Legislature v. Reinecke

• Decision Date: 28 November 1973
• Parties: , 516 P.2d 6 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.
• Court: California Supreme Court

Page 718

110 Cal.Rptr. 718

10 Cal.3d 396, 516 P.2d 6

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.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

Nov. 28, 1973.

George H. Murphy, Legislative Counsel, Clinton J. deWitt, Deputy Legislative Counsel, Sacramento, and Herman F. Selvin, Beverly Hills, for petitioners in No. 7917.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Sacramento, Daniel Hays Lowenstein, Modesto, and Philip Neumark, San Francisco, for petitioner in No. 7919 and for respondent Secretary of State in Nos. 7917 and 7923.

Wyman, Bautzer, Rothman & Kuckel, Thomas H. Kuchel and Frank Rothman, Beverly Hills, for petitioners in No. 7923.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Robert Burton, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. M. Sanderson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent in No. 7919 and for certain respondents in Nos. 7917 and 7923.

John V. Diepenbrock, Sacramento, for respondent Lieutenant Governor.

Robert S. Daggett, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, Richards, Watson & Dreyfuss, Glenn R. Watson, Los Angeles, Robert N. Joehnck, Halley & Cornell, James W. Halley, San Francisco, David J. Levy, City Atty. (Pinole and Concord), James P. O'Drain, City Atty. (Richmond), Samuel V. McGrath, Deputy City Atty., LaFollette, Johnson, Horgan & Robinson, James Dexter Clark, Los Angeles, Chinello, Chinello & Maddy, Kenneth L. Maddy, Fresno, Frank J. Pagliaro, Jr., Seth M. Hufstedler, Los Angeles, John L. Burton, Sacramento, Putnam Livermore, San Francisco, Tinning & Delap, Austin R. Gibbons, Walnut Creek, David E. Schricker, City Atty. (Redwood City), John J. Gottes, City Atty. (South Gate), John Philip Coghlan, John D. Maharg, County Counsel (Los Angeles), Edward H. Gaylord, Asst. County Counsel, Ray T. Sullivan, Jr., County Counsel (Riverside), Richard W. Dickenson, County Counsel (San Joaquin), Monroe N. Langdon, City Atty. (Stockton), Paul F. Mordy, Asst. City Atty., Theodore R. Bresler, Deputy City Atty., Keith C. Sorenson, Dist. Atty. (San Mateo), and James M. Parmelee, Deputy City Atty., James M. Himmel, Millbrae, Cruz Reynoso, Peter Schilla, Gilroy, Peter H. Weiner, Berkeley, Lucy K. McCabe, San Francisco, Stanley Levy, Beverly Hills, Bruce Warner, Michael D. Saphier, Los Angeles, Mario Obledo, San Francisco, Herman Sillas, Jr., Los Angeles, Joe Ortega, Los Angeles, Roberto Rabago, San Jose, Armand Derfner, Washington, D.C., Royal M. Sorensen, City Atty. (Downey), Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Loren Miller, Jr., Dion G. Morrow, Los Angeles, William T. Bagley, San Rafael, Arthur V. Azevedo, Modesto, Gant & Asaro, San Diego, Steven R. Jones, San Diego, John J. Miller, Newport Beach, Nathaniel S. Colley, Sacramento, Paul N. McCloskey, Jr., Palo Alto, Gerald J. Lewis, City Atty. (Coronado), Robert W. Naylor, San Francisco, Erwin, Anderholt & Scherotter, J. John Anderholt, Indio, Albert E. Polonsky, Daly City, Dawley, George & Holt, Berkeley, John George, Berkeley, Michael J. Halliwell, James P. Botz, County Counsel (Sonoma), Paul T. Bannai, Assemblyman, Sacramento, Joseph W. Rainville, City Atty. (Glendale), Peter C. Wright, Deputy City Atty., Reid, Babbage & Coil, John D. Babbage, Riverside, James H. Harmon, County Counsel (Imperial), Byrd, Sturdevant, Nassif, McDaniel & Pinney, William WRIGHT, Chief Justice.

Byrd, Charles F. Sturdevant, Jr., El Centro, George N. Zenovich, Fresno, John W. Holmdahl, Oakland, Milton Marks, Lawrence E. Walsh, George W. Wakefield, Los Angeles, Bernhard O'Connor, Frank Lanterman, John L. E. Collier, Mike D. Antonovich, Victor Veysey, Brawley, Daniel V. Blackstock, Chico, Richard Wittenberg, Ignazio A. Vella, Henry J. Riboni, Gregory Jones, Jr., John A. Van Ryn, San Maria, Stephen Reinhardt and Rudolph Diaz, Los Angeles, on behalf of other interested parties.

In these mandate proceedings we are called upon to resolve the impasse created by the continuing failure of the Legislature to pass legislative and congressional reapportionment bills acceptable to the Governor. ¹

Our first opinion herein was filed on January 18, 1972, when we adopted temporary apportionment plans for the 1972 elections. We concluded that the congressional districts set forth in Assembly Bill No. 16, 1971 First Extraordinary Session, and the existing statutes apportioning the Legislature should be in effect for the 1972 elections. We retained jurisdiction to draft new reapportionment plans for the elections of 1974 through 1980 in the event the Legislature did not enact valid legislative and congressional reapportionment statutes by the close of its 1972 regular session. (Legislature v. Reinecke (1972) 6 Cal.3d 595, 603--604, 99 Cal.Rptr. 481, 492 P.2d 385.)

On May 10, 1972, at the request of the Senate of the State of California, we postponed the time for further court action, stating that 'we will not exercise our retained jurisdiction herein if the Legislature, in 1972, enacts valid legislative and congressional reapportionment statutes either during its current regular session or at a special session called for that purpose.' (Legislature v. Reinecke (1972) 7 Cal.3d 92, 93, 101 Cal.Rptr. 552, 553, 496 P.2d 464, 465.)

The Legislature did not enact reapportionment statutes in 1972 and we were therefore again faced with the necessity of judicial action. On March 23, 1973, we announced our intention to appoint three Special Masters to 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, to recommend to the court reapportionment plans for possible adoption, and to set forth the criteria underlying the recommended plans and the reasons for the recommendations. We made clear, however, that the Legislature was not foreclosed from enacting reapportionment statutes if it could succeed in doing so. We stated that 'If at any time during the proceedings contemplated by this order valid congressional and legislative On May 1, 1973, we appointed the Honorable Martin J. Coughlin, retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, the Honorable Harold F. Collins, retired Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and the Honorable Alvin E. Weinberger, retired Judge of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, as Special Masters, and we designated Justice Coughlin as Presiding Master. In accord with our order of March 23, 1973, we directed the Masters to present their recommendations to the court not later than August 31, 1973.

reapportionment measures are enacted the court will entertain an application to dismiss these proceedings.' (Legislature v. Reinecke (1973) 9 Cal.3d 166, 168, 107 Cal.Rptr. 18, 20, 507 P.2d 626, 628.)

The Masters immediately undertook the task assigned to them, and on August 31 they filed their Report and Recommendations (hereinafter Report) with the court. During the course of the Masters' hearings the Legislature passed, but the Governor vetoed, Senate Bill 195, which contained congressional and legislative reapportionment plans. Since the Legislature has recessed for the year, it is now clear that the court has no alternative but to order its own reapportionment plans into effect.

With minor exceptions in senate district numbering (see footnote 2, infra), we accept and adopt the reapportionment plans recommended to us by the Special Masters. They are set forth in Appendix A to the Report, which, as corrected by the Masters for clerical errors, is on file with the Clerk of the court. In the Report the Masters reviewed the evidence and arguments of the parties and other interested persons presented to them. They listed the criteria they deemed appropriate to govern reapportionment and the reasons underlying the selection of those criteria. They explained in detail why they could not recommend to the court any of the reapportionment plans presented to them and therefore concluded that they should formulate their own plans in accordance with the recommended criteria. Finally they described the method by which they drafted their plans, set forth to the extent feasible specific reasons underlying specific choices of district lines, and translated their conclusions into legal descriptions of legislative and congressional districts. The Report speaks for itself and follows as an appendix to this opinion. Accordingly, we will attempt to avoid as much as possible merely repeating what it contains.

After the Report was presented to the court, various parties and amici curiae filed briefs, and numerous cities, counties, groups, organizations, and individuals sent communications to the court objecting to or supporting the Masters' plans in whole or in part. Although some objection has been voiced to the Masters' conclusion that they should formulate their own reapportionment plans for recommendation to the court, we are fully persuaded by their Report (pp. 14--21) that they correctly so concluded. In so stating we wish to make clear that we in no way question the motives of the Legislature or any of its members in passing Senate Bill 195. We record only our agreement with the Masters that there are shortcomings in the reapportionment plans contained in that bill that preclude our adoption of them as court plans. We therefore now turn to a review of the Masters' plans.

The Masters adopted seven criteria which they used in formulating their plans. (Report, pp. 7--13.) They may be summarized as follows: (1) The districts in each plan should be equal in population, with strict equality in the case of congressional districts and reasonable equality in the case of legislative districts. (2) The...