Yorty v. Anderson
| Citation | 60 Cal.2d 312,384 P.2d 417,33 Cal.Rptr. 97 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Decision Date | 20 August 1963 |
| Parties | , 384 P.2d 417 Samuel William YORTY et al., Petitioners, v. Glenn M. ANDERSON, as Lieutenant Governor, et al., Respondents. Sac. 7455. |
Roger Arnebergh, City Atty., Bourke Jones and James A. Doherty, Asst. City Attys., for petitioners.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Corker and Charles A. Barrett, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Sanford N. Gruskin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents.
A. C. Morrison, J. Gould, Alan W. Strong, Edward F. Nowak and Herman F. Selvin, Los Angeles, as amici curiae on behalf of respondents.
Petitioners, who are taxpayers and qualified voters residing in Los Angeles County, commenced this original proceeding in mandamus to compel respondents to convene as the members of the Reapportionment Commission and reapportion the state senatorial districts. Relying upon cases in other jurisdictions stemming from the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663, they assert that section 6 of article IV of the California Constitution, insofar as it relates to apportionment of senatorial districts, invidiously discriminates against voters living in heavily populated counties and violates the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution. We have concluded that, whether or not section 6 is invalid, respondents do not have power to reapportion the districts at the present time.
From 1879 to 1926 section 6 provided for the apportionment of both senatorial and assembly districts on the basis of population, and there was no provision for a reapportionment commission. In 1926 the section was amended by an initiative measure and now reads as follows:
(Italics added.) 1
In 1928 a statute apportioning senatorial districts in accordance with the new system was approved by the voters on referendum. (Stats. 1927, ch. 856, p. 1757; Stats. 1929, p. xciii.) In the year following each decennial census, including 1961, the Legislature has reapportioned the senatorial districts, and at present there are 27 one-county districts, 8 two-county districts, and 5 three-county districts. (Elec.Code, § 30100; former § 480 of the Gov.Code; former Pol. Code, § 78 (reenacted as § 80 in 1941).)
The portions of section 6 which petitioners assert to be invalid are those which read: '(I)n the formation of senatorial districts no county, or city and county, shall be divided * * *; but in the formation of senatorial districts no county or city and county shall contain more than one senatorial district, and the counties of small population shall be grouped in districts of not to exceed three counties in any one senatorial district * * *.' In seeking relief against the members of the Reapportionment Commission petitioners contend that these provisions may be severed from the remainder of section 6 and that after such severance the language providing for the existence and functions of the commission will remain in effect and the commission will have the duty to reapportion senatorial districts in a manner conforming with the standards which were prescribed by the section prior to the 1926 amendment. 2
Under section 6 of article IV the power of the commission to act is expressly conditioned upon the failure of the Legislature to reapportion the assembly and senatorial districts at the first regular session following each decennial federal census. The reapportionment of the senatorial districts made by the Legislature in 1961 occurred at the first regular session after the 1960 federal census. (Stats.1961, chs. 23, 1235, pp. 879-880, 2983.) If, on the one hand, this reapportionment is valid, the commission of course has no present power to act with respect to senatorial districts. On the other hand, if we assume, as petitioners assert and as indeed they must establish in order to prevail in this proceeding, that the portion of section 6 complained of here is both invalid and severable from the provision relating to the commission, the Legislature nevertheless has acted to reapportion the senatorial districts and the requisite condition to exercise of the commission's power has thus not been satisfied.
Section 6 without doubt vests in the Legislature, not the commission, the primary duty and power to reapportion, and the obvious purpose of the provision establishing the commission is to provide an alternative method of reapportionment to be used only in the event of legislative inaction. Here the Legislature did not fail to act; to the contrary, it enacted a complete reapportionment plan, and, in the event that this plan is held invalid by judicial decision, the Legislature, under a reasonable construction of section 6, is entitled to an opportunity to adopt a plan that will meet the requirements of the federal Constitution. Although there are broad statements in old cases to the effect that an unconstitutional statute is not a law, confers no rights, and is as inoperative as though it had never been passed (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 30 L.Ed. 178; Brandenstein v. Hoke, 101 Cal. 131, 134-135, 35 P. 562), unqualified statements of this type have been criticized in later decisions (see, e. g., Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 374, 60 S.Ct. 317, 84 L.Ed. 329; 3 Witkin, Summary of Cal.Law (7th ed. 1960) pp. 1820-1821) and they are not meaningful where, as here, the question before the court is purely one regarding the proper construction of the terms of a provision of law.
Our conclusion that the commission has no present power to act is in accord with an opinion of the Legislative Counsel relating to the analogous situation which would arise if a reapportionment by the Legislature of assembly districts were nullified on referendum. (Legislative Counsel's Opinion No. 5463, Dec. 12, 1960, as reported in Assembly Interim Comm.Rep. 1959-1961, vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 100-101.) In concluding that a new reapportionment by the Legislature would be proper under section 6, the Legislative Counsel stated with respect to the power of the commission: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Serrano v. Priest
... ... (See Yorty v. Anderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 312, 317--318, 33 Cal.Rptr. 97, 384 P.2d 417, and cases there cited; cf. D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 ... ...
-
Legislature v. Deukmejian
...once-a-decade principle as a matter of constitutional interpretation. There, pursuant to More recently, in Yorty v. Anderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 312, 33 Cal.Rptr. 97, 384 P.2d 417, this court again recognized the prohibition, announced in Wheeler and Dowell, against successive district changes......
-
Silver v. Jordan
...INITIATED IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT BY APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS, WHICH WERE ALL DENIED In Yorty v. Anderson, 60 Cal.2d 312, 33 Cal.Rptr. 97, 384 P.2d 417 (1963); Yorty v. Jordan, Sac. No. 7543 (appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, October 1964 Term, Case No. 250, and dismiss......
-
Walsh v. Board of Administration
...by the 1926 measure was followed in 1928 and thence after each decennial federal census through 1961. (See Yorty v. Anderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 312, 314, 33 Cal.Rptr. 97, 384 P.2d 417.) The geographical basis for Senate apportionment and, to a lesser but nonetheless significant extent, the mo......