Cano v. Davis
| Decision Date | 12 June 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 01-08477 MMM (RCx).,CV 01-08477 MMM (RCx). |
| Citation | 211 F.Supp.2d 1208 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | Maria CANO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gray DAVIS, et al., Defendants. |
Vibiana Andrade, Thomas A. Saenz, Antonia Hernandez, Steven J. Reyes, Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, Los Angeles, CA, Denise M. Hulett, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, San Francisco, CA, Maria Blanco, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Otto I. Pena, Otto I. Pena Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Salvadoran Ass'n of Los Angeles and Luis R. Reyes.
Gail H. Morse, Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL, for Intervenors.
Louis R. Mauro, Jennifer Kathryn Rockwell, CAAG—Office of Attorney General of California Correctional Law Section, Sacramento, CA, for Gary Davis, Cruz Bustamante, and John Burton.
Bruce A. Wessel, Jonathan H. Steinberg, Elliot N. Brown, Laura W. Brill, Irell & Manella, Los Angeles, CA, Thomas A. Gauthier, Lance Herman Olson, George Waters, Olson, Hagel, Waters & Fishburn, Sacramento, CA, for John Burton.
Robin B. Johansen, Miguel Marquez, Kathleen J. Purcell, Joseph Remcho, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, San Leandro, CA, for Herb Wesson, Jr.
Holger G. Besch, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Los Angeles, CA, Andrew McBride, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington, DC, Michael A. Carvin, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Washington, DC, Charles, H. Bell, Bell McAndrews, Sacramento, CA, for Intervenor-Defendants.
Eric R. Wiesel, Donald H. Heller, Donald H. Heller Law Offices, Sacramento, CA, for James L. Brulte, Dick Anderson, Bob Margett, and California State Senate Republican Caucus.
Bienclaro M. Llaneta, Ben M. Llaneta Law Offices, San Diego, CA, for Filipino World War II Veterans Federation of San Diego County.
Wayne M. Barsky, Dohoang Thien Duong, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, CA, for Guatemalan Unity Information Agency, El Rescate, Alianza Hondureno De Los Angeles, and Public Immigrants Policy Institute of Los Angeles.
Before REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, SNYDER and MORROW, District Judges.
Plaintiffs, who are Latino voters and advocacy groups, challenge two congressional districts and one state legislative district adopted by the State of California as part of its most recent redistricting process. Plaintiffs contend that the three districts violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, under various legal theories. These theories raise challenging questions regarding the applicability of voting rights doctrines developed in a fundamentally different context than the rapidly-changing multi-racial and multi-ethnic community that is present-day Southern California. We conclude, with respect to each of the three districts at issue in this case, that the legislature permissibly exercised its broad discretion to draw district lines, and that, in doing so, it violated neither the Voting Rights Act nor the Constitution. Accordingly, we grant in full defendants' and defendants-intervenors' motions for summary judgment.
In the summer of 2001, California engaged in the decennial task of redrawing its state and federal legislative districts to account for population changes documented in the 2000 census. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 583-84, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, (1964) (requiring periodic redistricting); CAL. CONST. Art. XXI, § 1 (). As a result of California's population growth relative to that of other states, the census disclosed that the state was entitled to one additional congressional seat. Accordingly, the legislature was charged with drawing 53 congressional districts, as well as the unchanged number of State Senate and Assembly districts prescribed by state law, 40 and 80 respectively. California requires that the districts in each of these categories be compact and contiguous, that they respect as much as possible the integrity of the boundary lines of political subdivisions such as cities and counties, and that they preserve other local communities of interest. CAL. CONST. Art. XXI, § 1; Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal.4th 707, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 379, 823 P.2d 545, 552-53 (1992).
Over the course of the summer of 2001, the legislature conducted public hearings throughout the state at which various public interest groups and others articulated general concerns regarding the redistricting process, and proposed specific changes to the district lines that had been drawn after the 1990 census. Among those commenting was the highly-influential Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund ("MALDEF"), which serves as counsel to plaintiffs in this case.1 At least two of the organizational plaintiffs in this case, as well as other Latino advocacy groups, also testified at the various hearings on redistricting. On August 31, 2001, the Senate Elections and Reapportionment Committee promulgated a proposed redistricting plan for State Senate and Congressional Districts. The principal map-drawing consultant retained by the Senate was Michael Berman, a fixture in California redistricting processes and the brother of Congressman Howard Berman, an incumbent in one of the congressional districts at issue in this case. It is alleged that Michael Berman was also retained by members of the California congressional delegation, many of whom paid his organization $20,000 a person to represent their interests in the redistricting process.2
A two-day legislative hearing was held on September 4-5 in Sacramento, with video-conferencing in other sites around the state, at which the Assembly and Senate redistricting committees heard public comment on the draft plan. Latino groups, among others, testified regarding the proposed Congressional and State Senate Districts. Some groups, including the Latino advocacy groups mentioned above, suggested changes; certain of these were adopted. Both houses of the California Legislature voted to enact the second version of the plan: the Senate voted 38-2 in favor of the bill on September 12, 2001; the next day the Assembly approved it by a margin of 70-10.3 Twenty-three of the twenty-six Latino state legislators voted for the measure, including every Latino State Senator.
Governor Davis signed the redistricting plan into law on September 27, 2001. Plaintiffs filed this action several days thereafter, and this three-judge district court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). Plaintiffs are a number of Latino voters who reside in and adjacent to the districts that are challenged in the action, as well as several Latino advocacy and human service organizations. Defendants include Governor Gray Davis, Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, Secretary of State Bill Jones, Senate President John Burton, and Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson. Additionally, several parties, including the California Republican Party and the California State Senate, have intervened as defendants.4
Plaintiffs challenge the legality of three districts: Congressional District 28 ("CD 28"), which is located in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles County; Congressional District 51 ("CD 51"), the southern-most congressional district in the state, which includes portions of San Diego County and the entirety of Imperial County; and State Senate District 27 ("SD 27"), which is comprised of several communities in Southeast Los Angeles County, including parts of the City of Long Beach.
In their first amended complaint, plaintiffs advance three legal theories.5 They allege a Shaw claim: a claim that CD28 and CD 51 are racially gerrymandered districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, under the cause of action first set forth by the Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993) ("Shaw I"). They next allege that the legislature intentionally diluted the vote of Latinos in the San Fernando Valley and in San Diego County (the areas in which the two challenged congressional districts are located), in violation of both the Equal Protection Clause and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Finally, they allege that the new boundary lines of CD 28, as well as of SD 27 (located in Southeast Los Angeles County) have the effect of diluting the Latino vote in contravention of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Soon after the complaint was filed, plaintiffs applied for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"), asking that this court enjoin the use of the new district lines and postpone the March, 2002, primary election until another districting plan could be adopted. On November 1, 2001, the court heard oral argument on plaintiffs' motion, and subsequently denied the TRO application. Cano v. Davis, 191 F.Supp.2d 1135 (C.D.Cal.2001) (per curiam).
Two challenges to the state redistricting statute were filed in the California state courts. See Andal v. Davis, Sacramento Superior Court No. 01-CS-01397; Kennedy v. Davis, Santa Clara Superior Court No. CV-803679. Citing these two actions, defendants moved to defer adjudication of the case pursuant to the doctrine established in Railroad Comm'n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941). Because it was altogether speculative that the state court actions, which involved districts in Northern California, would lead to changes in the redistricting plan that would affect the districts challenged in this case, we denied the deferral motion. Cano v. Davis, 191 F.Supp.2d 1140 (C.D.Cal.2002) (per curiam). This court also decided motions asserting the legislative privilege of state legislators and their aides, filed in response to discovery demands by plaintiffs, Cano v. Davis, 193 F.Supp.2d 1177 (C.D...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perez v. Abbott
...for statutory vote dilution claims, there has been a virtual absence of intentional vote dilution litigation.Cano v. Davis, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1248-49 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citations omitted), summ aff'd, 537 U.S. 1100 (2003). The Cano court agreed with the plaintiffs in that case that "wher......
-
Session v. Perry, CIV.A.2:03-CV-354.
...denial of Equal Protection has required proof that discrimination was purposeful; differential or adverse impact alone is not sufficient. In Davis, the Supreme Court considered an employment discrimination claim brought under the Equal Protection Clause in the District of Columbia before Ti......
-
Perez v. Abbott
...for statutory vote dilution claims, there has been a virtual absence of intentional vote dilution litigation. Cano v. Davis , 211 F.Supp.2d 1208, 1248–49 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citations omitted), summ aff'd , 537 U.S. 1100, 123 S.Ct. 851, 154 L.Ed.2d 768 (2003). The Cano court agreed with the p......
-
Ga. State Conference of the NAACP v. State
... ... for a Fair & Balanced Map v. Ill. Bd. of Elections , 835 F.Supp.2d 563, 581 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (per curiam); Cano v. Davis , 211 F.Supp.2d 1208, 1249 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (per curiam) ("We agree that, where invidious intent exists in a vote dilution case, it may be ... ...
-
Monitored Disclosure: a Way to Avoid Legislative Supremacy in Redistricting Litigation
...19, at 4. 174. Id. at 3 n.7. 175. Id. at 4. 176. Id. 177. Id. 178. Id. 179. Id. at 5. The Congressman is Joe Barton. Id. 180. Id. 181. 211 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (CD. Cal. 2002), aff'd, 537 U.S. 1100 182. Motion to Prevent Disclosure, supra note 19, at 5 (quoting Brief for Bipartisan Legal Adviso......
-
A Shared Existence: the Current Compatibility of the Equal Protection Clause and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
...districting plan that divided the town of Santa Clara into two state legislative districts violated the California constitution). 278. 211 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1211-12 (CD. Cal. 279. Id. at 1211. 280. Id. See also id. at 1213 ("Plaintiffs challenge the legality of three districts: Congressiona......
-
Latinos, Anglos, voters, candidates, and voting rights.
...2003), available at http://www.indiana.edu/~iupolsci/gradcv/ wagner/web_papers_gerrymander.pdf (last accessed October 23, 2004) (2) 211 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (C.D. Cal 2002); see infra Part (3) There is a vast literature on voting rights in the context of black-white relations, a literature much......