Legislature v. Reinecke
| Decision Date | 23 March 1973 |
| Citation | 507 P.2d 626,107 Cal.Rptr. 18,9 Cal.3d 166 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 507 P.2d 626 LEGISLATURE OF the STATE of California et al., Petitioners, v. Ed REINECKE, as Lieutenant Governor, etc., et al., Respondents. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., as Secretary of State, etc., Petitioner, v. Ronald REAGAN, as Governor, etc., Respondent. THIRTY TWO MEMBERS OF the UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Petitioners, v. Ronald REAGAN, as Governor, etc., et al., Respondents. Sac. 7917, 7919 and 7923. In Bank |
In these cases we retained jurisdiction to draft new legislative and congressional reapportionment plans for the elections of 1974 through 1980 in the event that the Legislature did not enact valid reapportionment statutes in 1972. (Legislature v. Reinecke (1972) 6 Cal.3d 595, 604, 99 Cal.Rptr. 481, 492 P.2d 385, as modified (1972) 7 Cal.3d 92, 93, 101 Cal.Rptr. 552, 496 P.2d 464.) Since the Legislature did not enact such statutes in 1972 and since we lack any assurance that the Legislature will enact reapportionment measures in time for the 1974 elections, it is now incumbent upon us to exercise our retained jurisdiction.
In our opinion we pointed out that reapportionment (6 Cal.3d at pp. 601--602, 99 Cal.Rptr. at 485, 492 P.2d at 389.)
In accordance with the foregoing views we deem it appropriate to appointthree Special Masters and shall do so as soon as they have been selected.
The Masters shall hold public hearings to permit the presentation of evidence and argument with respect to the possible criteria of reapportionment and of proposed plans to carry out such criteria.
Following such hearings the Masters shall recommend to the court for possible adoption reapportionment plans which shall provide for 43 single member congressional districts, 40 single member Senate districts, and 80 single member Assembly districts. The Masters shall set forth the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castorena v. City of Los Angeles
...its enforcement.' (Gowanlock v. Turner, 42 Cal.2d 296, 301, 267 P.2d 310, 312.) When the Supreme Court in Legislature v. Reinecke, 9 Cal.3d 166, 167, 107 Cal.Rptr. 18, 507 P.2d 626, gave the State Legislature one last chance to enact 'valid reapportionment measures,' it was years past the c......
-
Vandermost v. Bowen
...measures are enacted the court will entertain an application to dismiss these proceedings.’ ( Legislature v. Reinicke [ Reinecke ] (1973) 9 Cal.3d 166, 168 [107 Cal.Rptr. 18, 507 P.2d 626].)” ( Ibid.) Although Legislature v. Reinicke did not present the same issues we face here, the case il......
-
Wilson v. Eu
...presentation of evidence and argument with respect to proposed plans of reapportionment. (See Legislature v. Reinecke (1973) 9 Cal.3d 166, 167, 107 Cal.Rptr. 18, 507 P.2d 626 [Reinecke III.] ) We will expeditiously select and appoint these Masters, and they will be guided by the procedures ......
-
Assembly v. Deukmejian
...Cal.Rptr. 481, 492 P.2d 385; Legislature v. Reinecke (1972) 7 Cal.3d 92, 101 Cal.Rptr. 552, 496 P.2d 464; Legislature v. Reinecke (1973) 9 Cal.3d 166, 107 Cal.Rptr. 18, 507 P.2d 626; Legislature v. Reinecke, supra, 10 Cal.3d 396, 110 Cal.Rptr. 718, 516 P.2d 6.) Court battles over reapportio......