Wilson v. Eu

• Decision Date: 27 January 1992
• Docket Number: No. S022835,S022835
• Citation: 823 P.2d 545,1 Cal.4th 707,4 Cal.Rptr.2d 379
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 823 P.2d 545 Pete WILSON, individually and as Governor, etc., Petitioner, v. March Fong EU, as Secretary of State, etc., et al., Respondents. ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Page 379

4 Cal.Rptr.2d 379

1 Cal.4th 707, 823 P.2d 545

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

No. S022835.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

Jan. 27, 1992.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Robert E. Cooper, Theodore B. Olson and Daniel M. Kolkey, Los Angeles, for petitioner.

Louise H. Renne, City Atty., Dennis Aftergut, Burk E. Delventhal and Randy Riddle, Deputy City Attys., San Francisco, DeWitt W. Clinton, County Counsel, Los Angeles, Halvor B. Melon, Deputy County Counsel, Anthony L. Miller, Richard S. Nishite and Oliver S. Cox, Sacramento, for respondents.

Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, Joseph Remcho, Robin B. Johansen, Lowell Finley, Charles C. Marson, San Francisco, Christensen, White, Miller, Fink & Jacobs, Andrew M. White, Joseph B. Marks, Los Angeles, Nielsen, Merksamer, Hodgson, Parrinello & Mueller, James R. Parrinello, Mill Valley, Marguerite Mary Leoni, San Francisco, Irell & Manella, Jonathan H. Steinberg, Donna R. Hecht, David I. Gindler, Los Angeles, Browne & Woods, Allan Browne, Benjamin D. Scheibe, Robert B. Broadbelt, Michael J. Olecki, Beverly Hills and Bion Gregory, Sacramento, for real parties in interest.

Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Manuel A. Romero, Denise M. Hulett, San Francisco, Vibiana Andrade, Los Angeles, Joaquin G. Avila, Miepitas, William R. Tamayo, Doreena P. Wong, San Francisco, Angelo N. Ancheta, Kathryn K. Imahara and Robin S. Toma, Los Angeles, as amici curiae.

LUCAS, Chief Justice.

In these mandate proceedings, we are called on to resolve the impasse created by the failure of the Legislature and Governor to adopt congressional, legislative and State Board of Equalization reapportionment plans in time for the forthcoming 1992 Primary and General Elections. (See Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 1.)

On September 23, 1991, Governor Wilson vetoed the plans submitted to him by the Legislature. On that same day, an attempted override of the vetoes failed, and the Legislature recessed for the remainder of the year. On September 25, 1991, because we lacked assurance that reapportionment plans would be validly enacted in time for the 1992 elections, this court exercised its original jurisdiction by ordering issuance of an alternative writ of mandate contemplating the drafting and adoption by this court of suitable reapportionment plans. (Wilson v. Eu (1991) 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.]" (54 Cal.3d at p. 473, 286 Cal.Rptr. 280, 816 P.2d 1306.) We made clear, however, that the Legislature and Governor were not foreclosed from enacting valid reapportionment statutes if they could succeed in doing so. As we stated, "we urge the Legislature and the Governor, in the exercise of their 'shared legislative power' [citation] to enact reapportionment plans in time for the 1992 elections, and thus to render unnecessary the use of any plans this court may adopt. [Citations.] But because the impasse may continue indefinitely, because ' "it is our duty to insure the electorate equal protection of the laws" [citation]' ..., and because California is entitled to seven additional congressional seats based on the 1990 census, we must proceed forthwith to draft such plans. [Citation.]" (Ibid.; see also id. at p. 474, 286 Cal.Rptr. 280, 816 On September 26, 1991, pursuant to the foregoing order in Wilson I (supra, 54 Cal.3d 471, 286 Cal.Rptr. 280, 816 P.2d 1306), we appointed the Honorable George A. Brown, retired Presiding 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 (hereafter Masters), and we designated Justice Brown as Presiding Master.

[823 P.2d 548] P.2d 1306 ["If at any time during these proceedings congressional and legislative reapportionment plans are validly enacted, this court will entertain an application to dismiss these proceedings."].)

Wilson I 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. (54 Cal.3d at p. 474, 286 Cal.Rptr. 280, 816 P.2d 1306.) We also called for a 30-day period of briefing and public comment following the filing of the Masters' recommendations (ibid.).

On October 23, 1991, we filed a further memorandum order approving a procedure proposed by respondent Secretary of State for the timely implementation of reapportionment plans consistent with the timetable we outlined in Wilson I, in a manner that would avoid postponing or possibly bifurcating the June 2, 1992, Primary Election. (Wilson v. Eu (1991) 54 Cal.3d 546, 548-550, 286 Cal.Rptr. 625, 817 P.2d 890 [hereafter Wilson II ].) This procedure involved an initial, "preliminary" reliance by the counties and the United States Department of Justice on the Masters' recommended but unapproved plans, and a postponement or readjustment of various election deadlines. Thus, Wilson II approved postponing commencement of the period for gathering signatures in lieu of filing fees from December 27, 1991, to the filing date of our opinion herein (id. at p. 549, 286 Cal.Rptr. 625, 817 P.2d 890), and likewise approved directing county officials that the first day for circulating "in lieu" petitions, for filing declarations of intent for legislative office, and for filing declarations of candidacy and nomination papers for legislative and congressional seats, will be February 10, 1992 (id. at p. 550, 286 Cal.Rptr. 625, 817 P.2d 890; see also Assembly v. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal.3d 638, 658, 678-679, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939 [approving similar readjustments of election deadlines and procedures]; Legislature v. Reinecke (1973) 10 Cal.3d 396, 406-407, 110 Cal.Rptr. 718, 516 P.2d 6 [same] ).

In addition, Wilson II approved the Secretary of State's proposal to "direct that nomination papers be filed by each candidate 'provisionally,' subject to the submission of sufficient signatures by March 6 [, 1992], the close of the nomination period. In addition, candidates submitting in lieu signatures will have until March 16 to make up any deficiencies arising from invalid signatures. The number of needed signatures 'would be reduced proportionately to the number of days by which the circulation period was abbreviated due to the adjustment of these dates.' " (54 Cal.3d at p. 550, 286 Cal.Rptr. 625, 817 P.2d 890.)

The Masters immediately undertook their assigned task and, on November 29, 1991, following six days of public hearings in Sacramento, San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles, they filed their comprehensive Report and Recommendations (hereafter the Report) with this court, which Report (except for appendices containing maps and census tracts) is set forth as Appendix I to this opinion. The Report includes plans for reapportioning legislative districts for both houses of the Legislature, congressional districts, and State Board of Equalization districts. (See Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 1.) These plans are set forth in Appendices One and Three to the Report which, as corrected by the Masters for clerical errors, are on file with the clerk of this court.

As we indicated in Wilson I, supra, 54 Cal.3d at page 473, 286 Cal.Rptr. 280, 816 P.2d 1306, the Masters were directed to be "guided by" various standards and criteria, including the applicable provisions of the The state constitutional standards for forming the new districts include (1) consecutively numbered single-member districts, (2) "reasonably equal" populations among districts of the same type, (3) contiguous districts, and (4) "respect" for the "geographical integrity of any city, county, or city and county, or of any geographical region" to the extent possible without violating the other standards. (Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 1, adopted in 1980.)

[823 P.2d 549] federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq.), the provisions of article XXI, section 1, of the state Constitution, and the criteria developed by an earlier panel of [1 Cal.4th 714] special masters for the reapportionment plans adopted by the court in 1973 (see Legislature v. Reinecke, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 402, 410-414, 110 Cal.Rptr. 718, 516 P.2d 6).

The criteria followed by the special masters in 1973 overlap the 1980 state constitutional standards to a large extent. We observe that none of the parties or amici curiae has suggested that any of these 1973 criteria were abrogated by the state constitutional standards. These 1973 criteria include (1) equality of population, (2) contiguity and compactness of districts, (3) respect for county and city boundaries, (4) preservation of the integrity of the state's geographical regions, (5) consideration of the "community of interests" of each area, (6) formation of state senatorial districts from adjacent assembly districts ("nesting"), and use of assembly district boundaries in drawing congressional district boundaries, and (7) reliance on the current census, and on undivided census tracts. (See Legislature v. Reinecke, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 402, 110 Cal.Rptr. 718, 516 P.2d 6.)

As the Report explains, the Masters reviewed the evidence and arguments of the parties and other interested persons presented to them. They devoted intense efforts to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act. They considered and applied the other designated criteria governing reapportionment, and excluded such political factors as the potential effects on incumbents or the major...