*1 S022835.Jan. [No. 1992.] etc., Petitioner, WILSON, Governor, v. Individually
PETE as al., EU, State, etc., MARCH FONG et Secretary Respondents; al., et OF THE OF CALIFORNIA Real Parties ASSEMBLY STATE Interest.
Counsel Gibson, Crutcher, Dunn & Robert E. Cooper, Theodore B. Olson Daniel M. Kolkey for Petitioner. Renne, Deleventhal,
Louise H. City Dennis Burk Attorney, Aftergut, E. Riddle, Clinton, Counsel, Randy Deputy City De Witt W. Attorneys, County Melon, Counsel, Miller, Halvor B. Deputy County L. Richard Anthony S. Nishite and Oliver S. Cox for Respondents.
Remcho, Purcell, Remcho, Johansen, Johansen & Joseph Robin B. Lowell Marson, Christensen, Finley, White, Miller, Jacobs, Charles C. Fink & *5 White, Marks, Nielsen, Merksamer, Andrew M. B. Joseph Hodgson, Par- Mueller, Parrinello, rinello & Manella, Leoni, James R. Irell & Marguerite Mary Hecht, Gindler, Jonathan H. Donna Steinberg, R. David I. Browne Woods, Browne, & Scheibe, Allan Broadbelt, Benjamin D. Robert B. Michael J. Olecki and Bion Gregory Real Parties Interest. General,
Daniel Lungren, Romero, E. Hulett, Attorney Manuel A. Denise M. Andrade, Avila, Vibiana G. Joaquin William R. Doreena P. Tamayo, Wong, Ancheta, Angelo N. Kathryn K. Imahara and Robin S. Toma as Amici Curiae.
Opinion LUCAS, C. In thesemandate proceedings, J. we are called on to resolve the impasse created the by failure of the and Legislature Governor to adopt congressional, legislative and State Board of Equalization reapportionment plans time for the 1992 forthcoming (See and General Primary Elections. Const., XXI, Cal. 1.) art. § 23, 1991,
On September Governor Wilson vetoed the submitted plans to him the On Legislature. that same an day, override attempted of the failed, and the the the On Legislature year.
vetoes recessed for remainder of 25, 1991, because we lacked assurance that September reapportionment elections, be enacted the this plans would time for court validly its original exercised issuance of an alternative writ jurisdiction by ordering of mandate the and drafting adoption this court suitable contemplating (Wilson (1991) v. reapportionment plans. Eu Cal.3d 471 Cal.Rptr. [286 P.2d I].) Wilson 1306] [hereafter I, In we it Wilson indicated was that we three “appropriate appoint Special Masters to hold to evidence and public hearings permit presentation the with argument (54 to respect proposed plans reapportionment. [Citation.]” clear, however, 473.) Cal.3d at We and p. made the Gover- Legislature not nor were foreclosed if enacting reapportionment from valid statutes they stated, could succeed so. As we doing urge Legislature “we Governor, in the of their legislative exercise ‘shared to power’ [citation] elections, enact time reapportionment for the 1992 and thus to plans render unnecessary any use this court plans may adopt. [Citations.] ‘ But because continue “it is our impasse may indefinitely, because duty , to insure electorate the laws” . equal protection of . [citation]’. because California is entitled seven additional seats based congressional census, on the 1990 we must proceed forthwith to draft such plans. [Cita- (Ibid.; see also at at time p. tion.]” id. these any during proceedings [“If enacted, congressional legislative are reapportionment plans this validly court will entertain an these application dismiss proceedings.”].) 26, 1991,
On I September pursuant to the order Wilson foregoing Brown, (supra, 471), 54 Cal.3d appointed we the Honorable A. George District, retired Presiding Justice of Court of Fifth Appeal, Appellate Galceran, Honorable Rafael H. retired of the Judge Angeles Los County Court, and Superior the Honorable Thomas retired Kongsgaard, Judge *6 Court, as Napa County Superior on Special (here- Masters Reapportionment Masters), after and designated we Brown Justice Master. Presiding IWilson directed the Masters commence public within 30 hearings days of their appointment, and present their this recommendations to court no 29, later (54 than November p.474.) 1991. Cal.3d at We called also for a 30-day period briefing public comment following filing (ibid). Masters’ recommendations 23, 1991,
On October
we filed a further memorandum
approving
order
procedure proposed by respondent
of State for the
Secretary
timely imple-
mentation
we
reapportionment plans consistent with the timetable
out-
I,
lined in Wilson
in a manner that
or
would avoid postponing
possibly
1992,
2,
(Wilson
(1991)
Eu
the June
Election.
v.
bifurcating
Primary
546,
625,
II].)
P.2d
Wilson
Cal.3d
548-550
Cal.Rptr.
[286
890] [hereafter
initial,
the counties
This
involved an
reliance
procedure
“preliminary”
by
recommended
and the United States
of Justice on the Masters’
Department
elec
but
and a
or
of various
unapproved plans,
postponement
readjustment
Thus,
II
tion deadlines.
Wilson
commencement of
approved postponing
27,
for
in lieu of
from December
period
gathering signatures
filing fees
1991,
549),
filing
(id.
to the
date of our
herein
at
and likewise
opinion
p.
“in
that the first
lieu”
approved directing county
day
circulating
officials
for
office,
petitions,
filing
filing
for
declarations of intent for
and for
legislative
declarations of
and nomination
for
candidacy
papers
legislative
congres
seats,
10,
550;
(id.
sional
will
Assembly
be
at
see also
v.
February
p.
638, 658,
297,
Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d
678-679
Cal.Rptr.
[180
P.2d
[approving
readjustments
similar
of election deadlines and proce
939]
dures];
Legislature
(1973)
v. Reinecke
10 Cal.3d
406-407
Cal.Rptr.
[110
[same]).
In IIWilson State’s to “direct approved Secretary of proposal that nomination papers be filed each candidate ‘provisionally,’ subject to [, 1992], the submission of sufficient signatures March 6 the close of the addition, In period. nomination submitting signatures candidates lieu will have until March 16 to make up any deficiencies from invalid arising signatures. The number of needed reduced signatures ‘would be proportion- ately to number of days by which the circulation was abbreviated period ” due to the adjustment (54 550.) of these dates.’ at Cal.3d p. and, The Masters undertook their immediately assigned task on November 29, 1991, Sacramento, following six days public San Fran- hearings cisco, San Diego, and Angeles, Los filed they their comprehensive Report (hereafter court, and Recommendations with this which Report) Report for (except appendices tracts) containing census is set forth as an maps to this appendix opinion. includes Report plans reapportioning legislative districts for both houses of the Legislature, dis- congressional tricts, Const., XXI, and State Board of Equalization (See districts. Cal. art. 1.) These plans are set § forth One and Three Appendices to the Report which, errors, as corrected by Masters for clerical are file on with the clerk of this court. *7 I, 473,
As we indicated Wilson supra, 54 Cal.3d at the page criteria, Masters were directed to be “guided by” various standards and 1965, the including applicable provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act of (42 XXI, as amended U.S.C. 1971 et the seq.), of article section provisions § 1, Constitution, of the state and the criteria an earlier of developed by panel masters the
special
for
reapportionment
the court in
plans adopted by
Reinecke,
(see Legislature
supra,
410-414).
v.
10 Cal.3d at pp.
The state constitutional standards for
(1)
the new districts include
forming
districts,
consecutively
(2)
numbered single-member
“reasonably equal”
populations
districts,
districts of the
among
(3)
same type,
contiguous
and
(4)
for the
“respect”
“geographical integrity of
or
and
any city, county,
city
or
county,
of any geographical region” to the extent
without violat-
possible
Const.,
XXI, 1,
ing
(Cal.
other standards.
1980.)
art.
adopted
§
The criteria followed
by
masters in
special
state
overlap
constitutional standards
large
to a
We
extent.
observe that none
parties
or amici curiae has suggested that
of these
any
1973 criteria were abrogated
the state
constitutional standards. These
(1)
1973 criteria include
equality
(2)
districts,
population,
contiguity and compactness
(3)
respect
boundaries,
and
county
city
(4)
preservation of
of the
integrity
state’s
(5)
geographical regions,
consideration of the
of interests”
“community
area,
each
(6) formation of state senatorial districts from adjacent assembly
districts (“nesting”), and use of assembly district boundaries in drawing
boundaries,
congressional district
(7)
reliance on the current census and
on
(See
Reinecke,
undivided census tracts.
Legislature
supra,
v.
As the Report explains, the Masters reviewed the evidence and arguments of the parties and other interested persons presented to them. They devoted intense efforts to with the comply federal Act. Voting Rights consid- They ered and applied the other designated criteria governing reapportionment, and excluded such political factors as the potential effects on incumbents or the major political We next parties. review some of the highlights of their Report.
A. VotingRights Act—The Report discusses at the Masters’ length close attention Act, to the provisions Voting Rights view of observing present act, uncertainties concerning the scope intent of the the Masters “endeavored to draw boundaries that will withstand section [Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. under challenges § any 1973] foreseeable combination of factual circumstances and legal rulings.” (Report, infra.) Their p. efforts, in this were in regard, stimulated part the need to new provide districts for the forthcoming connection, June Primary Election. In that Secretary State a brief filed herein urged the Masters give Voting Act Rights “the highest possible consideration order to minimize the risk challenge resulting delay.” Initially, the Masters attempted reasonably accommodate the interests of every “functionally, geographically compact” of sufficient minority group
715 (Report, in district. majority single-member a a constitute voting strength 30, L.Ed.2d 749, U.S. 50 Gingles (1986) 478 Thornburg [92 see v. infra; p. (M.D.Ala. 46, Bd. Educ. 25, 2752]; County v. S.Ct. Dillard Baldwin 106 of 1459, geo- functional of aspect 1988) [stressing 1465-1466 F.Supp. 686 in California’s criterion].) In describing this compactness opinion, graphical the of abbreviated version we will an major employ three minority groups, Census, Black, His- namely, United used the 1990 States by designations (hereafter Pacific Islander (hereafter and Asian or Origin Hispanic) panic Asian). Masters, of com- geographical the functional aspect
As the explained community sense into the absence of a of presence takes account or pactness (Report, pp. lines of access and communication. made possible open 749-750, 763, in such infra.) approach the Masters’ use of an approve We of minority group purposes the of a for determining particular compactness B.2., we its the Act. As shall see Voting (pt. under assuring protection Rights the post), applying the Masters a similar functional approach employed designing and related criteria for integrity,” “compactness,” “geographical districts. voting caution, (1) of the Masters
Additionally, and a commendable abundance minority two or endeavored to combined of more protect voting strength in areas such (Report, p. substantial numbers of groups containing groups 751, (5th 1988) Cir. F.2d infra; City Baytown, see v. Tex. 840 Campos 1240, (2) minority treated as one Hispanics group]), [Blacks districts to maximize recognized forming propriety minority influence voting minority potential geographically groups apprecia- compact 751-753, (1991) U.S. (Report, infra; ble size see Chisom v. Roemer pp. _, _, 348, 364, 2365]; fn. Armour v. State L.Ed.2d S.Ct. [115 (N.D.Ohio 1991) 1051-1052), Ohio though even F.Supp. (1) (2) individual or of insuffi- involved were minority groups categories cient size to constitute a districts. majority voting their Thus, within Mas- the limits of reasonable geographical compactness, consistently ters to draw lines manner as attempted district such a voting to maximize Cal- minority opportunities meaningful participation ifornia elections. As the the Masters’ districts Report explains, proposed avoided both relevant into unnecessary fragmentation groups minority or more in a single two districts and undue overconcentration of such groups 748-749, (See district (“packing”). infra.) Voting To minimize Report, pp. Act Rights acknowledge based on failure to challenges geo- particular declined to size graphically compact minority group, Masters narrow the (see minority of any group through application registration of voter statistics *9 (7th 1991) 503) Dickinson v. Indiana State Election Bd. Cir. 933 F.2d or (but (9th 1989) citizenship City statistics see Romero v. Pomona Cir. 1418,1425), F.2d although who had not attained were persons yet voting age excluded from their in (see 1425-1426). calculations this id. at regard pp. 749-751, infra.) (Report, pp.
The further Report details the taken “special steps” to assure such com- Merced, with to pliance respect the four California counties (Kings, Yuba) Monterey and to the subject of section 5 of “preclearance” provisions (42 the Voting Rights 1973c), Act U.S.C. which advance require approval § by federal authorities of in redistricting for counties which fewer than plans vote, voted, half the residents in voting age were or certain registered 769-770, specified presidential elections. fn. (Report, pp. involving infra.) Although the Masters’ have received plans yet not official preclear- ance from the federal government, we are confident their meet all plans applicable Voting Rights Act requirements.
The dissent herein believes the Masters’ maximize the attempts to interests of geographically compact to ensure with the minority groups compliance Act, Voting Rights may (Dis. an unlawful use of “racial represent quotas.” post, 735.) In opn., p. that regard, the dissent the Masters’ complains congressional four plan “destroyed existing districts Los Ange- [western] les County and cast four incumbent experienced Congress members of into district, one (Post, 738.) new Congressional 29th District.” p. curiae, We first observe that no or party amicus the Democratic including Congressional Delegation, has to the Masters’ on this objected basis. plan The issue was neither briefed nor argued by anyone, four including Indeed, affected supposedly incumbents mentioned the dissent. by without each of the exception, submitted plans by and amici curiae parties includes elements aimed at deliberately increasing minority representation this state.
It true the new congressional districts Los Angeles are not identical to districts, the current nor could be view of they differing rates of popula- tion growth areas many of the state. Under the Masters’ the western plan, of Los part (even Angeles it had little County though population growth, unlike the eastern which portion had substantial Asian and growth His- panic population) still has four districts congressional that substantially districts, overlap the current and that have no incumbent other than the four members referred to dissent. new districts may or not be may. incumbents, drawn in a manner these preferred by but to the contrary dissent, the Masters’ has not plan them of districts in deprived which to run. Act event, Voting Rights with comply In Masters’ efforts to any the United States announced fall the guidelines well within appear Carey (1977) Organizations v. (See, Jewish e.g., Court. United Supreme *10 229, challenge Hasidic by [rejecting 144 97 S.Ct. 996] U.S. L.Ed.2d [51 The Blacks].) United Jewish favoring redistricting Jews efforts objecting to subsequent several approval has been cited with Organizations case (1990) FCC 497 Broadcasting v. court. Metro by high (E.g., decisions _ Brennan, J.]; 547, 475, 445, by 110 S.Ct. [opn. L.Ed.2d 2997] U.S. [111 854, 469, L.Ed.2d (1989) v. Co. 488 U.S. 559 [102 Richmond J. A. Croson Marshall, 924-925, J.]; v. Jackson Board Wygant by 109 S.Ct. opn. 706] [dis. 260, 279-280, 267, 106 S.Ct. (1986) L.Ed.2d Education 476 U.S. 291 [90 of O’Connor, J.]; (1980) U.S. 448 Fullilove v. of opn. Klutznick 1842] [conc. J.], 448, 902, 927, C. by Burger, S.Ct. [opn. 483 L.Ed.2d 100 [65 2758] Powell, J.]; University at pp. opn. by 497-498 L.Ed.2d [65 936-937] [conc. of 769, 750, 265, (1978) U.S. L.Ed.2d Regents v. Bakke 438 287 [57 California 355, Powell, J.], at pp. S.Ct. and fn. 29 L.Ed.2d 98 of [opn. [57 2733] Blackmun, Brennan, White, JJ.], & dis. Marshall opn. [conc. 811-812] Marshall, J.]; v. L.Ed.2d at see also 399 p. opn. [57 839] [conc. Garza 763, County (9th 1990) Los claim that Angeles [rejecting Cir. 918 F.2d 776 voting deliberate creation of district California consti Hispanic majority discrimination”].) tuted improper “reverse County
As Ninth stated Circuit Court of v. by Appeals Garza 776, Angeles, supra, Los F.2d “The deliberate construction of page at Act minority Voting controlled districts is what the voting exactly Rights authorizes. Such or districting, by whether worked a court by political instance, in the entity Jewish first does not violate constitution. United [, Organizations supra,] Carey v. 430 U.S. . .” . .
B. Additional Criteria— what Report carefully explains manner Masters’ recommended meet the additional plans reapportion ment criteria briefly standards and We discuss these previously described. criteria, as follows:
1. Equality Population—As indicated in Appendix Two to Report, Masters’ disclose a reasonable plans equality created, the various voting districts absolute for the including nearly equality 725, (See congressional (1983) new Daggett districts. Karcher v. U.S. 133, 147, 740-741 L.Ed.2d deviations for 103 S.Ct. [population [77 2653] congressional districts must be some state justified by “legitimate objective” boundaries]; as compactness such or v. respect Kirkpatrick for municipal 526, 519, 524-525, (1969) Preisler 394 U.S. 530-531 89 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d [22 “de minimis” [rejecting Wesberry (1964) 1225] v. Sanders approach]; 481, 486-487, U.S. 7-8 L.Ed.2d 84 S.Ct. [requiring [11 absolute 526] equality “as as is nearly practicable”].) observes,
theAs
Report
be deemed
population equality must
the primary
criterion,
reapportionment
mandated
being
of the federal
provisions
761, infra.)
Constitution. (Report, p.
Under the Masters’ plans,
legisla-
each
tive district will vary
less than 1
(id.,
from “ideal”
percent
equality
770, infra), while
p.
each congressional district will
than
vary by less
0.25
(id.,
p.
infra). We find these minor deviations are amply
justified by “legitimate state objectives,”
the need
namely,
to form reason-
districts,
ably compact
to use census tracts rather than
in forming
blocks
*11
(one
districts
of the 1973
criteria
in
reapportionment
Legislature
outlined
v.
Reinecke, supra,
402),
10 Cal.3d at
and to
p.
with the
comply
Voting Rights
753-757,
Indeed,
Act. (Report, pp.
infra.)
the Masters’
percent variation
limit for the Legislature is identical to the
standard
Ater
approved
v.
(1991)
Keisling
296],
As dissent Daggett, supra, Karcher v. 462 U.S. at pages 146-147], 740-741 L.Ed.2d 133 at [77 pages that expressly recognizes deviations from absolute equality may be justified by state “legitimate objectives,” and the Masters’ consistent use of undivided census tracts constitutes such a legitimate objective, As the Report cen explains, 2,000 6,000 sus tracts ordinarily range from to deemed persons “homoge characteristics,” neous as to social and are bounded by “prominent natural or manmade geographical blocks, features.” (Report, p. infra.) Census on hand, the other blocks; are actual city or suburban approximately “[t]he 6,000 400,000 census tracts California are made up about blocks.” (Ibid.) relates Report detail the Masters’ reasons for to refusing split tracts,
census including need to maintain geographical integrity, preserve interest, communities of and assure in the “[widespread participation redis- tricting process” by minority groups and others lacking the funds or equip- ment needed to perform 756-757, more exact (Report, pp. calculations. demon- “does not that infra.) argues Report the dissent herein Although such groups advocacy organizations representing ability strate how than tracts” census rather a based on blocks would weakened division be minority 734), at various (dis. argument representatives post, p. oral opn., based submit plans resources to they that had insufficient confirmed groups on based plans or accuracy validity or to monitor the on census blocks Thus, Mexican- others. both that were submitted census blocks Amer- and Pacific Fund the Asian Defense and Educational Legal American adversely affect census blocks would ican indicated that the use of Coalition in the reapportionment on basis relatively equal their ability participate process. reasons, of the Masters’ we believe the validity
For all the foregoing for using find the rationale demonstrated. We Masters’ position amply Accordingly, legitimate compelling. undivided census tracts be both we the issue. concur the Masters’ analysis Community Contiguity, Compactness, Geographical Integrity and 2. disclose the Masters carefully Interest—The Report appended maps factored into their criteria of plans contiguity compactness additional *12 districts, and of inter- integrity community and respect geographical 758-763, Masters as- infra.) example, properly ests. For the (Report, pp. (Cal. sumed regions” that the state Constitution’s reference to “geographical XXI, Const., 1) of the state” major regions art. referred to “the geographic § (i.e., areas), mountain coastal and desert and significant valleys, ranges, 762, infra.) the new (Report, Report constructed districts accordingly. p. in explains what manner additional interrelate to promote these criteria effective, that in functional We endorse the Masters’ thesis voting districts. districts, does not refer to but to designing “Compactness geometric shapes the and ability of citizens to each other and their representatives relate to the ability constituency. to relate to their representatives effectively Further, it interests and speaks that are facilitated shared relationships by (Ibid., in by a or membership political community, including county city.” omitted.) fns.
3. Political Parties voting and Incumbent Status—In district drawing lines, the Masters declined the expressly reapportion- to consider effects 794-796, ment or As political infra.) on incumbents. the parties (Report, pp. such were not criteria Report specified considerations the explains, among 471), I by (supra, this court Wilson 54 Cal.3d and are not included the (See Legisla- state appropriate Constitution as criteria. also reapportionment Reinecke, 402-403.) ture supra, plans v. Cal.3d at The Masters’ pp. quite were intended to properly be and “incumbent neu- politically nonpartisan Indeed, infra.) tral.” the and amici curiae (Report, p. parties uniformly confirmed at oral that the argument the Masters was process employed by free entirely bias or intent. the herein political dissent has called Only the of the and their question “objectivity” (See Masters staff. distinguished post, 738.) dis. opn., We the matter p. discuss further political neutrality hereof, in part E.6. connection with analysis our of the filed objections by the California Assembly.
C. Other Plans have Rejected—Additionally, explained Masters in their detail Report why they could not recommend to the court any 22 statewide reapportionment to them plans presented during course of these proceedings, submitted including plans separately by some members of the Democratic Congressional Delegation, the Re- Assembly, Assembly Caucus, Senate, Governor, publican a special commission appointed Governor, by various minority or As the political organizations. observes, some Report of these were drafted plans with “calculated partisan political consequences” that rendered them of doubtful value to the Masters’ nonpartisan efforts. (Report, infra.) Others were deemed p. unaccept- able because of possible noncompliance with the Act Voting Rights or apparent inattention to the criteria of contiguity, compactness geograph- (Id., ical 764-768.) integrity. pp. No served point would be by commenting further on the various It rejected plans. is sufficient to our view say none of these plans an presents acceptable substitute for those drafted Masters. Drafting
D. Choices and Techniques—The Masters length described at the methods which drafted their own they setting forth to the extent plans, lines, feasible the specific reasons underlying their choices of district their translating conclusions into legal descriptions congressional, legis- *13 768-794, lative and State Board of Equalization infra.) districts. (Report, pp. themselves, The attached and Report its appendices speak for and we will here, not attempt to describe their contents in specific as indicated our except discussion of various objections to the Masters’ plans.
E. Subsequent court, Objections—After the was the Report to presented amici parties, curiae and other interested were persons given the oppor- briefs, communications, to file with tunity us or letters other either objecting to or supporting Masters’ in inor plans, part whole. Many objections concerned in the way which the Masters resolved supposed conflicts among various criteria drawing district lines. we Although are not conflicts, bound by Masters’ resolution of these we have con- that, cluded below, with a minor exception discussed should overrule we these objections and approve districts drawn The recommended by them. districts appear to reflect reasonable applications applicable of the various criteria. objection each specific and discuss to review impracticable
It would be two one or us; focus on narrowly of these objections with some lodged Nonetheless, a few obser- we offer district. tracts within a proposed census and parties, raised objections the broader regarding vations Act violations. Rights asserting alleged Voting minority groups and Legal Mexican-American Objections by 1. The Defense (MALDEF) Educational Fund Angeles Hispanic Districts in Los
a. ade failed to provide the Masters’ plans MALDEF complains and Yet for central Angeles. districts Los numbers of quate Hispanic His “majority” six create plans Los the Masters’ Angeles County, eastern districts, districts, congres and four such senate three such assembly panic that would result with those (These are consistent figures sional districts. likewise include MALDEF.) new districts Other the plans proposed by from Hispanics. substantial numbers of 46, 45 and Assembly Districts of MALDEF’s criticism is on focus 30, all located downtown District Congressional
Senate District Each of these the west. and the Westlake area Angeles immediately Los (and more than population contains more than 60 percent Hispanic districts plans, Unlike MALDEF’s proposed total minority population). inter- and maximize Asian the Masters’ also to accommodate plans attempt the Masters’ argument, praised ests the area. At oral Asian representatives District configuration Congressional of Senate District the Masters split Districts 45 and 46 because objected Assembly only Report their explain Asian the Westlake area. As the Masters 776-777, each of these infra), and indeed the formation of (pp. this split, districts, interests minority the various challenged represent compromise in the area. Valley Hispanic Assembly Joaquin
b. Districts in San MALDEF Masters have adopted proposed plans also contends the should *14 Valley an San that would forming Joaquin district southern assembly MALDEF, the have by According been 60 percent Hispanic population. (Assem. 31) an insuf- Masters’ two districts Dists. 30 and contain proposed ficient number of Hispanics. 774-775, chal- infra), the
As the Masters’ Report explains (Report, pp. lenged [Hispanic] pres- districts were fact constructed to “maximize the under ence” in the Valley, San assure Joaquin thereby preclearance 722 Thus, 774, Assembly infra.) Rights (Report, p.
section 5 of the Act. Voting county) 5 (which preclearance a section Kings County, District 30 contains com- (and a 60 percent Hispanic population of 49.5 comprised percent of 52.2 comprised District 31 is Assembly bined while minority population), nearly (and minority population a combined percent Hispanic population districts, the Masters were (Id., 775.) the two By “nesting” percent). p. 69 (Sen. 16) Hispanic nearly percent a senate district Dist. produce able to 775.) (Id., p. population. Kern divide unnecessarily MALDEF
The would changes proposed by Rights Voting under section 5 of the challenge would risk County, possible the new (42 1973c) reducing minority percentage Act U.S.C. § with the position and would conflict Kings County, district that includes Coalition, Masters’ this plans the Kern Latino which endorses the County area. Separated Hispanic Populations
c. Failure to Combine instances to MALDEF the Masters’ failed several complains plans that Hispanic populations. combine into a district certain single voting separated Voting that the As we the Masters assumed previously explained, properly are not minority Act would not Rights require combining populations Gingles, supra, v. (Thornburg “functionally, geographically compact.” 30, 25, were 46].) unwilling For the Masters example, U.S. L.Ed.2d [92 MALDEF linking Hispanic populations to form a district requested by corridor around connecting Santa Barbara and Oxnard means of a narrow (See Ojai. Report, p. Ventura and along range separating Ventura mountain 778, separated The have several combinations of infra.) Masters proposed conflict with the other where to do so would not Hispanic populations criteria, community such contiguity, reapportionment compactness, interests. Objections Asian American Coalition
2. Pacific Coalition) (hereafter complain of Asian voters Representatives with that new Districts “Chinatown” Assembly by failing join Francisco, divide the city’s the Richmond and the Sunset districts of San (who Asian Asians population, thereby depriving comprise approximately legislative to elect a opportunity of an city’s population) representative. but observed that infra), Masters’ noted the Report problem (pp. area, being
San Francisco’s Asian is not concentrated a single *15 in the outlined considerations the other Among throughout city. dispersed a long a arm to extend “unwilling were understandably the Masters Report, and district the Richmond miles for the several between block or so wide same district into the in two areas bring order to these ‘Chinatown’ ... 771, seemingly 44.) district (Id., misshapen a infra, fn. Such . . . .” p. criterion, Voting the is not required and “compactness” the would violate noted, “functionally, only the act applies Act. As Rights previously minority geographically compact” groups. district, Richmond and combining the Masters’ proposed
Significantly, thereof, with fringe and some southern areas Sunset districts of city, the same contains neighboring Daly City, approximately northern of part included the the Masters that as the considered population Asian one areas, being of advantage the added Richmond-Sunset-Chinatown with district, “nested,” an assem- adjacent of a senate with forming for purposes 771.) p. a Asian having (Report, district substantial bly population. link failed to the Masters’ complains plans the Coalition that Additionally, Jose, Oakland, of and within two areas Asian within within San populations however, found, Act Voting Rights Angeles County. Los The Masters in and those areas necessitated affecting considerations Blacks Hispanics Torrance, however, around lines which were drawn. With to the area respect (and supported minor has change a been the Coalition suggested by the National Association for the Advancement Colored principle by Assembly a modification of People). change, This which we involves adopt, (and 28), that will Districts 51 and 53 thus Senate substan- Districts District increase Asian tially percentages Assembly population city Torrance and also will eliminate requested by split Coalition boundaries, opportunities without Black or significantly Hispanic affecting districts, those district exceeding two and without deviation adhered to Masters. by the
Therefore, set forth we to the Masters’ adopt following change plans 2753.11, 2753.12, 2755, their Report: Los Tracts Angeles County Census 2756, 2764, District hereby Assembly 2770 are included 6500.01, 6500.02, 6501.01, 6501.02, Census are Tracts 6502 and 6503 included District hereby 53. Assembly 3. Objections National the Advancement Colored Association (NAACP)
People (CORE) and Congress Equality Racial NAACP and indicated no objection CORE to the
Representatives districts, congressional Masters’ some proposed they suggested but changes *16 (Assem. to Senate Districts 25 and the them, assembly four districts 51, 52, 55) Dists. 53 and nested within to maximize Black opportuni- ties in the area. representation
The would increase the in proposed changes Assembly number of Blacks Districts 51 and 52 and in decrease the number of Blacks District Assembly 55. net effect of this change would be to render it that a fifth unlikely Black member of the Assembly would be elected from south central Los Angeles County, but it would bolster the Black probability retaining four members the area Assembly throughout Although decade. NAACP and CORE have valid may tactical reasons for four seeking only area, Black districts majority we believe that the Masters’ decision to maximize the number of such districts was a reasonable one that was entirely Act, consistent with the Voting Rights of the fact there particularly light are five Black currently members from this area. We also Assembly appre- ciate the difficulties inherent the task of to steer a middle attempting course between unnecessary dilution of voters too minority among many districts, and overconcentration or voters into too few “packing” minority ante, (See 715.) such districts. p.
We also note that the minor we have made in the relatively changes Masters’ proposed Districts 51 and as Assembly previously discussed (ante, 723), p. constitute part changes sought by NAACP and CORE. Objections 4. Congressional Delegation Democratic of California
(DCD) DCD’s brief is a of a brief it filed in federal copy district court asking that court to assume jurisdiction over the issue. DCD reapportionment raises two primary objections (1) to the Masters’ congressional its plan: asserted failure to achieve close sufficiently between population equality districts, various proposed congressional (2) its asserted noncompliance with the Act. Voting Rights
The population issue is at in the equality length discussed Report (pp. 753-757, infra). DCD has offered Although plans assertedly only have a deviation slight from “perfect” equality, federal cases allow deviations as great or than greater those the Masters’ if plans, supported “legitimate (See state objective.” Daggett, supra, Karcher v. 462 U.S. at pp. indicated, 147].) 740-741 L.Ed.2d at As p. [77 benefits of previously tracts, undivided using census to maintain reasonable namely, geographical interest, integrity, communities preserve and assure full participation by minority groups constitute such reapportionment process, amply justification. *17 be would plans DCD’s proposed one of that suggests herein dissent however, observe, We variance. population of the small because
preferable of article violative to be plans DCD’s found specifically the Masters that respect contiguity requirements and its XXI state Constitution of the regions. and geographical boundaries county integrity” for “geographical DCD’s submission 766-767, maps review of the infra.) Our pp. (Report, violations, the Masters’ supporting of such numerous instances confirms herein, these dissent the assumption in that to regard. Contrary finding (dis. post, opn., in nature “trivial” as characterized fairly cannot be violations an acceptable constitute not would 735), plans and the DCD’s proposed p. Therefore, the Masters’ endorse we circumstances. any under alternative Masters’ concept in the principle and also finding approve foregoing 759-763, infra). (see Report, pp. compactness contiguity functional violations, DCD’s claims none of Act Rights asserted Voting As for First, “retrogres- are Masters’ plans DCD assumes the meritorious. appears incumbent Hispanic difficult for an in it more by making sive” one respect, 30). Dist. (Cong. in new district reelection his to congressman (Roybal) gain 30, the Mas- District on narrowly Congressional DCD focuses Although in area now repre- the in districts majority ters fact created two Hispanic Hispanic that the DCD contends and while Roybal, sented Representative the lower than is somewhat in District 30 Congressional voter registration district, under current in Roybal’s registration Representative voter Hispanic in Congres- registration the voter Hispanic the DCD’s voter data registration Roybal’s in Representative than considerably higher sional District 33 is regis- voter no Hispanic current district. the DCD (Significantly, presented Masters, initial view that DCD’s indicating seemingly tration statistics to circumstances, irrelevant.) improper no Under these such statistics were retrogression appears. drawn to include new District 32 was argues Congressional
DCD also voters, voters from hindering Black thereby substantial areas with White in indicates plans a that area. Our review of electing representative (a close to figure new district will have a Black of 40.3 district, twice nearly percentage that DCD’s and one that is proposed a to elect therein), a reasonable opportunity of Whites Black voters offering Moreover, areas inclusion of the White Masters’ representative. further benefit Black their efforts to was question evidently consequence 37). think it 35 and We districts Dists. neighboring (Cong. voters two the Masters’ support pro- that NAACP and CORE affirmatively significant districts, District 32. including Congressional posed congressional 52, the Mas- District Congressional DCD asserts that Finally, drawing with County Imperial ters should have combined the Hispanic population in Coachella Yet the Masters’ Hispanic population Valley. proposal Masters, nearly identical this to one DCD the respect proposed by to them In represented with the Act. “faithfully complying” Voting Rights event, the Masters deemed the any sufficiently two areas not Hispanic geographically miles. compact, being separated by many Significantly, MALDEF has not complained us of that the Masters alignment propose. *18 Objections
5. the Senate California The Senate’s center around Act objections supposed Voting Rights in violations the Masters’ for senate districts. Several plans objections repeat Coalition, made MALDEF charges or the and were by discussed previously herein. Another the objection concerns Masters’ decision to include San Luis White in
Obispo County (mostly voters) a district that also includes Santa Barbara and the County northern of Ventura The Senate had part County. Oxnard, San proposed excluding Luis to increase Obispo including the minority district. But the sustaining objection Senate’s would necessitate combining San Luis with either Obispo County Monterey north, County to the or with San to part heavily Hispanic Joaquin Valley the east. Monterey County subject is to section 5 under the preclearance (42 Voting Rights 1973c). Act U.S.C. In plan the the Senate presented by § Masters, to the San Luis inwas fact with Obispo County combined parts the San Joaquin Valley, and included which Kings County, subject is also to Thus, section 5 preclearance. the Masters’ decision in was influenced part by the necessity of ensuring areas were likewise not linked preclearance with White heavily areas. The Masters’ a choice was reasonable one under the circumstances.
The Senate that two Black complains senate districts were not better equalized, resulting (Sen. 25) one district Dist. less than 40 having percent Black Yet Senate population. District 25 is of more than 35 composed Blacks, figure represented Black as sufficient for a by groups “majority minority” Black district. Additionally, this new district has a combined minority population excess of 85 We the percent. approve Masters’ decision. the
Finally, Senate objects to the “splitting” heavily Hispanic City Santa Ana The Orange County. Masters’ does the but plan split city, a manner that enhances the Hispanic population senate and resulting MALDEF assembly Again, districts. has not to us of the Mas- complained choice, ters’ and we endorse it here. Assembly Objections
6. California their Masters’ is objection plans to the primary Assembly’s The Assem fair” reapportionment. failure a “politically asserted to achieve direct as a gains Republican Party election by substantial bly predicts “fair Assembly, According political lines. to result of new district them, drafted by plans by best achieved adopting ness” could be vetoed the Governor. indicated, Masters’ approve the
As we have we previously unqualifiedly the standards and criteria attention exclusively decision to devote their Act, Constitution, and our prior the state Rights established the Voting Reinecke, supra, Cal.3d 402-403. Legislature v. opinion event, unfairness major political In any Assembly’s premise a dubious being analogy to substantial based on subject question, election, registration on voter statistics results of the 1990 gubernatorial *19 fairness,” term used the by “Political as the is similarly utility. of doubtful in fixture is based of chances Assembly, appraisal party’s on an a political Yet are obviously elections. of future election contests predictions quite and variables. We involving the of countless speculative weighing imprecise, Act and Voting think that with the federal redistricting comply Rights plans above, than follow various and criteria outlined rather state standards seek to maintain or enhance the of preserve political power the status or quo “fair,” will or at least as any party, necessarily produce plans politically otherwise, as legisla vetoed ones that “are at truncated products best 595, (1972) tive Reinecke process.” (Legislature Cal.Rptr. v. 6 Cal.3d [99 385].) 492 P.2d The Assembly “minor the Masters’ additionally suggests changes” some plans would avoid certain boundaries neces- assertedly city “splits” (See sitated data. by pp. Masters’ use of undivided census tract Report, 754-757, offer, infra.) We decline the which would us to Assembly’s require deviate from the tracts. express splitting Masters’ to avoid census policy (One these changes proposed Assembly, by “minor” supported herein, the dissent removing involves division of the boundaries of slight a Fairfield, Vallejo necessitated the Masters’ use of undivided census reject tracts. We likewise involve change this because it would proposed tracts.) census splitting Objections (Board)
7. State Board Equalization The not argument Board’s is that the does primary Masters’ plan interests adequately protect minority the area District Board proposed a by creating minority strength. influence district of sufficient Board that an Asian suggests incumbent Board member (Fong, Republican) may be unable to in this new prevail district. Yet the Masters’ district proposed minorities, has a of combined and indeed a majority higher percentage minorities than the Board’s proposal. the Board criticizes the Masters’
Although failing construct plan (who district so as to exclude the residence of another incumbent member White), the Masters followed a consistent of not policy considering lines, residences of incumbents district and we drawing do not believe that Act, policy Voting Rights violates the in these circumstances. particularly the Masters noted that the three Finally, Board’s would proposed plan split counties, infra.) whereas Masters’ plan splits only (Report, p. one. Objections
8. Other Most of the other objections filed with us involve requests modify individual districts to benefit incumbents or candidates. particular groups, Both policy considerations inhibit us from these practical granting requests. herein,
For over the example, of the dissent we have denied objection several to renumber requests senate districts for the benefit of apparent incumbents whose chances of reelection would be or presumably improved *20 (Even- terms of office lengthened as a result of the requested changes. numbered senate districts are not scheduled for election until whereas odd-numbered 1992.) districts are scheduled for the Contrary to dissent’s assumption, such accommodations involve than “simply” renumbering more a few districts. The effects of these to which we have granting requests, received are far strong opposition, incumbent reaching, favoring legislators at the of their expense challengers, and substantial partially disenfranchising numbers of “odd-numbered district” voters who otherwise would be entitled to vote for in senatorial offices these Granting requests 1992. would be in wholly out of place “incumbent neutral” redistricting plans. lines,
As for individual requests to district our modify particular language Reinecke, in Legislature v. supra, 10 Cal.3d at seems page pertinent here: “Any that we now make the attempts might to redraw district specific lines to achieve possibly more reasonable results would run the serious risk of creating undesirable side effects which we could not foresee and which adversely affected parties could not call to our attention in time correc- Moreover, tions be to made. that risk would magnified by be the necessarily in to the Masters were that we are in as a as advantageous position fact not assess the alternatives.” impact possible Masters, consultants their staff and their
F. Conclusion— matter, adhere, to the an of this study attempting conducted intensive reapportion extent to the Act and the other greatest possible, Voting Rights I, supra, in Wilson ment standards and criteria this court specified by the Cal.3d the Masters were not aware of Although specific 471. previously fully were objections they that have been made this court to their plans, by the submitted the cognizant plans of similar made to various objections Governor, and the commission Legislature, independent appointed Governor. task,
In their an the Masters and their staff performing developed expertise in the art of have that is reflected reapportionment plans they recommended to us. We the Masters’ specifically analyses endorse regarding recommendations of the various proper weight application criteria. we the Masters’ inter- reapportionment Although likewise approve Act, pretation and we that application Voting Rights acknowledge any law, questions arising thereunder are ones of federal and that essentially any definitive answers to these must be complex questions ultimately provided that, by the United States Supreme Court. We are satisfied reason of the Masters’ voting successful efforts to maximize the actual and potential of all strength geographically compact minority significant voting groups age population, Voting federal Act would lack merit. Rights challenge short,
In we have examined the Masters’ light plans applicable thereto, case, criteria and the objections various and we conclude each discussed, with minor modifications previously represent lines drawn reasonable recommended criteria. applications Accordingly, except ante, hereof, set forth at page 723 we each of those accept adopt plans. II, 548-550, As indicated Wilson supra, 54 Cal.3d at pages respondent of State Secretary has us to announce our urged plans for reapportionment 28, 1992, no later than January order the expense to avoid and confusion *21 arising from a possible For that delay holding primary election. reason, and consistent with prior we have made our decision precedent, the Masters’ adopting (See final plans Assembly Deukmejian, forthwith. v. 679; Reinecke,
supra, 30 Cal.3d at p.
Legislature
supra,
v.
We the Masters’ accept recommendation to release to the University California Institute of Governmental Studies Berkeley, for safe storage, scholars, cataloging, and use public and all materials pertinent heretofore with the Masters. lodged 407, Reinecke, no we have supra, page 10 Cal.3d at Legislature v.
As to accede to will fail to these any proceedings reason to believe parties herein, a writ by issuing is served accordingly purpose no holding our discharged, issued is writ of mandate heretofore mandate. alternative bear its own Each will party for writ of mandate denied. and the petition costs.
Our is final forthwith. judgment J„ J„ J., Arabian, J., Baxter, J„ Panelli, Kennard, concurred. George, fatally flawed MOSK, forthrightly reject The court should I dissent. J. of the masters. proposal
I. 133,142,103 (1983) In L.Ed.2d Daggett Karcher v. 462 U.S. 732 [77 declared, Court (hereafter Karcher), the United States Supreme S.Ct. 2653] less than something equality—only “As between two or standards—equality I, 2” of the federal Constitution. the former reflects the of Art. aspirations § Nevertheless, submitted plan the masters here a rejected reapportionment population equal- that achieved almost by congressional delegation perfect than 9 a deviation of no more ity congressional districts—remarkably, Instead, 572,308. the masters opted from the ideal persons population i.e., 2,797 larger, their which a deviation 310 times proposes own plan, persons.1 substantially
It belabors the obvious to out that a deviation of 9 is point 2,797.2 than required by closer to Karcher equality assembly scheme for Even maximum deviations mark the masters’ larger 6,715 Their assembly vary by approximately senatorial districts. districts 7,440 and their state senate districts persons vary by approximately persons. without serious My colleagues accept foregoing malapportionment I Unfortunately out of than conviction. question—more, hope, expediency the result will haunt the of California for a decade. people (hereafter Report) majority rely Report 1The on the masters’ and Recommendations infra) (appen., page at which reflects a deviation of 0.25 from ante, however, 718.) congressional (Maj. opn., p. figure, norm in districts. The more relevant is, maximum greatest is the total deviation—that the sum of the absolute values of the two ideal—which, page report, of their deviations from the as the masters observe at 0.49 percent. argument suggested this calculation is not static 2At oral it was the number in9 *22 births, deaths, moving into and out changed by people because in time it would be of only consider Obviously figures districts. that is true of all the district offered. We can numbers in existence as of this date. for a that has a plan will the rationale of the masters rejecting
As appear, a proposing plan district and persons per congressional deviation of only is related 310 times to the larger that a deviation permits approximately census Using and census tracts. using distinction between census blocks blocks, masters, time-consuming, thus compel- declare the is expensive ling some to on less methods. rely precise groups intent, I lame
With find that excuse for due to masters’ to be respect for the next the one that of rejecting plan equality representation achieves years, over the improved primarily decade. Methods have reapportioning That or technology. group may because of the citizen development every its ignoring not have access to the latest does not yet easy technology justify If had it was univer- benefits. advance science been until every rejected available, we would still be with sally writing quill pens.
II. lines, I With regard to district conclude that drawing congressional an result and dissent on that majority reach unconstitutional therefore us, I point. with a before begin analysis constitutional the question then it apply process redistricting to the the masters undertook.
A. Whether the standard to be to the of districts applied apportionment I, 2, among representatives federal is article section of the grounded United (Karcher, supra, States Constitution or in the 725) U.S. equal 152-153, protection (id. thereof clause at at L.Ed.2d pp. pp. [77 Stevens, J.]), must opn. 162] [conc. we the standard federal apply high court set forth that case.3 I, The Karcher reiterated the that court rule article section federal “
Constitution the limited ‘permits only which are population variances unavoidable a good-faith despite effort achieve absolute or equality, ” which justification (462 140], shown.’ at p. U.S. at p. L.Ed.2d [77 added.) italics is fair It to read Karcher as requiring only limitations inherent in available computer technology stand between a constitu- may is, tional requirement absolute zero from equality—that deviation district to district—and whatever small number approaching zero current technology may (Id. afford. pp. 141-142].) at 732-733 L.Ed.2d at pp. [77 however,
Certain state interests may, justify slight from the departures constitutional mandate of absolute The Karcher court established a equality. legislative 3Karcher reapportionment, reviewed a distinguish but I discern no reason case on that basis. *23 “First, test: the court must consider differ two-part whether the population ences among districts could have been reduced or eliminated a altogether by good-faith effort to draw equal population. districts of Parties challenging issue, apportionment legislation must bear the burden if proof on this fail they to show that the differences could have the been avoided apportion If, however, ment scheme must be upheld. the can establish that the plaintiffs differences were not result of a effort to achieve good-faith the State equality, must bear the burden of that each proving significant variance between districts was to achieve necessary legitimate some goal.” (462 140-141], added.) U.S. at 730-731 pp. L.Ed.2d at italics Such pp. [77 legitimate goals include but are not limited to districts “making compact, boundaries, districts, respecting municipal preserving cores of prior must, contests avoiding between incumbent . The State Representatives. . . however, show with some that specificity particular objective a required deviations specific its rather than on plan, simply asser relying general flexible, tions. showing required to justify population deviations is deviations, on the size depending of the importance of State’s interests, the with which the consistency as a whole reflects those plan interests, and the that availability might substantially alternatives vindi cate those interests yet (Id., approximate population more equality closely.” at 740-741 pp. 147].) L.Ed.2d at p. [77
Justice Stevens’s concurring Karcher a opinion somewhat adopted different if approach: “the plan embodies deviations from population equal- ity that have not been justified by neutral state any objective, it cannot (462 164], stand.” U.S. at L.Ed.2d at p. added.) italics p. [77
B. that, The masters’ does not set Report forth under the any criterion Karcher, language majority opinion supra, 462 U.S. or that of Stevens, Justice justifies the masters’ departure from constitutional re- quirement of exact to the extent equality technologically possible.
The masters’ Report concedes that the deviation the size of the popu- lations of the least and most populous congressional districts is percent, 0.49 whereas an alternative plan would permit only deviation of or persons, “almost perfect population equality.” infra.) The (Report, p. Report declares fashion that the conclusory greater deviation meets the require- ments of the federal Constitution as elucidated in recent United States Court Supreme decisions. The in turn majority draw on the Report to conclude, discussion, without substantial federal cases do not require closer equality and “allow deviations as great greater or than those in the *24 ” if a by objective.’ (Maj. opn., state ‘legitimate Masters’ plans, supported ante, 724.) p.
I
that
details
The
majority’s analysis.
submit
the devil lies
the
of the
the
that
the
court
plan
to concede
because
majority appear
reapportionment
“the
today violates the
mandate of absolute
approves
equality,
constitutional
bear the
between
State must
burden of
that each
variance
proving
significant
(Karcher, supra,
goal.”
districts was
achieve
necessary
legitimate
to
some
141].)
The justification for inexactitude is founded on a Report’s “policy” 756, infra) port, of tracts rather as the p. utilizing census than census blocks smallest indivisible “The us popu- units. submitted to with near-zero plans lation deviations are based on census ‘blocks’ of tracts. Formulating instead districts a block enormously on basis is . . . The expensive. approximately 6,000 400,000 census tracts in made California are blocks. The up about software, hardware], cost of [computer and to deal with experts efficiently this greater amount of data is a exponentially higher system than comparable Indeed, in which the bulk of the work redistricting is done census tracts. the cost would be prohibitive any private for or person group having (Ibid., omitted.) resources short of those available fn. Legislature.” to told, “The Assembly, our staff uses a mainframe at the computer [were] has, sure, Institute California we Technology. capabilities It are enormous 756, . (Id., 15.)4 . . .” infra, fn. Report’s conjures footnote a vision up of white-coated scientists
earnestly hovering about
of a massive mainframe
whirling tape drives
1982,
in a
I
computer
dimly lit room. But
remain
As
when
unawed.
as
early
advanced,
computer technology
many
was
orders of
less
and
magnitude
less
powerful
dollar
than it
per
spent,
today,5
a three-judge panel criticized an
Ohio reapportionment plan’s reliance on the use
census
rather
tracts
than
36,
census
(S.D.Ohio
42,
blocks.
v.
(Flanagan
1982)
Gillmor
561 F.Supp.
Assembly joins
4The
complaining
plan
the masters’ census-tract-based
creates
unequal
districts of more
population
splits
proposal.
more cities than its
is merit
There
its views.
’60s,
250,000
the mid
access
bytes
storage
huge
5“[I]n
to
like a
Today,
seemed
resource.
most
PCs
desk-top
perform
out
the old
and contain
times
memory,
several
more
for a
fraction
Today,
of the cost.
. .
benchmarking
.
workstations
...
are
for selected
H]
tasks
$20,000
operations
scalar
60 percent
Cray-1
at 50 to
[supercomputer],
at
costs
$30,000.
decades,
For
years,
and over
[computer]
four
price
[11
relentless
ten-fold
declines have occurred every
years. Everything
computer
seven
today suggests
in the
world
continue,
Therefore,
that these curves will at least
if not accelerate.
strategies for the ’90s
must
consider
technical
competitive
impact
computer
associated with
tremendous
L.Ed.2d
(1984) 467 U.S.
Flanagan
sub nom.
v. Brandon
[81
affd.
(mem.
104 S.Ct.
opn.).)
2672]
P.2d
(1991)
Second,
exacti-
“the result of
on an
insisting
also asserts that
Report
tracts,
blocks,
census
instead of
by
tude that
formulation of districts
requires
including
representing
limit the
those
ability many groups,
would be to
voters,
in the
meaningfully
reapportionment process
to
minority
participate
757, infra.)
.”
by
redistricting
(Report, p.
alternate
. . .
presenting
plans
in the
I
that the
and other
agree
right
participate
of minority
groups
But the
does not demonstrate
reapportionment process
important.
Report
how the
such
would be
advocacy ability
organizations representing
groups
rather than tracts. The
weakened
a division based on census blocks
by
statement that a
will
Report’s
reapportionment
disadvantage
block-based
Ater
with fewer resources is mere
and is belied
v.
groups
speculation,
by
Ater,
two, six,
In
Keisling, supra,
twenty
census tracts such tracts are tics and . . use or manmade features as . natural prominent geographical ” if boundaries.’ But of tracts infra.) blocks are subdivisions (Report, p. (see ibid.), these inhere even blocks qualities logically strongly more know, than in the I have tracts. most more in common suspect people with, more own than in persons many away their block blocks places inbe their happen to tract. *26 sum,
In the Report legitimate demonstrates no for from ground departing the United States Court’s its Supreme mandate that California con- realign gressional the in districts with least deviation that is population equality I technologically possible. Thus conclude that the majority’s ratification of the achieves an Report unconstitutional result.
III. devised, No however plan, There be other with perfect. may problems so, proposal congressional If delegation. any such weaknesses should been have considered on the merits. The did few masters raise a such points, but defects were trivial when with the compared desirability achieving equality representation. masters, faith, in although acting undoubtedly good miscon- basically
strued their mission. Under California and the precedent Voting federal 1965, Rights Act of (42 as amended U.S.C. et seq.), their function § was to draw lines geographical such a manner discrimi- prevent natory voting pattern against any or all minority groups. Unfortunately some significant instances masters believed apparently could they per- form their duty only affirmative use of racial quotas.
The Voting
Act
Rights
provided
new
nothing
for California. We have
consistently prohibited
(See,
People
(1978)
discrimination.
e.g.,
v. Wheeler
890,
However,
Cal.3d 258
Cal.Rptr.
748].)
[148
583 P.2d
quotas
racial
have been declared
(Bakke
improper
Regents
California
v.
University
(1976)
680,
(1978)
2733]).
The masters referred over over to the federal Act of Voting Rights 1965, (42 as amended U.S.C. et That seq.). legislative enactment § states, South, obviously was aimed at in the mainly sought directly that or to disenfranchise indirectly minorities or to curtail their potential political influence. It is obvious that such an enactment unnecessary was for Califor- nia, some it respects may be counterproductive.
As the United Gaffney States Court declared in Supreme Cummings v. 298, 312, (1973) 2321], 412 U.S. L.Ed.2d 93 S.Ct. the basic [37 test is whether “racial or have been fenced out of the political groups political process . . . .”
The masters and the
(1986)
refer to
v.
majority opinion
Thornburg Gingles
We need not be reminded of California’s traditional in the acceptance arena, times, in political modern of all persons regardless of That ethnicity. has been evident in not the only voting but process, also candidacies and entitlement, election to office. Without high preferential this state elected an Asian as a United States A Senator. Black was elected Lieutenant Governor.
An Asian been has elected and reelected as consistently of State. Secretary Asians, Blacks and have been elected Hispanics to Blacks and Congress. Asians have been elected mayors largest our cities. Many minorities have been elected to both houses of the state Legislature, a Black as including Speaker the Assembly, innumerable others have been elected to local boards of supervisors, city councils and judicial offices.8
All this confirms that California—while not achieving perfection—has demonstrated maturity matters of in elections without the need ethnicity recognize 8I many persons in racial or ethnic groups varying ways have of designating themselves and their race ethnicity. or For opinion designations convenience in this I use the employed by the United States Census Bureau. Indeed, to inflict racial entitlements. quotas, special for racial or preferences What is demeaning. on our state is it is today merely unnecessary, not quotas worse, racial are to set the limits of likely accomplish- outer perhaps quotas ment. term,
Quota deny has a and the masters would pejorative probably become intended invoke to Los they Angeles, to it. But their own Report, respect the state’s most reveals their curious county, inadvertently appor- populous In the the tioning dog, a classic of the tail technique. example wagging masters described their constructed Latino and Afri- “Having process: first districts, which a can-American and state congressional legislative occupied the considerable of the middle of the south-central and eastern part parts of the county, remainder districts allocated to Los had Angeles County be constructed around the they some instances became rather periphery; 769-770, added, short, elongated.” pp. infra, omitted.) In (Report, italics fns. first, the masters satisfied minority-based congressional districts quota and only thereafter whatever was relegated to area majority odd-shaped left over. Karcher,
Overlooked in all this was the admonition of Justice Stevens supra, 462 U.S. at L.Ed.2d at if rules no page page “serve [77 153]: ethnic, racial, other purpose than favor segment—whether one religious, economic, or they . . . violate political guarantee the constitutional equal protection.”
Although Chief Justice wrote a Burger dissenter in United Jewish 259, Organizations Carey v. (1977) 430 U.S. 186-187 L.Ed.2d [51 996], 97 S.Ct. thoughtful his in that case opinion deserves our consideration: “The result reached name today Court Act Voting Rights ironic. use of mathematical formula tends to sustain existence *28 ghettos by promoting the notion that political clout is be or gained ethnic, racial, maintained by marshaling particular in religious or groups race, enclaves. It suggests to the voter that only a candidate of same or religion, interests, ethnic can origin properly that voter’s and represent that such candidate can be elected a only from district with a sufficient minority concentration. . . The . notion in that Americans vote firm blocs has been in repudiated the election of minority members as and mayors in legislators numerous American cities and districts overwhelmingly white. Since I cannot square mechanical in racial this gerrymandering case with Constitution, the mandate of I dissent . .” respectfully . . 1882, long
As ago as made courts it clear that must be reapportionment objectively “Questions undertaken. of religion, politics, or nativity should districts, in
not be considered
formation
alteration” of
wrote
(1882)
Wisconsin
Court in
Supreme
State v.
If districts an unfair adding manner is deemed we gerrymandering, what have here—eliminating four districts an unfair deemed be manner—may above, reverse gerrymandering. It is equally unacceptable. As noted it is also clearly violation of two of the Supreme Court’s declared for fair goals districts, reapportionment: “preserving cores of prior avoiding con- tests between (Karcher, incumbent Representatives.” supra, 462 U.S. at p. 147].) L.Ed.2d at p. [77
The only explanation of the majority there were disingenuous: no ante, formal objections filed on this 716.) basis. (Maj. opn., obvi- p. They ously misinterpret our it is not duty: an abjectly accept unsupportable if recommendation not formally Our opposed. is to examine responsibility it, every aspect masters’ it report approve or modify reject if it—even not a single objection had been filed.
It bemay inevitable that after a decennial reapportionment occasionally two incumbent legislators will find themselves the same reconstructed district. But never in the history California—or other state of which any I am aware—have four members of Congress been into the reapportioned *29 same If district. California had lost congressional seats as a result the of census some strained perhaps rationalization for this outcome could be conceived. But we gained seats. The masters’ distorted result is thus indefensible.
739 IV. the have arbitrarily—or rubber-stamped expediently—the majority
How illustrated their to accommo- scheme submitted the masters is refusal date not that district lines be legislators requested, significantly several who altered, simply but that districts be different numbers. To merely given some 17, 23, 30, renumber Senate 16 and 20 and 27 and would not seem Districts Indeed, a Floor problem major Republican to be of as the Senate proportion. out, has pointed changes avoiding costly Leader the would result probably I special requests. elections two districts. would have the granted I would add one To with the comply additional correction. constitutional Const., (Cal. mandate that boundaries be when art. city possible respected XXI, 1, (e)), I subd. believe we are the grant § of compelled request of cities and Fairfield to render the Vallejo Assembly boundaries proposed Districts 7 and and Senate Districts and the cities of coterminous with 17, and (See (Dec. 1991) Fairfield. Vallejo City Vallejo Res. No. 91-796 17, and City (Dec. 1991), Fairfield No. Res. 91-343 both unanimously The adopted.) masters’ place percent recommended would 4.65 plan 2, residents of Fairfield in 5.04 Assembly District and Senate District and of the Vallejo residents of District 8 and Senate Assembly District 4. This unnecessary will in the line-drawing deny those residents placement same legislative districts their The fellow court could citizens. make requested changes by moving two census tracts from Assembly proposed District 7 to District and Assembly of two census tracts by moving part from proposed Assembly District 8 to Assembly District 7.
V. However, I Since am I need dissenting, not I suggest order. precise believe we have several (1) We can options. changes undertake appropriate in the masters’ (2) do so plan we can remand the matter promptly; and, masters for reconsideration and a new if order plan necessary, postpone- ment itself; date now set for filing even delay primary election (3) we can remand the entire issue of to the reapportionment Legislature, it where belongs. latter option would use existing require assembly election, and senate districts for the 1992 adoption of masters’ plan flawed for congressional districts only order to obtain the benefit representation. state’s added There bemay possibilities other or variations of the foregoing.
VI. what Apparently goes around In comes around. 1982 I joined Justice Richardson in dissenting from a opinion that ben- reapportionment unfairly efited Democrats. v. (Assembly Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 693 [180 *30 Mosk, (conc. J.).) 639 P.2d & dis. Now 10 Cal.Rptr. years opn. 939] later, I must dissent from a result that benefits unfairly Republicans. My observations a decade seem ago prescient:
“One need not be a to detect the in the cynic hypocrisy political games- known as Whichever immedi- manship reapportionment. is party power the decennial census ately following undertakes the task with a inevitably view to its and the self-preservation, cries foul. The is that opposition reality result, neither has a on a party virtue. As hereafter monopoly every years we be to endure may compelled gubernatorial veto . . . and to that extent the legislative and of this will political processes state become periodically impotent.
“At present courts can do little prevent this decennial debacle. Justice Frankfurter clearly saw the issue and the restricted role judiciary four In nearly ago. Colegrove (1946) decades v. Green 328 U.S. 1432, 1435, 1198], L.Ed. he 66 S.Ct. observed that ‘The one [90 stark fact that emerges from a of the study history of . . . apportionment its embroilment in the sense of politics, contests interests.’ party party (328 He concluded 1436]) U.S. at L.Ed. at p. p. ought ‘Courts [90 political not to enter this thicket. The remedy districting unfairness is to secure State legislatures that will apportion .... The Constitu- properly tion has left the performance of duties in many governmental our scheme to and, depend on the of the fidelity executive and legislative action ultimately, on the of the vigilance their people exercising political rights.’ it
“Although is not the responsibility judiciary solve this essen- I tially political problem, cannot resist that a better suggesting solution to achieving equitable reapportionment must if the be found of Califor- people nia are to be served What that effectively. solution should be is beyond my ken. Butxtiie wrenching experiences of 1971 and 1981 now [and 1991] indicate tub. people their representatives should no tarry longer 693-694, (30 an seeking answer.” added.) Cal.3d at italics pp.
I we do hope not have to wait until 2001.
741
Appendix Special
Report and Recommendations of Masters Reapportionment on
I. Introduction History
A. Procedural (Masters) the in this case were by Masters court Special appointed
directed as follows:
“In of all interested necessity affording parties light acknowledged [i.e., an be heard in the of redistricting], to such matters opportunity process it to hold public that we three Masters appropriate appoint Special the evidence and with to hearings argument respect permit presentation (See Legislature (1973) Reinecke 9 proposed plans reapportionment. v. 166, 18, III].) Cal.3d We will 167 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 507 [107 626] [Reinecke Masters, and and be expeditiously guided by select these will appoint they the and criteria an earlier Masters for the procedures panel of developed (see [Legislature court in v. reapportionment this 1973 plans adopted by 718, 402, [396,] Reinecke (1973)] 10 Cal.3d 410-414 516 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [110 XXI, IV]), 1 as well as the section of the 6] [Reinecke of article provisions Constitution.[1] addition, state In the Masters will consider application the law, federal the including (42 Act U.S.C. 1971 et Voting Rights [of § 1965] seq.).
“Following the the will file their hearings, Masters recommen- report dations for will possible adoption which reapportionment plans provide districts, for 52 single-member congressional 40 Senate single-member dis- tricts, districts, 80 single-member and 4 Assembly State of Equaliza- Board tion districts. The Masters shall set the criteria the underlying forth plans they recommend for adoption and the reasons for their recommendations.” (Wilson 471, (1991) v. Eu 1306].) Cal.3d P.2d Cal.Rptr. [286 and,
Upon the appointment, Masters held with organizational meetings court approval, retained employed staff and consultants to assist their 2work. Rules to the the govern conduct of the submis public hearings sion of oral and written were presentations were sched adopted. Hearings Sacramento, Francisco, uled Los Angeles, Diego San and San and written 1Hereinafter referred to as Article XXI. McKaskle, Francisco, professor 2Paul L. of law at University the of San who had served in Lee, the same capacity in was retained Eugene as director and chief C. counsel. professor political emeritus of science at University Berkeley; at California Rich Langree, a Supreme Court staff attorney computer processing experience; with extensive data
notice of was to the actions and to others. A hearings given parties times, release press giving hearings was places purposes services, distributed statewide wire and radio major newspapers, *32 and television stations. Thereafter, cities, scheduled, were held the various at public hearings which oral were presentations made.4 one or more of the Participating hearings were counsel for the parties organizations or for other or persons, subdivisions, political and individuals on their own behalf or as appearing representatives groups, organizations, cities and counties. Exhibits used support those were presentations marked and made a appropriately part materials, In the record. addition to these the Masters reviewed excerpts 12of transcripts public held the Senate December hearings by from 1990 to 1991 on the September subject of Senate and congressional redistricting.5 deliberations, In our we have been aware of the written fully presentation State, 18, 1991, submitted Secretary of dated October stressing importance of action timely by Masters. We her especially note statement on as follows: page is absolutely essential that federal
“[I]t constitutional and federal Voting Act Rights receive the requirements consideration in highest possible order to minimize the risk of In challenge and terms of resulting delay. drawing lines, any doubts with respect with and compliance constitutional federal law should be resolved in favor of that alternative most to avoid a likely . challenge. . .
“To the extent it is possible comply with the criteria requiring that used, census tracts be that districts be and that contiguous compact, they boundaries, and respect city that county they recognize geographic regions, and districts, that they combine Assembly districts to State Senate comprise However, it will facilitate implementation. these must yield to considerations of appropriate population and parities Act Voting Rights which requirements cannot be compromised any reason.” that,
We believe to the maximum extent we have possible, addressed the Secretary of State’s concerns.
The oral and written presentations covered a wide range subjects. statewide Twenty-two were plans submitted three for the (including State Colburn, Guy consultants; B. a retired Supreme Court attorney, staff were retained as Sullivan, Morozumi, other staff included Chang Rebecca and Erica Drewes. respecting 3Declarations the service of notice furnishing press release will be lodged with the court. 4Transcripts hearings of all lodged will be with the court. 5These exhibits and all presentations written will be filed part and become a of the record. Board of Much of the of a Equalization). testimony support particular plan designed was to demonstrate was to other why plan superior plans, almost all of which were the subject criticism one or more participants. written and
Both oral concerned presentations interpretations Voting Rights (42 Act of 1965 U.S.C. 1971 et with each of the seq.), parties § act, that its contending plan fully was consistent with the as interpreted act, various court opinions. interaction between the state constitutional and the provisions, Reinecke TV were at requirements discussed variously length.
Several witnesses (primarily Coalition) those the Latino representing the urged Masters to the adjust census the figures underlying redistricting case, offset the alleged undercount of certain in each the minority groups; that, were parties advised while we the understood nature of the we request, had no to make authority such an adjustment. Since we are under the court’s direction to follow the Reinecke IV we guidelines, are to use the required IV, 413; latest (See decennial census. supra, Reinecke 10 Cal.3d at see also p. 725, Karcher Daggett (1983) 133, 145, v. 462 U.S. L.Ed.2d [77 S.Ct. (Karcher) census count 2653] the represents [“the ‘best data ”].) available’
Finally, a number of interested some parties, representing organizations or communities, individuals, others as speaking addressed such issues as the desirability line, respecting particular county the proper within grouping counties, a district of neighboring cities or or the particular needs for representation of a minority We were group. uniformly the impressed by sense of responsibility goodwill and exhibited by these witnesses and their belief that the concerns, Masters would attempt to address their fairly equitably. This we have attempted to do.
B. Conclusions and Recommendations
We conclude that we should not accept any of the plans submitted by bodies, Governor, various legislative Instead, or by others. we recom- mend that the court adopt the plans that we have In formulated. this report, we review in some detail the criteria that the court directed us to follow and Second, how they interact. we briefly we explain why rejected the plans Third, submitted to us. we describe the process by which we constructed the plans that we have submitted to the court. we Finally, describe the districts that we recommend.
II. Review of Criteria
A. Introduction In its order establishing which has led process to this report, California Supreme Court directed that we be “guided by procedures criteria in Reinecke [contained as well of article provisions IV] XXI, addition, section of the state In Constitution. the Masters will law, consider the application of federal including Voting Rights Eu, (Wilson Act. . . .” supra, v. 473.) Cal.3d at p. interaction of this act with the criteria added previous has considerable to the complexity redistricting as we process, discuss below. criteria,
Before
with
dealing
these interrelated
it is
to acknowl-
necessary
that the
edge
overriding criterion we must follow is the federal constitutional
requirement of population
as established in
equality
Reynolds
(1964)
v. Sims
B. VotingRights Act
1. Overview The primary purpose Act Voting Rights (42 of 1965 U.S.C. 1971 § (the et seq.) Act) is to protect the right to vote as guaranteed Fourteenth 1970, and Fifteenth 1975, Amendments.6 As amended in 1982, the Act prohibits states and their political subdivisions from denying or abridging citizens’ rights 5; to vote (§§ “on account of race 2(a), or color” 42 U.S.C. 1973(a), 1973c) or §§ a membership “language minority group” (§ 4(f)(2); 42 1973b(f)(2)). U.S.C. As valid (see § federal legislation Katzen- 641, bach Morgan (1966) 828, v. 834-835, 384 U.S. 648-651 L.Ed.2d [16 1717]), S.Ct. the Act Const., VI, is the “supreme (U.S. law of the land” art. 2) and supersedes § any conflicting state laws or constitutional provisions.
Two task, sections of the Act directly affect our but different ways. Section as amended in has two (a) subsections. Subsection is a substantive prohibition of any voting procedure that in” “results denial or abridgement of a racial or lingual minority’s voting rights provided “as (b).” subsection (b) Subsection states that a (a) violation of subsection established aby circumstances,” showing, “based on the of totality
6All section references are to the Act unless otherwise indicated. “to members of a class have less than an protected equal opportunity their and to elect participate political process representatives right choice.” section disavows expressly establishing any propor- minority tional but consideration of the extent of representation permits in getting candidates’ success elected.7 lawsuits,
Section has been the basis for scores of typically prosecuted federal court members of that methods of protected groups, claiming office, candidates to such as the district electing legislative demarcation of boundaries, dilute are unlawfully minority Though votes. most of these suits states, directed at in Southern number have voting procedures substantial states, arisen Northern or Western California. v. including (E.g., Garza 763; County (9th 1990) Los Angeles City Cir. 918 F.2d Romero v. 1418; (9th 1989) (9th Pomona Cir. City F.2d v. Watsonville Cir. Gomez 1988) 1407.) 863 F.2d In preparing our redistricting we determined that it is plans, important eliminate, minimize, or at least their any possibility being challenged under section 2. The ultimate success of challenge such would any depend not only on the composition of the new districts themselves but also on evidence, us, not now before of historic or socioeconomic voting patterns data, and also on probably resolution of open legal questions concerning or interpretation application of the Act. Rather than on such speculating evidence, issues, or attempting resolve all such we have legal endeavored to draw boundaries that will withstand section under challenges any foreseeable combination of factual legal circumstances and rulings.
The other relevant (42 section of the Act *35 1973c). is section 5 U.S.C. It § applies only to states or counties which fewer than half of the residents of vote, voting voted, were age registered to or in the Presidential Elections provides: 7Section 2 “(a) voting qualification standard, No prerequisite voting or practice, procedure to or or imposed shall be or applied by any State political or subdivision in a manner which results in a abridgement denial or right any of the of citizen of the United States to vote on account of color, race or or in contravention guarantees 4(f)(2) of the set forth in section [regarding language minority groups], provided (b). in subsection “(b) if, A (a) circumstances, violation of subsection is established based totality on the of it is shown that political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by (a) subsection in that its opportunity members have less than other members of the electorate to participate political in the process and representatives to elect of their choice. The extent to which protected members of a class have been elected to office in the State or political Provided, subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: nothing That this section right establishes a to have members protected of a class elected equal in numbers to their proportion in the population.” 1964, 1968, (See 1973b(b) 4(b); of 1972. [voting registra- or U.S.C. § § Census].) any tion determined Director by requires of section in those be redistricting change voting procedures jurisdictions or other D.C., cleared in or advance either the federal district court in by Washington, a United States General. The usual is to submit Attorney practice Justice, to the Civil proposed Department Division of the change Rights after which the has 60 to an Attorney days General which interpose objection. Merced,
Four California and Yuba—are cov- counties—Kings, Monterey, ered 5. All relatively section have small that include populations bases, assigned to personnel large unlikely who are to military register vote. Because General result objection by Attorney delays could costly in the (which we taken process, steps electoral have we shall special describe) any to avoid to the possibility disapproval respect with covered counties. Justice
Department
regulations explain
change
that a
affecting voting
subject to
under
5 “if
in the
section
it will lead to
disapproval
retrogression
position
(i.e.,
of a
language
members
racial or
will make
minority group
members of such a
than
group
change)
worse off
had been before the
they
with
to
respect
their
to exercise the electoral franchise effective-
opportunity
629,
ly,”
Beer United
citing
(1976)
v.
States
425 U.S.
L.Ed.2d
130 [47
(see
S.Ct.
(1983)
also
United
Lockhart v.
States
2. Gingles Guidelines in Thornburg v. The leading United States Court decision 2 is Supreme construing section Thornburg Gingles (1986) v. 478 U.S. L.Ed.2d 106 S.Ct. [92 2752] {Thornburg), where the court an upheld African-American voter challenge districts,
five multimember from each of which the were voters to elect three to eight members North Carolina The court Legislature. pointed out that the 1982 amendment to section newly prohibiting any voting proce- *36 dure that “results” abridgement of “was a voting rights, largely response Bolden, to this court’s plurality (1980), Mobile 446 opinion v. U.S. 55 that, which had declared order establish 2 to a violation either of ofor § Amendments, the Fourteenth or Fifteenth must a minority prove voters that contested mechanism was intentionally or adopted maintained state offi- by cials for 37], a discriminatory (478 at purpose” U.S. L.Ed.2d at p. p. [92 added). italics “based violation be of a 2(b)’s that proof requirement to section
Referring circumstances,” Judiciary a Senate from the court quoted, totality on the amendment, that factors” “typical a list of Report approving Committee cases from two principally were derived These factors be might probative.8 at (Thornburg, supra, 478 U.S. respectively and Louisiana Texas arising historical aspects to 38]) largely and pertain L.Ed.2d at p. fn. p. [92 court, stresses,” says “The Report discrimination and racial polarization. exclusive,” and nor comprehensive factors is neither ‘that this list of typical “ de- “equally open” are processes the political that ‘the whether question ’ reality” of the “past present evaluation searching pends upon practical (Id. the political process. [Citation.]” and on a ‘functional’ view of [citation] 43].) p. at L.Ed.2d at p. [92 that the claim plaintiffs’ the African-American
The court then turned to “multimember, districts the contested rather than single-member, use of thus in a white majority, them submerging diluted their votes jurisdictions (Thornburg, their choice.” their to elect impairing ability representatives 44], omitted.) The court listed supra, 478 U.S. at at fns. L.Ed.2d p. p. [92 a claim: to the of such sustaining three “necessary preconditions” sufficiently “First, that it is must be able to demonstrate minority group in a large geographically compact majority single-member to constitute a (478 pp. at pp. U.S. at 36-37 L.Ed.2d quoted by 8The factors the court are as follows [92 37-38]): “ ‘ history political in the state or subdivision any 1. the extent of of official discrimination vote, register, to or otherwise right minority group that touched the of the members of the to participate process; to the democratic “ political subdivision is voting ‘2. the extent to which in the elections of the state or racially polarized; “ large unusually ‘3. the extent to the state or subdivision has used political which districts, voting other requirements, anti-single provisions, election vote shot or majority against for discrimination practices procedures may opportunity or enhance the minority group; “ minority group slating process, ‘4. if there is a candidate whether the members process; have been denied access to that “ minority group political in the state or subdivi- ‘5. the extent to which members of the health, education, employment sion bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as political process; which hinder their in the ability participate effectively “ subtle racial political campaigns ‘6. whether have been characterized overt or appeals; “ public been elected to minority group ‘7. the extent to which members of the have jurisdiction. office in the “ probative part plaintiffs’ cases value as ‘Additional factors that in some have had evidence to establish a violation are: “ officials to the significant part there is a on the of elected responsiveness ‘whether lack particularized group. needs of the members of the minority “ voting use of such policy underlying ‘whether the subdivision’s political state or ” standard, or is tenuous.’ qualification, prerequisite voting, procedure or practice *37 748 46],
district.”
italics
(Thornburg, supra,
“Second,
politically
must
to
that it is
minority
be able
show
group
47],
(Thornburg, supra,
cohesive.”
“Third, must be able to demonstrate that the white minority majority votes as a bloc to enable it . . . to defeat the sufficiently usually minority’s candidate.” at preferred (Thornburg, supra, 478 U.S. at L.Ed.2d p. p. [92 47].) the court’s formal reservation whether these
Despite question are prerequisites “fully to a claim of vote dilution caused “the pertinent” of a splitting large cohesive between two or geographically minority supra, more multimember or single-member (Thornburg, districts” 478 U.S. 46-47, 44]; at pp. fn. L.Ed.2d at cf. id. at fn. 16 L.Ed.2d p. p. [92 [92 46]), at lower courts have assumed their p. to claims of vote applicability (see 1989) dilution by single-member (E.D.Ark. districts v. Clinton Jeffers 196, 205; (E.D.Va. 1988) Neal F.Supp. v. Coleburn 689 F.Supp. 1435), and we likewise assume their to the applicability single-member districts that we propose.
We can avoid section to our new districts challenges by eliminating of a possibility one the three minority group’s proving any Thornburg prerequisites. information from which are our districts drawn is fur- census, us, tract, nished federal which tells each to census total number of with the persons together categories numbers particular race, data, age, and Latino origin.9 From that we can whether judge minority are groups “sufficiently large and geographically satisfy first compact” however, Thornburg The second and third prerequisite. prerequisites, depend on what analyses of election results would a minority’s show about political area, cohesiveness and about White In bloc the federal majority voting. this census is of little help.
We have (1) therefore drawn district lines so as avoid either unneces- sary fragmentation of any sufficiently large, geographically compact pro- districts, tected minority (2) into group10 two or more or overconcentration of such a group district. single thus the dilution of the By preventing votes of any minority group Thornburg could under the first qualify 9We use the word Latino to what Hispanic. describe the Census Bureau refers to as 1 0Throughout report, this minority, the term “protected unless refers to qualified, otherwise minority.”
749 2 regard- challenges of section eliminate the possibility we can prerequisite, third prerequisite. the second or could fulfill whether a group less of the first prerequisite. examination of we turn to an Accordingly, Compactness Geographic a. be minority “geographically that the examine first the requirement
We There 46]). L.Ed.2d at p. 478 U.S. at (Thornburg, supra, p. compact” [92 to its that the key We believe law this interpreting phrase. is little case view, intended Thornburg, Congress in in that meaning expressed lies “ searching a upon to ‘depend[] of a section violation determination and on a “func- . . . reality” “past present evaluation of practical L.Ed.2d at (478 p. U.S. at p. view the political process” [92 tional” of 43], the Senate report). from quoting (M.D.Ala. 1988) 686 Educ. County
The court Dillard v. Baldwin Bd. of that the Thornburg holding seized this from F.Supp. upon passage who group was met aby minority prerequisite geographical compactness land, which Bay, an inland from Mobile irregular just lived within strip and, a at some less than long points, to be 20 miles appears approximately mile degree geographical wide. As the Dillard court explained, “[t]he districting, or attractiveness is ... a desirable consideration symmetry facilitates the .... only political process but extent it aids or if it was For a would not be sufficiently compact district example, [][]... is, if that its members spread community, so out that there was no sense of with stay and its touch representatives effectively efficiently could not other; if community, each or it was so convoluted that there was no sense of is, if who easily its members and its could not tell representative [Bjecause lived in the is a functional actually district. . . . compactness vary the number and consider concept, may kinds factors a court should case, with each and socio- on the local depending geographical, political, 1466.) economic characteristics of the sued.” at jurisdiction being p. {Id. We with fully agree geographical compactness. this functional view of California, the context of statewide Accordingly, redistricting particu- in rural are larly areas where considerations of communication and access considerable section 2 need formulation of importance, plans not control not, where voters are minority compact. functionally, geographically Minority Group b. Size of
Under Thornburg's first prerequisite, minority group complaining vote dilution must be not but also “suffi- only “geographically compact” ... a district” ciently large single-member constitute majority 46]). The “majority” at (Thornburg, supra, 438 U.S. at L.Ed.2d p. p. [92 *39 of to mean a of widely majority persons referred to has been interpreted (Dickinson v. rather than a of the entire voting age, majority population. 497, (7th 1991) (Dickinson); 503 Indiana State Elections Bd. Cir. 933 F.2d 1425; Pomona, 1418, Liberty v. City supra, Romero v. 883 F.2d Solomon of 1012, 1990) en (11th [rehg. Cir. 899 F.2d 1018 County, banc] Florida 588, (E.D.Va. 1988) 592 (Solomon); McDaniels v. 702 F.Supp. Mehfoud (McDaniels).) Thornburg's is with interpretation repeated That consistent L.Ed.2d at references to voters” 478 U.S. at fn. 17 “minority (e.g., p. [92 46-47]) and correct. pp. appears voters, hand,
A a registered of on the other is not majority prerequisite Solomon, 503; (Dickinson, supra, supra, a section claim. 933 F.2d at p. 1012; McDaniels, 592.) an supra, F.2d at As out at F.Supp. p. pointed are figures earlier of the Solomon case: voter stage “Minority registration lack very unreliable measures in vote dilution cases because the inherently of for the of section minority political power responsible bringing (Solomon Liberty action also act to voter v. may registration.” depress County, (11th 1988) Cir. on of grant rehg. Fla. 865 F.2d 1574 [vacated banc].) en registra- But not threshold voter though part any requirement, in tion or turnout be considered a that will enhance may fashioning remedy (Dick- to elect the candidate of its choice. minority group’s opportunity inson, However, there are supra, 503.) 933 F.2d at we would note that p. in difficulties reliable data.11 developing minority registration At least one court has considered not but deter only age citizenship whether the mining minority majority eligible would constitute a group Pomona, (See voters within a City supra, district. Romero v. 883 F.2d 1418, 1425.) For several reasons we have assumed that would not citizenship be a factor fulfillment of first Since determining Thornburg's prerequisite. an application for naturalization resembles voter that both registration initiative, require individual lack of more akin to citizenship arguably nonregistration than to as a measure of to vote. underage ineligibility Moreover, rejection of the theoretically dubious test results citizenship if were conferring Thornburg standing on more than the test minority groups registration 11Latino analysis by private organizations data are based on an of the number of persons Hispanic with surnames on registration rolls. This is both underinclusive and, also, overinclusive because intermarriage between Latinos and non-Latinos “Hispanic” Filipino population, part minority. number of names in the In Asian contrast, directly the data on Latino comes the Bureau of the Census. from Second, Senate, separately presented Assembly purportedly data to us area, and, instances, concerning markedly, dramatically, undermining the same varied in some our confidence in the accuracy of the data. We have serious reservations as to how much reliance we can place provenance. on data of uncertain effectively will more Thus, rejection on such district lines based accepted. 2 claims. section preclude possibilities statistics citizenship or voter registration we have not relied on
Though Thornburg, under entitled to voter protection are groups what determining to divide how best determining data in such occasionally considered we have in a district single be accommodated which cannot minority group a up group’s voting potential. maximize the that will way *40 Cohesiveness; Multiple Minorities c. Political minority 2 claim is that to a section Thornburg The prerequisite second (Thornburg, cohesive.” that it is “politically show seeking protection group of caution 47].) In an abundance L.Ed.2d at supra, p. 478 U.S. at 51p. [92 any of cohesiveness assuming, already explained, political we are as i.e., it is suffi- that meets the first prerequisite, single minority group also The of cohesiveness and large geographically compact. question ciently arises, however, they that together three claim minority groups where two or district even of a majority constitute the geographically compact could politi- If the are groups is to though large enough qualify separately. none i.e., cohesive, to be treated they likely if vote the same are cally they way, the other fulfills group a combined so as the combined single long group 1988) (5th Cir. Baytown, Tex. Thornburg (Campos City v. prerequisites. of 1240, treated as one 840 F.2d 1244 and Hispanics [African-Americans Pomona, whole]; City supra, if cohesive as a see Romero v. minority group 1418, and Latinos not combined 883 F.2d 1426-1427 [African-Americans cohesive].) because found not to politically be than in substantial numbers of more one
Accordingly, containing areas Asian, Latino) (African-American, and the state’s principal minority groups combined, alone, three would be and large of which two or but no one group Thornburg, political. to under we have assumed compact enough qualify voting poten- cohesiveness and endeavored to the combined protect group’s tial accordance with section 2.
d. Minority Claims Influence A footnote in had “no occasion to Thornburg warned that the court there does, consider whether 2 and if it should pertain what standards permits, § to, sufficiently large a claim a that is not brought by minority group district, that the to constitute a a compact majority single-member alleging (478 influence use of a multimember district its elections.” impairs ability 46-47, 44], 12 Disre- original.) U.S. at fn. L.Ed.2d at italics pp. p. [92 2 than intradistrict garding this that section less suggestion might require 752 some courts have of a voter minority group, status for
majority protection Thornburg as a prerequisite insisted on the first majority requirement clarity adhered to “the interests of test” that should be “brightline (7th 1988) F.2d (McNeil Springfield Park Dist. Cir. 851 uniformity.” v. 448, 455-456; 944; accord, 1989) Skorepa (5th Brewer v. Ham Cir. 876 F.2d 1384, 1391; 1989) see v. (S.D.Cal. v. Chula Vista 723 City F.Supp. Garza 763, 770, 2; Karlan, Undoing F.2d fn. County Angeles, supra, Los (1991) Voting and the Act Right Thing: Single-Member Rights Offices 1, 31-32.) Va.L.Rev. U.S._ (1991) court’s recent decision Chisom v. Roemer high however, 2354], stronger recognition L.Ed.2d S.Ct. contains a [115 “influence” claim a voter by minority of an vote-dilution possibility Chisom, an In the court too small to constitute intradistrict group majority. under section 2. The sustained the elections of state right challenge judges six reasoned that the to an majority opinion, joined justices, right equal “ in the and to elect representa- ‘to opportunity participate political process ” (§ 2(b); 1973(b)) their unitary right, tives of choice’ U.S.C. § *41 2(b). (501 that section judges meaning are within the “representatives” 364, 2365], U.S. at L.Ed.2d at 111 at italics added S.Ct. p._[115 p. p. court.) the The dissent are not and that argues judges “representatives” Chisom dissent, Otherwise, 2(b) “mi- separate
section confers two the rights. says in particular jurisdic- norities who form such a small of the electorate a part tion that their they could on no conceivable basis ‘elect representatives Roemer, (Chisom choice’ 2 would be without section v. entirely protection.” 372, 111 supra, (dis. 501 U.S. at L.Ed.2d at S.Ct. at p__[115 p. p. 2371] Scalia, J.).) in a “The dissent opn. majority argues footnote: replies 2(b)] that our literal of the word ‘and’ section leads to the reading [in conclusion that a small minority against infringements has no protection its right ‘to the because it will lack participate political process’ always _ candidate,’ the numbers ‘to elect its at necessary post, [page] [115 372, 111 L.Ed.2d at S.Ct. at This however rests page page argument, 2371]. on the never influence erroneous that a small of voters can assumption group (Id. 364, 24 111 outcome of an election.” at L.Ed.2d at p. fn. p___ [115 2365.) S.Ct. at p. 1044, In (N.D.Ohio 1991) Armour v. State Ohio 775 F.Supp. (28 2284), of a a
majority three-judge vigorous district court U.S.C. over § dissent, single- sustained a section claim that the between two boundary member districts for election to the lower house of the Ohio Legislature diluted the vote of the of whether the plaintiff minority group regardless In would be to form a either district. group large enough majority reaching result, this in Thornburg relied on the footnotes majority foregoing Chisom. of section validity definitive resolution of undertaking
Without claims, sufficiently is grounding legal that their recognize we “influence” being their effort to avoid reasonable every our using to call for strong have aimed to we Accordingly, redistricting proposals. our against asserted group minority compact geographically of a voting maximize the potential in the majority constitute a it would not size even where of any appreciable district. particular Population Equality
C. Court has United States Supreme As our report, noted at outset of constitu- as a matter of of electoral districts required population equality districts legislative are set out for state tional law. tests Separate congressional districts.
1. State
Districts
Legislative
leeway
substantial
The United States
Court has allowed
Supreme
Cummings
In
v.
Gaffney
state
districts.
legislative
population equality
2321],
variation of
(1973) 412
S.Ct.
a total
U.S. 735
L.Ed.2d
[37
(in
was held constitu-
7.83
districts for the Connecticut
Legislature)
face,
When substantial
tional on its
with no need for state justification.
shown,
even
variation.
justification
greater
Court has allowed
Supreme
S.Ct.
(See,
(1972)
L.Ed.2d
Mahon v. Howell
Aside from federal constitutional reasonably “the shall be population equal.” of all districts of a particular type section, IV, Attorney This enacted interpreted by after Reinecke has been General of as the more restrictive incorporating population California senate requirements contained Reinecke IV that “population except and districts be within 1 of the ideal assembly percent should circumstances, than greater unusual and no event should a deviation 411; IV, (Reinecke be at see 64 permitted.” supra, p. 10 Cal.3d 597, (1981).) directed Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 613-615 Since we have been criteria, Court to the Reinecke we have no occasion to Supreme follow IV determine whether this standard is also Article XXI.12 higher required that, equality Assembly suggested perhaps, population 12The has even a stricter standard of allowing extremely sophisticated computers should be considered because of the advent of population single support proposition divisions at the level of a block. We find no for this for congressional population equality, post. reasons which will be discussed in connection with note, however, principal upon by Assembly, We do that a consultant relied Professor Cain, Bruce has N on population (plus elsewhere criticized even the Reinecke limits variance Congressional 2. Districts
The federal for a state’s equality among constitutional standard population districts is far stricter than that to districts for congressional applicable districts must electing legislature. congressional a state populations (1964) be “as as is Sanders 376 U.S. nearly (Wesberry v. equal practicable.” 1, 481, 486, 526].) that the 7-8 L.Ed.2d 84 S.Ct. That “standard requires [11 State make a faith effort to achieve mathematical good precise equality. Unless districts are congressional variances population among [Citation.] effort, shown to have resulted such the State must each despite justify variance, Preisler, (Kirkpatrick supra, no matter how small.” v. U.S. 524-525].) Kirkpatrick, 530-531 In high L.Ed.2d at court inval- pp. [22 idated an of Missouri’s districts with a maxi- apportionment congressional mum deviation he percent.13 rejected attempted of 5.97 court Missouri’s justifications as ad hoc and being “haphazard,” applied system- not atic, uniform (Id. manner the state. at L.Ed.2d at throughout p. p. [22 527].) Karcher,
In supra, 462 U.S. these were the basis for principles New invalidating Jersey congressional districts with a maximum deviation of held, 0.6984 The court first evidence other percent. because of principally deviations, with lower plans that the districts “did not come as nearly therefore, practicable “the burden shifted to the population equality,” State to that the its were prove plan necessary deviations (Id. achieve legitimate some state at at objective.” p. p. L.Ed.2d [77 147].)
The court described how the state’s shifted burden could be met. “Any number of consistently some vari- applied legislative policies might justify ance, instance, including, the districts mu- making compact, respecting boundaries, districts, nicipal preserving cores of prior avoiding contests between incumbent As criteria are Representatives. long as the [citation], nondiscriminatory objectives these are all that on a legitimate See, could proper showing *43 minor deviations. West justify population e.g., or minus 2 percent) being too “[Population equality way strict: is such a crude of equalizing voters that an very population silly.” obsession with small deviations seems rather (Cain, Grofman, The Reapportionment (1984) 59.) Puzzle p. Similarly, Bernard a consultant Congressional to the Delegation, recommending California population a relaxation of exact requirements, argued Supreme has that rulings “unduly Court in this area are mechanistic.” (Grofman, Voting Rights, Voting Wrongs: (1990) 34.) Legacy p. the of Baker v. Carr deviation,” 13To calculate “maximum begin population we with the that each district would have the maximum if districts were absolutely equal. The percentage deviation is the of that theoretical population represented by the difference of the populations between the actual largest and the smallest district.
755 395, 398-400 v. Rockefeller, F.Supp Union Civil Liberties Virginia as justi- maximum deviation 1972) with.0.78% (S.D.W.Va. plan (approving Constitution).” (Karcher, supra, 462 in State fied by compactness provision 147].) at p. L.Ed.2d U.S. at 740-741 pp. [77 “The State consistency: necessity specificity
The court stressed the
required
objective
that a
specificity
particular
.
. show with some
must
.
on general
simply relying
in its
rather than
plan,
deviations
specific
flexible,
variations is
to justify population
The showing required
assertions.
deviations,
the State’s
importance
on the size of the
depending
interests,
those
which
as a whole reflects
with
consistency
plan
interests,
vindi-
might substantially
that
availability
and the
of alternatives
closely.”
more
equality
cate those interests yet approximate population
147].)
(Karcher, supra,
p.
at
L.Ed.2d at
p.
462 U.S.
[77
redistricting was
challenged
New
Jersey’s
justification
attempted
was
justification seriously
pres
held
advanced
clearly
only
inadequate.
two
only
strength,
ervation of
but that
minority voting
explanation applied
the deviations of others.
of the state’s fourteen districts and could not justify
148-151].)
at
(Karcher, supra,
pp.
L.Ed.2d
The Democratic that should Congressional Delegation contends their plan be chosen over rival because almost any plan perfect population it achieves (a no more than from the ideal district equality deviation of 9 persons Stevens, 572,308). reject We contention. As Justice who population in the joined opinion, separate concurring Karcher his majority observed case, in that “the an opinion goal perfect equality inadequate method of judging constitutionality (Karcher, anof apportionment plan.” *44 Stevens, supra, (conc. J.).) 462 U.S. at opn. L.Ed.2d of p. at p. [77 155] Karcher permits the districts that we with a clearly congressional propose, maximum deviation of justified by less than 0.5 specifically and federal legitimate, consistently applied state policies.
Moreover, is an there affirmative reason not on policy insisting for virtually exact The that we are equality. composed districts recommend 6,000 2,000 entire census tracts. These tracts to normally range from persons IV, and, in size explained as Reinecke “an effort has been made by to make Census Bureau them as to characteristics and homogeneous social to use natural or manmade as prominent geographical features boundaries. Thus, rather than aid following, disregarding, census tracts will establish natural, ing well defined legislative districts and will aid in valid obtaining IV, such pertinent (Reinecke supra, socioeconomic data about districts.” Cal.3d at omitted.)14 fns. p.
The to plans submitted us with near-zero deviations are based population on census instead “blocks” of tracts. districts a block basis is Formulating on block, Bureau, A used enormously as the Census expensive. by just 6,000 that—a in a city block or suburb. approximately The census tracts 400,000 California made up are of about The of computers, blocks. cost software, and to deal with experts efficiently this amount of data is greater than higher a the bulk exponentially comparable system which Indeed, work is done redistricting census tracts. the cost would be prohibitive any for private person group or resources short of those having available to the Legislature.15 further, common develop point 14To this we note that the most feature used human-made a boundary thoroughfare. is a major impede neighborhood Such arterials development ties (One across forged them. reason is that ties acquainted are often adults who first become reasons, because are playmates, safety their children permitted for children are often not arterials, is, thus, to cross at least young.) Dividing unnecessarily when census tracts likely somewhat to neighbors more make it organize more difficult to around or commu nicate respect legislative about a shared concern with representatives. to their We do not mean sacrosanct, suggest to that tracts are only they building census but are rational blocks for districting. told, 15The our Assembly, staff was computer uses a mainframe at the California Institute of has, sure, we Technology. capabilities, It are including enormous data banks as to how vast vote, (such block) candidates, local, small city areas as a only not as to national but even as to ballot initiatives such as Proposition operation requires 13. But its an advanced knowledge computer language. Assembly ample technical time—perhaps has had a system perfect decade—to its at a must cost which run into millions of dollars. We, course, less up computer had than two months to set and to system evaluate other plans produce or our own. Most of computer-related spent getting time we inwas the data Further, properly computer. (as into our much this was data getting time block contrasted data) with census tract into the manipulation machines. Then we discovered that a which
would take a minute or less at the might census level take at the tract an hour block level. If we were try verify the accuracy plan or assembly congressional *45 formulation that Thus, requires exactitude on an insisting the result tracts, ability limit the blocks, be to would instead of census districts by voters, to participate minority those including representing many groups, redis- alternate by presenting process in the reapportionment meaningfully Legal Mexican-American to us the one offered such as tricting plans, on limitation MALDEF). Such (hereafter Fund Education Defense and “ interested ‘afford all to duty undercut our would community participation “ ” fully court be [will] heard’ so that ‘[t]he to be parties opportunity for adopted be might criteria all of the possible informed with respect implementations specific to all of the and with reapportionment respect Reinecke ([Legislature v. effect.’ ordered into such criteria that be might 167, III, at Cal.3d [595,] (Reinecke supra, p. 601-602.)” (1972)] 6 Cal.3d 473, 471, the court’s Eu, the basis for as supra, 54 Cal.3d cited Wilson v. community maximum This hearings.) policy that we hold public direction clearly well as followed any plan, for court-ordered input Karcher, necessary minor deviations 462 U.S. supra, under justifies, basis exact census tract a reasonably to be done on redistricting to enable for expensive that would be prohibitively instead of a census block basis and groups. most interested persons an important is also redistricting
Widespread participation process has General Attorney the Act. The United States to be furthered under policy Among 5. under section this in the recognized regulations preclearance whether to determining pre- the factors the General considers Attorney “extent to are the redistricting, clear a such as voting procedural change, minority and language members of racial jurisdiction which the afforded (28 make the change” the decision to an groups opportunity participate took the concerns 51.57(c)) jurisdiction the “extent to which the C.F.R. § in making into account racial and language minority groups of members of called for these (28 51.57(d)). The participation C.F.R. change” § enormous to afford the should not be restricted for those unable provisions redistricting.16 cost of exact unnecessarily IV, Constitution, the Act
D. The State Reinecke VI, (art. Under the the United States Constitution clause of supremacy 2), any over (supra, precedence the Act U.S.C. 1471 et takes seq.) § § In the absence of such guidelines state with which the Act conflicts. that, conflict, however, to the to the Masters given require directions statistics, time, to do little and we would have been able days computer it would have taken else. we present state of the art as using 16Ourconclusion as to cost of block data reflects the Future a different result. technological change understand it. could warrant *46 XXI, extent we “be . . . the of article possible, guided by provisions 1 section of the state and the Constitution” of Reinecke IV. guidelines Eu, (Wilson 473.) v. 54 supra, Cal.3d at p.
These three sets of constitute the the requirements foundation on which Act, redistricting is built. We have the the federal plan previously described Here, state, we imperative. discuss the commands of the as the expressed Court, Constitution and by our and their with Supreme interrelationship Further, overriding national policy. while the state criteria which we are directed to follow XXI come from two sources—Article Constitution IV, 396, criteria, and supra, Reinecke 10 Cal.3d several of the Reinecke IV on examination, close in different simply express words basic criteria contained Article XXI.17
1. Requirements State Constitutional XXI, 1, Article section an amendment to the state Constitution adopted by 1980, 6 in June people Proposition that each member of the requires Senate, the Assembly, Congress, and the State Board of be Equalization XXI, elected single-member (Art. (a)), from a district subd. that districts of each be type numbered consecutively boundary from northern XXI, (Art. state to southern (d)), subd. and that the boundary population XXI, of all districts of a (Art. “be particular type reasonably subd. equal” (b)). The first two of these provisions no further discussion. We require have dealt previously with the federal constitutional requirements equality.
The remaining requirements two XXI California’s Article are central to our redistricting and responsibility require further discussion:
“(c) district shall Every be contiguous.” “(e) The geographical integrity any or city, county, city county, or of any geographical shall be region to the extent respected possible without violating [i.e., requirements other subdivision of any this section contiguity and population equality].”
To determine more what was specifically intended these two provi- sions, we turn to the Ballot Pamphlet to the voters analysis arguments 3, for the Election of June Primary 1980. Such often relied upon material is in construing constitutional provisions. (See Delaney Superior v. Court criteria, Two of the Reinecke IV use of (i.e. combining census “nesting” tracts and assembly districts) seats to form senate have no relation to and are discussed Article XXI elsewhere. 753, 785, P.2d Cal.Rptr. 934] [ballot (1990) Cal.3d 802-803 [268 voters intent which to ascertain sources from are arguments accepted enacted provisions of constitutional interpretation intent of voters governs 533 P.2d (1975) Cal.Rptr. 13 Cal.3d them]); v. Davis [120 White which the “mischiefs” at the principal identifies argument 222] [ballot directed].) constitutional amendment is *47 Contiguity
a. 6, XXI Article which by The Legislative Analyst’s analysis Proposition that districts shall be the measure as providing was described adopted, “[a]ll “Contigu- added: The in favor of argument Proposition ballot adjoining.” that districts be composed ous districts. 6 would Proposition require deter help areas. It would also adjacent territory widely separated and not along corridors only by districts which distant communities odd-shaped join Amends, beaches, to (Ballot and waterways.” Pamp., Proposed highways Const, voters, 3, 1980).) (June with to Elec. arguments Primary Cal. Geographical Integrity b.
The the measure Legislative provided stated that Analyst’s Analysis or shall not be city county the of a possible, geographical region “[w]here favoring divided The the among argument propo- different districts.” ballot cities, integrity sition stated: of the “[Proposition requires preservation 6] counties, and . 6 would reduce abuses regions. . . geographic [Proposition city county by Respect the to follow these rules: and requiring Legislature boundaries. division of cities for This rule would the irrational prevent It communities from purely partisan minority would purposes. help protect carved maintain local being just to dilute their votes. And it would up help control in the by Legisla- cities and counties effective giving representation (Ballot ture.” to as Pamp. analysis Prop. by Legis. Analyst presented voters, (June 1980), Primary original.) Elec. italics asked,
The ballot arguments opposing “Why ‘geo- not proposition graphic regions’ defined?” and whether the questioned provision concerning and geographic integrity city county boundaries would “water down” provision concerning “equal population”: protecting integrity “[W]ill (Ballot of cities and counties elasticize the meaning ‘reasonably equal’?” Amends, Const, voters, Pamp., to Cal. with to Proposed arguments Primary (June 1980).) Elec. The proponents responded: “City county bound- aries can ignored only necessary be population with comply equal if requirement. That is how 6 will Proposition minority cities prevent communities from being arbitrarily advantage divided to or gain partisan draw ‘safe’ districts for (Ibid.) incumbents.” Requirements
2. The Reinecke TV noted, the have As Masters also been instructed Court to Supreme consider the criteria used Masters and following Special accepted by the court 1973: Constitution,
“1. As the federal the districts each required by plan should be as with numerically equal population nearly practicable, strict in the case of districts .... equality congressional [citation] of senate and within 1 assembly percent districts should be circumstances, ideal unusual no event should a deviation except greater than be permitted.
“2. The territory included within a district should be and contiguous into account the compact, taking and availability facility transportation district, and communication between the in a people between proposed district, and candidates and between the and their people people elected representatives.
“3. Counties and cities within a maintained district should be proposed intact, insofar practicable. as [Citations.]
“4. The (coastal, integrity California’s basic geographical regions mountain, desert, central and intermediate valley regions), valley should.be preserved insofar as practicable.
“5. The social and economic interests common to the of an action, area which are probable subjects of termed a legislative generally of interests’ ‘community should be considered determining [citation] whether the area should be included within or excluded from a proposed district in order that all of the citizens of district be might represented interests, others, and reasonably, fairly of such effectively. Examples among area, area, are those common to an urban a rural an industrial area or an area, agricultural and those common to areas which share similar people standards, facilities, use living the same have similar work transportation have opportunities, or access to the same media relevant of communication to the election process.
“. . . It is clear that define many city situations and boundaries county economic and political, social Further- groups. boundaries of population more, with organizations concerns are constituted legitimate political Therefore, division of counties unnecessary subdivision lines. along political IV, (Reinecke be avoided.” districting and cities in should reapportionment 411-412, omitted.) supra, 10 Cal.3d at fn. pp. criteria, priority
“As to all of the recommended their applicability, indigenous circumstances other than on scope, population equality, depend the federal to the area under consideration. To the extent required Constitution, IV, Cal.3d at (Reinecke supra, controls.” population equality 414.) p.
3. Between Article XXI and Reinecke IV Criteria Interrelationships XXI, 396) Cal.3d (supra, Article the Reinecke IV adopted Court guidelines Masters and employed by adopted Supreme Here we of the Act are imperatives clearly complementary. comment, the state followed group requirements guidelines together their by discussion of to the Act. relationship Population Equality
a. of the United States requirements interpreted by Constitution are, course, United States and we have Supreme controlling, Court discussed these above. requirements *49 Contiguity, Geographic Community b. Interest and Integrity, of
Compactness These four criteria all are addressed to the same the creation of goal, effective, legislative districts that are the both for and the represented The representative. constitutional of not an requirement “contiguity” is abstract or geometric technical It phrase. assumes when seen meaning combination with concepts “regional and of inter- integrity” “community Thus, districts,” est.” the ballot the argument concerning “contiguous talked of proponents “adjacent and not and territory widely separated areas” the “preservation of the integrity of geographic regions.” argument criticized “odd-shaped along districts” connected “corridors only by beaches, detail, highways and In the waterways.” Special more Masters 1973 recommended the preservation of of California’s basic “integrity mountain, desert, (coastal, regions central and intermediate valley valley IV, (Reinecke . regions) supra, 412.) . . .” 10 Cal.3d at “The p. territory included within a district should be and contiguous taking into compact, account (Id. and availability transportation communication.” at addition, 411.) In p. “social and economic interests common to the popula- area,” area, area, tion of an “an e.g., urban a rural an industrial area anor area,” (id. agricultural 412) at p. should be considered. contained, insofar should be that districts
From this we conclude the state. regions major geographic within one of the wholly possible, Constitution, in the further defined is not “geographic regions” While is Masters’ definition Court of the Special by Supreme acceptance minimum, believe, recognition this requires a We at compelling. Moun- Tehachapi by and Southern California division between Northern Valleys, and Sacramento as the San major regions Joaquin tains and of such California, and Mojave and Northern and Central the coastal areas of north of the San Gabriel Nevada and desert areas east of the Sierra other Mountains. Interest Community and City County and Boundaries
c. integrity of the “geographical the state Constitution’s inclusion Similarly, Special the 1973 or and city county” paralleled of any city, county, define boundaries “in and county city that situations finding many Masters’ (Reinecke of population groups.” economic and social boundaries political, XXI IV, and 412.) In of both Article at the context supra, p. 10 Cal.3d “functional” reasonable this means that districts must have some Reinecke TV analysis above our we have discussed the sense that compactness, but shapes refer to Thornburg geometric the Act. does not Compactness and each other and their representatives of citizens to relate to ability to constituency. their to relate effectively to the ability representatives Further, shared interests that are facilitated relationships it speaks a or including county18 city.19 by membership political community, XXI involving and Article There is one conflict between the Act possible is located partly cities: where a geographically compact minority group appearances at our significance many 18Wethink it is of some of the Latino Coalition county—e.g. Stanislaus hearing representing were coalition committees of one or another county underscores that lines (Examples multiplied endlessly.) of this sort could be It County. activities, XXI the values that Article significance political organization have in terms of *50 designed protect. to is Special faced the city problem boundaries a that 19Wemust note that in connection with 413-414): (10 pp. in IV Cal.3d at today. reported in still exists As Reinecke Masters 1973 ‘fingers' and irregular with an odd assortment of exceedingly cities have boundaries “Some cases, as In such the boundaries jutting part city. many out from the basic of the ‘peninsulas’ are to be they likely of the census do not reflect the boundaries or what present of the date exactly correspond the balance of the decade. Often census tract boundaries do not during footnote, noted that: Special with such In a the Masters “[i]n the boundaries of cities.” 1973 414, instances, (Id. p.at fn. many single portions a census tract has small of two cities in it.” instances, census 9.) “In such Special Our solution has been the same as the Masters: 1973 been followed even bulk of the in one district have preserve city tract boundaries which the territory." though trimming resulted in small or other such extensions peninsulas it off {Id. cities, 414.) integrity of various p. way, preserved geographical at In this we have the in which although always they we have not followed the literal boundaries existed computing populations. we understand to be the boundaries used the Census Bureau in by an (The and a southern of Sacramento is city. part within without partly In a common some areas of California annexations are example.) city occurrence; it remain divided either possible minority thus areas effect, minority diluting intent or thus the vote affected indirectly exists, In where influ- areas where such a and groups. minority situation created, ence district could be we have to given precedence keeping geo- rather city than maintain compact minority together graphically groups boundaries.
4. Interrelationships Between State Criteria the Act Indeed, findWe no conflict between the Act and the state criteria. above noted, As Act quite contrary. already has been protects only “geo- compact” minority The we graphically major divisions of state as groups. have defined them above divide minority (The boundary no such groups. mountain are ranges, example, areas with few virtually unpopulated them; roads crossing separates to miles on either side populated areas of these ranges.) Similarly, values expressed contiguity, concept interest, community of for local respect government boundaries—the concept “functional compactness”—is with the completely consistent Indeed, concept “geographically compact” use these minority districts. criteria reinforces the guarantee Act’s have an minority groups equal opportunity (§ “to participate 2(b); U.S.C. political process” above, 1973(b)). suggested § As political effectiveness can be enhanced by membership participation community affairs: cardiuates for public belie, ->e nurtured, office can be recruited and local media utilized may ;md (including the foreign language press), grass, organize campaign- oots are ing more viable. As suggested the June ballot nents in icgu favor XXI, of Article use of these criteria can avoid the creation of “districts that are unfair confusing, and unrepresentative.” sum,
In boundaries, we find the criteria underlying drawing district i.e., constitutions, Act, criteria found the federal and state in the and in the IV, decision of the Supreme California supra, Court Reinecke 10 Cal.3d reconcilable, not only but compatible. guided criteria have our deliberations and informed our decisions.
E. Combining Assembly Districts to Form Senate Districts *51 Another criterion from Reinecke IV is as follows: “6. State senatorial districts should be formed by combining adjacent districts, assembly and to the degree practicable, be districts should assembly IV, (Reinecke supra, 10 Cal.3d at congressional used as district boundaries.” 412.) p.
“The resulting legislative assembly districts districts to form pair [which senate will be the electorate and the task of more comprehensible districts] elections would be thus administering considerably simplified, saving money IV, (Reinecke 413.) supra, Cal.3d at ensuring greater accuracy.” p. in We find these in did predecessors conclusions 1991 as our persuasive Further, 1973. the districts to form concept “nesting” adjacent assembly senatorial districts has not Act While we posed any Voting Rights problem. occur, imagine can circumstances which it did not. might plans this our We have so drawn the senatorial districts. Why Reject
III. We Plans Other Complete plans for each were submitted seven differ- legislative body by ent (established Panel on participants: Independent Redistricting Governor); the Governor modifications certain of the (containing areas MALDEF; submission); Independent Panel Cau- Minority (Republican) Senate, cus of the for the and the Democratic Assembly Assembly, Congressional Delegation; and the bodies themselves for their legislative (the respective houses and Senate as and the Assembly parties Democratic Congressional as to In the Delegation congressional case of both the plans.) Thus, Assembly and the Congress, three were submitted. we received plans all, 22 statewide plans 3 for the State Board that including Equalization noted, are treated below. As we do not recommend separately previously any of them for adoption. First, however,
We discuss briefly our reasons below.
proponents urge
deference
special
be
to the
given
various
but
plans passed by
Legislature
vetoed
Governor. It is true that
federal
have given
some
cases
special
credence
to this
argument
judicial
context of federal
deference to state
(see,
725,
policy
Upham
(1982)
v.
e.g.
Seamon
However, there is a We are stronger rejecting charged reason the plans. Act, with on the of the of Article evaluating plans standards requirements Constitution, IV, XXI of the supra, state and the criteria Reinecke Act, Cal.3d 396. As to the we have not analyzed Assembly plans (Other sufficient detail to conclude whether or not they comply.21 parties best, have criticized the plans being, at a minimal with the compliance Act.) of the spirit case,
Whatever the we do not with plans comply believe submitted Article XXI and Reinecke (supra, 396) IV 10 Cal.3d of the requirements integrity of geographic regions or as we them.22 contiguity Even a interpret glance at the shows maps many misshapen districts which contiguous bypass populated territory to join distant of population areas some together—in instances without In adequate roads or other means of communication. many instances these districts are in areas where the Act has no practical impact, 20Even give special if we were to product legislative consideration to the of the truncated flaws, below, process, the discussed are required reject so substantial that we would still be plans. 21 Act, As explained analysis our are many questions there unanswered as to how applies Act to the situation with dealing. which we are We do it would be not believe Act, useful to Assembly plans deal with the respect in detail with to the we have because even more problems substantial with compliance required their with the we are other criteria follow. 22The districts created plans these also particularly would be unsuitable as a basis for nesting districts, in the formation senate guideline. an additional Reinecke IV
and no reasons are offered to the of such from explain necessity departures the XXI Article or Reinecke IV criteria.
Two the XXI In specific violation of Article will suffice. what examples A,” the refers to as “Plan eastern San Assembly ranges District from and, Stockton, crosses a narrow roadless Joaquin County bypassing through in the section Sacramento River Delta and over Mount Diablo to take region Orinda, in Walnut Creek and the In what is referred just to east of Oakland. B,” to as “Plan County, District consists of the northern of Sacramento part Placer and the County goes Lake Tahoe basin. It then down the east side of the Sierra Nevada and into Madera the crest the County crosses over Sierra Nevada where no road exists. area of Madera populated County approximately 130 miles south of the other areas of the district.23 populated
In the absence of a cogent for formation of explanation necessity districts, these we believe are the particular to constitutional they contrary of Article We requirements XXI. would be unable to recommend plans them under containing any circumstances.24 The submission of the Democratic suffers the Congressional Delegation First, same defects do the submitted the three different plans by Assembly. each with intended plans, were the partisan consequences, passed by Legis- lature but All vetoed the Governor. three were submitted to us leading the same problem described above connection with the Assembly plans. Second, the XXI violations of Article are even more than those of egregious the One will Assembly plans. suffice. One district example congressional starts, (Dist. tell,25 B”) “Plan as best we could somewhere north of Salinas, makes its to the northern way circuitously fringes of City Ventura, then crosses into San to take of Bakers- Joaquin Valley part field, and finally comes to rest Desert Mojave at the San Bernardino Latino, 23Wealso note that Madera County neighboring is 34.5 and has counties However, similarly populated with populated approximately Latinos. areas miles the north joined with which Madera is minority populations. have almost no noted, 24As only many Cogent these are examples. justification many two other districts with configurations similar bizarre plans necessary these would be before we recommend would be able to them. 25We use phrase “as best as we maps accompanying could tell” because the congressional plans were extraordinarily separately difficult to read and set out each district showing without the interrelation between districts. Moreover the submission was made at the moment, possible last so that we had very plans little time to examine the the public before (Our hearings. urged rules possible.) submissions be made as soon as Thus, geo- takes in of almost every major line. one district County parts even hint of offered.26 region justification state without graphical *54 Senate, effort, being The of the a was closer to bipartisan submission We congressional than either the or submissions.27 Assembly acceptable reasons, to the but not ultimately rejected including for several limited plan for the with whether the were suitable problems configurations “nesting;” districts, as configuration of several such District peculiar Senate-proposed in have a different County the Sonoma and Solano area. We also assessment whether with as to Districts 9 and Senate-proposed complied sufficiently the Act28 not the a though Even we did Senate number adopt plan, similar, outline, in districts us are at least broad to those proposed by the by Senate. proposed
We also conclude that we cannot submitted others. accept plans by it, Governor’s has much and Independent plan Commission to recommend several the members of commission are to being known us as fair-minded and public-spirited citizens who would do the best try job possible to without political favoritism. We have would been to the tempted accept plans submitted the we commission if did feel that inade- plans not the were in the quate minority treatment of communities. This commis- aspect sion was the plans subject of substantial criticism by minority groups of both the Democratic representatives The Gover- Republican parties. constituted, nor’s (and amendments correct in attempted problems to these view, our a tacit admission of fell problem), the but short what we was felt appropriate. elements,
The MALDEF also have attractive and we used plans some the treatments of as specific areas to our guide own construction of stress, 26We as the Assembly with plans, example merely many the described is one of XXI, examples districts which do comply not with noncompliance Article for which no justification has been offered. presentation than, 27The was also much clearer example, for that of the Democratic showed, Congressional Delegation maps plainly, included that interrelationship the proposed by districts them. 28Our differences to the as Senate’s proposed by examining District are obvious we how treated same area our plan. recommended case proposed In the of the Senate’s District 12, though Act, the Senate stressed comply its desire to with the it started the district County Stanislaus (presumably there). the present because incumbent of District 12 lives Since Stanislaus County—as well as County relatively Merced immediately to the south—has south, few compared Latinos to areas to the further the Senate construct could not a senate contrast, district which even came close majority to a seat we population. in Latino In and, centered our district in San Joaquin Valley on areas with more Latino thus, were able to construct a district that had over 50 population. Latino extent which Article XXI We as to the disagree, ultimately, districts.29 (such minority crossing to build districts ignored quest could be and felt mountain order to obtain additional ranges minority population) thought that treatment their was not well nonminority plans areas out.30 Caucus submitted a
Finally, Assembly Minority complete plan each Both the written and oral were clear and legislative body. presentations However, were as to the merits of the existed persuasive plans. problems with the details of a number of the districts Since the were proposed. plans comment, submitted to us late and had received any public not process we were concerned have unknown they might political consequences *55 us which we detect interested parties. would not without of other input So, end, in the we felt it more to our own appropriate develop plans. Drawing IV. The Process in Plans Used districts,
Our first for both and state was to step, congressional legislative divide the state into three The first was major geographic regions. division between Northern and Southern California. Our second division was be- tween in a coastal and an interior Northern For both region California. and de- congressional legislative districts the division chosen was precise to a whole The signed produce number of or senate districts. congressional division between Northern and Congress Southern California for was possi- ble whole counties. Kern in using By including County Northern Califor- California,32 and in nia31 and San Luis it Inyo Obispo counties Southern was 21 possible to assign precisely congressional districts Northern California and 31 to Southern legislative California. division for districts was However, similar. because the for 16 Senate districts was population required districts, less than that 21 slightly required congressional County for Kern 29Our Assembly proposed by District is almost the same as the one MALDEF. 30We submitting complete do not mean this as a criticism the motives of MALDEF in plans. statewide Since the entire focus of the MALDEF effort was on creation of Latino districts, surprising it is not that its districting nonminority being areas has the flavor of an afterthought. County split by 31Kem is the Tehachapis part county Mojave of the is in the Desert. However, over 80 of the population county Joaquin Valley. of the is in the San transportation 32The links of sparsely populated Inyo County entirely are almost to the south, part regions and it is of the desert Obispo County east of the Sierra Nevada. San Luis is midway Angeles between Los and San Francisco and could be classified either as a However, Northern or Southern California county. population the bulk of its is in the south part county, of the and a wide area part county adjacent part of the northern of the and the Monterey County (San southern is very lightly populated. Obispo part Luis is also of the Los Angeles-based Second District of the Appeal.) county Court of Since inclusion Southern California allowed a precise districting purposes, we population division of believe justified. this classification is With the excep- divided line Mountains.33 through was the Tehachapi Solano the division of the coastal and interior County regions tion of lines, was done which follow coastal along county Northern California the other coastal counties ranges. County, mountain Without of Solano part have districts or 9 enough congressional do not to form quite Thus, in the districts. which County, geographically partly senate Solano interior, coastal in the divided to obtain region partly requisite was population.34 determined,
Once the further major regions were division geographic each man- region proceeded into actual districts generally following First, ner. districts areas sufficient numbers of containing geographically elect minority were drawn to maximize their compact populations “ability supra, (Thornburg, of their 30 at representatives choice.” 478 U.S. p. [92 Then, drawn, 41]).35 L.Ed.2d at areas were from p. remaining starting the borders of region each so as to respect geographical integrity counties cities36 and in a which manner “functional” provided contiguity.37 we Generally speaking, found this order proceeding presented no difficulties. major occurred the urban Perhaps exception *56 Los part of Angeles County. Having first constructed Latino and African- districts,38 American congressional and a legislative state which occupied considerable the part of middle of the south-central and eastern of the parts the county, remainder of the districts allocated to Los had to Angeles County divided, 33Although a was county major region—the a geographical Mojave Desert area— Thus, was intact. complies left this requirements division well with equally the of Article XXI. adjacent 34Solano County is to the Sacramento River where the breaks the through river Range empties Coastal into San Francisco The Bay. division of Solano was County congressional somewhat legislative different for differing districts because population of districts, requirements. balance legislative only Vallejo For the division was to include the area region, in coastal which county. is the most natural of the division Because somewhat population required more was in the region congressional purposes, coastal for was it necessary to part include Fairfield and of region. Vacaville in this 35Thisincluded special steps we took respect by with to counties 5 of covered section the Act which we shortly. describe elsewhere, cities, feasible, 36As discussed we preserved degree by use of census tracts that constituted city. the core of each But in a number of instances this meant small lines, deviation from the city they at Angeles County, least existed in In in 1988. Los feasible, to following city addition degree boundaries to the we used the boundaries of the by statistical areas prepared Angeles Commission County Regional Planning Los as a guide to divisions the City within of Angeles groupings Los and for of smaller into cities districts. 37See our previous California, discussion of requirement this Article XXI. of In Southern we tried protect also the integrity regions desert east of the Sierra Nevada. 38Atotal of congressional seven seats and assembly eleven seats was constructed in this minority area. became rather they be constructed around the some instances periphery; elongated.39
A Counties Monterey exists with Merced and particular problem Kings, Attorney because of the the United States by requirement preclearance General under we recited in our procedural section 5 of the Act.40 As we are aware that little time will occur between history, acutely very consideration Court of our recommendations and the 1992 Supreme Elections; for Primary any delay implementation plans General districts would not be but would also be of the only very costly disruptive In that these representative process likely the state. order to make it more General, we Attorney districts would not be the United States challenged by constructed districts in on the basis of a these areas require preclearance Act, more which more subordination expansive interpretation required of California law than would otherwise have been the case.41 V. Adoption Plans Recommended Assembly
A. Plan
1. In General district in the entire tracts and Every assembly state consists of census 372,000 each district varies less than from the ideal size of A persons. computer-generated showing the various districts map proposed by us is set out as One our part Appendix report.
each A proposed district is set out of the census Appendix listing Two. tracts contained each district is set out Three. proposed Appendix *57 Region 2. North Coastal Districts
The North Coastal Region is entitled to 18 districts. assembly 1, Districts 6 and 7 constitute the area north of the Golden Gate and the Strait. District 1 Carquinez consists of the known as the Redwood territory 60, proposed 39Our Assembly part District of squeezed Assembly which is between Latino border, Orange District 58 and the County example is an where we could not avoid this effect. 40A county subject fourth to preclearance County is Yuba Valley located in the Sacramento and, and the foothills of the Sierra. Yuba is the subject preclearance smallest of the counties counties, like the other large is the site of a military installation—Beale Air Force Base. Yuba minorities, County very protected has few average. far fewer than the state The same is true Therefore, of the counties that surround it. we nothing respect County could do with to Yuba so as to comply better with the Act. 41These districts will be more particularly subsequent described in a section. Norte, Humboldt, and Lake Coun- Del Mendocino including all of Empire, Rosa, the most rural area of the of Santa County ties and Sonoma north and the semisub- County adjacent of Marin county. District consists of all in District 7 urban of Petaluma Rohnert Park Sonoma County. areas and Sonoma, all and County town of of Napa includes Santa Rosa and the the County south. of Solano Vallejo, Vallejo part to the is immediately Overall, of included the the division this area Region. within North Coastal Special is similar to that which was recommended the 1973 quite Masters.
Districts and 13 all of San and a of very part constitute Francisco small San Mateo We adjacent needed to achieve County population equality. spent time considerable how considering protect to divide San Francisco so as minority influence the resulting large districts. San Francisco has a Asian and smaller Latino and African-American How- community communities. ever, the single of minorities are not area.42 populations concentrated district, We considered two main creating alternatives for an Asian influence one with connecting “Chinatown” Asian Richmond areas Sunset and other, districts part of the southern and the which we fringe city; of the finally did did include adopted District not include “Chinatown” but more of the southern and a small Asian Both fringe part heavily City. of Daly Asians, had about the same percentage same approximately chose, however, amount Asian registration.43 one we was more suited (for district) for pairing a senate with purposes creating neighboring district San assembly Mateo which also has a County sub- district, stantial number of Asians.44 District the other San Francisco includes most Latino and African-American city almost 51 minority population. 14 and
Districts the substantial encompass African-American popula- tion Alameda and Contra Costa Counties to the adjacent eastern shore of San Francisco Bay. District 16 includes much of Oakland plus City Alameda. It has had long an African-American member of the has Assembly, 35.7 percent African-American population and has a Latino and substantial 42Further, determine, Asians, degree to the that we registration could level *58 largest single minority, is low. extremely Finally, although “non-Latino” whites constitute a minority population of the city, they are disproportionally represented in the over-18 population appear registered and also do to be in disproportionate numbers. 43District 12 as we percent constitute it percent has 35.9 and 57.3 Asians total minorities. 44We unwilling long were to extend a arm a block or so wide for the several miles between (as Senate) Richmond district and “Chinatown” did the in bring order to two areas these Further, into the same district since it would be contrary to Article appears XXI. “Chinatown” have far the lowest registration population ratio of Asian to Asian Asian any of area in the city. it minority
Asian as well. As a result has over 66 population percent Richmond, El in District consists of San Pablo and Cerrito population. Contra Costa and and some of the northern County Berkeley, Albany part (and total percent Oakland. It is 29.1 African-American is over percent have an area where African-American candidates minority population) A often done well.45 number of residents of Richmond concern expressed about the linked with Oakland have possibility being they because We and thus have a with divided competing ports may legislator loyalties. concern, is, never- acknowledge this but believe the recommended district theless, law, Maritime a matter federal preferable. largely concerns are and we have Richmond in a district from kept congressional separate Further, Oakland. the Contra Costa of this district is more part substantially than the of Oakland included within The current populous part assembly it. (and districts those divide African-American this proposed by Assembly) between two districts and no African-American has ever been population Thus, elected from either. view of the of the Act we believe requirements that the solution this African-American only proper keep is to intact within one district. 11, 15,
Districts 18 and 20 the remainder of the counties of encompass Alameda and Contra Bay, Costa. District lies on or near San Pablo Strait or Suisun Carquinez Bay from Pinole to Antioch. The is largest city Concord. This area is and has industries related functionally compact many to the District 15 bordering bays. includes the interior of Contra Costa parts (i.e., and Alameda Hills) Counties the area located east of the East Bay Creek, Ramon, including Walnut Lafayette, San Dublin and Livermore. The divided, areas are linked Interstate 680 Pleasanton had to be freeway. however, because of population reasons.46 District 18 consists of equality Leandro, Pleasanton, San Hayward, Union and all Alameda City part County. District 20 includes in Alameda County Fremont and Milpitas of San Jose part to it Santa Clara Both the Alameda adjacent County. County Santa Clara County of the district have a substantial Asian parts 14.5 population, for the district as a whole. 19, 21, 22,
Districts 23 and 24 are located San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. District 19 is the of San part County immediately Mateo south of 45Berkeley, city proposed in the percentage district which has the smallest of African- Americans, has had two mayors African-American in recent and the member of the years, board of supervisors for the area which encompasses County part the Alameda of the district currently is an African-American. 46Pleasanton, City Daly Foster are City only Region North Coastal cities in the manner, under the assembly size of an district which have each split been in a substantial because of population equality (Oakland standard we have been directed follow. district, Piedmont, precisely the assembly size an but entirely it and thus has to surrounds Further, Alameda, split. be functionally—though it not literally—encompasses City making substantially larger it single than a assembly district.) *59 Francisco, Francisco, of South San San San most of all including Daly City, Millbrae, Bruno, Mateo and the of San Burlingame, Hillsborough City and a Asian The northern of the district has substantial part City. part of Foster 21 includes the that the is 20.9 Asian. District so district population, percent Belmont, and City San Redwood County southern of Mateo part (including Alto and Park) Clara Palo Los part County (including Menlo Altos.) and of Santa View, and Santa of Mountain mainly Sunnyvale District consists Clara, Jose; San includes Cupertino, western District plus part Gatos, and the of San Jose. District 23 Saratoga, Campbell part Los southern Jose, most eastern is 43.5 includes the Latino central and San parts and, a African- Latino because Asian and some percent large presence American is 69 non-White. presence, percent located,
Districts 28 are in the Santa Cruz 27 and primarily, Monterey where, County area. This is one of the places preclear- because section concerns,47 ance we did original districting concepts. not follow our But for the need for absolute without we certainty preclearance approval delay, would not have divided it to the ideal Monterey County—because is close However, an population of district. it divided assembly currently is the (The Assembly, being joined with Merced Merced County County. part district, the current district the actually “dilutes” Latino population so, is located state.) another geographic region of Even keeping Monterey County intact be a might “retrogression” considered Latino representation, since the resulting district have a smaller percentage would of Latinos than current district. we So divided into Monterey County Latino and non-Latino 28 as a influence parts, creating District Latino district by joining the with Latino San Benito the Watsonville parts County, area of Santa Cruz and the County somewhat Latino of southern Santa part Clara The County. resulting population (and Latino is almost 46 total minority population is over 56 percent). Latino higher than the existing district. We were also aided in decision making this 27, fact that District which includes the remaining parts of Monterey Counties, resembles, area, Santa Cruz in its created populated district Masters Special (District 1973. elongated, to be but it appears very includes the extremely Sur sparsely Big coastline of southern populated for which Monterey County the main access is scenic Route highway, leading Carmel.) south from
3. North Interior Region Districts The North Interior Region is entitled to 14 districts. Assembly 2, 3, 4 Districts and 8 are primarily rural districts. District 2 includes much Shasta, Tehama, Sacramento Valley agricultural region, including 47See text discussion footnote ante. accompanying
Glenn, Counties, Colusa and Sutter from to near Sacra- extending Redding narrow, mento. and like Though long valley it it is centered encompasses, included, on Interstate 5. Two counties are also and nonagricultural Siskiyou Counties. Trinity Siskiyou is also located on Interstate 5 and is Trinity reached, (the from Small primarily, Redding. parts of Butte area County (the around and Yolo area around Gridley) County Knights Landing), both of which are have wholly agricultural, been included because of the solely District 3 population equality requirement. includes six northern mountain Lassen, Plumas, Sierra, (Modoc, Yuba), counties Nevada and most plus of Butte County, which is mountain and in partly orientation. partly valley District is made of six up whole counties located the Mother Lode Placer, Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, region of the Sierra Nevada: El Alpine (less Mono Counties. District 8 includes Solano which County Vallejo, was included in the North Coastal almost all of Yolo Region), County the delta region of Sacramento County, rural sparsely populated region adjacent to eastern Solano and southern Yolo County. 5, 9,
Districts 10 and 17 the urban of encompass areas Sacramento and Stockton. District 5 contains most of the northern unincorporated part Sacramento County. District includes the bulk the City of Sacramento. Based on strictly population, city could constitute a separate assembly However, district. in the south-central area of Sacramento there is a signif- icant geographically compact minority which is within and population partly 9, without the partly within city. By including this District it was to possible create a district which just over 50 In view minority population. Act, of the obligations we faced under the we it thought to do this preferable rather than follow the lines city District 10 consists strictly. rest of Sacramento and the County northern part of San Joaquin County, including Lodi. District 17 includes almost all of the rest of San Joaquin County including City Stockton. 26,
Districts 30 and 31 are the product of our efforts to maximize the Latino presence districts of the San Joaquin Valley order to assure (insofar able) as we are preclearance General under by Attorney section districts, 31, 5 of the Act. The construction of two 30 and was driven by the fact that Kings County was covered the Act. We started trying all capture significant enclaves of Latino) minority (primarily Kern, Counties, Tulare and Fresno used some eventually heavily Latino areas districts, Madera County for this One of the purpose. resulting District Latino, covers the rather but area sparsely heavily populated, the southwestern of the San part It is rather but it Joaquin Valley. elongated, is centered on Interstate a modem and uncrowded which as yet freeway facilitates communication. It has a southern end which “hook” at the reaches (and divides) into Bakersfield so to add minority parts city *61 the The district. result is an district with Latino assembly percent 49.5 and 60 overall District 30 includes percent minority population. 5, (which, all Kings of because it is what County covered section is triggered district) effort in special connection with this as well as of parts Fresno and Kern counties and a small of Madera District 31 part County. counties, includes parts only two Fresno the southern County including of the part of Fresno and western On City Hilare it County. map appears quite oddly but it is more in a shaped compact functional sense than District 30 and its was dictated It shape Latino geography population. does, however, Fresno, divide the cities of Visalia and Tulare in order maximize the Latino presence the district. The result an assembly district with 52.2 Latino percent and almost 69 overall population, percent minority population. This district was created for purposes “nesting” with 30, District thus producing a senate district of almost 51 Latino percent population which includes Kings County.48 District 26 includes all of Merced County and the most (which Latino parts Stanislaus County required Modesto). division of The district has a Latino population approximately percent lower than that of Merced County only itself. way to increase the Latino population of this district by use of Latinos within the same geographically area would compact be to use some of the Latino population used to build the high percentages we achieved in Districts 30 31, effect, which would have an overall dilution which we think is undesirable as well as violative of the of the Act. spirit
Districts 29 and 32 are made up remainder of the San Joaquin after Valley creating Districts 30 and 31 so as to maximize Latino population. centers, District 25 has two major population part of Modesto to north, and the City Madera and a small of Fresno to the part south. District 29 Visalia, includes much of Fresno and most of about 30 miles to the south. cities, Exeter, District includes several Tulare County including Porterville Tulare, and much of the City most of plus Bakersfield Kern County.
4. Southern Region Districts California The Southern California Region is entitled to 48 assembly districts. Our approach, after creating minority districts Los Angeles County, was to plans 48While several submitted to us include assembly one district of over 50 wholly within the San Joaquin Valley, none included percentage, two near this and none had a senate note, however, seat with a high percentage. such We must registration that based on provided (but information us districts, ours, of uncertain reliability) none of these including has a registration Latino high enough to majority constitute a Latino seat. Barbara, treat San Luis Santa Obispo, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties as districts, a subunit entitled to over 27 and then include slightly the small remainder of Los with San Angeles County (Los Bernardino County. Ange- thus, les County, has no more divisions than absolutely We also necessary.) made an effort to and other keep Mojave desert areas east of the Sierra because, view, Nevada intact in our it constitutes one of the major geo- graphic regions of the state. Since we started with constructing minority districts in Los Angeles we will County, describe these first. *62 45, 46, 49, 50,
Districts 57 and 58 are Latino districts. We started majority both a line by tracing around census tracts with majority or near majority Latino population and by out what mapping areas were covered Latino by districts created the various submitted plans to us. To a remarkable degree, these coincided and each showed it possible was to create six assembly districts with majority Latino Based populations. on this prelimi- nary research we set about constructing these districts. We were re- also quested to take into account significant Asian in populations of this part area, overall and we endeavored to do so. District 57 which in is located Azusa, eastern San Park, Gabriel Valley includes the cities of Baldwin El Monte and La It Puente. is 63.5 in percent (and Latino population 78 percent in and, overall minority population) based on the registration figures pro- us, vided appears to have over 40 percent Latino District registration. 58 Montebello, Rivera, includes Pico Norwalk and the western part Whittier. It is 62 percent Latino and almost 72 in percent total minorities and also has well apparently over 40 percent registration. Latino District Park, Alhambra, centered on Monterey Rosemead, San Gabriel and has only 55 percent Latino population, but the Latino registration to be over appears 44 percent. The district also has a large Asian presence—over 28 percent— and both Latino and Asian groups that requested this district include the four cities that form its basis. Districts 45 and 46 are based on the downtown and eastern parts City Los Angeles. District 45 has 63 Latino percent population and District 46 has over 70 Latino percent The population. registration figures provided us show about only 35 Latino percent registra- tion in each. However both districts have a Asian large presence—18 percent for District 45 for percent District 46 and the combined Asian and Latino registration is, overall, both exceeds percent. District 45 percent minority and District 46 is over 91 percent minority. Initially, because of a from request Asian representatives we constructed District 45 to include most of the Asian which population is now between the split (This districts. population is located in the Westlake region just west of downtown However, Los Angeles districts.) western parts both this configuration, because of very low registration by both Latinos and area, Asians this this appeared to dilute the voting strength of the Latinos district for Asians.49 creating significant in the district influence without form. sixth present this reason we the district to its reconfigured For entirely of small cities district is 50. This is almost composed Latino District Park, Gate, Huntington South Angeles, including of downtown Los southeast of over 88 Maywood percent and Bell Gardens. It has a Latino population We were percent. an apparent registration Latino approximately Latino this dis- that we had itiadvertently packed concerned trict, to us had somewhat but discovered most other submitted plans district area—MALDEF’s percentages encompassing plan, similar for a this A Latino delegation had over 84 Latino example, population. from the area us based on these cities. We urged had also to create a district explored any substantially whether there were feasible methods to reduce the Latinos, concentration of that none existed.50 ultimately concluded 47, 48, 51, Districts 55 are In 52 and African-American districts. majority this instance we the definitions offered almost accepted every participant our at who addressed the African-Ameri- hearings point,51 that an effective *63 in can is the of 35 40 of the majority range percent to total percent districts, Our initial was the same to population. step map as for Latino out the areas of African-American concentrations in Los Angeles. south-central the While areas of such concentration are from an obvious of inspection the map, total in the area is population enough of African-Americans not to districts, an effective for five which provide majority is the number assembly of African-American members the currently of the Assembly representing All area.52 but one of the created by African-American districts us actually African-Americans, have more Latinos than the although Latino apparent in registration these areas is 47 abysmally low.53 District includes Culver and the City Crenshaw of Los is area and it 40.5 African- Angeles, percent district, 49We were able to this population single congressional consolidate Asian in a however. problem 50The trying with to reduce the in population Latino the district inclusion of (such east) non-Latino areas part Downey registration as of to the Latino rate is that the is so low. With only percent population, 11 of the in the district as presently non-Latinos proposed voters; percent registered including constitute over of the 44 non-Latino areas to to, the population say, reduce 80 percent down reduce the probably would number of Latinos actually registered percent, to making under 30 thus in effect only the district a Latino district, majority not a Latino district. influence Brown, African-American, 51These Speaker included Assembly of the who is and several African-American legislators current representing districts in the area. 52The population Angeles kept pace African-American in Los has not with the overall growth county, the especially population, Latino which appears settling much of to be areas currently occupied by in provide difficult to African-Americans. Thus it is districts meeting population requirements percentage current which have the same of African-Ameri as existed cans in the districts created in 1982. example, 53For percent 52 (compared percent of District 48 is Latino to 46 African- Americans) but the registration percent. Latino is 6 apparently less than American and over 70 District almost percent minority composition. entirely City Angeles, the of Los includes the Park area south Exposition and, the north border of It is over 46 African-American percent Watts. but, noted, huge, because of a as of 52 nonvoting Latino mostly the Ingle- district is 98 District 51 is centered on percent, percent minority. and includes the as well city wood of Hawthorne of south-central parts and, overall, Angeles. Los It is 36.3 African-American percent over District 52 is centered on Watts and the north percent minority. part Compton, and includes the cities of Gardena and It is also 36.3 Lynwood. Latino, though regis- African-American and 48.5 percent percent Latino is 11 percent tration of the total The district is apparently only registration. over 90 final percent minority. The African-American district is District Carson, which part City includes southern Compton, Wilmington area Los of western Beach. Angeles part Long Although is it it percent minority 23.3 African- composition, only percent fact, however, American. this Despite the current of this area representative is African-American. When we first outlined the districts the African- area, American this district an even had lower African-American population although it was close to minority and included almost 20 percent In Asians.54 order to maintain African-American basis representa- tion, we decided to recast District 55 by dividing city Compton order to the number bring of African-Americans the district toup district, percentage of the it 51 and existing brought both Districts although 52 down near the minimum that we felt African- necessary for an American majority district. recommended District is 17 percent Asian over 40 percent Latino. *64 33,
Districts 35 and in the 37 are located counties northwest of Los Angeles. District 33 County includes all of San Luis and of the Obispo most Mountains, area populated of Santa Barbara the north of Santa Ynez County including Santa Maria and 35 the Lompoc. District includes remainder of Santa Barbara County Barbara) the of (including Santa and the north City Ventura, and western of Ventura parts the cities of County (including Ojai Paula.)55 and Santa District 37 includes most of the of County, rest Ventura Oxnard, including Camarillo and Thousand Oaks. 54Asian representatives at hearings our had an seat requested assembly in this area which presence maximized the Asian and initial designed, part, our district was to in accommodate request. this region 55In this urged by we were appearances hearings several at our to link the cities of Guadalupe, Santa assembly Barbara and in one Oxnard district each had because a substantial has, however, population. (Only Latino very city Guadalupe majority.) small of a Latino so, however, We have not done because the in Latinos these three do cities not constitute geographically compact minority population. Guadalupe is 70 miles northwest Santa of
Barbara and Oxnard 40 miles to the southeast of Santa Barbara and there significant are nonminority populations in (Lompoc between. and Santa Maria Guadalupe are between and Santa Barbara and City of Ventura is between Oxnard and Barbara.) Santa It would be
779 and other Mojave entirely located almost 34 and 36 are Districts Moun- the San Gabriel north of Nevada and east of the Sierra desert areas County Kern part and the desert Inyo County 34 includes tains. District desert part most of the as well as Region the Southern California to assigned District 36 Victorville. and Barstow including Bernardino County, of San Desert, Valley, Antelope the Mojave Angeles part includes the Los Santa City most of the It also includes and Lancaster. Palmdale including Clarita, Fernando Valley. of the San north 39, 40, the San adjacent and 41 and 43 are located
Districts and County from Ventura Valley includes Simi District 38 Valley. Fernando Northridge and well as the Chatsworth valley the Castaic area north of include designed District 39 was valley. part areas the northwest It has over valley. part of the northeastern minority population (and minority population) overall Latino over 75 percent percent voters. the registered only Latinos constitute though apparently has the Van Nuys Hollywood 40 includes Studio North City, District total percent) Latinos under 30 (just second highest percentage the Wood- District includes (almost 42 the valley. minorities percent) Malibu, as well as of the valley land Hills area of the southwest part as, Burbank 43 includes Pacific Palisades and Santa Monica. District Calabas of Glendale but is made up primarily the southeast corner of the valley, Los Angeles. Park Feliz areas near central and the Griffith and Los Westwood and 42 includes Hills and the Beverly Hollywood, District on the east and south Hancock Park areas of Los It is bounded Angeles. the Latino and African-American districts described above. in the southwest are districts located nonminority
Districts and 56 extending cities of coastal part Angeles of Los District consists County. (One Rolling tract of from the Venice area of Los Torrance. Angeles through balance.) Hills achieve population Estates was included this district to Peninsula, coastal, San Pedro 54 also is the Palos Verdes including District Lakewood, part and the coastal section of Beach. District 56 includes Long *65 Beach, Cerritos, Long Downey. of North Bellflower and 44, in east of urban Los Districts 59 and 60 are located the north and parts Pasadena, Canada, 44 and the Sunland- Angeles County. District includes La Monrovia, includes San area of the of Los District 59 Tujunga City Angeles. Oxnard, two) largest (or just and impossible to unite the three cities even Santa Barbara be, view, of would in our a violation bypassing significant populations, without other which Article XXI.
780 Dimas, of Pomona.56 It is somewhat well as part and Claremont as Covina Azusa, between Monrovia which is a barrier partial divided in effect because Dimas, district. District constructed Latino and San is of part previously in It centered the east Los is Angeles County. contains the remaining parts Cpvina Bar, part La Mirada and and Diamond but it also includes on West earlier, the previously its is because elongated shape Whittier. As explained lie border. Angeles County created Latino districts close to the Los 61, 62, in San Bernar- or wholly primarily Districts 63 and 65 are located areas minority and 62 were to concentrate designed dino Districts 61 County. 61, result, District in these two districts. As a County San Bernardino into County Angeles which the more Latino of Pomona from Los part includes Ontario, minority, is almost 55 percent and extends eastward most of through 62, edge from the extending almost are Latino. District percent whom that have of the of San Bernardino57 including parts City of Ontario and concentrations, in including 56 percent minority population over minority The district also and African-Americans. Latinos percent percent Colton, the areas to the includes Rialto and Fontana. District 63 includes the San Gabriel and 62 which lie south of north east of Districts 61 includes Loma fewer minorities. This district Mountains and which have Linda, San Bernardino. City and the Upland nonminority parts Redlands, in Bear and Palms Twenty-Nine District 65 includes Yucaipa, Big Hemet and San Jacinto Valley, San Bernardino and Moreno County Riverside to the south of Redlands and County Yucaipa. in Riverside wholly
Districts 66 and 80 are located or primarily of Riverside and Norco County. adjacent District 64 includes all of the City Corona, had order to obtain split about half of the which to be City County District includes the rest of western Riverside population equality. remainder of Corona and all not included Districts 65 or including Temecula, in the of Lake Elsinore and a small of San plus part Diego County District 80 Fallbrook and Mount Palomar areas to the south of Temecula. just Beaumont, including Banning, includes all of eastern Riverside County, Imperial. Palm as well as all of the Springs, Blythe County Indio County with the eastern of Riverside Combining part Imperial County 51 percent resulted a district which is almost 46 Latino and almost minority total population. 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, districts. The Orange Districts 72 and 73 are all County 69, maximize the first district constructed us was District order to Pomona, minority heavily part, 56The is included in a minority remainder of the more County. influence district in western San Bernardino *66 event, so we included the split population 57San Bernardino had to be reasons any in of parts city minority presence the which would maximize in District 62.
781 Latino parts Ana and the more most of Santa includes It Latino population. is 64.6 which is a district The result Anaheim. and central Garden Grove of (The minority representation. in total 76 percent Latino and over percent The however, second 25 percent.) to be under appears registration, Latino many include as to designed which was District was district constructed Asian) Orange (mainly of minorities concentrations remaining the of Grove, the western remainder of Garden includes the This district County. almost 17 Anaheim,58 percent It is Buena Park. and almost all of of part The and, overall, in population. 42 minority is percent Asian population as possible to be as compact so as districts were constructed remaining coastal part includes the north 67 of cities. District to minimize the division Alamitos, Costa Beach and Huntington Los including Orange County of including county of the part central coastal 70 includes the Mesa. District Beach, includes the north Beach and Irvine. District Laguna Newport Fullerton, Linda. and Yorba La Habra including part county, interior of including County, of Orange includes the south interior part District 71 District Finally, of Anaheim. Tustin and the eastern City Orange, part of Clemente, in southern Viejo Mission San Juan Capistrano includes San needed, it also was additional population because Orange County, (needed Pendleton, of Carlsbad part Oceanside and a small Camp includes County. Diego from northern San equalize population) 74, 75, 76, 77, Diego within San entirely Districts and 79 are all located areas of greatest and centered it on the We started with District 79 County. all of The district encompasses Latino and African-American concentrations. Vista and the southernmost City, parts National about half of Chula minority total San district is over 76 City Diego. percent resulting the African-American with the at 49.3 population, population percent, Latino (The at 11.2 percent. at 16 and the Asian population MALDEF in the plan suggested by district resembles one very closely next be constructed District was the organization.) submitted Vista, of San Diego and it the remainder Chula of the City includes part Grove, El east of the Cajon just and the La Mesa and inland cities of Lemon San concentration greatest This district has second City Diego. 78 is coastal minorities San at 34.7 District Diego County percent. Coronado through in the south orientation and extends from Beach Imperial north. It also San to the City Diego and reaches the La Jolla area of elongated quite The district is Bay city. includes Mission area of south, minority dilute the but was due to our decision not to this 58Anaheim, Orange County, long because it and narrow and extends across much this, figure but could not up being split ways assembly plan. regretted ended four in our We We in District any way substantially reducing presence to avoid this without the Latino 69. split Special ways. note that the Masters also Anaheim three *67 in including predominately nonminority District 79
percentage adjacent by in The district is well served by Beach and Coronado that district. Imperial Coronado, and the main access to freeways Bridge, wholly Coronado within the district. within the San wholly City Diego District 76 lies of area, includes most its Mission to the south Valley of northern interior from almost to Rancho in the includes all of eastern Bernardo north. District 75 (such San Diego mountain and desert areas as Ramona and County including Santee, Borrego but its main are and the Springs) population Poway centers most reaches of the San The final district to be northerly City Diego. described, (which, the last actually District 74 with District was along constructed), district that we cities of Diego contains northern San Escondido, Vista San Marcos and the small north beach cities county such as Encinitas and Solana Beach. It also includes most of the City Carlsbad, which, before, as noted had to to split equalize population. be
B. Senate Plan
1. In General in Every senate district the state entire tracts and each consists of census 744,000 district by varies less than one from the ideal size of A persons. computer generated showing the various districts map proposed us is set out as One our part Appendix report. each district in proposed is set out Two. Since senate districts are Appendix districts, made contained in up assembly listing of census tracts each district can be obtained reference proposed census tracts for the constituent in assembly districts Three. Appendix Court,
The order from the in the criteria Supreme instructing us to follow TV, set forth Reinecke us to districts required join adjacent assembly districts, senate creating now Because we are practice “nesting.” known Act, also required to with the we comply would be excused from this However, if requirement to do so would us to violate the Act. we did require not find conflict between any the Act and the that we and so nesting propose, our consists of plan nested senate districts. We fully designed assembly districts in part allow for and since our easy appropriate nesting detail, assembly districts have already been described some we shall be more brief Since our senate districts differ following descriptions. districts, substantial from the ways existing changes senate and population have, effect, since 1980 moved entire senate districts from one area to another (e.g., from central Los Angeles to more reaches of the southerly *68 which closely parallels scheme numbering a state) provide it is impossible rationally.60 the numbers assign We have tried to districts.59 existing Districts Region North Coastal 2. districts, entitled to 9 hence is has 18 region assembly
The north coastal senate districts. in the This is located same Districts and 7. Assembly
Senate District 2: from Del Norte Senate District and extends area of the current general only there are three the south. Since through Vallejo on the north County Strait, one of the Carquinez north of the Golden Gate and assembly districts The two only with an district to the south. joined assembly them had to be to northern Contra join Napa combinations were to Santa Rosa and possible Francisco. We Counties to San Costa or Marin and southern Sonoma County chose the latter as being preferable. in the
Senate District 6 and 13. This also is located Assembly 3: Districts It does divide San same area as the current Senate District 3. general County. Sonoma Francisco and includes all of Marin and some of County have, however, such a division of We did submitted to us requests supporting San Francisco. the remain-
Senate District 8: Districts and 19. This includes Assembly der San It also Francisco and is similar to the current Senate District 8. allows a substantial Asian to be included community County San Mateo with the bulk of the San community. Francisco Asian
Senate District 7: Districts 11 and This includes most of Assembly 15. Contra Costa as does the Senate District 7. County present
Senate District 9: Districts and 16. This includes most Assembly the East geographically Bay African-American compact and creates a which 32.4 and almost 60 district African-American percent It a district percent minority population. functionally compact is both with the as 30 complies many Act. Senate has suggested putting but percent single “packing,” African-Americans a district constitute may this is who contrary to African-American testimony many representatives year assigned important
59The number to a senate district is because it determines in which the election is to be up held for the seat. Odd numbered seats are for reelection 1992. only changes Supreme 60We.note that in made Court to the Senate Plan predecessors process pairs submitted our in this was to switch numbers for two of senate IV, (Reinecke Thus, supra, 2.) districts. for the court to p. possible 10 Cal.3d at fn. it is aspect numbering. correct this of our we with plan significant respect if have made error before us that an effective African-American
appeared suggesting majority minimum, have, district should at close to 35 African-American We population. also note that there has never been an African-American heretofore elected to the any Senate from area included our proposed district.
Senate District 10: Assembly Districts 18 20. This area contains *69 most of the area the eastern shore of San Francisco along Bay south of Oakland.
Senate District 11: Assembly Districts and 24. This resembles the current Senate District and consists of the southern San part of Mateo and the more County of the Santa Clara southeasterly part Valley. Senate District 13: Districts 22 and 23. Assembly This district has a minority population of over 50 of Latinos and percent, mainly composed Asians. It covers northern of Santa Clara part County.
Senate District 15: Districts Assembly 28. This district reunites divided previously and Santa Cruz Monterey Counties resembles current Senate District 17.
3. North Region Interior Districts districts, North Interior has hence Region assembly is entitled to 7
senate districts.
Senate District 1: Districts 3 and 4. This Assembly district includes the Mother Lode counties and other mountain counties.
Senate District 4: Districts 2 and Assembly 8. This district includes almost all of the agricultural of the parts Sacramento It makes whole Valley. Yolo which County, had been divided for reasons population equality formation of the constituent districts. assembly
Senate District 6: Districts 5 and Assembly 9. This district is located within wholly Sacramento County.
Senate District 5: Assembly Districts 10 and 17. This district includes the southern part of Sacramento whole of San County almost the Joaquin County.
Senate District 12: Assembly Districts reunites 25 and district 26. This Stanislaus and the County City Modesto. northerly It includes the more parts of the San Joaquin Valley. This consists Districts 29 and 32. district 14: Assembly
Senate District San districts the southern assembly part of the “non-Latino” Joaquin Valley. earlier, these and 31. As noted
Senate District 16: Districts 30 Assembly that, would they produce districts were drawn so when assembly paired, and has a total senate district Latino population which 50.8 minority of 64 percent. Region
4. Southern Districts California districts, entitled to Since Southern California has 48 it is assembly senate districts.
Senate This district combines District 17: Districts 34 and 36. Assembly *70 the two regions districts located and other desert assembly Mojave district, east of the Sierra the integrity Nevada into a senate thus preserving of this geographic region.
Senate District 18: Districts 33 and 35. This district includes Assembly Santa Luis County. Santa Barbara and the western of Ventura Obispo, part
Senate District 19: Districts 37 and 38. This district includes Assembly the eastern of Ventura part County adjacent and an northwest part sector of the San Fernando Valley Los Angeles.
Senate District 20: Districts 39 and 40. This district combines Assembly the two assembly districts the San Fernando with the Valley greatest minorities, number of the result with a 46 being percent a senate district Latino population and a 58 total minority population.
Senate District 21: Assembly Districts and 44. This district includes the suburbs of Glendale and Pasadena to the and northeast of the City north of Los Angeles.
Senate District 22: Districts 45 and 46. This district cen- Assembly tered on downtown Los Angeles the eastern It is part city. heavily Latino and has a substantial Asian well. presence as
Senate District 23: Assembly Districts and 42. This district includes the Hancock Park and Westwood areas of the well as City Angeles of Los Hills, Beverly Santa Monica and the Malibu area.
Senate District 24: includes Assembly Districts 49 and 57. This district much of the San Gabriel Valley and is a Latino district. majority 51 and
Senate 25: Districts 52. This is an African- Assembly District American centered on and the north Inglewood, part district Watts majority of Compton.
Senate District 26: Districts 47 and 48. This is second Assembly African-American district Los It includes the majority Angeles County. Crenshaw and as well as City Angeles Park areas of the of Los Exposition Culver City.
Senate District 27: 54 and includes Assembly Districts 56. This district Peninsula, Lakewood, the Palos Verdes and most of Beach. Downey Long Senate District 28: 53 and 55. This district includes Assembly Districts much of the area on Santa Monica most of Torrance bordering Bay including and the area inland from Torrance Carson and including part Compton.
Senate District 29: Districts 59 and 60. This is the easternmost Assembly senate district in Angeles County Los and the involved con- problems the constituent structing assembly magnified districts described earlier are combination of the two into this senate district. Even some- though oddly shaped, virtually what all of the is located within 10 miles (the district) of West Covina central and it is well served point freeways.
Senate District 30: is the Assembly Districts 50 and 58. This district third Latino in majority senate district and it is located the area southeast of Park, downtown Los and includes and Angeles Huntington Montebello Norwalk.
Senate District 31: Assembly Districts 63 and 65. This district combines the two districts in assembly San Bernardino with the smallest County minority populations.
Senate District 32: and Assembly Districts 61 62. This district combines the two assembly districts San Bernardino with the minor- County largest ity populations. The’resulting just senate district is over 40 Latino percent and over 55 in total The new percent minority population. district is similar to the current Senate District 34.
Senate District 33: Districts 71 and 72. This district includes Assembly most of interior Orange County.
Senate District 34: Assembly Districts 68 and 69. This district combines the two districts in assembly Orange with the County largest minority and Latino percent is almost district senate resulting population. Asian of a substantial because minority population in total 60 almost presence. includes This district and 70. Districts 67 Assembly District 35:
Senate Orange County. most of coastal includes This district 64 and 66. Districts Assembly District 36:
Senate County. of Riverside westernmost part includes This district and 80. Districts 75 Assembly District 37: Senate eastern and County all of Imperial Diego County, rural of San part the most us urged before us appeared who persons Several County. Riverside Diego of San the Latino part with County combining Imperial consider areas these districts, combine the Senate both MALDEF and legislative alternative this We considered recommend.61 they in the senate districts that a somewhat combining have to be done (which in our would planning 80) ultimately but District with Assembly District 79 Assembly redrawn San Latinos both number of large there are a Though rejected concept. Counties, do not constitute widely separated are they Diego Imperial Further, interests of group. compact minority single geographically Imperial agricultural different than those well be may urban Latinos corridor62 but a narrow with anything to connect them County. Finally, existing dilute the would County San Diego the border southern along District 79. Assembly in our minority population proposed district includes and 74. This Districts 73 Assembly Senate District 38: County. of Orange and the southernmost Diego part the northern of San part Carlsbad, districts assembly in the split underlying It reunites which was reasons. population equality combines and 78. This district District 39: Districts 76 Assembly
Senate with the smallest County districts southern San assembly Diego two *72 minority populations. because legislative district urged keep to the Mexican border area in one 61Wewere also single common a district convineed that problems along all the border. We are not
there are extending problems Such affect zone along proper the border is the solution to this issue. California, adjacent territory literally represent have to legislator well into and a does not Further, to be more useful probably it would responsive problems. the border to be to such call for two problems, which would legislator responsive than one who is to such have more (For hearing one we were example, the border. in or more districts to be located on or near one represented by just areas of the state were not urged growing to make sure that the timber matters would about timber legislator having legislators two or more concerned because ultimately activity.) be more useful to that would, view, populations in our purpose connecting distant 62Anarrow corridor for violate Article XXI. 788 This district
Senate District 40: Districts 77 and 79. combines Assembly in San with the Diego County largest two districts southern assembly Latino, district is minority populations. Though resulting only percent in it is 55 overall due to a substantial Asian and percent minority population The some African-American district also reunites Chula Vista. population. Congressional C. Plan
1. In General tracts, in district the state consists of entire census Every congressional and each district the ideal size of varies no more than 0.25 from 572,308 A the various districts persons. generated showing computer map One proposed by us is set out as of our part Appendix report. each in A population listing district is set out Two. proposed Appendix in census tracts contained each district is set out proposed Appendix Three.
2. Northern Region Coastal Districts The Northern Coastal entitled districts. Region congressional Districts and 6 are in the District 1 region. northernmost of this part Norte, Humboldt, Counties, Mendocino, includes all of Del Lake and Napa and Fairfield and Geyserville Healdsburg County Sonoma part Vacaville County.63 Solano This area is rural with some suburban mostly areas the southern part district. District 6 includes most of Sonoma and all Marin County It is suburban. County. primarily 8, 12 Districts and 14: These districts the San Francisco Peninsula. occupy District 8 constitutes most of San Francisco and is almost 56 percent minority District includes the corner of San population. southwest Francisco and northern San A Mateo small of Belmont on the County. part southern edge of the district had to be cut in the necessary order to achieve balance. District 14 County includes remainder of San Mateo and a area of compact northwest Santa Clara the cities of County including Alto, View, Palo Mountain Sunnyvale Cupertino. 7, 9,
Districts 10 and 13 are located the East District includes Bay. Richmond and the Contra Costa cities on or near San Pablo Bay, *73 Carquinez Strait or Suisun Bay, including Pittsburg and Concord. earlier, 63As noted the division necessary necessary of Vacaville was to achieve the population balance between the Region Region. North Coastal and the North Interior of the the northern side Benecia on and Vallejo includes district also live in African-Americans numbers of Since significant Strait. Carquinez Richmond, Pablo, percent has a 16.6 the district Pittsburg, and Vallejo San 44of percent. minority population and a total African-American population number of a the request were able to honor district we In this congressional also included district that included Richmond not be of citizens that Berke- including County, all of north Alameda District 9 includes Oakland. an African-American It has tracts of Oakland. and all but four census ley of 58.9 (and minority population an overall of 31.9 population percent view, and, majority African-American effective it is an our percent) east and Alameda Counties Contra Costa includes all of district. District 10 area west Valley Castro Hills the unincorporated of the East Bay plus hills, reasons. District equality included for population which had to be Francisco south Bay of San all Alameda the shore County along includes of Leandro, of part It also has and Fremont. Hayward Oakland San including of necessary which was Santa Clara adjacent County an Milpitas part add for reasons. population equality region. of this part
Districts 16 and 17 constitute southernmost including County central Santa Clara District 15 includes the part Gatos, Clara, eastern and much of cities Santa Saratoga, Campbell Los County, northern Santa Cruz and southern San Jose. It also includes some of includes District 16 Valley.” Scotts an of “Silicon including Valley, outpost It the county. part all of the eastern of San Jose and southern part the Asian population includes most of the Latino and much of total the area. it Latino and over As a result is almost 37 percent San Benito Monterey all District 17 includes minority population. to the current Counties and Santa Cruz It is similar County. very most of district the area. congressional Region
3. North Interior Districts nine districts. congressional The North Interior is entitled to Region most of the Districts 3 and 4 include the agricultural region northern the rural mountain mountain areas of the District includes all of region. Lassen, Plumas, Sierra, Shasta, Modoc, Yuba counties of Trinity, Siskiyou, Counties, (The Butte County. and Nevada and all but two census tracts of reasons.) District 3 of Butte was necessary population equality division Colusa, Tehama, Glenn, includes all of the Sacramento counties of Valley Sutter, Dixon County including and Yolo and the eastern of Solano part
790 County It also includes of suburban Sacramento part of Vacaville.64 part 4 Sacramento. District includes the “Mother Lode” of the City north Dorado, Amador, Placer, El Calaveras and Tuolumne and counties of northeastern and Mono. It also includes the mountain counties of Alpine of Folsom. including City corner of Sacramento County, 5, 11 the middle of the Central Valley. Districts and 18 are located urban, Sacramento. District District 5 is and includes the entirely City and all but County includes the southern and eastern of Sacramento parts all Stanis- two census tracts of San District 18 includes Joaquin County. Madera adjacent laus and Merced and small San parts Joaquin, Counties and Fresno Counties to achieve balance. necessary population 19,
Districts 20 and are located the southern of the San part Joaquin the need to As with districts 30 and because of obtain Valley. Assembly whatsoever, the any delay from the General without preclearance Attorney which first districts was an to construct a district step constructing attempt the maximum feasible Latino would include and would have Kings County we modified what we Again, because of the circumstances population. The would have considered state law criteria. result ordinarily controlling Fresno, Visalia, (the was District which divides Tulare and Bakersfield east.) latter and then the encircling city “hook” south However, we achieved a district with 55.4 Latino and an overall population Districts 19 and include the minority population of over 67 percent. District 20. territory region remaining constructing from Region 4. Southern Districts California
Southern Because we congressional California is entitled to districts. started with we will our minority Angeles County, begin districts Los with them. descriptions 30, 31,
Districts 33 and 34 were Latino districts. designed majority be District 30 is within the of Los from the entirely City Angeles, extending northeastern border downtown and into the Westlake district. It has through 61.5 Latino and an additional 19.8 Asian percent percent popula- (The tion. total is 84.8 Latino minority population percent.) registration is, apparently, 34 and the Asian is an additional 7 percent registration percent. District is 58.5 Latino and an additional 22.1 percent Asian. It includes the area from Park on the west Monterey Alhambra and El through Monte to Azusa on the east. The registration apparently Latino part County assigned 64This is the of Solano left to the county when the was rest Region. North Coastal
791 Angeles of downtown Los includes part 41 District 33 over percent. Park, southeast, Huntington May- such as small communities many of the 84 percent is almost The Latino population and South Gate. wood includes District 34 voters. of the registered and over 48 percent district Rivera, Norwalk, It is over Montebello, Whittier. Puente and of part La Pico in registration. 43 Latino and over percent Latino population 62 percent 32, African- majority effective were to be designed Districts 35 and 37 32, Park and Exposition the Crenshaw including American districts. District African- is 40.3 City, percent as well as Culver Angeles areas of Los 35, as well as and Hawthorne which includes Inglewood American. District African-American. District percent south-central Los is 42.7 Angeles, of part Carson, 37, Wilmington well as Watts and Compton which includes Beach, is 33.6 percent Long area of Los of downtown Angeles part The of 88 (and percent). has a total minority population African-American constitute 45 but Latinos largest percent, the district is Latino at minority 13 voters. only registered percent District Angeles County.
Districts and 23 are located northwest of Los Barbara and almost all of Santa includes all of San Luis Obispo County had to be county, at the extreme southeast of the County. (Carpintería, part guidelines with Ventura of the strict population combined because County districts.) County except 23 includes all of Ventura congressional District (One had to be severed from for most of Thousand Oaks. census tract Thousand Oaks to achieve population equality.) and the Valley Antelope
Districts 25 and 26 include the San Fernando in the District Valley Angeles Mojave Region. Los of the Desert part areas includes Thousand in Ventura the Malibu and Calabasas County, Oaks of western Los of the San Angeles part and the southwestern County, (Palmdale Fernando District 25 all Valley. Antelope Valley includes Lancaster) and Fernando the new of Santa Clarita north of San city (The area north the San about two- Valley. Valley Fernando constitutes thirds of the The district’s remainder of the comes population. from the Chatsworth and in the Northridge part areas northwestern San Fernando Latino areas of Valley.) encompasses heavily District 26 and, northeast San Fernando Latino district is 52.7 Valley. percent overall, almost 66 minority. 27, 28, 29,
Districts Angeles 36 and 38 are the districts Los remaining that fit around the periphery majority Latino and African-American districts heretofore described. District 27 is north of downtown Los directly Burbank, and includes the Angeles suburbs of Glendale and Pasadena. the San Gabriel and Pomona District includes the northern parts version, it which it is an enlarged and like District Valleys Assembly Azusa, created Latino divided which is of a part previously somewhat Dimas, Arcadia, Monrovia, San district. This district includes majority *76 Covina, Claremont, 29 includes Covina and of Pomona. District part West Monica, Los City Angeles Hills and Santa and the westside of the of Beverly Hollywood Park and and both of the (including slopes Hancock Westwood Mountains). and the Santa District 36 the various encompasses Hills Monica the stretch Monica from Venice and Bay, cities of southern of Santa in Westchester the of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. City Angeles through Los defined districts majority previ- Its eastern side is the African-American in Angeles described. District 38 is the last whole district located Los ously Bellflower, and all of County. Long It includes most of Beach and Lakewood Paramount and Downey. 41
Districts 39 and include the Los not included parts Angeles County of in constitutes lying wholly county. other districts within the This population in the boundaries of about two-thirds of a district but because of population, districts, running the majority strip Latino is within a narrow population While from Hawaiian Gardens to the southwest to Pomona at northeast. it in a district would be to include all of this area technically possible single (thus with Orange Angeles the number of divisions of Los County bringing minimum) County down to bare this was divided between population two more in San Bernar- functionally Orange districts created and compact (This dino Counties. also has the effect of an additional division of avoiding Cerritos, Mirada, Riverside District 39 includes La La Habra County.) Rossmoor, and Heights part Angeles County of Whittier from Los and Park, Fullerton, Cypress, Orange County. Buena Brea and La Habra from 41 District includes Diamond Bar and Angeles of Pomona from Los part Montclair, County, San Bernardino Upland, Chino and of Ontario from part County Yorba Linda and a small of Anaheim from the northeast part corner of Because of a concentration of African-Americans Orange County. Pomona, Asians, Bar, significant and a number of Diamond especially Latinos, as well as a minority. substantial number of the district is 48 percent 42 Districts 40 and include all San included in County Bernardino not District 41. District 40 includes all of the desert located San areas Bernardino and all County Inyo This constitutes about two-thirds County. of the of the district. The remainder population Redlands, Bear and Linda and mountains—Big Arrowhead—and Loma Yucaipa, all San 42 County. City Bernardino District includes most of Bernardino, Colton, Rialto, of San all of and Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana of Ontario. The part district has a total of over 49 minority population percent.
793 Temecula, County except Districts 43 and constitute all of Riverside 43 includes the which is attached San District Diego County. to neighboring Riverside, It and Lake Elsinore. western of the Corona part county, including Perris, divided achieve population also includes which had to be part from part county, District includes all of eastern equality. Moreno of Perris on the west to on the eastern border. Valley part Blythe Orange County.
Districts 46 and 47 constitute the central part District 46 was constructed first to maximize the minority population. Ana, Garden Grove and the central part district includes most of Santa all of of Anaheim. The resulting total is over 64 minority population percent, including Latino and almost Asian. District con- percent Beach, Stanton, tains the Orange north coastal Seal part County, including *77 Beach, Huntington Fountain Costa and of Beach. Valley, part Newport Mesa District 47 contains much of interior and of the central Orange County part Tustin, Irvine, Beach, coast of the county, and includes and Orange, Laguna of It part Newport Beach. also includes a small of Mission which part Viejo was necessary achieve population equality. 48, 49, 50,
Districts 51 and 52 are or within San partly wholly Diego County. District 48 includes southern most of Orange County, including Mission and all Viejo, of San Juan San It Capistrano and Clemente. includes Pendleton, the cities of Oceanside and Vista as well as the Camp Fallbrook and Mount Palomar areas of northern San Diego County. It also includes a small part of Carlsbad needed to achieve it population parity. Finally, Temecula, includes which is in Riverside north of County just Fallbrook. District 50 was the first district designed San and it is an Diego County version expanded District Assembly to include as designed many Latinos and other minorities as possible southern San The Diego. resulting Latino, minority population figures are 40.8 percent 13.7 African- percent American, 13.7 Asian and a total minority of 69 population percent. District 49 is an expanded version of Assembly District 78 running along coast from Beach and Imperial Coronado to the north of the La Jolla area but taking larger a of the part northern interior of the of San part City Diego. District includes most north centnd Diego County, area of San Escondido, Marcos, including San the far northern reaches of the of San City and Diego beach communities such as Encinitas and Leucadia. Finally, Mesa, Santee, District includes the cities of La El Cajon and which are inland from the of San City Diego, as well as most of rural interior San Diego It also includes all County. of Imperial County.
D. State Board Equalization Plan The state, State Board of Equalization consists of four districts for the 7,440,005 ideal of each population of which is We received three persons. Commission, one Independent the Governor’s one from for this board: plans the State Board one from Caucus and Assembly Republican from the each nested 10 Caucus plans The Commission itself. Equalization The State district. of Equalization form each State Board Senate districts to lines county cut they because criticized these plans of Equalization Board Since districts of the board. the administrative unnecessarily ignored administrative, responsibilities and regulatory adjudicatory board has many districts lines and administrative county (unlike observing the Legislature), three counties only which divided The submitted a plan is board important. districts. and three administrative but found Equalization the State Board of with the rationale of agree
We of the eleven divided three out only which also plan that we could draw Further, our one only county.65 which divided administrative districts but The max- County. in Los Angeles influence district minority creates a plan A computer- is less than percent. deviation our plan imum population set out as part us is the various districts showing proposed generated map district proposed of each One our report. Appendix counties, Angeles and for Los A set Two. Appendix listing out are set out in Districts the census tracts contained County, Three. Appendix
Therefore, State Board of we devised for the we recommend the plan Equalization.66 Considerations
VI. Other Incumbent Status A. “Political Fairness” and i.e., fairness,” the Briefs to us have raised the issue of “political presented the or advantage political party lines so as not to one drawing of district employ that we would not While it has been understood and accepted other. state, of the thus it must well over one-fourth the Angeles County 65Los includes be any divided in case. Shasta, Lassen, Humboldt, Norte, Modoc, Trinity, Siskiyou, 66District One consists Del Solano, Marin, Sonoma, Yolo, Tehama, Mendocino, Glenn, Lake, Colusa, Sutter, Napa, Clara, Cruz, Costa, Francisco, Alameda, Mateo, and Santa San Benito Contra San San Santa Yuba, Sierra, Plumas, Butte, Monterey Counties. District Two consists of the counties of Tuolumne, Calaveras, Nevada, Placer, Dorado, Sacramento, Amador, Alpine, Joaquin, El San Tulare, Stanislaus, Mono, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Obispo, Kings, San Luis Inyo, Mariposa, Kern, Bernardino, Barbara, Los Antelope Valley in northern San Santa Ventura and the Riverside, Diego, Imperial Counties Orange, San Angeles County. District Three consists of Torrance and other including Long Beach and part Angeles County, and the southeast of Los Angeles Los of the remainder of nearby cities. No cities were divided. District Four consists County. lines, that after in it has been drawing suggested data the of district
partisan the reviewing district we a test apply boundaries should drawing political a registration previous districts terms of their current or proposed partisan statewide election. First, so,
We not done for three we note that our instructions have reasons. evaluating from the make no reference to districts terms of Supreme Court criteria, partisan determining “competi- such as the “safeness” or political Indeed, a the has made clear that tiveness” of district. court particular that are redistricting questions appropriate involves not “peculiarly political (Silver (1965) for this court to Brown 63 Cal.2d decide.” v. [46 here, 132].) 405 P.2d We We are not as a matter of Cal.Rptr. agree. choice, but because the court—confronted an between the impasse Leg- islature and Governor—has instructed us to recommend districting a plan.
Second, so, even if we had wished to do the time which constraints under we have been required operate would have precluded development political litmus test which we The days would have confidence. analysis and required adjustments conduct such a test to make would have made it to meet an difficult impossible deadline. already us,
Finally, various “fairness” tests which based on suggested to are past political offer history, incomplete often as to conflicting guidelines future electoral We behavior. conclude that the complexity dramatically changing and social environment demographic of California use preclude Instead, formulae. an simple fairness” in California analysis “political in the will 1990’s include recognition duplication “deadwood” rolls; the registration change composition registration two-party (i.e., the relative Democrats) decline registered share of and the *79 ratio;67 in change resulting the nature of the in vote-registration the increase third-party decline-to-state now over registrants, well total; the critical in decline voter the different vote- participation; vastly registration districts; ratios of incumbents with contestants in compared open the issues, finance; of candidate impact personality, policy the campaign potential political mobilization of millions of unregistered citizens the aliens; and, prospect citizenship large for numbers of permanent resident least, last but not term limits.
We leave this to analysis others better able and more motivated to highly so, do that we underscoring again did not use data in political drawing district lines. vote-registration ratio, 67By we mean the number of votes obtained a candidate of a
particular Democratic) party (e.g., as a registered party ratio to the number of voters to in the district. their on incum- impact Nor have we drawn boundaries on basis of 1973, In in that the Masters Special bents. contention responding incumbents and their should have between accepted existing relationship criterion, constituencies as an additional Court stated: Supreme in and also relationships “We that there are values such agree maintaining in it to seek reelection without for incumbents making possible competent in We with the Mas- being placed unduly disadvantageous positions. agree ters, however, district by designing that these values should not be pursued rela- boundaries to the reelection of incumbents. those promote Except rare where that it would be tively cases shifts are so extensive difficult or for incumbents to be reelected even under a impossible particular incumbent-neutral will not proincumbent districting plan, districting pre- clude each new that will seeking incumbent from reelection district Moreover, contain a substantial of his former each incum- part constituency. will bent retain the as a or state advantage running sitting congressman as the legislator, may case be. To further and to incumbents the go give additional the status would advantage districting designed preserve quo be unfair both to nonincumbent candidates and to the electors of the new IV, (Reinecke supra, districts who wished to candidates.” support such 402). 10 Cal.3d at p.
In Special Masters had observed that there would be instances which it would be their resi- necessary change some incumbents “to if dences wish they to seek reelection the areas within their encompassed IV, (Reinecke former supra, 446.) districts.” 10 Cal.3d at p. Unquestionably however, note, this will also be true under this or We any plan. other that there is no longer a durational residence within a district as requirement indeed, and, a condition of for state that mem- candidacy legislative office Moreover, bers of need while Congress only reside within the state. some submitted plans to us were criticized because often two or more they placed district, incumbent legislators the same presented none of information to us by any participant included the residential status of officehold- existing Thus, ers. we have no way knowing to what our have this degree plans then, effect. This plan, “incumbent neutral.” B. Final Disposition Materials
A request has been received from the of California Institute University Governmental Studies that its facilities be used Berkeley depository Masters, of all material with the with lodged understanding that the stored, materials received will be safely catalogued and made available for recommended, public use. It is when scholarly this judgment final, action becomes materials that have been pertinent lodged with the Masters be released to the Institute of Governmental Studies for storing use as requested, the conditions upon noted. We that the court note approved a similar recommendation 1973.
Respectfully submitted November Brown,
George A. Presiding Master Galceran,
Rafael H. Master Special
Thomas Kongsgaard, Master Special
798 and Recommendations Report One and Three to
Appendices Masters, legislative, congres- forth setting plans reapportioning Special districts, and as corrected State sional and Board Equalization errors, Court. Supreme file with the Clerk of for clerical are on Masters follows: Report Two to Appendix
Population Statistics District Pages through Assembly Statistics 805 through Pages 806 Senate Statistics Congressional Pages through Statistics Page Equalization Board of Statistics Population Assembly Totals California District Ideally per 372,000 district White Dev. Afr. Am. Asian NL White Non Total Latino Assembly District 1 317,933 53,996
371,929 31,757 3,927 5,522 -0.02 Assembly District 2 310,039 61,345
371,384 38,408 3,589 10,613 -0.17 Assembly District 3 6,891 319,812 49,880
369,692 25,793 10,314 -0.62 Assembly District 4 329,172 42,725
371,897 28,082 3,554 6,459 -0.03 Assembly District 5
375,099 17,002 14,195 313,260 61,839 27,045 0.83 Assembly District 6
372,511 32,254 10,829 13,772 314,151 58,360 0.14 Assembly District 7
371,413 42,845 26,557 29,712 269,678 101,735 -0.16 Assembly District 8
373,328 61,989 26,196 30,057 252,899 120,429 0.36 Assembly District 9
375,288 62,626 185,971 67,083 56,959 189,317 0.88 Assembly District 10
375,363 42,329 288,403 86,960 17,425 24,261 0.90 Assembly District 11
374,135 49,646 21,747 36,494 263,830 110,305 0.57 Assembly District 12
373,814 49,613 29,555 159,730 214,084 134,047 0.49 Assembly District 13
373,494 57,329 189,856 51,255 183,638 80,643 0.40
799 Total Latino NL Afr. Am. Asian White Non White Dev. Assembly 14 District
374,409 39,339 195,582 109,014 46,493 178,827 0.65 15 Assembly District
372,051 27,537 6,885 57,924 21,745 314,127 0.01 Assembly District 16
370,199 53,843 245,546 130,943 61,392 124,653 -0.48 Assembly District 17
375,544 92,681 25,424 51,867 171,379 204,165 0.95 Assembly 18 District
369,038 70,144 26,901 53,702 216,554 152,484 -0.80 Assembly 19 District
371,800 63,026 15,350 77,710 214,297 157,503 -0.05 Assembly District 20
371,930 58,361 15,674 87,731 208,218 163,712 -0.02 Assembly District
369,007 51,001 21,235 32,775 263,171 105,836 -0.80 Assembly District
369,460 50,967 12,358 58,766 246,070 123,390 -0.68 Assembly District
369,533 160,578 22,238 71,686 114,032 255,501 -0.66 Assembly District 24
375,029 35,723 7,443 42,483 287,778 87,251 0.81 Assembly District
374,562 66,323 7,965 12,332 283,193 91,369 0.69 Assembly District 26
373,571 114,110 13,449 24,668 218,460 155,111 0.42 Assembly District 27
368,829 48,140 19,220 21,456 278,185 90,644 -0.85 Assembly District 28
373,436 170,915 10,226 27,949 162,338 211,098 0.39 Assembly District 29
372,877 74,805 9,656 20,989 263,881 108,996 0.24 Assembly District 30
370,999 183,654 23,868 12,434 148,404 222,595 -0.27 Assembly District 31
372,229 194,218 24,030 35,822 115,947 256,282 0.06 Assembly District 32
370,853 75,233 12,344 10,076 267,965 102,888 -0.31 Assembly District 33
373,715 78,492 12,402 12,930 268,824 104,891 0.46 Assembly District 34
372,115 59,621 20,476 8,432 278,196 93,919 0.03 Total Latino Aft. Am. Asian NL White Non White Dev. *83 Assembly 35 District 5,505 263,256 106,155
369,411 87,385 10,962 -0.70 Assembly District 36
370,469 59,862 17,758 13,124 277,254 93,215 -0.41 Assembly District 37 114,922 219,231 150,598
369,829 11,950 22,478 -0.58 Assembly District 38
372,809 60,638 10,856 33,013 267,639 105,170 0.22 Assembly District 39 92,032 278,401
370,433 230,431 24,694 23,072 -0.42 Assembly District 40
372,858 110,827 15,772 28,219 217,209 155,649 0.23 Assembly District 41 67,156
371,739 36,022 8,720 21,450 304,583 -0.07 Assembly District 42
371,055 37,538 12,373 27,566 292,786 78,269 -0.25 43 Assembly District
373,916 146,853 93,465 8,479 43,855 227,063 0.52 Assembly District 44
374,210 71,522 44,431 40,720 217,738 156,472 0.59 Assembly District 45
370,001 233,707 8,922 67,770 58,853 311,148 -0.54 Assembly District 46
371,632 261,285 26,763 53,235 340,002 31,630 -0.10 Assembly District 47
373,032 150,891 30,244 84,803 110,881 262,151 0.28 Assembly District 48
373,964 194,457 172,670 8,982 9,003 364,961 0.53 49 Assembly District
371,807 204,924 5,345 105,031 55,610 316,197 -0.05 Assembly District 50
370,129 328,006 8,265 3,519 340,402 29,727 -0.50 Assembly District 51
373,842 130,038 135,664 27,288 83,955 289,887 0.50 Assembly District 52
371,191 179,949 134,585 25,785 35,859 335,332 -0.22 Assembly District 53
369,086 46,443 9,947 38,136 273,206 95,880 -0.78 Assembly District 54
374,401 69,983 22,146 247,421 126,980 33,404 0.65 Assembly District 55
369,417 150,105 86,017 298,633 62,697 70,784 -0.69 Total Latino White Non Dev. Afr. Am. Asian NL White Assembly District
374,029 208,264 83,247 24,793 55,934 165,765 0.55 Assembly District
370,957 235,636 80,994 9,274 44,321 289,963 -0.28 Assembly District
373,487 232,676 5,990 27,901 105,360 268,127 0.40 Assembly District
373,571 78,345 21,131 33,129 240,041 133,530 0.42 *84 Assembly District 60
370,140 112,348 21,065 62,641 173,322 196,818 -0.50 Assembly District 61
373,445 155,748 31,235 18,070 168,325 205,120 0.39 Assembly District 62
372,499 145,745 47,132 16,270 161,893 210,606 0.13 Assembly District 63
371,695 68,096 26,012 17,042 258,659 113,036 -0.08 Assembly 64 District
370,571 99,743 24,'717 16,108 228,103 142,468 -0.38 Assembly 65 District
370,152 63,238 23,735 12,195 267,944 102,208 -0.50 Assembly District 66
373,206 74,892 12,449 9,209 273,217 99,989 0.32 Assembly District 67
372,615 40,162 4,711 40,285 285,545 87,070 0.17 Assembly District 68
372,536 86,218 7,891 62,498 214,336 158,200 0.14 Assembly District 69
371,511 240,052 8,857 34,019 88,375 283,136 -0.13 Assembly District
372,364 45,357 7,235 32,906 285,973 86,391 0.10 Assembly District
369,506 54,237 6,134 27,739 280,154 89,352 -0.67 Assembly District
369,506 77,000 6,204 34,633 250,331 119,175 -0.67 Assembly District 73
371,638 61,920 18,946 18,030 271,305 100,333 -0.10 Assembly District 74
372,683 716,43 6,317 12,837 280,689 91,994 0.18 Assembly District
371,292 34,816 6,455 21,967 305,671 65,621 -0.19 Assembly District 76
371,046 47,875 28,715 249,134 44,054 121,912 -0.26 Afr. Am.
Total Latino Asian NL White Non White Dev. Assembly District 77
370,125 67,210 23,403 36,115 128,362 241,763 -0.50 Assembly District 78
372,414 49,571 16,498 18,114 286,564 85,850 0.11 Assembly District 79 41,353
372,092 183,309 59,564 89,101 282,991 0.02 Assembly District 80
371,177 10,331 169,658 5,947 182,542 188,635 -0.22 Assembly
California District Ethnic Statistics Registration Age and Over 18 Counts Reg. Reg. Reg. Pop+18 Total Lat. Asian Afr.Am+18 Lat.+18 Asian+18 Assembly District 1
206,973 9,571 1,440 281,535 2,853 19,935 3,544 Assembly District 2
177,042 8,724 1,553 270,884 2,371 22,569 6,485 *85 Assembly District 3
195,168 8,281 1,434 279,560 5,025 16,403 5,700 Assembly District 4
205,884 10,536 1,890 278,756 2,892 18,695 4,634 Assembly District 5
202,736 10,593 2,304 278,491 11,979 18,061 9,741 Assembly District 6
215,784 9,412 2,858 292,475 8,353 22,990 10,189 Assembly District 7
196,233 13,009 1,874 280,526 17,540 27,821 20,106 Assembly District 8
172,990 16,320 3,524 273,980 18,524 40,346 21,781 Assembly District 9
189,697 23,117 9,583 272,098 40,054 42,331 36,732 Assembly District 10
203,997 14,155 4,131 282,092 11,364 27,097 17,280 Assembly District 11
197,189 18,083 3,773 275,689 14,103 32,322 25,131 Assembly District 12
198,646 19,416 21,108 304,897 21,855 37,069 104,088 Assembly District 13
219,155 16,702 11,279 320,667 43,793 38,967 64,811 Assembly District 14
227,573 12,805 9,650 299,595 27,598 36,859 79,448 Reg. Reg. Reg. Pop+18 Total Lat. Asian Afr.Am+18 Lat.+18 Asian+18 Assembly District 15
224,046 11,320 4,742 283,664 5,488 18,724 15,306 Assembly District 16
175,880 12,346 6,840 276,344 90,984 35,762 43,308 Assembly District 17
153,094 24,736 3,239 260,833 16,410 59,097 29,748 Assembly District 18
173,465 25,107 4,978 280,608 18,127 47,619 38,567 Assembly District 19
178,996 18,423 7,263 291,729 11,369 44,278 56,918 Assembly District 20
167,507 22,027 8,686 275,886 10,983 39,702 63,023 Assembly District 21
209,963 10,331 6,998 292,694 15,247 34,264 24,870 Assembly District 22
189,144 17,610 8,841 299,458 9,177 37,168 44,960 Assembly District 23
128,470 37,174 5,099 266,115 15,625 104,564 50,299 Assembly District 24
217,311 15,995 8,882 286,059 4,928 24,184 29,636 Assembly District 25
174,032 16,755 1,850 270,219 5,620 40,324 7,490 Assembly District 26
134,545 21,827 1,464 252,314 9,008 67,073 12,582 Assembly District 27
194,516 12,907 3,113 285,365 13,482 31,933 15,845 Assembly District 28
141,476 34,098 3,552 258,435 7,466 104,668 19,907 Assembly District 29
187,953 22,881 2,802 270,718 6,047 46,291 12,635 Assembly District 30
117,130 33,485 1,158 246,981 16,518 109,750 8,374 Assembly District 31
123,254 42,481 2,461 240,543 15,050 115,382 18,115 Assembly District 32
188,758 22,007 1,555 260,684 7,041 43,708 6,358 Assembly District 33
177,452 16,556 1,971 280,998 9,194 50,201 9,690 Assembly District 34
133,355 11,230 1,002 261,393 13,614 35,840 5,769 Assembly District 35
194,907 19,860 2,595 291,090 4,050 59,146 8,728 Reg. Reg. Reg. Total Lat. Asian Asian+18 Afr.Am+18 Lat.+18 Pon+18 Assembly District 36
158,998 10,248 1,772 257,019 11,287 36,491 8,995 Assembly District 37
160,862 22,610 2,778 267,827 8,242 72,805 15,949 Assembly District 38
181,247 12,175 4,947 283,825 8,585 42,766 23,630 Assembly District 39
96,969 24,679 1,950 255,140 16,667 144,552 17,149 Assembly District 40
148,624 9,803 3,067 292,409 11,472 75,238 21,257 Assembly District
222,605 7,086 4,865 301,726 6,570 26,146 16,276 Assembly District 42
210,491 6,898 5,767 328,840 10,837 30,599 23,765 Assembly District 43
148,349 13,413 5,068 297,935 6,692 66,693 33,436 Assembly District 44
193,431 13,607 7,316 287,915 31,426 48,257 29,801 Assembly District 45
83,311 30,055 5,627 264,594 6,682 155,133 50,665 Assembly District 46
52,773 18,452 3,942 23,001 274,448 179,311 43,542 Assembly District 47
180,985 8,248 6,681 292,273 114,964 57,505 25,014 Assembly District 48
11,5094 6,726 1,607 249,866 122,933 118,336 7,392 Assembly District 49
113,996 50,364 14,746 270,943 4,256 137,930 79,622 Assembly District 50
61,406 33,960 238,181 5,741 203,654 2,616 Assembly District 51
137,618 11,345 4,718 266,606 95,967 82,370 20,433 Assembly District 52
122,351 13,690 5,380 242,937 89,822 105,639 20,202 *87 Assembly District 53
211,573 12,306 8,297 306,065 7,535 34,200 29,051 Assembly District 54
195,359 14,427 5,305 298,347 15,988 47,107 23,741 Assembly District 55
125,128 20,552 4,144 251,177 58,076 92,007 41,891 Assembly District 56
171,458 20,360 7,036 15,928 278,072 55,176 39,320 Reg. Reg. Reg. Pop+18 Total Afr.Am+18 Lat.+18 Lat. Asian Asian+18 Assembly District 57
106,149 42,722 4,553 252,661 148,237 6,017 31,962 Assembly District 58
140,877 61,774 4,255 263,314 152,251 3,743 20,662 Assembly District 59
181,988 17,741 4,313 51,052 279,388 13,929 23,312 Assembly District 60
161,680 29,293 6,675 267,845 72,929 14,046 43,985 Assembly District 61
125,057 24,813 1,420 255,235 21,312 97,299 11,995 Assembly District 62
149,823 33,382 246,486 1,352 85,980 28,831 10,801 Assembly District 63
180,711 18,947 2,061 263,151 41,772 16,209 11,822 Assembly District 64
156,013 20,410 1,787 262,056 17,056 61,861 11,404 Assembly District 65
169,557 14,064 1,334 265,298 14,937 373,95 7,937 Assembly District 66
163,977 13,717 1,277 270,673 46,322 8,301 6,351 Assembly District 67
202,176 13,460 7,797 292,180 28,348 3,261 29,030 Assembly District 68
152,485 16,488 6,823 278,753 5,285 57,324 43,846 Assembly District 69
82,642 20,521 3,508 256,402 6,323 153,623 23,257 Assembly District 70
197,998 9,715 5,666 300,986 5,169 32,122 24,532 Assembly District 71
176,174 12,498 4,678 276,462 4,365 37,129 19,802 Assembly District 72
171,944 15,936 5,216 277,057 4,246 51,416 24,425 Assembly District 73
165,808 10,665 2,443 284,107 13,049 41,026 12,830 Assembly District 74
188,024 11,412 2,375 283,117 4,201 47,029 9,294 Assembly District 75
191,484 10,392 2,200 271,207 4,481 22,857 15,262 Assembly District 76
197,867 14,921 4,025 291,075 19,248 33,256 31,130 Assembly District 77
174,890 19,133 1,751 272,641 43,001 15,062 24,808 *88 Reg. Reg. Reg. Pop+18 Total Lat. Asian Afr.Am+18 Lat.+18 Asian+18 Assembly District 78
212,602 14,013 2,782 319,015 14,284 36,864 13,990 Assembly District 79
120,647 32,082 1,416 254,916 40,112 113,465 28,547 Assembly District 80 (cid:127) 135,897 28,408 1,093 269,737 7,182 103,692 4,296 Population
California Senate District Totals Ideally per 744,000 district Total Latino Afr. Am. Asian NL White Non White Dev. Senate District 1
741,589 53,875 10,445 16,773 648,984 92,605 -0.32 Senate District 2
743,342 74,602 30,484 35,234 587,611 155,731 -0.09 Senate District 3
746,005 89,583 62,084 94,415 497,789 248,216 0.27 Senate District 4
744,712 100,397 29,785 40,670 562,938 181,774 0.10 Senate District 5
750,907 135,010 42,849 76,128 492,568 258,339 0.93 Senate District 6
750,387 94,128 79,628 71,154 499,231 251,156 0.86 Senate District 7
746,186 77,183 28,632 58,239 577,957 168,229 0.29 Senate District 8
745,614 112,639 44,905 211,757 374,027 371,587 0.22 Senate District 9
744,608 93,182 239,957 107,885 303,480 441,128 0.08 Senate District 10
740,968 128,505 42,575 141,433 424,772 316,196 -0.41 Senate District 11
744,036 86,724 28,678 75,258 550,949 193,087 0.00 Senate District 12 74,8133 180,433 21,414 37,000 501,653 246,480 0.56 Senate District 13
738,993 211,545 34,596 130,452 360,102 378,891 -0.67 Senate District 14
743,730 150,038 22,000 31,065 531,846 211,884 -0.04 Senate District 15
742,265 219,055 29,446 49,405 440,523 301,742 -0.23 *89 Aft. Asian Dev. Total Latino Am. NL White Non White Senate District 16
743,228 377,872 47,898 48,256 478,877 264,351 -0.10 Senate District 17
742,584 119,483 38,234 21,556 555,450 187,134 -0.19 Senate District 18
743,126 165,877 17,907 23,892 532,080 211,046 -0.12 Senate District
742,638 175,560 22,806 55,491 255,768 486,870 -0.18 Senate District 20
743,291 341,258 40,466 51,291 309,241 434,050 -0.10 Senate District 21
748,126 164,987 52,910 84,575 444,801 303,325 0.55 Senate District 22
741,633 494,992 35,685 121,005 90,483 651,150 -0.32 Senate District 23
742,794 73,560 21,093 49,016 597,369 145,425 -0.16 Senate District 24
742,764 440,560 14,619 149,352 136,604 606,160 -0.17 Senate District 25
745,033 309,987 270,249 53,073 119,814 625,219 0.14 Senate District 26
746,996 279,260 323,561 39,226 119,884 627,112 0.40 Senate District 27
748,430 153,230 46,939 89,338 455,685 292,745 0.60 Senate District 28
738,503 196,548 95,964 100,833 343,990 394,513 -0.74 Senate District 29
743,711 190,693 42,196 95,770 413,363 330,348 -0.04 Senate District 30
743,616 560,682 14,255 31,420 135,087 608,529 -0.05 Senate District 31
741,847 131,334 49,747 29,237 526,603 215,244 -0.29 Senate District 32
745,944 301,493 78,367 34,340 330,218 415,726 0.26 Senate District 33
739,012 131,237 12,338 62,372 530,485 208,527 -0.67 Senate District 34
744,047 326,270 16,748 96,517 441,336 302,711 0.01 Senate District 35
744,979 85,519 11,946 73,191 571,518 173,461 0.13 Senate District 36
743,777 174,635 37,166 25,317 501,320 242,457 -0.03
Total Latino Afr. Am. Asian NL White Non White Dev. Senate District 37
742,469 204,474 16,786 27,914 488,213 254,256 -0.21 Senate District 38
744,321 133,563 25,263 30,867 551,994 192,327 0.04 Senate District 39
743,460 97,446 45,213 62,168 535,698 207,762 -0.07 Senate District 40
742,217 250,519 82,967 77,468 330,864 411,353 -0.24
California Senate District Ethnic Statistics Registration Age and Over 18 Counts Reg. Lat.Reg. Reg. Pop Total Asian +18 Afr.Am+18 Lat.+18 Asian+18 Senate District 1
401,052 18,817 3,324 558,316 7,917 35,098 10,334 Senate District 2
403,206 22,580 3,314 562,061 20,393 47,756 23,650 Senate District 3
434,939 26,114 14,137 613,142 47,320 66,783 75,000 Senate District 4
350,032 25,044 5,077 544,864 20,895 62,915 28,266 Senate District 5
357,091 38,891 7,370 542,925 27,774 86,194 47,028 Senate District 6
392,433 33,710 11,887 550,589 52,033 60,392 46,473 Senate District 7
421,235 29,403 8,515 559,353 19,591 51,046 40,437 Senate District 8
377,642 37,839 28,371 596,626 33,224 8,134 161,006 Senate District 9
403,453 25,151 16,490 575,939 170,432 63,360 80,167 Senate District 10
340,972 47,134 13,664 556,494 29,110 87,321 101,590 Senate District 11
427,274 26,326 15,880 578,753 20,175 58,448 54,506 Senate District 12
308,577 38,582 3,314 522,533 14,628 107,397 20,072 Senate District 13
317,614 54,784 13,940 565,573 24,802 141,732 95,259 Senate District 14
376,711 44,888 4,357 531,402 13,088 89,999 18,993 Reg. Lat.Reg. Reg. Pop Lat.+18 Asian+18 Total Asian +18 Afr.Am+18 Senate District 15 35,752 47,005 6,665 543,800 20,948 136,601
335,992 Senate District 16 26,489
240,384 75,966 487,524 31,568 225,132 3,619 Senate District 17
292,353 2,774 518,412 24,901 72,331 14,764 21,478 *91 Senate District 18 18,418
372,359 36,416 4,566 572,088 13,244 109,347 Senate District 19
342,109 34,785 7,725 115,571 39,579 551,652 16,827 Senate District 20
245,593 34,482 5,017 28,139 219,790 38,406 547,549 Senate District 21
341,780 27,020 12,384 585,850 38,118 114,950 63,237 Senate District 22
136,084 48,507 9,569 539,042 29,683 334,444 94,207 Senate District 23
433,096 13,984 10,632 630,566 17,407 56,745 40,041 Senate District 24
220,145 93,086 19,299 523,604 10,273 286,167 111,584 Senate District 25
259,969 25,035 10,098 509,543 188,009 185,789 40,635 Senate District 26
296,079 14,974 8,288 237,897 542,139 175,841 32,406 Senate District 27
366,817 34,787 12,341 576,419 31,916 102,283 63,061 Senate District 28
336,701 32,858 12,441 557,242 65,611 126,207 70,942 Senate District 29
343,668 47,034 10,988 547,233 27,975 123,981 67,297 Senate District 30
202,283 95,734 4,794 501,495 9,484 355,905 23,278 Senate District 31
350,268 33,011 3,395 528,449 31,146 79,167 19,759 Senate District 32
274,880 58,195 2,772 501,721 50,143 183,279 22,796 Senate District 33
348,118 28,434 9,894 553,519 8,611 88,545 44,227 Senate District 34
235,127 37,009 10,331 535,155 11,608 210,947 67,103 Senate District 35
400,174 23,175 13,463 593,166 8,430 60,470 53,562 +18 <5 1 Reg. Lat.Reg. Reg. Pop Total Asian Lat.+18 + Asian+18 Senate District 36
319,990 34,127 3,064 532,729 108,183 25,357 17,755 Senate District 37
327,381 38,800 3,293 540,944 11,663 126,549 19,558 Senate District 38
353,832 22,077 4,818 567,224 17,250 88,055 22,124 Senate District 39
410,469 28,934 6,807 610,090 70,120 33,532 45,120 Senate District 40
295,537 51,215 527,557 3,167 55,174 156,466 53,355 Congressional Population
California District Totals 572,308 Ideally per district *92 Total Latino Aft. Am. Asian NL White White Non Dev. Congressional 1 District
573,082 64,233 22,602 19,368 119,230 453,852 0.14 Congressional District 2
573,322 34,425 8,716 13,374 503,940 69,382 0.18 Congressional District 3
571,374 81,213 18,339 29,923 435,047 136,327 -0.16 Congressional District 4
571,033 42,424 10,059 11,490 500,266 70,767 -0.22 Congressional 5 District
573,684 84,426 73,567 72,556 234,631 339,053 0.24 Congressional 6 District
571,227 51,030 13,480 18,737 484,457 86,770 -0.19 Congressional District 7
572,773 76,154 95,091 78,045 320,911 251,862 0.08 Congressional 8 District
573,247 89,908 73,310 155,049 254,082 319,165 0.16 Congressional District
573,458 68,775 182,159 86,860 235,876 337,582 0.20 Congressional District
572,008 49,985 13,220 35,055 470,726 101,282 -0.05 Congressional District 11
571,772 120,755 33,137 61,598 353,145 218,627 -0.09 Congressional District 12
571,535 81,606 23,649 142,724 321,493 250,042 -0.14 Congressional District
572,441 105,225 42,228 106,135 316,076 256,365 0.02 Dev. White Asian NL White Non Afr. Am. Total Latino Congressional District 14 174,743 28,237 67,787 396,388' 77,305 -0.21
571,131 Congressional District 15 432,424 140,061 12,957 62,685
572,485 61,884 0.03 Congressional District 16 357,027 214,524 210,463 29,659 115,010
571,551 -0.13 Congressional District 17 241,779 180,572 25,342 32,785 329,202
570,981 -0.23 Congressional District 18 201,775 32,428 369,618
571,393 148,329 16,206 -0.16 Congressional District 372,590 200,453
573,043 135,408 18,859 40,188 0.13 Congressional District 20 186,817 386,465
573,282 317,372 36,933 28,854 0.17 Congressional District 21 163,217
571,300 115,954 23,106 16,963 408,083 -0.18 Congressional District 22 160,627
572,891 122,020 16,024 20,506 412,264 0.10 Congressional District 23 216,980
571,483 171,722 14,432 27,879 354,503 -0.14 Congressional District 24
572,563 77,221 11,845 35,967 445,775 126,788 0.04 Congressional District 25
573,105 94,172 25,724 35,825 415,113 157,992 0.14 Congressional District 26
571,523 376,047 301,153 35,611 38,802 195,476 -0.14 Congressional District 27
572,594 118,124 47,493 58,128 348,340 224,254 0.05 Congressional District 28
572,927 138,271 32,778 72,027 328,592 244,335 0.11 Congressional District 29
571,566 75,315 19,931 42,395 432,808 138,758 -0.13 Congressional District 30
572,538 351,876 20,039 113,306 87,154 485,384 0.04 Congressional District 31
572,643 335,086 126,555 9,561 100,162 472,481 0.06 Congressional District 32
572,595 173,076 230,872 42,124 134,859 437,736 0.05 Congressional District 33
570,943 477,975 25,473 21,471 46,077 524,866 -0.24 Congressional District 34
573,047 357,143 11,060 49,765 153,071 419,976 0.13 Latino Afr. Am. Total Asian NL White Non White Dev. Congressional District 35
570,882 243,848 246,201 31,636 59,301 511,581 -0.25 Congressional District 36
573,663 85,277 18,392 69,992 397,921 175,742 0.24 Congressional District 37
572,049 258,278 192,420 57,701 68,776 503,273 -0.05 Congressional District 38
572,657 146,899 44,337 243,232 49,445 329,425 0.06 Congressional District 39 130,920
573,574 15,095 76,326 349,012 224,562 0.22 Congressional District 40
573,625 92,180 31,210 18,761 424,898 148,727 0.23 Congressional District 41
572,663 180,331 39,205 55,455 297,235 275,428 0.06 Congressional District 42
571,844 196,418 63,239 21,029 288,786 283,058 -0.08 Congressional District 43
571,231 142,785 33,851 22,950 368,880 202,351 -0.19 Congressional District 44
571,583 160,696 29,354 14,710 363,149 208,434 -0.13 Congressional District 45
570,874 84,684 7,110 155,127 60,804 415,747 -0.25 Congressional District 46
571,380 285,529 14,226 67,064 203,547 367,833 -0.16 Congressional District 47
571,518 74,700 10,495 53,516 431,187 140,331 -0.14 Congressional District 48
572,928 98,746 23,164 422,849 24,292 150,079 0.11 Congressional District 49
573,362 73,210 30,408 35,587 431,605 141,757 0.18 Congressional District 50
573,463 232,660 82,735 78,321 180,793 392,670 0.20 *94 Congressional District 51
572,982 78,053 10,225 44,937 437,767 135,215 0.12 Congressional District 52
573,203 129,771 17,788 15,463 405,484 167,719 0.16
813 Congressional District Ethnic Statistics California Age Registration 18 Counts Over Pop Lat.Reg. Reg. Reg. Asian+18 Afr.Am+18 Lat.+18 Asian +18 Total District 1 Congressional 13,200 41,489 17,009 2,461 429,278 16,096
295,660 District 2 Congressional 7,270 6,196 21,461
296,735 12,048 2,049 429,948 Congressional District 21,532 50,288 20,335 4,506 12,189
282,885 419,841 Congressional District 4 29,162 8,113 15,606 2,979 8,569
308,982 429,072 Congressional District 47,903
304,964 30,792 12,140 47,263 53,736 423,955 District 6 Congressional 13,530
332,146 15,070 3,839 9,985 35,260 445,354 Congressional District 7 53,615
286,816 25,487 6,858 64,137 49,480 422,385 Congressional District 28,482 55,042 122,930
318,814 21,918 481,672 67,878 Congressional District
312,732 18,710 130,415 65,112 13,395 447,880 47,601 Congressional District 10
335,211 21,156 6,852 9,516 33,635 24,706 432,270 Congressional District 11
252,292 32,203 5,046 406,626 21,587 76,929 36,696 Congressional District 12
291,956 26,823 106,840 18,681 456,025 17,763 58,422 Congressional District 13
262,242 37,572 9,795 75,883 427,508 28,903 70,661 Congressional District 14
313,406 18,414 12,743 51,268 456,764 20,457 53,572 Congressional District 15
320,275 26,041 11,271 45,803 445,309 9,102 43,241 District Congressional 53,066
217,333 9,820 20,755 136,640 81,056 410,427 Congressional District 17 35,266
251,239 4,399 18,252 24,281 421,327 112,549 Congressional District 18
225,679 30,198 2,338 10,666 87,434 17,191 392,845 Congressional District 19 38,187
270,410 4,164 11,600 21,919 407,087 82,765 *95 Congressional District 20 62,057
180,251 2,748 24,855 17,448 375,548 189,433 Reg. Reg. Lat.Reg. Asian +18 Total Afr.Am+18 Lat.+18 Asian+18 Pod Congressional District 21
252,617 28,944 2,159 400,998 14,728 68,185 10,433 Congressional District 22
286,872 26,271 3,692 444,324 11,987 80,741 16,004 Congressional District 23
250,935 35,609 3,578 414,018 9,841 109,207 19,720 Congressional District 24
299,987 12,222 6,000 26,435 451,308 8,640 54,176 Congressional District
261,168 15,865 5,317 416,210 17,873 61,706 25,347 Congressional District 26
169,648 30,347 3,590 24,566 29,051 411,107 192,380 Congressional District 27
268,686 19,520 8,959 445,859 33,747 81,755 43,001 Congressional District 28
265,748 33,039 8,119 424,677 21,745 50,653 90,141 Congressional District 29
319,228 12,229 8,967 496,808 16,963 58,161 35,979 Congressional District 30
123,486 41,940 8,658 416,394 15,734 237,363 86,782 Congressional District 31
160,800 66,763 16,200 404,599 6,861 217,073 95,194 Congressional District 32
251,965 13,575 9,035 435,630 173,376 34,930 114,674 Congressional District 33
86,991 41,947 2,303 385,295 20,881 305,284 17,757 Congressional District 34
211,008 91,420 7,357 403,428 7,161 233,833 36,369 Congressional District 35
190,925 13,793 6,109 390,123 171,493 149,843 24,628 Congressional District 36
313,526 21,327 14,485 462,635 13,496 60,328 52,227 Congressional District 37
196,694 26,783 4,243 376,039 128,485 153,189 39,460 Congressional District 38
255,124 24,199 4,712 436,115 29,694 95,259 33,765 Congressional District 39
267,248 32,124 11,134 430,906 10,183 87,258 54,079 Congressional District 40
252,110 21,847 2,168 410,173 20,054 55,562 12,996 Congressional District 41
223,837 34,145 6,046 400,965 26,697 114,210 38,009 *96 Reg. Pop Reg. Lat.Reg. Asian+18 Asian +18 Afr.Am+18 Lat.+18 Total District 42 Congressional 14,002 2,060 382,911 38,714 116,620
241,961 45,414 Congressional District 402,537 23,303 88,421 16,102
250,671 30,180 2,650 Congressional District 44 97,434 9,764
241,154 27,952 1,745 419,652 18,594 Congressional District 45 58,836 43,728
288,133 10,184 450,858 5,040 19,481 Congressional District 46
161,403 28,381 406,555 9,959 183,828 46,547 7,030 Congressional District 47
299,157 18,300 9,388 442,228 7,445 51,753 38,699 Congressional District 48
239,599 15,339 64,121 3,290 428,231 15,850 17,335 Congressional District 49
326,041 21,714 4,769 480,983 23,589 53,726 26,758 Congressional District 50
207,907 45,565 2,732 399,797 55,109 145,247 53,220 Congressional District 51
300,171 18,010 4,914 432,769 52,286 31,786 7,134 Congressional District 52
268,591 28,624 2,249 418,029 11,786 80,637 11,180 Populations Equalization
California Board of District Equalization Bd. of District 1 Total Pop. African Am. Latino Asian 1,721 1,721 1,721
Count 7,456,333 572,388 1,192,553 944,250 Sum Equalization Bd. of District 2 Total Pop. African Am. Latino Asian 1,432 1,432 1,432
Count 7,492,803 390,762 1,731,716 400,144 Sum Equalization Bd. of District 3 Total Pop. African Am. Latino Asian 1,330 1,330 1,330
Count 7,408,847 356,745 1,733,241 631,144 Sum Equalization Bd. of District 4 Pop. Total African Am. Latino Asian 1,375 1,375 1,375
Count 7,402,038 888,906 3,030,428 734,815 Sum Totals: 5,858 5,858 Count 5,858 29,760,021 2,208,801 7,687,938 2,710,353 Sum