Wilson v. Eu

• Decision Date: 25 September 1991
• Docket Number: No. S022835,S022835
• Citation: 54 Cal.3d 471,286 Cal.Rptr. 280,816 P.2d 1306
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 816 P.2d 1306 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 280

286 Cal.Rptr. 280

54 Cal.3d 471, 816 P.2d 1306

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.

Sept. 25, 1991.

[54 Cal.3d 472] Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Robert E. Cooper, Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D.C., 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:

In these mandate proceedings, we are called on to resolve the impasse created by the failure of the Legislature to pass legislative and congressional reapportionment bills acceptable to the Governor in time for the forthcoming 1992 primary and general elections. (See Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 1.)

On September 23, 1991, Governor Wilson exercised his authority to veto the legislative plans submitted to him. On that same day, an attempted override of the veto failed, and the Legislature adjourned for the remainder of the year. Because we lack assurance that reapportionment plans will be validly enacted in time for the 1992 elections, it is now incumbent on this court to exercise its original jurisdiction and arrange for the drafting and adoption of appropriate reapportionment plans.

As we have repeatedly emphasized in past cases, "reapportionment is primarily a matter for the legislative branch of the government to resolve. [Citations.]" (Legislature v. Reinecke (1972) 6 Cal.3d 595, 598, 99 Cal.Rptr. 481, 492 P.2d 385 [hereafter Reinecke I ].) Accordingly, we urge the Legislature and the Governor, in the exercise of their "shared legislative power" (ibid.) to enact reapportionment plans in time for the 1992 elections, and thus to render unnecessary the use of any plans this court may adopt. (See ibid.; see also Legislature v. Reinecke (1972) 7 Cal.3d 92, 93, 101 Cal.Rptr. 552, 496 P.2d 464 [Reinecke II ].) But because the impasse may continue indefinitely, because " 'it is our duty to insure the electorate equal protection of the laws' [citation]" (ibid.), and because California is entitled to seven additional congressional seats based on the 1990 census, we must proceed forthwith to draft such plans. (See also Legislature v. Reinecke (1973) 10 Cal.3d 396, 399, fn. 1, 110 Cal.Rptr. 718, 516 P.2d 6 [Reinecke IV ] [necessity to act to fulfill equal protection guarantees and assure the right to equal participation in the congressional elections].)

In light of the acknowledged necessity of affording all interested parties an opportunity to be heard in such matters, it is 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. (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 and criteria developed by an earlier panel of Masters for the reapportionment plans adopted by this court in 1973 (see Reinecke IV, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 402, 410-414, 110 Cal.Rptr. 718, 516 P.2d 6), as well as by the provisions of article XXI, section 1, of the state Constitution. In addition, the Masters will consider the application of federal law, including the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1971 et seq.).

Following the hearings, the Masters will file their report and recommendations for possible adoption of reapportionment plans which will provide for 52 single member congressional districts, 40 single member Senate districts, 80 single member Assembly districts, and 4 Board of Equalization Districts. The Masters shall set forth the criteria underlying the plans they recommend for adoption and the reasons for their recommendations.

Subject to this court's approval, the...