TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

State of California 

ROB BONTA 

Attorney General 

_______________ 

: 

OPINION : No. 22-501 

: 

of : July 20, 2022 

: 

ROB BONTA : 

Attorney General : 

: 

LAWRENCE M. DANIELS : 

Deputy Attorney General : 

The HONORABLE THOMAS J. UMBERG, DAVE MIN, and JOSH NEWMAN, 

STATE SENATORS; and the HONORABLE COTTIE PETRIE-NORRIS, TOM DALY, 

and SHARON QUIRK-SILVA, ASSEMBLY MEMBERS, have requested an opinion on 

a question relating to representation by county supervisors after redistricting. 

QUESTION PRESENTED AND CONCLUSION 

May the Orange County Board of Supervisors enact new supervisorial district 

boundaries that become effective before the next regularly scheduled election, such that 

supervisors are assigned to represent different constituents than those who elected them? 

For election-related purposes, the Elections Code provides that the county’s 

supervisorial district boundaries do not change after redistricting until the next regularly 

scheduled supervisorial election for that district. Until then, a supervisor remains 

electorally accountable to constituents in the district that elected that supervisor, and the 

board of supervisors may not prohibit a supervisor from representing those constituents. 

Nonetheless, the board of supervisors may direct a supervisor to also represent 

constituents according to the new district boundaries. 

1 

22-501 
 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

Under the California Constitution, a charter county is “subject to statutes that 

relate to apportioning population of governing body districts.”1

 Orange County is a 

charter county.2

 Its board of supervisors consists of five members elected “by and from 

designated supervisorial districts” for four-year, staggered terms.3 Its charter provides 

that state law governs county operations except as expressly set forth in the charter.4 The 

charter does not include any provisions addressing redistricting or its effects on 

supervisorial representation. 

On December 7, 2021, the Orange County Board of Supervisors enacted an 

ordinance approving new supervisorial district boundaries using population data from the 

2020 decennial census. This redistricting ordinance altered the boundaries of each of the 

five districts. Four of the five districts’ newly-drawn boundaries overlap with, but are not 

identical to, their former areas. But the changes to District Two were extreme—the 

newly-formed District Two does not overlap at all with the prior District Two.5 In 

November 2022, Districts Two, Four, and Five will have a regular election for district 

1

 Cal. Const., art. XI, § 4, subd. (a); see Elec. Code, § 14026, subd. (b) (“‘District-based 

elections’ means a method of electing members to the governing body of a political 

subdivision in which the candidate must reside within an election district that is a 

divisible part of the political subdivision and is elected only by voters residing within that 

election district”). 

2 People ex rel. Kerr v. County of Orange (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 914, 917; see Younger 

v. Bd. of Supervisors (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 864, 870 (“a charter county has only those 

powers and can enact within its charter only those provisions authorized by the [state] 

Constitution,” including the enumerated powers in article XI, section 4, plus “all powers 

provided for counties under the general law”); see generally Cal. State Association of 

Counties, County Structure & Powers, at https://tinyurl.com/3ccnbwkh (as of Jul. 14, 

2022) (discussing the powers of charter counties and non-charter (“general law”) 

counties). 

3

 Gov. Code, § 25000, subd. (a); Orange County Charter, §§ 101, 102. 

4

 Orange County Charter, § 202; see People ex rel. Kerr v. County of Orange, supra, 106 

Cal.App.4th at pp. 922-926. 

5

 The old District Two comprised the cities of Costa Mesa, Cypress, Huntington Beach, 

La Palma, Los Alamitos, Newport Beach, Seal Beach, and Stanton; portions of the cities 

of Buena Park and Fountain Valley; and the unincorporated area of Rossmoor. The new 

District Two comprises the City of Santa Ana; portions of the cities of Anaheim, Garden 

Grove, Orange, and Tustin; and the unincorporated area of North Tustin. 

2 

22-501 
 

 

 

supervisor, and in November 2024, Districts One and Three will have a regular election 

for district supervisor. 

The Orange County redistricting ordinance did not specify an effective date, 

although a staff report accompanying the ordinance stated that it would become effective 

on January 6, 2022.6

 This is consistent with state law providing that an ordinance 

becomes effective 30 days after enactment.7

 The staff report also stated that “[a] 

Supervisor, regardless of if they reside in the newly drawn district, will continue to 

represent the same numbered district, with the new boundaries, to which they were 

elected through the remainder of their term.”8

 The report did not provide any authority 

for this statement about representation after redistricting, and the board of supervisors did 

not discuss this topic at the meeting when it adopted the ordinance. 

Afterwards, an issue arose over whether supervisors were permitted to use county 

resources in parts of their old districts that were not included in their newly-drawn 

districts. Subsequently, the board of supervisors approved a resolution directing that all 

county resources requested, directed, or organized by an individual supervisor may not be 

used or expended in an area outside the supervisor’s newly-drawn district unless the 

supervisor obtained written consent from the supervisor representing the outside area or 

unless the outside area is within a city or unincorporated area shared by the two districts.9 

The resolution further states that, in the event that this directive is contravened, the 

county auditor-controller must withhold payment for any goods or services sought and 

must promptly notify the board, which may refer the matter to the Fair Political Practices 

Commission or the Attorney General. 

These events prompted the requestors to seek an opinion relating to when district 

boundaries become effective for the purpose of supervisorial representation. While the 

Orange County resolution appears to involve both representation and budgetary authority, 

6

 Orange County Exec. Office, Supp. Agenda Item, Agenda Staff Report for Adoption of 

2021 Redistricting Map Ordinance dated Dec. 2, 2021, at https://tinyurl.com/4xuxrpy8 

(as of Jul. 14, 2022). 

7

 Gov. Code, § 25123. 

8

 Orange County Exec. Office, Supp. Agenda Item, Agenda Staff Report for Adoption of 

2021 Redistricting Map Ordinance dated Dec. 2, 2021, at https://tinyurl.com/4xuxrpy8 

(as of Jul. 14, 2022). 

9

 Revision Mem. of Robin Stieler, Clerk of the Orange County Bd. of Supervisors, 

Revision to Agenda Item S48B on the Apr. 26, 2022, Bd. Meeting Agenda, dated Apr. 

22, 2022, at https://tinyurl.com/5hvfner7 (as of Jul. 14, 2022). 

3 

22-501 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this opinion only addresses questions of state law related to representation.10 In our 

analysis below, we do not interpret or evaluate specific provisions of that local resolution. 

ANALYSIS 

1. For election purposes, the boundaries of a supervisorial district do not change 

until the next regularly scheduled supervisorial election for that district. 

Every ten years, after the federal census, a county board of supervisors must adopt 

new district boundaries “so that the supervisorial districts shall be substantially equal in 

population as required by the United States Constitution.”11 The goals of redistricting are 

to protect the people’s voting power and ensure their equal representation.12 

Elections Code section 21506(b) addresses the question of when old or new 

boundaries should be used for supervisorial elections after redistricting. It provides: “At 

the first election for county supervisors in each county following adoption of the 

boundaries of supervisorial districts, excluding a special election to fill a vacancy or a 

recall election, a supervisor shall be elected for each district under the new district plan 

that has the same district number as a district whose incumbent's term is due to expire.”13 

Last year, we were asked to construe Elections Code section 21506.14 In that 

opinion, we determined that the “first election” after redistricting refers to the first 

regularly scheduled election for a supervisorial seat. Thus, a special election to fill a 

supervisorial vacancy must be conducted according to the district boundaries as they 

existed when the term began, not according to the district boundaries adopted by 

intervening redistricting.

15 Accordingly, we concluded that a 2022 election to fill a 

10 Our focus on questions of state law is consistent with our longstanding policy of 

declining requests for opinions that exclusively call for interpretation of local laws. 

Responsibility for interpreting local laws generally rests with local government lawyers. 

11 Elec. Code, § 21500; see Evenwel v. Abbott (2016) 578 U.S. 54, 57-60. 

12 Garza v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 763, 775, citing Kirkpatrick v. 

Preisler (1969) 394 U.S. 526, 531. 

13 Elections Code section 21506 is part of a legislative scheme that “establishes 

procedures and criteria pursuant to which counties . . . adopt supervisorial . . . district 

boundaries for the purpose of electing members of a county’s board of supervisors . . . .” 

(Legis. Counsel’s Dig., Assem. Bill No. 1276 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.).) 

14 104 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 80, 80 (2021). 

15 Id. at pp. 83-87. We also determined that an election to fill a supervisorial vacancy 

was a “special election” within the meaning of this statute. (Id. at pp. 82-83.) 

4 

22-501 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

supervisorial vacancy should use the same boundaries as those used in the original 

election for the seat in 2020.16 

Our 2021 opinion is consistent with other opinions dealing with elections during 

this transition period after redistricting. For instance, in a 2014 opinion, we construed 

Elections Code section 21606, pertaining to filling vacancies in city councils of general 

law cities after redistricting.17 We concluded that “the district boundaries used when the 

former council member was elected are to be used for the remainder of his or her 

unexpired term when filling his or her vacancy.”18 We explained that “it would be 

inharmonious if the boundaries that the appointed member represented were to change 

during the elective term of office, based on the fortuity that the elected incumbent 

happened to resign or was otherwise unable to serve out his or her full term.”19 

Two California Supreme Court cases dealing with vacancies in other offices after 

redistricting lend analogous support to our conclusion about county supervisors. In Sloan 

v. Donoghue, the court held that when the Legislature changed the boundaries of a 

congressman’s district after his election, and then the congressman died during his term, 

the special election to fill out the remainder of his term was correctly held in the district 

as constituted at the time he was elected.20 The court found this to be “the only practical 

and sound conclusion” and explained that it would result in “retaining the same 

proportionate Congressional representation under the old Apportionment Act and giving 

to the new Apportionment Act application to the selection of representatives for the 

Seventy-eighth and succeeding Congresses, as intended.”21 

The case of Legislature v. Reinecke resolved a similar issue in the context of 

California’s staggered election system for state senators, addressing whether state 

senatorial elections “must be held in all 40 senate districts in 1974” after decennial 

16 Id. at pp. 80-87. 

17 97 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 12, 12 (2014). Elections Code section 21606(b) provides: “At 

the first election for council members in each city following adoption of the boundaries 

of council districts, excluding a special election to fill a vacancy or a recall election, a 

council member shall be elected for each district under the new district plan that has the 

same district number as a district whose incumbent's term is due to expire.” 

18 97 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at p. 17; see id. at p. 16 (“the redrawn boundaries should 

not be used for a given office until the first regular election for that office”). 

19 Id. at pp. 16-17. 

20 Sloan v. Donoghue (1942) 20 Cal.2d 607, 609-612. 

21 Id. at p. 612. 

5 

22-501 
 

 

 

reapportionment “or only in the 20 new even-numbered districts” scheduled for 1974.22 

Applying Sloan, the court directed that “the senators in odd districts elected in 1972 were 

entitled to serve until 1976, and if vacancies occurred in those districts before 1976, they 

would be filled using the districts in effect in 1972.”23 

Based on these authorities and on our own opinions, we believe that the old 

supervisorial boundaries remain operative for election purposes until the next regular 

election for that seat after redistricting. 

2. The fundamental purpose of district elections is choosing a supervisor to 

represent each district, and a board of supervisors may not prohibit a 

supervisor from representing the district as it existed when the supervisor 

was elected. 

The opinion request asks whether supervisors represent their districts according to 

old boundaries or new district boundaries. As a threshold matter, we note that neither the 

Elections Code nor the Government Code defines what exactly it means to represent an 

area, and there could be questions about whether particular activities constitute 

“representation.” It is beyond the scope of this opinion to address those questions. For 

the purposes of this opinion, we use “represent” according to its ordinary meaning: “to 

serve especially in a legislative body by delegated authority usually resulting from 

election.”24 As this definition shows, there is a direct connection between elections and 

representation. And as we will explain, statutory and decisional law confirms this basic 

proposition and establishes that a supervisor represents the area that elected that 

supervisor. 

As mentioned earlier, Government Code section 25040 provides that “[e]ach 

member of the board of supervisors shall be elected by the district which he [or she] 

represents.” This wording implies that a supervisor represents the same district from 

which the supervisor was elected. Further, under Elections Code section 21506, after 

redistricting and before the next general election, a recall election for a supervisor is held 

22 Legislature v. Reinecke (1973) 10 Cal.3d 396, 404 (Reinecke). 

23 Gaona v. Anderson (9th Cir. 1993) 989 F.2d 299, 301, citing Reinecke, supra, 10 

Cal.3d at p. 404. 

24 Merriam-Webster online, “represent,” def. 6b, at https://tinyurl.com/bdutdskb (as of 

Jul. 14, 2022); see also id., def. 6a(1) & (2) (“to take the place of in some respect” & “to 

act in the place of or for usually by legal right”); Black’s Law Dict. (11th ed. 2019) 

“representation,” def. 2 (“The act or instance of standing for or acting on behalf of 

another”). 

6 

22-501 
 

according to the old district boundaries.25 This shows that a supervisor is politically 

accountable to the constituents of the area that elected that supervisor, and it follows that 

the supervisor continues to represent them during this period. 

The California Supreme Court precedent discussed above also demonstrates that 

representation of a district area is a consequence of an election to that district area. In 

adopting the use of old districts for special congressional elections after reapportionment, 

the Sloan court reasoned that “[a] district represents a defined territory and not a mere 

number.”26 And the Reinecke case spoke directly about representation in a staggeredelection system after reapportionment and indicated that electors are represented by the 

people whom they elect. There, the court determined that a voter who was changed to a 

different state senatorial district due to reapportionment continues to be represented by 

the state senator from the voter’s former district for the remainder of that state senator’s 

term.27 

More broadly, a foundational principle of our representative democracy is that 

constituents in an area elect a particular legislator to represent their interests.28 The 

reason for regional representation is that populations of some areas—such as county 

25 Elec. Code, § 21506, subd. (b) (“excluding a special election to fill a vacancy or a 

recall election” from using new boundaries after redistricting); see also Sacramento City 

Attorney Susana Alcala Wood, Opn. No. 22-001, Apr. 5, 2022 (concluding that a recall 

election for a city council member after redistricting and before the next regular election 

must use the district’s old boundaries pursuant to parallel language in section 21606(b)). 

26 Sloan v. Donoghue, supra, 20 Cal.2d at p. 611. 

27 Reinecke, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 404-405. The court stated that “[t]hose electors who 

by redistricting [in 1974] are moved from an odd-numbered district to an even-numbered 

district were able to vote in a senatorial election in 1972 [in the old, odd-numbered 

district] and will be able to vote again in a senatorial election in 1974 [in the new, evennumbered district].” (Id. at p. 405.) As a result, these electors “will be represented by 

two senators for two years following reapportionment”—between 1974 and 1976— 

including by the senator from the old, odd-numbered district, for the rest of that senator’s 

term. (Ibid.) 

28 See 28 Cal.Jur.3d Elections § 39 (2022) (“the elective franchise constitutes the 

foundation of our representative society and is a preservative of other basic civil and 

political rights”); Rosenthal, Fundamentals of Representative Democracy, Lesson Plans 

for High School Civics, Government and U.S. History Classes (2009) p. 32, at 

https://tinyurl.com/ha885zm4 (as of Jul. 14, 2022) (in our governmental system, the 

people “govern indirectly by electing legislators who represent them,” and these 

legislators “represent their constituents” by “help[ing] constituents in their district who 

may have problems” and by “secur[ing] funds for projects . . . for their districts”).) 

7 

22-501 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

districts—often have different characteristics and needs than others, and, as a result, often 

prefer different candidates.29 Also, preserving the voters’ choice of supervisor through 

continued representation of the old district during the post-redistricting period furthers 

the objective of redistricting statutes to protect voting power.30 As we explained with 

respect to city councils, “[t]he voters within the old boundaries were the ones who elected 

the council member for that term, not the voters of the part of the new district that lies 

outside those boundaries.”31 It follows that before a supervisor’s term has expired, the 

supervisor should not be prevented from representing the constituents in the area from 

which the supervisor was elected. 

One county counsel submitted comments expressing the view that upon a 

redistricting ordinance becoming final, county supervisors immediately should represent 

solely the area within their district’s newly-created boundaries. These comments 

interpret section 21506(b)’s old-boundary rule as applying only to a special or recall 

election. But that interpretation could lead to inconsistency should there be a vacancy in 

the supervisor’s office before the next regular election.32 In such a case, as agreed by 

county counsel, section 21506(b) directs that the old boundaries must be used for a 

special election to fill a vacancy for the remainder of the incumbent’s term. Given this, 

and assuming county counsel’s narrower interpretation of section 21506(b), two 

alternative scenarios are presented, both creating incongruous consequences.

33 If the old 

boundaries are used for a special election and if the new boundaries are used for the 

remainder of the incumbent’s term thereafter, the voters of the district with the old 

boundaries will be asked to vote for a supervisor in a special election to represent other 

29 See Griffin v. Bd. of Supervisors of Monterey County (1964) 60 Cal.2d 751, 754-755; 

Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 781, 793. 

30 Garza v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 918 F.2d at p. 775, citing Kirkpatrick v. 

Preisler, supra, 394 U.S. at p. 531. 

31 97 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at p. 17, citing Opinion of Justices to Governor (Mass. 

1972) 282 N.E.2d 629, 631 (“a legislator represents the constituency which elected him,” 

so that “if the incumbent does not serve his full term but ceases to serve during his term, 

the resulting vacancy in the Ninety-second Congress will then occur in the district from 

which he was elected to office”). 

32Braun v. Bureau of State Audits (1998) 235 Cal.App.3d 1182, 1186 (“Statutes should be 

interpreted, of course, to avoid absurd and inconsistent results”). 

33 See Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387 

(in interpreting a statute, courts consider “the consequences that will flow from a 

particular interpretation”). 

8 

22-501 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

constituents—those within the new boundaries.34 The other possibility is that the old 

boundaries would be used for a special election and then also for the remainder of the 

incumbent’s term thereafter, but again, under county counsel’s proposition, the new 

boundaries otherwise would be exclusively used after redistricting. In that scenario, the 

circumstance of a vacancy and subsequent special election would result, in whiplash 

fashion, in the representation of that district number beginning in the old district after the 

incumbent’s election, and then changing to the new boundaries after redistricting, then 

back to the old boundaries after the special election, and then back again to the new 

boundaries after the next regular election for that seat.35 

Two county counsels also observe that if the newly-created boundaries are 

exclusively used after redistricting for the purpose of representation, each county resident 

will be represented by one supervisor at all times. By contrast, they point out, if 

redistricting does not become operative for this purpose until the next regular election, 

then at least some residents will have double representation and some no representation 

for a period as a result of staggered regular elections. But the California Supreme Court 

has recognized that in a staggered-election system, “somewhat anomalous results in 

representation may be the necessary by-product of reapportionment.”36 Moreover, as 

discussed below, each supervisor also may represent the areas of the supervisor’s new 

district until the next regular election for that seat if the board so directs. In such a case, 

all county residents will have continuous supervisorial representation after redistricting. 

Because a supervisor represents the district that elected the supervisor for the 

entirety of the supervisor’s term, a supervisor may not be prohibited from representing 

the supervisor’s old district between redistricting and the next regular election for that 

seat. 

34 See PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v. Hulven Internat., Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 

156, 187 (“We must of course, interpret statutes to avoid anomalous or absurd results that 

the Legislature could not have intended and that would frustrate the Legislature’s 

intent”). 

35 Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. Hunt (2009) 47 Cal.4th 381, 388 (in ascertaining 

legislative intent, a court seeks “to avoid a construction that would lead to unreasonable, 

impractical, or arbitrary results”). 

36 66 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 412, 414 (1983), citing Reinecke, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 404-

405 (“These inequalities [in representation] among groups of electors are the inevitable 

byproduct of reapportioning a legislative body whose members are elected for staggered 

four-year terms”). 

9 

22-501 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. A board of supervisors may, however, direct a supervisor to also represent 

constituents according to the new district boundaries between redistricting 

and the next regular election. 

As part of its broad authority over county government, a board of supervisors may 

choose when to begin using new district boundaries to organize county affairs, unless a 

law or legal obligations require exclusively using the old boundaries. In this regard, a 

board of supervisors “may do and perform all other acts and things required by law not 

enumerated in this part, or which are necessary to the full discharge of the duties of the 

legislative authority of the county government.”37 A board’s powers include not only 

those expressly enumerated by statute, but those implied powers necessary to the exercise 

of those powers.38 Boards of supervisors generally have the power to change their 

district boundaries for convenience and have the duty to change them after the decennial 

census.39 And no state law prohibits a board of supervisors from assigning representation 

for the new districts before the next regular election. 

Although the primary purposes of districts are for election and representation, as 

discussed, counties sometimes use supervisorial districts as convenient geographic units 

for other purposes. Absent a legal obligation to use the old districts for a specific 

purpose, a county may begin using the new district map for other purposes when it 

chooses. There may be other reasons that a county must use the old district boundaries, 

such as when there is a preexisting contract to provide services to a particular district. 

Or, as part of this general authority, a county may direct supervisors to represent 

constituents or provide constituent services according to the new district boundaries, in 

addition to continued representation of constituents based on the old district boundaries. 

Analogous authority allows multiple representation of the same area by state 

legislators after redistricting. In Legislature v. Reinecke, for example, the California 

Supreme Court held that after reapportionment of the California State Senate, those 

electors who changed from an odd-numbered district to an even-numbered district would 

be represented by two senators—from the old and new districts—for two years following 

the next regular election of the even-numbered district.40 Also, in Friends of 

Assemblywoman La Follette v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeal held that after 

reapportionment and before the next regular election, an assembly member is permitted 

to campaign in and service territory of the new district in addition to the territory of the 

37 Gov. Code, § 25207. 

38 Harris v. Gibbins (1896) 114 Cal. 418, 419-420; Couts v. San Diego County (1934) 

139 Cal.App. 706, 711; 45 Cal.Jur.3d Municipalities § 340 (2022). 

39 Elec. Code, § 21500; Gov. Code, §§ 25200. 

40 Reinecke, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 405. 

10 

22-501 
 

 

 

 

 

 

old district.41 Additionally, the Fair Political Practices Commission has advised that after 

reapportionment and before the next regular election, for the purpose of the constituentmeeting exception to the prohibition against using public funds for mass mailings, an 

assembly member’s constituents are those of the member’s old district plus those in the 

geographic territory added to that district by reapportionment.42 Based on the board of 

supervisors’ inherent authority, the absence of any specific prohibition, and the analogous 

precedent for state legislators, we believe that the board may assign supervisors to 

represent their new districts after redistricting, so long as they also represent the districts 

from which they were elected. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated, we conclude that after redistricting and before the next 

regular election, the supervisors may not be prohibited from representing constituents in 

areas of the districts from which they were elected. Nonetheless, the board of supervisors 

may direct that the supervisors also represent their newly-drawn districts during this 

period. 

41 Friends of Assemblywoman La Follette v. Super. Ct. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 832, 837. 

42 Barbara Milman, Chief Counsel, Cal.Fair.Pol.Prac.Com., Adv. No. I-91-567, 1992 WL 

795363 (Feb. 4, 1992). 

11 

22-501