CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, POMONA …



A Brief History of Redistricting in California, 1964 — 2005

The modern era of redistricting in California dates from 1964, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that boundaries of state legislative districts (Reynolds v. Sims) and of districts in a state’s delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives (Wesberry v. Sanders) had to abide by a rule of “one person, one vote.” The decisions banned “malapportionment” (literally, “bad apportionment”), that is, districts with unequal population sizes. Malapportionment had usually worked to the disadvantage of urban and suburban residents, who had fewer representatives per capita than those in rural areas. Probably nowhere was this truer than in the California senate. The state constitution had provided that none of California’s 58 counties could have more than one seat in the senate. This meant that Los Angeles County, which at the time was home to roughly a third of the state’s residents, controlled only 2.5 percent of the senate. Though much less severely malapportioned, the districts of the state assembly also fell short of the Supreme Court’s standard.

This essay summarizes the principle milestones in redistricting since these decisions.

1966 In response to the Supreme Court’s mandate, the state legislature (controlled by Democrats) passes, and Democratic Governor Pat Brown signs, legislation adopting new districting plans for the state assembly and senate.

1967 New plan also adopted for California’s congressional districts.

1971 Following the 1970 census, the Democratic state legislature and Republican Governor Ronald Reagan deadlock over reapportionment. A redistricting commission had been created in 1926 (and modified in 1942) to resolve just this sort of problem. Before it can convene, however, the state supreme court invalidates the section of the state constitution establishing it. The court ends up creating its own redistricting plans. An interesting feature of the court’s plans is the “nesting” of two assembly districts within each state senate district.

1981 Following 1980 census, reapportionment plans are passed by Democratic controlled state legislature and signed into law by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.

1982 Republicans resort to little-used petition referendums to put plans on June primary ballot. Voters approve these referendums (i.e., vote to throw out the plans). State Supreme Court (citing shortness of time) allows legislature's plan to be used for 1982 elections. In November general election, voters defeat Proposition 14, an initiative sponsored by the Republican Party and Common Cause which would have created a 10 member reapportionment commission. Chair and three others would have been chosen by a 2/3 vote of a panel of seven appellate court justices chosen by seniority, except that no more than four could have been registered with any one party at the time of their appointment to the appellate court. Other (partisan) members would have been appointed by Democratic and Republican State Central Committee Chairs, and Democratic and Republican Senate and Assembly caucuses. Commission plans would have required approval by seven members, including at least one partisan member from each party.

1983 Legislature passes new districting plans (differing relatively little from those rejected in 1982), which are signed into law by outgoing Governor Brown. State Supreme Court disqualifies statute initiative sponsored by Republican Assemblyman Don Sebastiani, an alternative set of redistricting plans that had been scheduled for a vote at a special election in December. Court holds that state constitution permits only one valid redistricting per decade.

1984 In November general election, voters reject Proposition 39, an initiative sponsored by Republican Governor George Deukmejian, which would have created a reapportionment commission with eight voting members chosen at lot from retired appellate court justices, four of whom had been appointed to the bench by Republican governors, and four by Democratic governors. Plans would have required five votes. In case of a 4-4 tie, a revote would have been taken with one member, chosen at lot, required to abstain.

1989 U.S. Supreme Court rejects Republican lawsuit seeking invalidation of 1983 reapportionment. In Davis v. Bandemer (1986) Court had raised Republican hopes by ruling that partisan gerrymandering was a justiciable issue.

1990 In June primary, voters reject two Republican-sponsored reapportionment initiatives. Proposition 118 would have required a 2/3 vote of both Senate and Assembly for approval of redistricting plans. Proposition 119, also sponsored by the League of Women Voters, would have created a twelve-member commission appointed by retired appellate court justices. Under Proposition 119, anyone would have been able to submit a plan to the commission, which would choose the plan that best implemented criteria contained in the initiative.

1991 As had happened two decades earlier, a legislature controlled by the Democrats and a Republican governor (Pete Wilson) are unable to agree on redistricting plans following the new census. The State Supreme Court again adopts its own plans. Like the court-directed plans of the 1970s, assembly districts are nested within state senate districts.

1999 State Supreme Court orders removed from the March 2000 ballot a measure that would have given the court the power to draw district lines. Because the measure would also have reduced legislators’ salaries and benefits, the court held it to be in violation of the provision of the state constitution requiring that initiatives be limited to a “single subject.”

2001 Fearing a repeat of 1982, when Republicans successfully resorted to the petition referendum, legislative Democrats cut a deal with Republicans to produce a bi-partisan gerrymander protecting almost all incumbents in both parties. The results of these arrangements 1) all but guaranteed continuing Democratic party control of the state legislature at least until the 2012 elections and 2) left very few competitive seats in either the state legislature or in California’s congressional delegation.

2005 In a November special election, voters defeat Proposition 77, an initiative backed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, which would have created a redistricting commission composed of retired federal and/or state judges.

For more information, see:

Brown, Louis. “Reapportionment in California: Where We’ve Been; Where We Go from Here.” Capital Center for Government Law and Politics. 2000. Accessed 28 June, 2006. .

Heslop, Alan, “ Redistricting Reform in California.” Claremont Colleges Digital Library. n.d. Accessed 28 June, 2006. .

Last revised: August 1, 2006

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download