Wilson v. Eu, S022835

• Decision Date: 23 October 1991
• Docket Number: No. S022835,S022835
• Citation: 286 Cal.Rptr. 625,817 P.2d 890,54 Cal.3d 546
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 817 P.2d 890 Pete WILSON, individually and as Governor of the State of California, Petitioner, v. March Fong EU, Secretary of State of the State of California, etc., et al., Respondents; ASSEMBLY OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Page 625

286 Cal.Rptr. 625

54 Cal.3d 546, 817 P.2d 890

Pete WILSON, individually and as Governor of the State of California, Petitioner, v. March Fong EU, Secretary of State of the State of California, etc., et al., Respondents ASSEMBLY OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Real Parties in Interest.

No. S022835.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

Oct. 23, 1991.

[817 P.2d 891] [54 Cal.3d 547] Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Robert E. Cooper, Theodore B. Olson and Daniel M. Kolkey, Los Angeles, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondents.

Browne & Woods, Allan Browne, Benjamin D. Scheibe, Robert B. Broadbelt, Michael J. Olecki, Beverly Hills, Bion Gregory, Sacramento, Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, Joseph Remcho, Robin B. Johansen and Charles C. Marson, San Francisco, for real parties in interest.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

THE COURT:

On September 25, 1991, this court exercised its original jurisdiction by ordering issuance of an alternative writ of mandate contemplating the drafting and adoption by this court of reapportionment plans for the state's legislative, congressional and Board of Equalization districts. (Wilson v. Eu, 54 Cal.3d 471, 286 Cal.Rptr. 280, 816 P.2d 1306 (hereafter Wilson I ).

In Wilson I, we indicated it was "appropriate that we appoint three Special Masters to hold public hearings to permit the presentation of evidence and argument with respect to proposed plans of reapportionment. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 473, 286 Cal.Rptr. 280, 816 P.2d 1306.) On September 26, pursuant to the foregoing order, we appointed the Honorable George A. Brown, retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, the Honorable Rafael H. Galceran, retired Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and the Honorable Thomas Kongsgaard, retired Judge of the Napa County Superior Court, as Special Masters on Reapportionment, and we designated Justice Brown as Presiding Master.

In Wilson I, we directed the Masters to commence public hearings within 30 days of their appointment, and to present their recommendations to this court no later than November 29, 1991. (Id. at p. 474, 286 Cal.Rptr. 280, 816 P.2d 1306.) The Masters will hold such public hearings throughout the state during the period from October 24 to November 1. In Wilson I, we also called for a 30-day period of briefing and public comment following the filing of the Masters' recommendations (ibid.), and we presently contemplate oral arguments in this court during the week of January 6, 1992.

On October 9, respondent March Fong Eu, Secretary of State (hereafter Secretary), filed her answer to the petition for mandate, accompanied by supporting points and authorities and declarations. Among other matters, the Secretary proposes to this court a procedure for implementing plans of reapportionment at a time and in a manner which would avoid postponing or bifurcating the June 2, 1992, primary election. The Secretary indicates that delaying or splitting the June primary election could cost the state $40 million, "for which no appropriation has been made." (See also Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 658, fn. 15, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939 [rejecting bifurcated primary].)

The Secretary observes that preparing for elections is a complex and "sequential" process, requiring various tasks be performed before others may begin, including identifying the various district boundaries, developing county election precincts, assigning such districts to all registered voters, designing ballot styles, printing ballots, providing polling places, and training precinct workers. Early delays in one function can impact all other functions. As the Secretary points out, the need to know precise district boundaries "is at the front end of the process...."

The Secretary proposes the following procedure for the timely implementation of reapportionment plans consistent with the timetable we outlined in Wilson I. As will appear, her proposal involves an initial, "preliminary," reliance by the counties and others on the Masters' recommended but unapproved plans, and assumes we will ultimately approve those plans with only minor changes. We set forth the essential points of her proposal as follows:

1. Masters' plans immediately available to counties--The Secretary asks that we make the Masters' recommended plans available to county election officials as soon as available (on or before November 29), "in a computer-readable electronic medium with supporting maps and hard copy." We accept this proposal. Wilson I contemplates that once filed with us, the Masters' plans will become available for inspection by any interested persons. (See 54 Cal.3d at p. 474, 286 Cal.Rptr. 280, 816 P.2d...