cal.3d at 679 and asserts that the court faces pages and petitioner avoid, should a similar thicket.” She that “the “political argues political situation have [today] 1981. and analogous Republicans sponsored funded the Commission’s Senate [proposed] against map She alludes to that “the plan.” Commission have ‘delivered a speculation Democrats,” two thirds in the majority Senate’ and states that “Republicans have been dissatisfied with the Commission’s Senate lines for these rea- Further, sons.”31 relies conclusion in petitioner upon majority opinion’s Reinecke, v. 602, that, Legislature supra, 6 Cal.3d at on the facts there page “it will be far destructive of of the presented, integrity less electoral districts, be, to allow the legislative process existing imperfect they may for an than years survive additional two for this even accept, truncated products that are at best of the temporarily, plans legislative (Italics added.) Petitioner thus “Commission’s process.” argues 30 referendum, people, voting by rejected Legislature’s In June redistricting (Legislature Deukmejian v. (1983) Cal.Rptr. 17].) 34 map. Cal.3d P.2d [194 Thereafter, lines, legislators “Democratic passing compromise rushed to redraw the plan Jerry duck Republican before lame Democratic Gov. Brown had left office his and successor Deukmejian enough George plan generous Republicans could be sworn in. The was house, gamer allowing go swiftly vote in a two-thirds each into effect avoid another stayed . . place referendum . Those lines for the remainder of the decade . . . .” [citation]. McGhee, Redistricting An Evaluation Commission Final (Kogan & Citizens California: 2012) 2; (Jan. Google Plans Policy, p. 4 Cal. via Scholar at Journal of Politics available 27, 2012].) of Jan. <http://polisci2.ucsd.edu/vkogan/research/redistricting.pdf> 3 [as reply Petitioner elaborates on these statements her brief. She asserts: “Media commen maps Many signers, have noted that the favored alarmed tators all Commission’s Democrats. economy, may signed prevent state of have the prospect about California’s to better of a safe, majority in the to raise their two-thirds State Senate taxes.” a truncated [proposed]

Senate is now part process [in that] that, it.” in the event been filed She asserts against referendum has determined to be adequate eventually supported referendum petition the June November should order that number of verified we signatures, than interim other state elections with alternative maps Senate proceed that is the of the referendum. the Commission’s certified map subject reasons, claim For we do not find persuasive petitioner’s two were the circumstances in this case are comparable circumstances Reinecke, v. Assembly v. 6 Cal.3d Legislature supra, presented Deukmejian, 638. supra, 30 Cal.3d

First, here has not been “truncated” as it was redistricting process v. Legislature Reinecke. mandated constitutionally the Governor’s veto certification of a Senate has been Commission’s procedure completed by ballot, effectiveness If the referendum on that for the map qualifies map. will be the referendum’s Commission’s product stayed pending outcome, Commis- does not terminate or reverse the but itself qualification the redis- sion’s As with redistricting stayed product legislative process. v. certified tricting Assembly Deukmejian, supra, Cal.3d at the page and the has rejected by government entity” Senate here “never been any map thus been but not terminated.” lengthened “has redistricting process Second, between redistricting overlooks a crucial distinction the petitioner at those redistricting as it existed the time of decisions the process times, those voting that is in effect in California At earlier process today. districts that by charged were created state and it was legislators frequently drawn maxi- give were on basis redistricting maps commonly partisan mum that control political advantage party enjoyed majority political legislative origins stayed branch. Given the difference between of the at and the map, issue in former cases Commission’s state Senate maps Assembly Deukmejian, v. into the intruding criticism of as any improperly thicket” would not to the case. “political simply apply present ante, in California redistricting process

As we have explained has been from the Under California earlier completely changed process. Constitution, article is now a Citizens redistricting performed Commission, and procedural requirements whose Redistricting membership are to ensure that is undertaken on a designed redistricting nonpar carefully entity tisan basis. When a such redistricting map adopted by nonpartisan one referendum measure challenged by sponsored by political a court we it is unrealistic to maintain that should be viewed believe party, determines, after review into the thicket” if intruding improperly “political to the and cons of all viable alternative relation ing pros maps criteria, constitutional scheme and that the devised map nonpartisan is the Commission most one to be an used in interim election. appropriate We also suggestion that a court should be question petitioner’s viewed as the same thicket if properly avoiding it were decide that the political most to be used in interim is one appropriate map election proposed by aof referendum one proponent sponsored by political party.32 Furthermore, assertion, contrary we do petitioner’s not believe that based respect constitutionally that a power requires court, faced with the of which district should be question voting map used for election, an interim must exclude from its consideration redistricting map that has been stayed (See of a referendum. v. qualification Assembly Deukmejian, supra, 658-660.) Cal.3d A referendum’s pp. qualification ballot full given respect by that recognizing qualification stays effect of the redistricting that otherwise would operative map lawfully referendum, election the absence govern upcoming of the and requires this court to determine what districts use in the interim elections. The stay however, the challenged redistricting map, does not necessarily logically restrict this court’s to consider and evaluate authority responsibility all merits of the could redistricting be used in the potential maps interim elections to determine which the court upcoming should direct officials to for those election elections.33 implement addition, significant we note Assembly a further distinction between this case and v. Deukmejian, supra, Use 30 Cal.3d 638. of the for the Commission’s districts 2012 elections carry would not with it problem another was inherent in the situation this court faced in

Assembly Deukmejian. Legislature’s redistricting v. maps The use for the interim giving in that advantage party only elections case had the effect of to elect elections, in legislators year legislators the interim but permitted also the thus elected from redistricting adopt maps legislative those districts to new that would if the be needed first (as rejected by were in the ultimately districts the voters referendum election occurred—see Thus, ante, 30). the use the legislatively Assembly fn. decision to districts in devised v. Deukmejian had a direct the in upon effect districts that were in California for the entire use decade, year’s and did only not affect the interim elections. case, contrast, present by In the proposed qualifies the if referendum for the ballot and the election, reject the upcoming voters Commission’s districts at the 2012 the November new by legislators would not be elected very districts drawn from the districts that the voters have Rather, Constitution, XXI, 2, rejected. pursuant to section (j), California article subdivision reason, by new districts would be established this court with the aid of masters. For special this use of the Senate map interim Commission’s state for the June and 2012 November elections long-term produce type would not the same adverse that the use of the partisan effect Assembly legislatively Deukmejian, drawn v. Cal.3d supra, districts had in 30 638. seen, Reinecke, 595, court, we Legislature supra, As have even in v. Cal.3d while declining adopt Assembly on an the new state interim basis Senate and districts that had Governor, Legislature recognized the passed possessed been but vetoed that it authority adopt congressional passed by on an interim the new that had been basis districts Legislature, though congressional redistricting even had also vetoed the Governor new manner, stay like map. qualification operates In the fact that of a referendum the effect of a in the sum, redistricting change of the fundamental

In in light for this California, not be appropriate that it would in we conclude process of a Commission- to, effect, the use against adopt presumption Commission-certified in the event the measure certified as an interim map Instead, we referendum petition. of a stayed by qualification map of all the and cons evaluate pros to fairly believe is most appropriate constitutional scheme relation to the redistricting maps alternative potential in the upcoming be used to determine which should and criteria in order for the ballot. if the referendum qualifies elections proposed interim maps B. Potential the redistricting maps and cons of each of reviewing pros so in the event the proposed an interim basis been for use on have proposed ballot, the three alternative maps we with begin referendum qualifies the Commission-certified map. and then consider by petitioner, proposed in 2001 based on Legislature 1. Use the “old map” adopted the 2000 census is to follow approach The first alternative by petitioner Reinecke, 595, use the outdated state 6 Cal.3d v. Legislature supra, based on the Legislature district that was formulated by Senate map census. concerns principle The most obvious with 2001 map problem vote,” (as clause the federal one under both equal protection “one person, L.Ed.2d in, (1964) U.S. 533 v. Sims Reynolds construed e.g., [12 XXI, Constitution, section article 1362]) and under California 84 S.Ct. earlier, (d)(1) subdivision (d)(1). noted article subdivision As shall comply order for redistricting lists as first of priority “[districts shall achieve districts Congressional the United States Constitution. with Senatorial, Assembly, as nearly practicable, population equality of that authority to consider the merits map does not limit this court’s Commission-certified at the determining districts should be utilized along what with other alternatives upon. is voted that are to be held before elections Indeed, this court regarding requests the relief that she proposals petitioner’s alternative and resultant acknowledge qualification that the provide implicitly court of the deprive would not stay state Senate district of the Commission-certified pre- from those embodied in districts that differ authority adopt interim state Senate fact, alternatives—the petitioner’s proposed of existing redistricting map. In under one 2001 court, the interim fashioning districts for use in Senate “nesting” map described below—this elections, Assembly that were created change districts utilize without the new state would at several state Senate that includes least adopt map and thus certified the Commission map. the Commission-certified districts contained in precisely mirror the Senate districts that 472

State Board of districts shall have Equalization reasonably equal population with other districts the same where office, except deviation required with the comply Act or Voting Rights (Italics allowable law.” federal added.) The United States Court has Supreme with explained regard “ enacted legislatively deviations from mathemati reapportionment, ‘[m]inor cal state are equality among legislative districts insufficient to make out a facie case of invidious discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment prima established, so as to require justification by State. Our decisions have as a matter, general that an with a maximum apportionment plan population deviation under 10 falls within this of minor A [percent] category deviations. however, with plan larger creates a facie case disparities population, prima ” of (Voinovich discrimination and therefore must be justified the State.’ v. 146, Quilter (1993) 500, 1149], 507 U.S. 161 L.Ed.2d 113 S.Ct. quoting [122 835, 214, (1983) Brown v. Thomson 462 U.S. 842-843 L.Ed.2d 103 S.Ct. [77 2690].) Although court has not identified an limit of deviation high upper cannot be one of the court’s decisions that the simply justified, suggested outer limits be reached if the deviation exceeded might 16.4 percent. 315, (Mahan 320, (1973) v. Howell 410 U.S. L.Ed.2d 329 93 S.Ct. [35 979] limits”]; that a [stating 16.4 deviation well tolerable percent “may approach Thomson, see also Brown (conc. v. at supra, 849-850 pp. opn. O’Connor, J.) the Mahan [noting court’s statement that a 16.4 percent deviation (4th the maximum that is Hunt may approach Daly v. permissible]; 1212, 1996) [same].)34 Cir. F.3d 93 1218 Court-ordered contrasted with enacted reapportionment, legislatively reap “ standards, to even stricter ‘must

portionment, subject ordinarily achieve the goal with little more than de minimis population equality ” 407, 465, (Connor (1977) variation.’ Finch 431 v. U.S. 417 L.Ed.2d [52 1828]; U.S._,_& (2012) S.Ct. see also Perry 97 v. 565 fn. 2 Perez 900, 2, 934,_& L.Ed.2d & fn. 908 132 S.Ct. fn. minimis [181 2] [de standard to court-drawn applies maps responding challenged portions (1997) state Abrams 521 v. Johnson U.S. L.Ed.2d maps]; [138 1925].) 117 S.Ct. As not be de would minimis explained post, disparities if we were to order interim use of the Legislature’s map. 34 Petitioner, Thomson, brief, supra, v. Brown reply example in her cites 462 U.S. as an id., (See high accepted larger pp. of a in which the a much deviation. at case Powell, J.) (lead opn. [referring percent average percent to a 16 deviation and an 89 (id. case, however, deviation].) redistricting In that was not at issue

maximum state’s overall rather, that, 846); challenge single p. at was limited to a district because of its status as county, representative scope was accorded a size. The limited of the decision despite its small O’Connor, (id., (conc. J.)), recognized by concurring justices p. opn. also was the two at dissenting justices agreed holding “extraordinarily and the four that the court’s was narrow.” Brennan, J.).) (Id., (dis. opn.

473 this court in considered by that some of the deviations Petitioner observes 638, than the devia- v. higher 30 Cal.3d were Assembly Deukmejian, supra, now, use of the were to order interim be created if this court tions would census.35 crafted in 2000 light that was 2001 Legislature’s Senate districts the odd-numbered “In the case of According petitioner: 2012, deviation from largest election in that come percent up district, District Senate smallest is 38.7 populous] percent; [most 284,528 30.5 while by percent, over ideal people, population size] [the 76,335, district, 8.2 District is under by per- Senate populous] [least districts are of the odd numbered cent.”36 Petitioner asserts that “[seventeen norm, and deviate less than five by percent. within 10 of the eight percent that “the more than Petitioner maintains three deviate 10 Only by percent.”37 population deviations are not nearly great as they were ^[1982] when the Court declined to follow its Reinecke decision.” deviation, that the relevant as we described it Commission asserts Assembly Deukmejian, 30 Cal.3d at is to be measured supra, v. page not from the “ideal” Senate “between the and smallest districts”—and largest 35 Assembly Deukmejian, “According figures by example, supplied For v. we observed: (530,643) Assembly parties, population percent real the current of the old 76th District 236 (224,488). Assembly of the old District The vote of a resident of the population 16th would, therefore, that of a of the former former 16th District be worth more than twice resident size, Compared percent 76th District. to the current ideal district the old 76th District is 79.4 ideal, greater than the ideal. The total percent than the while the old 16th District is 24.1 less percent. deviation between the two districts is 103.5 “Overall, Assembly vary by percent 2 of the more than 50 from the ideal old districts size; 295,857; vary by of the 80 population percent size of 2 30 to 50 from ideal 48 vary by Only percent districts 10 to 30 from the ideal. 28 of the districts are within 10 percent ideal district size. Senate, 458,587 than the people, percent “In the old Senate District 5 now contains 22.5 less number, 904,725 people, percent ideal while old Senate District contains more than the 52.9 Thus, that of a ideal. the vote of a resident of former District 5 would be worth almost twice percent. The total districts is Real resident of former District 38. deviation between two 75.4 parties’ figures percent show that the of one old Senate district is more than 50 population ideal; ideal; greater greater vary by percent 10 to 30 percent than the another is 41 than the ideal; (Assembly percent population from the are within 10 of the ideal size.” v. 666-667.) Deukmejian, supra, pp. 30 Cal.3d at light adopted alternative should not be even under of our conclusion appropriate whether it is petitioner’s suggested analysis, we need not and do not determine only in the state Senate districts rather than the population evaluate deviations odd-numbered deviation in all of the Senate districts. Petitioner in addition to old Senate District No. which as noted concedes 284,528 according percent, or 30.5 currently population people, is over the ideal size 166,798 currently population old Senate District No. 17 is over the ideal size petitioner, 5, currently population is over the ideal people, percent, or 17.9 and old Senate District No. 101,265 people, percent. size 10.9 district The Commission that the calculations of population.38 argues petition- (submitted er’s consultant in the Quinn, us declarations of Dr. T. Anthony the relevant devia- support petition) improperly “ignore population district,” among tion 2001 districts from the ‘ideal’ of a Senate population understood, and that “19 out of 20 of the odd-numbered Senate correctly districts deviate more than 16.4 are thus unconstitu- [percent] patently Moreover, tional.” the Commission that “even asserts using [petitioner’s] ‘ideal,’ (deviation incorrect frame of reference from the rather than compari- districts), son to other 2001 concedes that three districts are [petitioner] unconstitutional.”

In this and as the Commission observed in its regard, preliminary opposi- (in tion brief which it of analysis implicitly accepted purposes petitioner’s “ideal,” frame of reference—deviation from the rather than comparison districts), other 2001 own consultant’s shows that three petitioner’s summary districts, court, 2001 Senate if this would be imposed by constitutionally ante, (See 37.) the ideal. fn. suspect, deviating excessively from Commission in that asserts brief that under own opposition petitioner’s Senate Districts Nos. 17 and 37 would be unconstitu- analysis, “patently 17.9 and 30.5 We tional—deviating [percent] respectively.” [percent] conclude that such results would raise serious constitutional in light questions of the court’s obligation, alternative interim to avoid adopting map, any Johnson, Abrams v. supra, (See but de minimis deviations. 521 U.S. at consultant, Quinn, Petitioner’s Dr. T. in a declara- Anthony supplemental 7, 2011, tion filed December there fix: ready asserts “This situation is easily resolved. The Court could order that these three districts be simply reduced in size so that the districts in 2012 are within the 10 electing percent deviation Petitioner be the court range. would areas very happy suggest to be from the and the removed districts of State could existing instruct the counties to conduct the 2012 election in the only remaining portions.”

Petitioner’s that the 2001 lines for three Senate districts could suggestion observes, “revised” is As the Commission easily highly questionable. 2001 Senate district 37 in Riverside now has example, County “[f]or 1,215,876. within (MacDonald C.) Decl. Ex. To come a 10 population (2001 deviation of the least Senate district district number [percent] populated 267,764 However, (Ibid.) 21), need to district 37 would shed people. (2001 31)

districts to 2001 district 37’ s north districts 18 immediately result, (Ibid.) (2001 40) and to its south district are also As overpopulated. of 2001 districts would the Court any ‘re-drawing’ require reconfigure area, certain to clusters in the Los which would be greater Angeles population Petitioner's reply brief does not respond to this point. (if region throughout densely packed population ripple-effects produce Reinecke, v. supra, state). Legislature the entire through [Citation Moreover, districts would Cal.3d at Los re-drawing Angeles-area p. 403.] 2 of the Voting . . . in Los Angeles affect Latino districts [under Act], and likely violating effects Rights causing unanticipated [that act].”39 in its Final that Report Commission By comparison, explained no more for a total deviation of zero” and “would allow population “strive[d] would be than a 2.0 total deviation where further deviation except [percent] or law.” by with the federal Act allowable Voting Rights required comply 10-11.)40 certified (Final at The Commission’s Senate map’s Rep., pp. 39Congress Voting Rights minority enacted section 2 of the Act to combat vote dilution. prohibits imposition application any “voting qualification,” “prerequisite Section 2 or of “standard, voting” abridgement practice, procedure,” or or which results in the “denial or color,” right any minority citizen ... vote on account of race or or on account of (42 1973(a).) language determining practice status. U.S.C. The test for whether an electoral § (b) abridgment right results in a denial or to vote of section 2 is set forth subdivision that, of the act. In order prevail, plaintiff must be able to demonstrate “based on the circumstances, totality leading political processes ... to nomination or election in the political equally by State or are not members of a or open participation subdivision [racial language minority],” protected opportunity in that members of those classes “have less than other members of the to participate political process representa electorate in the and to elect Eu, (42 1973(b); generally supra, tives of their choice.” U.S.C. see Wilson v. 1 Cal.4th at § pp. [discussing authority]; 2” Supreme Rep., 744-749 relevant “section and U.S. Court Final at [same].) pp. 13-16 40 10, 1980, Report, page originally The Commission’s Final that as enacted in observed article special XXI of the California Constitution “mirrored the masters’ standard from the Reinecke, 396, [(see 411, Legislature supra, 1970s v. 10 Cal.3d which aimed for districts percent within deviating percent)] required of the ideal and in no event more than 2 and that (Wilson population particular reasonably equal.’ ‘the of all districts of a type shall be v. Eu[, 707, , added.)" supra,] 1 Cal.4th . . . Report italics The Final continues: Attorney interpreted language incorporating “The General had that ‘as the more restrictive population requirements “population assembly contained that the of senate and [Reinecke] circumstances, percent except districts should be within 1 of the ideal in unusual and in no ’ Reinecke, (Ibid., event greater percent permitted.” quoting supra, should deviation than 2 411.) p. Accordingly, special 10 Cal.3d at expressly complied masters in the 1990s with limit, acknowledging they stricter deviation while had selected a maximum deviation (Wilson, stringent required. have been even more than the California Constitution 753.) supra, Supreme approved plans 1 Cal.4th at The California Court the masters’ without (See explicitly ruling permitted on the maximum deviation the California id. under Constitution. p.at “Proposition language and Proposition population-equality 20 amended the in Califor- ‘Senatorial, Assembly, Equalization nia’s Constitution to state that and State Board of districts office, reasonably equal population except have shall with other districts for the same where ’ Const., (Cal. required comply VotingRights deviation is with Act or allowable law. federal XXI, initiative, (2), [2,] 2010), added.) (d)(1), (Nov. art. subd. amended Gen. Elec. italics § language interpreted population-equality Propositions “No has 11 or 20. whether, how, Accordingly, phrase ‘except no court has decided the addition of the where Rights required comply Voting deviation is with the federal Act or allowable law’ to (Final maximum total deviation between districts is 1.98 only percent. Rep., Districts.) table Sen. appen. suffers

Petitioner’s to use the outdated Legislature’s proposal II.C., from another substantial As noted ante in California part problem. Constitution, (d), amended in 2008 and article subdivision (1) the United States sets out six criteria: with compliance prioritized one (the clause and “one vote” person, prin- Constitution equal protection Act; (4) (3) (2) Voting Rights contiguity; the federal geographical ciples) local county, for the integrity any city, county, city respect “geographic (5) interest ... to the extent possible”; or local neighborhood, community (6) to the extent practicable; encouraging geographical compactness, the criteria and where this does not conflict with extent practicable, “[t]o whole, above, two each Senate district shall be comprised complete, earlier, not all of ...” As observed some but districts adjacent Assembly XXI, 2, set out in article section these six criteria redistricting currently relevant for the (d), Legislature’s subdivision also were set out as standards XXI that was in effect at the time in the version of article consideration prior But not created old based on the 2000 census. 2001 Legislature maps amendments to article XXI were all of the criteria set out the recent articulated, nor were factors any previously expressly previously 2001, was crafting maps when Legislature, prior prioritized; the rank that controls ordering the criteria pursuant required apply made no to address in what ways Petitioner has today.41 attempt with based on the 2000 census comports old 2001 Senate Legislature’s map decade. We the last changes during these criteria given population prioritized concerned, that, has petitioner conclude insofar as this alternative that it no basis which we can conclude respects us with upon provided deviation allowed under the California ‘reasonably equal population,’ alter the total (Final p. Rep., Constitution.” 41 Proposition and 20 in California by Proposition amended Until Constitution, XXI, year “In the adopted in read as follows: former article as § Congress at the the direction of following year in which the national census is taken under Senatorial, decade, adjust boundary lines of the Legislature shall beginning of each districts in conformance with Assembly, Congressional, Equalization and Board of following standards: Senate, “(a) Assembly, Congress, Equalization the Board of shall Each member of single-member from a district. be elected reasonably equal. be “(b) particular type districts of a shall population The of all “(c) contiguous. Every district shall consecutively commencing at the northern “(d) numbered type of each shall be Districts ending boundary. boundary of State and at the southern any county, city county, geographi- or of “(e) integrity any city, or geographical The violating any requirements possible to the extent without region respected cal shall be of this section.” other subdivision of the other at least as much as other any criteria constitutionally specified certified state Senate map. the Commission’s including proposed maps, Senate district map the 2001 in an additional significant respect Finally, ante, article As discussed legally suspect. appears “ drawn for the (e) shall not be purpose subdivision provides [districts candidate, incumbent, or an political favoring discriminating against been widely has redistricting map party.” Legislature’s political both incumbent legislators designed perceived specifically protect well over the decade and as major serving purpose political parties for Governmental (See, was in effect. Center e.g., which the redistricting map Studies, California: 11 on the November Reform in Redistricting Proposition drew (2008) Legislature Ballot that in 2001 [noting 2008 California incumbents from both lines “that favor the re-election of parties” district result, due to competition, one seat has only changed parties “[a]s and Congressional general one incumbent has lost in the 459 legislative only Block, (fn. omitted)]; Partisan Reapportion election races held this decade” Plendl, 21; Are the voters dissed 2003) ment 34 Cal. Journal (Aug. contrast, 12.)42 academic observers (2002) 33 Cal. Journal redistricting? By the certified state including have concluded that the Commission’s maps, on the legislature-led Senate “represento important improvement map, The new district boundaries more communities redistricting of 2001. kept time increasing and created more districts while at the same together compact . . . have the . . . minority representation. maps opportunities [T]hese and the increase in California elections potential modestly competition voter legislative changing preferences.” branch responsiveness McGhee, & An Evaluation (Kogan Redistricting Citizens California: 26; Plans, and at Policy Commission Final 4 Cal. Journal of Politics supra, p. available via Scholar at Google <http://polisci2.ucsd.edu/vkogan/research/ 27, 2012].) of Jan. 32-33 redistricting.pdf> pp. [as that the Commis- It was in reaction to the Legislature’s maps partly (See lines. Voter Informa- sion was created and with district charged drawing 11, 2, Guide, 4, 2008) (b), text subd. (Nov. tion General Elec. of Prop. § law, draw their own legislators current California [noting p. “[u]nder that, result, as a of incumbent politicians districts” and “99 percent political themselves in the recent reelected in the districts had drawn for they were Guide, 2, (Nov. 2010) elections”]; argument General Elec. Voter Information 20, that “in the last [asserting redistricting” politicians in favor of Prop. p. reelection”].) “to their to draw district boundaries guarantee consultant paid McGhee, (2008) Redistricting Legislative Partisanship Policy and Public also See 1; (Oct. Redistricting: Happened It California, Bipartisan CA: The How Quinn, p. Institute of 2001) Digest <http://www.caltax.org/member/digest/oct2001/10.2001. No. Cal-Tax vol. 27, 2012). (as of Jan. Quinn-BipartisanRedistricting.08.htm> view, In our it would contravene the intent of the new regime redistricting article XXI of the California Constitution if this court were to order the use of old state Senate districts that were as no designed perceived purposes longer permissible. “nesting” Petitioner’s proposed

2. Petitioner’s second alternative is to create new state Senate districts, districts two state of which there combining adjacent Assembly districts, are into Senate of which there are 40. Petitioner refers to single this as her nesting “simple plan.” noted, Constitution, (d)

As California article subdivision “To the extent criteria, sets forth six the last of which is: prioritized above, the criteria practicable, where this does not with each conflict whole, Senate district shall be of two comprised complete, adjacent (Italics added.) districts . . . .” Assembly

Petitioner her can does not how be reconciled explain nesting proposal with article XXI’s rank of criteria. As the Commission ordering explained Final although its to nest districts Senate Report, attempted Assembly districts the extent and when “not conflict with the practicable” “[t]o [in] criteria, Commission, higher-prioritized balancing practice [other]” criteria, those other was able to achieve the three of fully nesting goal only (See 5.)43 the 40 Senate districts. Final As the Commission Rep., appen. (a describes in its brief: In order “to minimize city county splits certain criteria than the Commission created Senate higher-order nesting), districts ‘blended’ so to “avoid city from districts” Assembly repeating that were unavoidable at the level.” As the Commis- county splits Assembly it “also blended districts to communi- sion further explains, Assembly respect ties of interest ‘where more than two districts had common Assembly interests or characteristics that were common to a Senate single geographical ” (See district.’ Final Rep., Senate contrast Commission-certified state map, petitioner’s this court to the lowest valued nesting, would nesting proposal require adopt of, criterion, criterion, to, and at as the without controlling regard expense several other value criteria. higher

First, with criterion to conflict nesting appears petitioner’s proposal 2, the federal (2) of article section subdivision with (d)—compliance 43 nesting, achieved percent In addition to three districts that achieved 100 three others districts nesting percent population. of at least of the district’s The two least-nested 99 population. goal respect approximately percent achieved that with 65 to 66 of district’s (Final 5.) Rep., appen.

479 act,44 may a state before 5 of that section Act. Under Rights Voting a “covered jurisdiction,” that will affect change any voting-related implement of the change administrative approval either or must seek judicial the state abridging or denying or effect of it does not have purpose ensure that (42 race, color, U.S.C. minority. language or account of to vote on right Act ante, 44, Voting Rights 5 of footnote section 1973c(a).) As observed § counties; Merced, and Yuba. Monterey, Kings, four California only applies “ the right or abridging ‘denying have the “effect” of will redistricting A ” racial of in the position [or to a retrogression if it to vote’ “lead[s] the electoral exercise of to their effective with minorities language] respect 130, 142, L.Ed.2d 141 (Beer States (1976) 425 U.S. v. United [47 franchise.” 406, U.S. Kennedy v. (2008) 553 Riley 629, also (Beer); see S.Ct. 96 1357] Eu, at supra, Wilson v. 837, 1970]; Cal.4th L.Ed.2d 128 S.Ct. 412 [170 746.) p. new definition, a jurisdiction’s comparison

“Retrogression, by requires necessarily It also implies its existing plan. with voting plan [Citation.] which the ‘effect’ the benchmark against existing the jurisdiction’s plan Bd. (1997) (Reno v. Bossier Parish School is measured.” changes voting 730, 1491].) 471, newly Accordingly, L.Ed.2d 117 S.Ct. 520 U.S. 478 [137 minority groups voting rights or maintain drawn districts improve v. United 141; see also Lockhart (Beer, at 5. 425 U.S. supra, p. satisfy 863, 125, [finding L.Ed.2d 103 S.Ct. States U.S. (1983) 998] [74 did not “increase because it entitled to was city’s map preclearance may jurisdictions” certain “covered Voting Rights requires Act that before Section 5 of the standard, voting, practice, or a voting any change qualification, prerequisite in a implement judicial or (a change), the state must seek voting voting-related procedure respect with or purpose does not have the voting-related change to ensure that it approval administrative race, color, language or denying abridging right to vote on account effect of or only four (42 1973c(a).) Voting Rights applies Act minority. 5 of the U.S.C. Section § Eu, Merced, (Wilson at supra, 1 Cal.4th Monterey, and Yuba. v. Kings, counties: California Thus, voting changes practices California’s to statewide applies section 5 (Lopez v. counties. changes affect these covered only to the extent that those procedures 728, 693]; 266, see (1999) S.Ct. Monterey County 280-281 L.Ed.2d 525 U.S. [142 Eu, 745-746; 21-23.) Rep., pp. at supra, pp. v. Final generally Wilson voting-related change that for a obtaining judicial approval or administrative process either from preclearance A seek county “preclearance.” called state affects a covered Justice) States or from the United (Department of Attorney General of the United States Columbia, preclearance a state obtains and until Court for the District District voting-related change is unenforceable. county, voting-related change that affects covered _ 900, Perez, see, L.Ed.2d (42 1973c(a); Perry supra, 565 U.S. e.g., [181 v. U.S.C. § voting-related 934].) maps constitute Commission’s four certified Because the 132 S.Ct. counties, Attorney the California on November changes affect the covered that will (The 44-page of Justice. maps Department to the the Commission’s General submitted documentation, submission, is available on along with all other Commission preclearance 27, 2012].) site, On of Jan. <http://www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov> [as Web Commission’s maps. use of the January Department approved of Justice of degree discrimination” against city’s Mexican-American population]; Eu, contrast, v. Wilson 1 Cal.4th at supra, By newly (or drawn this case alternative) proposed districts that “retrogress” of voting rights minority would violate section 5. groups consultant,

Petitioner’s Quinn, Dr. T. Anthony asserts that under petition- er’s the sole nesting section 5-covered proposal, jurisdiction that would be impacted Monterey County, through “nested” Senate petitioner’s proposed Districts Nos. 13 and 15. The Commission asserts that “fails to petitioner address, however, that Senate districts 13 and 15 fall far proposed [these] below the 2001 benchmark levels thus violate Section 5: [Petitioner’s] district 13 combination proposed of certified Assembly Districts Nos. 28 [a 29], north benchmark covering Monterey falls from the 2001 of County, 26.22 Latino Voter [percent] (‘LVAP’) to 17.66 Age Population [percent] LVAP.Similarly, Senate district 15 [petitioner’s] combination of [a 30], certified Districts Nos. 27 and Assembly reduces the benchmark for South from Monterey 53.48 LVAP to 51.31 LVAP.”The [percent] [percent] Commission asserts that result is under Section 5 of the permissible “[n]either Voting Act.” Rights In a second way, would to exalt petitioner’s nesting proposal appear (cid:127) criteria,

nesting over other yet higher-ranked set forth in California Constitution, (d)(4). article subdivision That subdivi sion requires redistricting map respect “geographic integrity any city, county, local city county, neighborhood, local community interest ... in a manner that minimizes their division to the extent possible without violating the requirements any subdivisions.” preceding Petitioner’s would result in five more cities and counties splits with the compared Commission’s certified and also would more map,45 split “local communities of interest.” For Commission observes: example, Certified “Senate district 1 was created in intact the Lake Tahoe part keep basin, in light overwhelming public support keeping community See, interest El Dorado Bd. of together. e.g., Resolution County Supervisors 82-2011, 28, 2011.)[46] No. submitted June Ignoring [to Commission] 45 As the petitioner Commission observes—and does not contest—the Commission’s certi map splits fied Senate cities and (excluding zero-population splits “20 11 counties and cities or 931,349, greater counties with populations population), than the ideal 2010 district [S]enate contrast, explained Report page nesting reasons in the map, Final [at 42]. [Petitioner’s] splits 22 cities and 14 counties.” Commission, Like all posted other matters submitted to the this resolution is on the site, (as 2012). <http://www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov> Commission’s Web of Jan.

481 Lake Tahoe between nesting plan splits [petitioner’s] proposed input, public 4.”47 districts 1 and her proposed criteria, the Com constitutional subordinating higher-ranked

In addition dramatically would increase also argues, nesting proposal mission in who did 2001 districts residing voters—those voters number “deferred” thus would be placed for a in 2010 and who ideally not vote state senator but a state senator in 2012 who districts that are scheduled vote for new senator until districts that not vote for a state are instead would placed 48 some voters The Commission 2014—and would “double-defer” inevitably of deferred out that certified minimized the number its own maps points Commis According three alternatives. by employing numbering voters sion, for at would result deferrals least nesting petitioner’s proposal 3,972,984 4,592,350 voters, voters who increase of over the 15.5 percent 49 deferred will be under Commission’s maps. also raises the nesting The Commission contends petitioner’s proposal who be deferred in voters would “double-deferral”—individual specter 2012 and to the of another set of after maps both 2014 due implementation worse-case the 2012 In this the Commission regard, explains, elections. “[t]he not, asserts, to vote in an ‘having right scenario is as Petitioner casually election,’ to vote in both the 2012 and being extra but rather denied right ill 2014 elections. These effects would occur with Commis- [Citation.] districts, certified under yet guaranteed [petition- sion’s Senate are virtually nesting proposal.” er’s] asserts, Commission double-deferral raises

Finally, prospect ante, (see under Act other section 2 of potential problems Voting Rights 47 way, nesting state petitioner’s proposal, specifically proposed In another her Senate Districts Nos. 1 and to violate Constitution. appears article California earlier, (f) consecutively provides As noted subdivision that districts “shall be numbered ending commencing boundary boundary.” at the northern the State southern proposed Petitioner’s nested state Senate District No. 1 does not touch the state’s northern boundary, petitioner place proposed where would nested state Senate Districts Nos. 2 and her petitioner’s and indeed is nested District No. proposed located south state Senate well. any “agrees that some The Commission level of voter-deferral is inevitable Senate Nevertheless, redistricting ‘even’ plan, as voters move between ‘odd’ and numbered districts.” asserts, an important the number of deferred voters is consideration when the Commission considering plans. alternative interim MacDonald, analysis appended Based on of the exhibits to the declaration of Karin proposed Nos. 33 and 34 “would petitioner’s Commission asserts that nested Senate Districts 529,759 numbering: proposed more their district 34 contains create deferrals [The] [nested] 398,611 only from residents from 2001 odd-numbered district and residents hand, proposed district on the other contains even-numbered district. [The] [nested] 513,062 421,083 residents from 2001 residents from a 2011 even-numbered district odd-numbered district.” 39),

fn. because none of petitioner’s nested districts with minority voting populations section 2 of that protected by act to the (according Commission, 24, 30, proposed nested state Senate 32) Districts Nos. would vote for state senators 2012.50The Commission concludes that aas result, under petitioner’s nesting “the brunt of proposal, double-deferral will fall on voters of color who would be unable vote for their senators of choice in 2012 elections and could be further deferred under an as-yet this, comments, determined set of Given all maps.” Commission it is “not that the surprising Commission considered and declined to draw completely districts, nested Senate and Assembly in favor of with Article compliance XXI, section 2’s criteria.” higher-order that,

We concerned, conclude insofar as petitioner’s nesting map she has us with no provided basis which we can upon determine that it respects federal and state law at least as much as other of the any interim proposed the Commission’s maps, including certified state Senate map.

3. Petitioner’s proposed “model plan” earlier, noted As that we petitioner alternatively proposes adopt wholly new “model based on a plan”—a map submitted proposal by petitioner’s consultant, redistricting Quinn. Dr. T. Anthony

The does not petition undertake to describe the model plan, say except that it would the court require to “redraw some but not all of the Senate above, Districts” and hence unlike the two prior discussed it proposals “would more time” to require relatively into A November put place.

declaration Dr. Quinn, filed with the petition December provides some elaboration: The model is the same one plan submitted by petitioner Bowen, her S196493, Vandermost v. September petition, supra, challenging of the Commission’s certified legality state Senate In that earlier map. the model was petition, plan and offered as a presented for use starting point masters whom asked special petitioner us in order to appoint recom- mend to this court a state Senate map replace Commission’s certified noted, Senate As denied the writ map. we on October prior 2011. Quinn’s Dr. November 22 declaration states: “Should the court appoint or a Master to draft an interim Senate I expert Special am map, prepared master, to the present and to all the map expert provide necessary files for the computer map.”

At this late in the stage schedule of election there does preparations, simply not exist sufficient time to consider such an undefined new adequately map. contrast, asserts, By the Commission maps, under Commission’s certified Senate state Voting Rights District No. 33—“a . . . Section 2 district elect State [under Act]—will senators 2012.” there no reason to appoint special

We in October 2011 that was concluded and, model because or to further consider plan, masters petitioner’s proposed any map such to consider implement would essentially impossible now, is all the more today. that conclusion apt State and the Secretary Interim proposal suggested

4. map state Senate Use the Commission’s Commission: certified even each us to hold that urge of State the Commission eventually stayed by qualifi- if the Commission’s certified Senate map referendum, be em- should cation of Commission’s of the alternative the elections because it to any 2012 ployed preferable we for a number of reasons in a number of As maps respects. explained, the Senate best of conclude the Commission-certified state map in in that have been for use the 2012 elections alternative maps proposed the ballot. event the referendum proposed qualifies ante, matter, in an noted we the suggestion As initial as reject state Senate map brief that should the Commission-certified petitioner’s referendum, would be of the stayed by qualification impermis proposed an use state Senate sible for us consider Commission’s map Assembly v. in interim for the 2012 elections. The map majority opinion 638, that, supra, 30 Cal.3d observed as decisions Deukmejian, repeatedly teach, the United a court in our situation has broad States Court Supreme , . . . “any practical including reapportion alternative consider authority to be are not and which are scheduled yet ment which plans effect id., added; (Id., to the 658, submitted electorate.” at italics see also at p. p. court, but not only exercise its consider equitable powers, [“a frame also which are not final within the yet adopt reapportionment plans affirmed by of a state constitution. This is action precisely work id., Sims, 533.”]; Reynolds supra, 377 U.S. at Court in v. Supreme cases breadth of court’s equitable powers reapportionment [“Given law, to the this consideration may give under federal it is clear that not those are plans even Legislature’s plans, though 1981 reapportionment vote.”].) to a popular in effect and are now scheduled be submitted yet text of no indication in the there is Contrary petitioner’s suggestion, to those or the ballot materials relating or Proposition Proposition to, did, Assembly measures, v. was intended or “vitiate” either measure into we and take Deukmejian or any regard. Although recognize, this account, ballot would that if referendum for the the proposed qualifies has state Senate district map engendered indicate Commission-certified who as reflected number of individuals significant degree of opposition time we same signed petition, recognize must reality that the had has not public to scrutinize or comparable opportunity its with to the express opinion merits of of the alternative regard any plans by petitioner. proposed

Second, out, as the of State and the Commission unlike point any other of the Commission’s state Senate district maps, has map earlier, survived petitioner’s in this court. As mentioned prior legal challenge Bowen, S196493, Vandermost v. petitioner’s 126-page petition, supra, pre sented federal myriad and state and constitutional statutory to the challenges ante, (See Commission’s certified Senate state fn. On map. October 2011, after of all the thorough consideration issues raised by we petitioner, determined that the merit (See lacked and denied the writ. petition requested (2000) In re Rose 22 Cal.4th 993 P.2d Cal.Rptr.2d [93 956] the sole means of review is a court . in this . . our [“When denial petition—with without opinion—reflects judicial determination merits.”].) on the We are aware no basis which to upon reasonably of the Commission’s certified Senate question legality state This map. clearly the Commission-certified each distinguishes from of the alterna proposed by tives petitioner.

Third, alternatives, and unlike proffered do the only Commission-certified districts Senate with all of the appear comply Constitution, mandated set forth constitutionally criteria in California article XXI, the Commission-certified Senate districts are a also of what product to have an generally appears been open, redis transparent nonpartisan tricting as called for the current of article process by XXI. provisions We these believe features be viewed as an element use of may properly favoring the Commission-certified map. hand,

On the other we that our decision does not mean that we emphasize will conclude invariably that the Commission’s certified ormap always maps be interim should used on an basis in to the circumstances similar we setting instances, today. address some for draft may Commission example, and, consider number of district after differently configured maps public comment, make a may controversial with to which to judgment regard map If the a referendum that for certify. controversy engenders qualifies adopt ballot, the court before an have it alternative drafted may map by has entity an and that been nonpartisan through open process subject review and comment hence most public, satisfying procedural Constitution, embodied in California article XXI. safeguards There also are in “old” conceivable circumstances which the ormap maps be selected as an measure interim over the Commission’s certified might map briefs, As maps. or discussed in the because the state has less undergone 1970’s, the extent of with the the last decade in population growth compared principles with federal existing equal protection districts noncompliance v. Assembly in in the districts considered less it was in the case of than future, old It 638. Deukmejian, supra, 30 Cal.3d possible with federal equal protection will remain substantially compliant districts after a decade. principles reasons, selecting in the future to avoid other there be less cause may

For earlier, interim Although Legislature, old remedies. as noted maps forth in California was not the criteria set guided by its 2001 crafting maps, Constitution, XXI, (d) (f), resulting and the subdivisions article been having designed protect have been viewed as widely maps ante, (see 477), this will not be true subsequent incumbent legislators Const., (Cal. art. certified the Commission All future whether maps. maps, XXI, this with the assistance of special subd. or court adopted by (g)) § (id.., the ranked (b)(3)), subd. will (j), guided masters subd. §§ XXI’s on districts prohibition designing constitutional criteria article incumbent protect legislators. case,

Moreover, instances, due to the some procedural posture find use of certified or may map court avoid the Commission’s proper If, an are with a for interim basis. we faced example, request maps at the same time that interim relief in of a challenge light pending we are the Commission’s concurrently considering legal challenge maps constitutional procedures failure follow properly prescribed Const., (see 3(b)), we conclude that criteria Cal. art. § are not for interim relief. Commission’s a sound basis maps combination, circumstances, lead or in could Although variety singly case that a Commission-certified map conclude a future interim not be a referendum pending challenging should used as circumstance no such in this case. is map, present and disposition Conclusion

V. above, that is authorized to For the reasons set out we conclude this court this time to determine which state Senate entertain writ at this and the should for the 2012 elections in general districts be used primary the and stays event the referendum for ballot proposed qualifies placement the the state district We effect of Commission-certified Senate map. operative writ of mandate command- decline to issue petitioner’s request peremptory the State to refrain from action ing taking any implementing the Secretary that, Commission’s Instead order if certified state Senate we map. ballot, of State and local referendum for qualifies proposed 486

election are officials to use state Senate certified the Commission map by as interim for the boundaries 2012 general elections. primary Commission’s certified Senate is the state alternative most consistent map with the constitutional scheme and criteria embodied in the state federal and Constitutions.

The relief denied. sought by is If the referendum petitioner proposed ballot, election are qualifies Secretary of State local officials directed use the state Senate certified June Commission for the map 5, 2012, 6, 2012, Election and the Primary November General Election. Each shall bear its party own costs this final judgment Our is proceeding. forthwith.

Kennard, J., Baxter, Chin, J., J., J., J., Werdegar, concurred. Corrigan, LIU, J., More thana half Felix Concurring. century ago, Justice Frankfurter observed that one fact stark from a emerges study history “[t]he [legislative] is its apportionment embroilment sense of politics, party v. (1946) contests and interests.” Green 328 554 party (Colegrove U.S. Frankfurter, L.Ed. 66 J.).) S.Ct. Faced with (plur. [90 opn. 1198] litigants entreaties intervention in the seeking judicial redistricting process, Justice famously Frankfurter warned that not to this enter ought “[c]ourts (Id. thicket.” Although at the law has not political adopted (see, version of this uncompromising urged by Justice Frankfurter principle 1362]; e.g., (1964) v. Sims 377 U.S. Reynolds L.Ed.2d 84 S.Ct. [12 (1962) Baker v. Carr U.S. L.Ed.2d 691]), S.Ct. his [7 admonition continues decade to resonate each when courts are asked to are decide what fundamentally political Judicial restraint is disputes. espe because, in the context of cially legislative high as the important redistricting observed, court shown the recently “experience defining has difficulty U.S._,_ (2012) neutral in this area.” v. legal principles (Perry Perez 900, 905, 934, 941].) L.Ed.2d 132 S.Ct. [181 case, line: I Senate agree with court’s bottom district map (Commission)

certified Commission Citizens Redistricting interim event should be used in the map petitioner’s ante, As the (maj. ballot. qualifies explains opn., 464-485), we need exclude the from Commission consideration pp. map as a interim and the Commission possible map, superior evaluated state alternatives when federal and against applicable however, criteria. I write because I believe the court’s redistricting separately, discussion our to decide such leaves to cases as this too much authority ante, 457, 458, (see 460) at “prudence” maj. opn., pp. places language insufficient in the California Constitution that channels emphasis and checks our discretion. VI, Constitution, article that “under California concludes

Today’s opinion and decide order to show cause authorized to issue an this cotut is directed at a be used in the event proposed districts should which ballot, even in the for the redistricting map qualifies Commission-certified likely referendum is qualify absence of a that showing proposed ante, a mandate action 463.) ripe at The court will find ballot.” (Maj. opn., p. that, that relative conclude in light probability for decision “when we time limitations referendum will for the ballot the proposed qualify a mandate to consider refusing detrimental consequences potential time, issue an order show cause at that in it is point prudent petition in event be used in the elections upcoming decide which districts should (Id. at on the ballot.” referendum does for placement the proposed qualify 457.) p. statements, discretion, will have the

I these our by maximizing believe their bring grievances unintended future consequence inviting litigants course, the court will exercise to this court. Of with redistricting process However, as those claims. this court’s own litigants’ prudence addressing shows, are controversies with redistricting fraught political peril. experience I respectfully Where one sees another see judge may partisanship. prudence, it because authority with court’s broad assertion disagree unduly that are inherent redis- underestimates risks of political entanglement it discretion contem- tricting and because disputes all-things-considered insufficient in our Constitution can gives weight language help plates the court avoid such entanglement.

I. matter, I have under agree jurisdiction As initial with court we Constitution, VI, California article section 10 entertain for writ petition Our of mandate and to issue an order to show cause this matter. case, to hear the authority fundamental sense of lawful jurisdiction, question. we is under what circumstances this court should decide question face to be of a relief in the form of an interim seeking map merits qualifies used in the event that a referendum Commission challenging referendum will for the ballot. to whether a Uncertainty On two dimensions. for the ballot with presents timing problem competing hand, if the signature risks too late it waits for acting one will to indicate whether the referendum qualify. verification process “[I]f should be used in the event court were to conclude other districts be too late at that time court’s referendum qualifies, apply ante, On (Maj. those districts.” opn., decision to other implement hand, the other the risks too it acting court if decides the merits of the early and selects an interim before the knowing whether referendum map will issuance of a court decision qualify. favoring an alternative map “[T]he over the Commission-certified might—in the event the referendum map does not cast a cloud the qualify—unnecessarily over of that legitimacy Commission-certified for (Id. 459.) the decade . . . .” map ensuing at p. here, where,

The risk of too is not acting early as court present concludes that the interim Commission should be if map petitioner’s map if, for ballot. “Even qualifies after court issues its opinion, the referendum ultimately does the ballot and the Commission-certified is not stayed, issuance the court’s decision— map the Commission’s no approving have adverse effect map—could upon ante, 459.) Commission-certified at such map.” (Maj. opn., Under circum- p. stances, there is no need to assess referendum’s likelihood qualifica- tion, and the court “should issue its decision as early so as to possible eliminate the that uncertainty arises from the inevitably ongoing signature verification and the of the process writ pendency court.” proceeding (Ibid.) decision could have resolved the issue on

Today’s timing that basis and left However, matters there. in an “to effort on this provide guidance procedural ante, 448), for the future” at point (maj. opn., court further to p. goes hold that we have discretion and broadly maximum determine flexibility whether and when we decide which should be used map upon qualifica- referendum, tion of a even where interim we choose is not the map 456-457, scenario, (see 459^-60). Commission id. at In that where map pp. the court concludes that an alternative superior to the Commission map map, problematic early too or too late come to the consequences acting scenario, fore. This case does not but is clear that the court’s present broad to that holding scenario intended address it. applies expressly (See 456.) id. at here p. Accordingly, discussion from forward addresses understanding court’s our in circumstances we find or authority where should alternative the Commission be the contemplate finding map interim map. view, two court’s articulation its raises concerns. my authority

First, court refers to harm from too as a acting early “possibility” ante, come to I “might” (Maj. see no reason such pass. opn., of the at issue. tentative substantial harm If the issues acknowledgment favoring decision an alternative to Commission but the referendum end does not the court’s decision would have needlessly up qualifying, burdened election officials with a dual-track until using process planning verification More serious completion signature process. importantly, would of the electoral process and legitimacy concerns about the fairness effect go into if a were map the next decade Commission throughout arise if only another even favoring map an this court in shadow of opinion hardly consequences are speculative. on an interim basis. These problems foreseeable as consequences too are at least as serious and early of acting late, with the far concerned too the court’s seems less opinion of acting yet 456-458.) id. (See at than the latter. pp. former with concern, and that is the expansive the second This imbalance contributes to act a when to for itself to decide whether and discretion court claims an it finds that alternative ismap superior mandate in cases where petition that, in light it act “when we conclude The court says may Commission’s. for the that referendum will qualify of the relative the proposed probability detrimental consequences and the time limitations and potential ballot time, that in it a mandate at point prudent” consider refusing ante, it 457.) Elsewhere the court says “may properly act. at (Maj. opn., p. chance . . court that there is sufficient relief . when the view grant for the court” to to make it prudent that the referendum will proposed (Id. 457-458.) at whether it determining do so. And is prudent pp. “[i]n in advance referendum’s issue its decision qualification (and too acting early] adverse notwithstanding consequence potential [of [the] so, far take into account advance), undoubtedly if how in court would and determination that an alternative analysis reasons its underlying particular than based criteria is more consistent with map constitutionally and if when to issue its opinion Commission-certified then decide and map, (Id. 459-460.) at based in on such considerations.” part pp. court will all boil down to the same thing:

These verbal formulations ante, (See maj. act when the court feels it is do so. prudent opn., all such to take into account retains broad discretion properly [“[T]his relief is deciding other relevant factor what any considerations as well as ordered.”].) It it should be casts and when such appropriate proceeding that such worry open-ended no on the court’s collective wisdom doubt determining—in standard for discretion offers little in the way objective and when to the serious risks entails—whether uncertainty the face of other than the as declaring issue a decision important effect, the court’s used as an interim In map. Commission’s should be or against judicial to make their best case for litigants invites future opinion can help a determinate legal principle intervention without supplying above the political fray. and reality, our keep decisionmaking, appearance of our own burden on dictates prudence, We need such heavy place a better approach. for the text of our Constitution provides II.

The voters of California reformed the fundamentally redistricting process when they passed Proposition 20 in 2010. Proposition Those Commission, initiatives created the defined its membership, procedures, responsibilities, criteria, established a list prioritized of redistricting provided Commission-certified be maps challenged by referendum. addition, the recent reform this court’s intervention in the contemplates First, redistricting four circumstances. process a voter registered may challenge lawfulness of a Commission within 45 after it map is days Const., XXI, (Cal. Second, certified. (3).) art. (b)(2), subd. when the § votes, Commission not does a final it approve map by requisite is this (Id., duty court’s to a with the aid supply of a map master. special § Third, subd. referendum, when (j).) voters a Commission disapprove a map the court also must a aid (Ibid.) with the of a supply map master. special fourth

The circumstance the one is relevant here: voter “Any registered this state file a may also for a writ of mandate or writ petition of prohibition to seek relief a where certified final a subject is to referendum measure map that to likely is qualify stay (Cal. of the timely implementation map.” Const., XXI, 3, (hereafter art. (b)(2) 3(b)(2)).) subd. section This sentence § 3(b)(2) section addresses situations where a referendum a challenging ballot, Commission has not map yet for qualified guidance provides on the we timing face. problem 3(b)(2)

Section was enacted part Proposition with another along that provision moved date which the up Commission must release its Const., XXI, final from to maps September (Cal. 15. August art. § subd. The (g).) evident of these was provisions to this court purpose give flexibility to act in where a situations referendum is to but likely qualify where signature verification and official qualification has not process Further, XXI, reached (b)(3) article section completion. subdivision (hereafter California Constitution 3(b)(3)) section “The California Su- says: Court shall to a a preme for writ of mandate or give priority ruling petition a writ of filed 3(b)(2)].” to prohibition pursuant [section minimum,

At 3(b)(2) a section means that a relief in form petition of an interim is before on the map properly adjudication ripe merits where the that has shown a referendum petitioner a challenging 3(b)(3) Commission is Section that map likely qualify. makes clear court must act to decide such a the merits of expeditiously petition. of these constitutional has

import is when shown provisions petitioner that a referendum is likely qualify, the is probability qualification sufficiently high that this court must to election promptly guidance provide the referendum the event that will be used in on the interim

officials may deemed likely qualify a referendum Although does ultimately qualify. is that the risk 3(b)(3) 3(b)(2) imply sections end still up qualifying, merits of the petition. decide the low that the court should sufficiently ... to be is “sufficiently ripe that a While acknowledging petition ante, at likely (maj. opn., is entertained” when a referendum promptly that the court should 462), short of today’s saying opinion stops Instead, , ‘likely that “the says the court decide the merits of such a petition. to the ... is not directed 3(b)(2) section of article language qualify’ merits of the mandate petition, should decide the may time when the court in this such when voter registered but rather the time file (Id. 462-463, 3(b)(2) section reading if at fn. Even court.” pp. 491-493)), section post, (and (see that it correct I am doubtful pp. were to do. Where a this court is no as what 3(b)(3) ambiguity supposed leaves the “ruling” likely qualify, has shown petitioner “shall 3(b)(3)’s give mandate that this court priority contemplated by 3(b)(2)]” only can be a . . . to to on filed ruling pursuant petition [section the merits. understood as a on ruling we 3(b)(3) timing 3(b)(2) question

Sections thus answer part court must act. But what face: when a referendum is to likely qualify, a finding does support should the court do when available information cannot show that a that a to If a likely qualify? petitioner referendum is circumstance have is to what does that likely significance referendum qualify, that with agree today’s opinion for whether and when the court should act? I court’s to limit 3(b)(2) jurisdiction” because section “does not purport ante, to that a referendum 461), at a show inability (maj. opn., petitioner’s to decide the court of its prerogative is to does not likely qualify deprive a to show that to act. But I do not that failure agree whether and when to the exercise significance is to has no referendum likely qualify particular to consider. a factor that it being may “prudent” of our authority, beyond (Id. at p. 460.) may voter in this state 3(b)(2) says: “Any registered

Once section again, to seek relief a writ of or writ of prohibition also file a mandate petition to measure that is likely a is to a referendum subject where certified final map map.” Textually, phrase of timely and stay implementation likely a measure that is a final is to subject “where certified to of availability a condition to is read as sensibly precedent qualify” to standard serves 3(b)(2). “likely Just as the qualify” “relief’ under section late, serves to the risk mitigate too it also mitigate acting the risk that sufficiently low Where the probability qualification too acting early. should generally deemed likely qualify, a referendum cannot be its hand stay because risk that a sufficiently high decision on issuing the merits will prove unnecessary to the electoral injurious process. 3(b)(2) Section addresses where a uncertainty referendum has not yet interest qualified balancing public giving referendum’s support- ers a timely to seek relief in the opportunity event that the referendum does interest a qualify against public having Commission-certified map without in the implemented disruption event that the referendum does not words, In other qualify. standard strikes “likely qualify” the very balance that the court would relegate its sense of Because section prudence. 3(b)(2) does not limit this court’s over jurisdiction original writ proceedings, it is always possible circumstances the court to exceptional may compel act even where a has not petitioner shown that a referendum is likely However, rule—indeed, I qualify. would as a general adopt presumption— that where a has not shown petitioner referendum is likely to qualify, the court should not decide the merits of the mandate petition.

The court contends that “likely 3(b)(2) qualify” language and, matter, has no when bearing judicial action is warranted as a textual may “to the time when a speaks voter registered for writ of petition file” ante, 462-463, mandate or writ of 25.) at prohibition. (Maj. opn., fn. But pp. it makes little sense to 3(b)(2) read section as a timing provision pertains filing VI, the court’s conclusion light that under article section 10 Constitution, the California for writ or of mandate may prohibition be filed whether not the can petitioner show that a referendum is likely ante, (See qualify. maj. & 450-451 fn. Instead of opn., pp. when a indicating voter file a registered “likely to petition, qualify” 3(b)(2) in section language is better read as when relief specifying available and may this court a granted by before referendum has qualified for the ballot.

More the court fundamentally, reading 3(b)(2) to this of section on objects the it that would limit our to ground authority entertain a mandate petition, cause, even an to to issue order show unless a just has shown that petitioner fn, ante, 462, is to at likely qualify. (Maj. But opn., my not would have “this effect interpretation on this court’s type limiting (Ibid.) Where, as here, authority.” an writ is filed original petition properly VI, Constitution, to article section 10 of the California the pursuant court has cause, and issue an order to show jurisdiction may entertain and oral briefing and argument, deliberate. If the court concludes that the Commission map the should be interim it as may should so as map, say early possible.1 1 Doing determining the likely so without whether referendum is to does ante, 3(b)(2)” “departf] language from the (cid:127) (cid:127) (cid:127) at (maj. opn., of article section 462-463, 25) this, deny fn. pp. petitioner’s request because in cases such as where we map, granting any by order interim use of a non-Commission we are not sought “relief’

493 Otherwise, of the petition not decide merits should generally The is likely qualify. the referendum it finds that relief before grant does not is filed petition at the moment finding to make that inability may jurisdiction The court retain the petition. mean we must dismiss If of qualification. likelihood referendum’s await further information is likely qualify, the referendum additional information shows 2 to act expeditiously. court will be poised 3(b)(2) of section essence, my court’s objection interpretation In a mandate authority to entertain the court has confuses the issue of whether should be authority how petition issue with the and distinct separate VI, exercised. 10 of the California is article section The first issue settled ante, to the 487-488.) 3(b)(2) only at Section (See speaks Constitution. pp. a mandate petition to entertain exercising authority second issue. In its proper circumstances an interim under what relief in the form of seeking map, Section for the ballot? before a referendum has grant qualified the court relief to the avail- a condition 3(b)(2) stating precedent answers question likely that the referendum is ability relief—namely, showing qualify. court sees its what The of this is advantage approach precisely “likely disadvantage; By using phrase qualify,” limits our discretion. balancing and determinate standard 3(b)(2) objective section provides ordinary too late. In too versus acting early acting risks of competing “more than likely is understood mean the word usage, “likely” commonly 3(b)(2). 3(b)(2)’s (“Any registered voter in this light text petitioner under section of section relief’), we are illogic court’s assertion that may ... ... to seek of the state file 3(b)(2) particular outcome granting meaning of “whether or not the “relief’ within the ante, 462-463, 25) opn., pp. fn. petitioner seeking” (maj. the court ordered relief speaks for itself. action in retaining jurisdiction proceeding postponing practice a mandate (See Legislature v. Reinecke light developments is not unfamiliar to this court. possible (1973) 6].) litigation As a result of after Cal.Rptr. 10 Cal.3d R2d [110 adopted for the 1972 elections and reapportionment, temporary maps we 1970 census failed to jurisdiction maps Legislature elections if the subsequent retained to draw new (Ibid, (1972) 6 regular [citing Legislature v. Reinecke during valid session. maps enact 385]].) request “at the Cal.Rptr. Subsequently, P.2d Cal.3d 603-604 [99 California, court action” in order postponed we the time for further Senate of State of (Ibid v. [citing Legislature special an to act in session. Legislature opportunity allow the 552, 92, 464]].) Legislature (1972) P.2d When the Cal.Rptr. 7 93 496 Reinecke Cal.3d [101 1972, propose maps, new we masters maps appointed special valid three failed to enact “ any during proceedings contemplated by order as ‘If at time even we made clear are enacted the court will congressional legislative reapportionment measures valid (1973) Cal.3d (Legislature v. Reinecke 9 proceedings.’ to dismiss these application entertain 18, 626].)” 166, (Ibid) Although Legislature v. Reinecke did not 507 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 168 [107 here, flexibility possesses the court illustrates the present the same issues we face case develop authority on depends our jurisdiction defer decision where the exercise of retain initially occurring jurisdiction. assume ments after we 494 (See,

not.” e.g., (11th 2003) Merriam-Webster’s Dict. Collegiate ed. 721 p. [defining to mean a “likely” “having high of or probability occurring being true”]; (3d 2002) Webster’s International Dict. ed. p. [defining “likely” 1310 Garner, to mean a not”]; better chance of or “having than existing occurring Dict, [“likely A (2d 1995) of Modern Legal Usage ed. 530 has different p. shades of but meaning” often indicates a of degree probability “[m]ost ten”]; than five on of greater a scale one to (6th 1990) Black’s Law Dict. ed. 925 to mean [defining “likely” and having better chance of “probable People Superior existing or than occurring not”].) the court Although v. Court 888, 1, (Ghilotti) (2002) Cal.4th 916-917 44 P.3d Cal.Rptr.2d [119 context, Ghilotti said that of on meaning “likely” may 949] depend “ ” interpreted ‘likely to in acts of sexual phrase engage violence’ as part of an intricate scheme enacted statutory by the for civil Legislature provide commitment of inmates convicted a previously sexually violent offense. id. (See 915-929.) pp. of words in particularized meaning complex, enacted statutes has little on the legislatively bearing words interpretation initiative, in an which we construe to their according ordinary meanings (Robert L. v. Superior Court understood “the average (2003) voter.” Cal.4th 951].) 69 P.3d Cal.Rptr.2d [135 sure,

beTo the “likely to standard does not qualify” immunize fully court from the or risks too too late. A be acting early referendum shown to end likely qualify may a referendum not up qualifying, shown be likely to end qualify may But the risk of in one up qualifying. error direction or the other is to the present any approach That timing problem. is the nature of Rather than address the uncertainty. uncertainty through discretion, exercise of I would make prudential use constitu- objective tional standard that balances the already risks. competing matter,

aAs practical “likely standard does not qualify” impose cases, burden on the heavy or this court. In most petitioner determining whether a referendum is “likely will matter. The qualify” simple random that takes when a sampling place referendum has suffi gathered cient signatures number of will resolve the issue in usually fashion. timely As the court “Under if the explains: governing statutory provisions, random a number of total valid sampling projected that was less signatures than number percent of valid would required signatures, fail without further count. If the any signatures of valid was 110 projection number, more without percent required petition would qualify If any signatures further count. of valid was between 95 and projection of State would that a notify counties full count percent, all submitted would be of valid signatures verify number required Code, (Elec. signatures (f) (g), that had been submitted. subds. & §§ ante, (a).)” subd. (Maj. opn., at p. declaration, of the to to attached petitioner’s documentation According of State between Secretary to the and referenda submitted initiatives 2010, more than 110 percent receive projected and 44 of them were need any without ballot Those measures signatures. qualified needed cases, referen- even before the submitted. In such count all the signatures State, can conclude this court certified officially by Secretary dum is was count in this case is The random likely qualify. that referendum will be completed it is that such counts likely January completed end of is before “the That date well the same time in the future. around of State 2012,” Secretary time which the which is latest January in order of this court’s decision need to informed election officials county in the event state Senate districts “to in the any changes implement the Commission- automatically stays qualifies ante, at redistricting (Maj. state Senate map.” opn., certified and 110 percent a between 95 If random yields projection percent sampling this court will still be and a full count is signatures needed required, in most cases. a referendum is likely qualify able to determine whether the com- that “to use of State claimed briefing, Secretary supplemental likely at a becomes to determine what point pleted sampling process and that “the of the process” sampling ... qualify beyond capacity level of reliable results a give greater is not technique designed of valid determining signatures than “whether the number precision” But a to 110 range, is within broad 95 [percent] [percent].” petitions experience same that the acknowledged briefing of State also Secretary a five full count years required of the four initiatives within the last that the reason- process order to for the ballot qualify “suggests sampling Although Secretary of about 1.5%.”3 accurate within a ably margin a conclusions from sample State said she was “reluctant draw firm indication, do offer some only examples consists of four examples,” count limited, the full random can sampling process predict however a of error. fairly margin within small determi- of State’s Secretary suggestion, Legislature’s to the

Contrary of at least 110 percent must a yield projection nation that random sampling qualified a referendum will be deemed does needed before signatures past initiatives in the five supplemental briefing identified four of State’s concerning community initiative years to a full Measure No. that went count. validity percent a full count rate of validity rate of 71.38 colleges, sample had a random bond, concerning had hospital a children’s No. a 2009 initiative percent. 71.08 Measure percent. percent of 70.84 Measure validity rate of and a full count rate sample a random 69.30 measure, validity percent and a random rate of 75.58 limits had No. 2011 term sample political the Americans Elect Finally, attempt a 2011 percent. a full count rate of 74.36 sample validity rate of through signature drive had random for the ballot party percent. rate of percent and a full count 68.08 69.81 a from preclude petitioner a citing projection less than 110 percent Indeed, evidence that a referendum is likely to a qualify. because actually with a qualifies projection to or than equal greater 110 percent, logic dictates that a lesser a a projection may support finding that referendum is likely to merely For where qualify. random a example, yields sampling needed, of 105 of projection the total percent signatures the referendum does not on that basis must a qualify go to full count. But the would projection evidence, still be credible given between past random counts relationship counts, and full that the referendum is to likely qualify.

The task of timely whether a determining referendum is to is likely qualify more difficult when random a sampling yields close to projection very the minimum number signatures Petitioner asserts that required. whenever random more of the sampling projects percent needed signatures, referendum should be deemed But likely offers no qualify. petitioner analysis or declarations of this claim. At oral expert support argument, asserted that more refined a petitioner whether referendum is analysis likely is within qualify competence various experts experienced consultants. Although we need standard in apply “likely qualify” ante, this case because of our (see 487-488), ultimate disposition at pp. future litigants would be well-advised to to bear where bring expert analysis the issue ais close call. Statistical is not certainty in order render required a legal judgment standard applying “likely qualify” (presumably, need petitioner only show that referendum is “likely by a qualify” pre- evidence), but ponderance the court would benefit from expert of available interpretation information. that,

Finally, is worth view of noting although my 3(b)(2)’s court’s, for the significance timing intervention differs from the judicial I nothing technically have said is inconsistent with the court’s holding broad issue of should be resolved dictates of timing according law, sense My prudence, which subsumes prudence. my reading of tome impels assign significance to whether a referendum is particular likely whether and when we should act deciding merits of mandate But whether the would lead petition. prudence my colleagues each of them to the same conclusion or to different conclusions in a case sense, that, where the issue is an And really matters open question. illustrates with the court’s problem approach.

III. unanimous, the concerns I have Because our this case disposition redistrict- But the court typically speaks seem speculative. expressed decade, a broad deliberately with once a and today’s paints ing only opinion But history the future will anyone’s bring. brush. It is of course what guess a tale. cautionary provides with a this court had a different experience

Thirty years ago, very census, Democratic-controlled the 1980 controversy. After redistricting Democrat, Governor, also a signed September enacted and the Legislature the boundaries of state’s three statutes revising 1981 reapportionment Senate, The initiated Assembly Party districts. congressional, Republican of statutes. December By each these against reapportionment ballot. Various had for the June 1982 these referenda qualified Senate, of United States House of Assembly, Representa- members that defects in the referendum claiming tives filed mandate proceedings claimed even if the rendered the invalid. also They petitions petitions ballot, of did for the should not they stay implementation referenda the June election. legislative the new maps v. (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638 Assembly Deukmejian Cal.Rptr. [180 939], referenda to the of these rejected challenges validity P.2d statutes, as they and affirmed that the referenda stayed reapportionment (Id. at The court then considered the would other statute. any pp. 656-657.) The referenda that the court should remedy. argued appropriate proponents interim, Legislature v. had order use of the old in the as the court done in maps 385], Reinecke (1972) P.2d case in Cal.3d 595 Cal.Rptr. [99 the Governor and never which the new had been vetoed legislative maps Assembly Deukmejian v. became law. the court in four-to-three By majority, that the new declined to order of the old instead maps, concluding maps use were drawn comply should be used in the interim because primarily they the Fourteenth Amendment’s one-vote with one-person, requirement (Assembly Deukmejian, v. 30 Cal.3d at supra, clause. equal protection 665-668.) pp. three separate

The in favor of the new holding maps prompted court’s Richardson, Justice Mosk joined by Justice in an dissenting opinions. opinion Kaus, to use new that had that it was improper maps Justice explained until and that old using maps been the referenda stayed by qualification the referenda were voted on would not violate the clause. equal protection v. 30 Cal.3d (Assembly Deukmejian, supra, (conc. at 680-685 & dis. pp. opn. Richardson, Richardson, J.).) to Justice “the According com majority pletely disregards stay new maps] imposes upon people [the] [of of California a state which has been legislative reapportionment plan stopped dead in its tracks law and which by operation veiled in a cloud heavily political uncertainty. of this majority’s adoption plan prejudges result and its action can as an only alignment official perceived court with one side in as to partisan dispute which we should remain (Id. neutral.” scrupulously

In a Justice wrote that “a separate opinion, Mosk bare of this majority court have entangled by become thicket’ their ‘political ignoring issue, of on obligation neutrality that can partisan neutrality be observed only maintenance of the legislative status until the quo districting at the election.” people speak forthcoming (Assembly Deukmejian, v. 30 supra, Mosk, (conc. Cal.3d at & p. J.).) dis. of And Justice opn. Kaus wrote that “the course chosen separately say majority greater involves intrusion judicial into laid out legislative process California Kaus, (conc. at (Id. Constitution.” & dis. of J.).) p. opn.

I no view on which side correct in express was v. Assembly Deukmejian. IBut am confident that each four who voted in justices favor new as well as each of justices the three who voted in favor of the old maps, cast his or her vote on the of a basis well-informed assessment of the maps, lawful and course. prudent Assembly Deukmejian, v. (Compare supra, Cal.3d at 675-676 of new would be the least pp. maps disruptive [use Richardson, (conc. J.) with id. & dis. remedy] p. old opn. [use so, would be least the court ultimately Even fractured in maps disruptive].) series worded laced with strongly opinions charges partisanship. v.

Assembly did not issue face here. But Deukmejian we present timing the case confirms that as well as us . . “[l]ogic, tells . there experience, Court, (Dixon, can be no total sanctuaries thicket.” The political Man, Vote,” People, and “One One in the (Polsby 1970s Reapportionment edit., 1971) unanimously Commission Today agrees case, to the alternatives. In a future the court may map superior and, be divided with to which should serve as an interim regard map related, whether and when to issue a decision issue. closely important of partisan against backdrop out will inevitably play questions

Those guide be sufficient to will that prudence I the court correct interests. hope already our Constitution language But I believe out of the thicket. us we need. the guidance provides

Case Details

Case Name: Vandermost v. Bowen

Court Name: California Supreme Court

Date Published: Jan 27, 2012

Citation: 137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1

Docket Number: S198387

Court Abbreviation: Cal.