Members of Cal. Democratic Cong. Delegation v. Eu

• Decision Date: 03 March 1992
• Docket Number: No. C-91-3383-FMS.,C-91-3383-FMS.
• Citation: 790 F. Supp. 925
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: MEMBERS OF the CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. March Fong EU, et al., Defendants. Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, on behalf of Sebastian Benavidez, et al., Intervenors.

790 F. Supp. 925

MEMBERS OF the CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. March Fong EU, et al., Defendants Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, on behalf of Sebastian Benavidez, et al., Intervenors.

No. C-91-3383-FMS.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

March 3, 1992.

Jonathan H. Steinberg, Irell & Manella, Los Angeles, Cal., Denise M. Hulett, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, San Francisco, Cal., Joaquin G. Avila, Milpitas, Cal., for plaintiffs.

Anthony L. Miller, Chief Counsel, Richard S. Nishite, Oliver S. Cox, Sacramento, Cal., for defendants.

Joseph Remcho, Remcho Johansen & Purcell, San Francisco, Cal., for Assembly of Cal. State.

Bion Gregory, Legislative Counsel, Sacramento, Cal., for Senate of Cal. State.

Robert E. Cooper, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, San Francisco, Cal., for California Governor.

Before TANG, Circuit Judge, SMITH and LEGGE, District Judges.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL

LEGGE, District Judge:

This action involves various challenges to the redistricting or reapportionment¹ of the voting districts in the State of California which has been approved by the California Supreme Court. Plaintiffs and intervenors moved in this court for a preliminary injunction to restrain implementation of that redistricting plan, and instead to compel the Secretary of State of California to implement alternate plans proposed by them.

On January 28, 1992 this court denied the motions for preliminary injunction. Because of the time urgency of advising the Secretary of State of our decision so that the statewide primary elections scheduled for June 1992 could be held, there was not then time for this court to prepare and publish an opinion. This opinion discusses the reasons for the denial of the preliminary injunctions, and further concludes that this action should be dismissed.

I.

Following the 1990 census, the State of California was mandated to adjust the boundary lines of its voting districts for state legislative representatives and for representatives to the United States Congress. U.S. Const. Article I, § 2; Cal. Const. Art. XXI, § 1. This responsibility primarily lies with the legislature and governor of the state. Assembly v. Deukmejian, 30 Cal.3d 638, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939 (1982); Legislature v. Reinecke, 6 Cal.3d 595, 99 Cal.Rptr. 481, 492 P.2d 385 (1972). However, they were unable to agree.

On September 6, 1991 Governor Pete Wilson filed a petition with the California Supreme Court, alleging the failure of the state legislative process to produce a redistricting plan following the 1990 census and requesting the California Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction. Shortly thereafter, the California Legislature presented the governor with three redistricting plans. On September 23, 1991 the governor vetoed those plans. An attempt to override the governor's vetoes failed, and the legislature recessed for the remainder of the year.

Two days later, the California Supreme Court decided to exercise its original jurisdiction; Cal. Const. Art. VI, § 10; California Education Facilities Authority v. Priest, 12 Cal.3d 593, 116 Cal.Rptr. 361, 526 P.2d 513 (1974); and issued a writ of mandate compelling the preparation of a redistricting plan. Wilson v. Eu, 54 Cal.3d 471, 286 Cal.Rptr. 280, 816 P.2d 1306 (1991). The Supreme Court appointed three special masters to hold public hearings, take evidence, hear arguments, and recommend a redistricting plan to that court. The California Supreme Court directed that the masters be guided by various standards, including the federal Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1971, et seq., the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and state criteria developed in prior litigation. See Legislature of California v. Reinecke, 10 Cal.3d 396, 110 Cal. Rptr. 718, 516 P.2d 6 (1973). The masters undertook their assigned tasks. They retained staff assistance, held public hearings, and accepted evidence and arguments from interested parties. On November 29, 1991 they filed their report and recommendations with the California Supreme Court. Their report included plans for redistricting the legislative districts for both houses of the state legislature and for the congressional districts.

Following the presentation of their report and plans, the California Supreme Court entertained further briefing and arguments from interested parties. On January 27, 1992 the California Supreme Court issued its opinion, which accepted and adopted the plans proposed by the masters, with certain modifications not relevant here. Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal. 4th 707, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 379, 823 P.2d 545 (1992).

II.

The action in this court was commenced on September 30, 1991, while the proceeding before the California Supreme Court was pending.

A.

The interested parties are the following:

Plaintiffs are members of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation; that is, members of the House of Representatives who belong to the Democratic Party and who are currently elected from districts in California. The delegation's challenge to the redistricting plans is directed at certain of the congressional districts, alleging that they violate the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Several representatives have withdrawn as plaintiffs, but a substantial number remain.

The first named defendant is March Fong Eu, the Secretary of State of California. Secretary Eu's presence in the case is formalistic, in that she is named as a defendant only because it is her responsibility to apply the districts which are adopted and to conduct the elections using those districts.

The principal defendant, who has actively opposed the injunctions and moved to dismiss the case, is Pete Wilson, the Governor of the State of California. The governor has also moved to strike certain of plaintiffs' filings from the record; in view of our decision to dismiss the case, consideration of that motion is not necessary.

The Assembly and the Senate of the California State Legislature are also named as defendants. They have appeared, not contesting the congressional districts, but instead challenging the new state assembly and state senate districts.

A complaint in intervention was filed by certain California citizens represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The intervenors joined with plaintiffs in challenging certain congressional districts, and also challenged certain state assembly and state senate districts. In addition to basing their challenge on the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, intervenors also allege that the 1990 census undercounted the Latino population of California. This court granted their motion to intervene, but limited the intervention to the issue raised by plaintiffs; that is, the congressional districts. The court also declined to hear the intervenors' challenge based on alleged undercounting in the 1990 census, because this court concludes that constitutional and Voting Rights Act challenges to redistricting must be based upon the reported census figures. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 731-32, 735-38, 751, 103 S.Ct. 2653, 2658-59, 2660-62, 2670, 77 L.Ed.2d 133 (1983); McNeil v. Springfield Park Dist., 851 F.2d 937, 946 (7th Cir. 1988); Skorepa v. City of Chula Vista, 723 F.Supp. 1384, 1390 (S.D.Cal.1989). Intervenors have moved to reconsider the limited nature of the court's grant of intervention. But in view of our conclusion that the action should be dismissed, that motion for reconsideration need not be discussed.

An application was made by attorneys Messrs. Cochran and Dickerson for leave to file an amicus curiae brief on behalf of African-American citizens, contending that the new congressional districts undermine the representation of African Americans. Again, because of this court's conclusion that the case should be dismissed, the request for amicus curiae standing need not be discussed.

B.

Because the complaint challenges the constitutionality of the redistricted congressional districts, this three judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). This court has the power to pass upon all questions raised by the record, including questions of jurisdiction. See Bartley v. Finch, 311 F.Supp. 876, 878 (E.D.Ky.1970), aff'd 404 U.S. 980, 92 S.Ct. 442, 30 L.Ed.2d 364 (1971). The court is directed to proceed as in any case before a single district court judge. The case may be decided on dispositive motions or after a full trial. See, e.g., Badham v. Eu, 694 F.Supp. 664 (N.D.Cal.1988) (motion to dismiss granted), aff'd 488 U.S. 1024, 109 S.Ct. 829, 102 L.Ed.2d 962 (1989); Gingles v. Edmisten, 590 F.Supp. 345 (E.D.N.C. 1984) (bench trial held), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986).

C.

After this court was convened and various motions were made, we recognized the necessity for making rapid decisions on the issues raised. Speed was important because the California Secretary of State advised that the June 1992 elections could not be held unless all judicial decisions on redistricting were completed by the end of January. We therefore decided not to await the decision of the California Supreme Court before analyzing the issues in this case, but rather to convene a hearing to schedule further proceedings. On December 13, 1991 we agreed to issue no rulings pending a decision by the California Supreme Court; however, that delay was expressly not a decision that this court would abstain from proceeding. Schedules for filing of the record and authorities were set, and generally met by the interested parties. We received copies of the masters' proposed plans and copies of all filings made by the parties with the California Supreme Court. An oral argument on all of the issues was held on January 21, 1992. Being fully advised by the parties on the issues and authorities in the case, all judges of ...