Title: Legislature of State of California v. Padilla
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S262530
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: July 17, 2020

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF 
CALIFORNIA 
 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
ALEX PADILLA, as Secretary of State, etc., 
Respondent. 
 
S262530 
 
 
July 17, 2020 
 
Justice Kruger authored the opinion of the Court, in which 
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Chin, Corrigan, Liu, 
Cuéllar, and Groban concurred. 
 
1 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. 
PADILLA 
S262530 
 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
Every 10 years, following the federal census, new maps 
must be drawn establishing the boundaries of the state’s 
congressional, Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization 
districts.  California law assigns the task of redistricting to the 
Citizens Redistricting Commission, which draws new maps 
based on the federal census data.  The law also specifies a series 
of fixed deadlines for the Commission to solicit public input on 
its work and finalize updated maps for the next round of 
elections.  As a result of the current COVID-19 pandemic, 
however, the federal Census Bureau has announced that census 
data collection and processing will be delayed.  Under the 
Census Bureau’s modified timeline, the data required to draw 
new district maps will not be released to the states in time for 
the Commission to meet the redistricting deadlines set forth in 
California law. 
In view of the anticipated delay and to ensure that the 
Commission will be able to perform its redistricting function in 
time for the 2022 elections, the Legislature has filed an 
emergency petition for a peremptory writ of mandate seeking 
relief from the deadlines set by California law.  The Secretary of 
State and the Commission have joined in the Legislature’s 
request.  We issued an order notifying the parties of our intent 
to issue a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance.  (See 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
2 
Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171.)  
We now grant the petition and issue the writ. 
I. 
At the start of each decade, the federal government 
conducts a national census.  Beginning on April 1 of the census 
year, the United States Census Bureau collects population and 
demographic data for the entire country.  (13 U.S.C. § 141(a).)  
Within one year of this date, the Census Bureau must deliver 
these census data to each state for purposes of drawing new 
districts for the United States Congress, state legislatures, and 
other bodies of government.  (Id., § 141(c).)  At that point, each 
state begins its redistricting process.  The goal of redistricting is 
to craft new district maps that reflect current population 
numbers, to ensure compliance with the constitutional one-
person, one-vote rule.  (See, e.g., Evenwel v. Abbott (2016) ___ 
U.S. ___, ___ [136 S.Ct. 1120, 1123–1124]; Cal. Const., art. XXI, 
§ 2, subd. (d)(1).) 
In California, the redistricting process begins with the 
Legislature preparing a dataset that combines the federal 
census data with voter registration data and historical 
statewide election results.  (Gov. Code, § 8253, subd. (b).)  The 
Legislature then provides this dataset to the Citizens 
Redistricting Commission, an independent panel of 14 
Californians of different party affiliations that is tasked with 
drawing new maps for the state’s congressional, Assembly, 
Senate, and Board of Equalization districts.  (Cal. Const., art. 
XXI, § 2.)  The Commission was first created with the passage 
of Proposition 11 in 2008, which transferred the power to draw 
Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization districts from the 
Legislature to the newly formed Commission; two years later, 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
3 
voters passed Proposition 20, which expanded the Commission’s 
responsibilities to include congressional redistricting.  Under 
the California Constitution, as amended by these two 
initiatives, the Commission must conduct an open and 
transparent redistricting process that allows public comment on 
draft maps produced by the Commission.  (Cal. Const., art. XXI, 
§ 2, subd. (b); Gov. Code, § 8253.)  To carry out these duties, the 
Commission typically begins its work even before the census 
data are delivered to the state.  As the chair of the previous 
redistricting commission explains in a declaration submitted to 
this court, this preliminary work includes arranging public 
hearings, soliciting public participation, and hiring staff and 
consultants. 
State law sets forth deadlines by which the Commission 
must release draft maps for public comment and later, approve 
and certify final maps to the Secretary of State.  The 
Government Code provides that the Commission must release 
at least one set of draft maps for public comment by July 1 of the 
year following the census year.  (Gov. Code, § 8253, subd. (a)(7) 
[“Public comment shall be taken for at least 14 days from the 
date of public display of the first preliminary statewide maps of 
the congressional, State Senatorial, Assembly, and State Board 
of Equalization districts, which shall be publicly displayed no 
later than July 1 in each year ending in the number one.”].)  The 
California Constitution provides that the Commission must 
then approve and certify final maps to the Secretary of State by 
August 15 of the year following the census year.  (Cal. Const., 
art. XXI, § 2, subd. (g) [“By August 15 in 2011, and in each year 
ending in the number one thereafter, the commission shall 
approve four final maps that separately set forth the district 
boundary lines for the congressional, Senatorial, Assembly, and 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
4 
State Board of Equalization districts.  Upon approval, the 
commission shall certify the four final maps to the Secretary of 
State.”].)   
The maps are subject to referendum under the ordinary 
procedures for placing an enactment on the ballot for a popular 
vote under the Constitution.  (Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 2, subd. (i); 
id., art. II, § 9.)  If the Commission does not approve a final map 
by the requisite votes, or if voters disapprove a map in a 
referendum election, the Constitution provides that the 
Secretary of State “shall immediately petition the California 
Supreme Court for an order directing the appointment of special 
masters” to adjust district boundaries using the census data.  At 
that point, the court becomes responsible for approving and 
certifying the special masters’ map to the Secretary of State.  
(Id., art. XXI, § 2, subd. (j); see also id., § 3, subd. (b)(1).) 
This year, the usual order of redistricting operations has 
been upended by the COVID-19 pandemic, a public health crisis 
caused by a newly discovered coronavirus that has spread 
rapidly around the globe, on a scale not seen in a century.  In 
response to the crisis, the Governor of California declared a state 
of emergency on March 4, and the President of the United States 
proclaimed a national emergency under federal law on March 
13.1  As infection rates rose across California and the United 
                                        
1  
Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, Proclamation of a State 
of Emergency (Mar. 4, 2020) <https://www.gov.ca.gov/ 
wp-content/uploads/2020/03/3.4.20-Coronavirus-SOE-
Proclamation.pdf> (as of July 17, 2020); The White House, 
Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning 
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak (Mar. 13, 
2020) <https://www.whitehouse.gov/ 
 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
5 
States, governments issued stay-at-home orders drastically 
curtailing daily activities in an attempt to limit the spread of the 
virus.   
On April 13, the United States Secretary of Commerce 
announced that the Census Bureau had halted its field 
operations due to the pandemic.  The agency adopted a phased 
approach to resuming the collection of census data in the weeks 
and months that followed.  As a result, the Census Bureau 
predicted that its delivery of census data to the states would be 
delayed by up to four months.  Because the current March 31, 
2021, deadline for releasing federal census data to the states is 
set by federal statute, the Census Bureau has asked the United 
States Congress to authorize 120 additional days — i.e., until 
July 31, 2021 — to deliver the data.  To date, the United States 
House of Representatives has passed one bill authorizing this 
four-month extension; additional bills containing similar 
authorizations have been introduced in both houses.  (H.R. 
No. 6800, 116th Cong., 2d Sess., Div. G, tit. II, § 70201, pp. 771–
772 (2020) bill passed in House May 15, 2020; H.R. No. 7034, 
116th Cong., 2d Sess., § 2, p. 3 (2020) as introduced May 27, 
2020; Sen. No. 4048, 116th Cong., 2d Sess. (2020) as introduced 
June 23, 2020.) 
On June 4, the Legislature filed an emergency petition in 
this court seeking a peremptory writ of mandate that would 
effectively grant the Commission equivalent four-month 
extensions to release draft maps for public comment and to 
                                        
presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-national-
emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-
outbreak> (as of July 17, 2020).  All Internet citations in this 
opinion are archived by year, docket number, and case name at 
. 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
6 
approve and certify final maps.  Specifically, the Legislature 
seeks a writ extending the date by which the Commission must 
release draft maps for public comment from July 1, 2021, to 
November 1, 2021, and requiring the Secretary of State to accept 
the final Commission redistricting maps by December 15, 2021.  
The Legislature has no power to change these deadlines by 
statute:  The deadline for the release of the draft maps is set 
forth in a state statute that the Legislature is prohibited from 
amending either this year or next, and the deadline for the 
approval of final maps is specified in the California 
Constitution.  (Gov. Code, § 8251, subd. (c)(5) [the Legislature 
cannot amend any statute governing the Commission’s work in 
years that end in 9, 0, or 1]; Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 2, subd. (g).)  
According to the Legislature, it has filed this emergency petition 
because, without the requested relief, the Legislature’s only 
alternative will be to ask voters to enact a constitutional 
amendment that alters the Commission’s deadlines for purposes 
of the 2020 redistricting cycle.  The Legislature reports that the 
last day that it can pass a bill placing a constitutional 
amendment on the November ballot is July 26, 2020.  
In response to the Legislature’s petition, we sought 
preliminary oppositions from the Commission and the Secretary 
of State.  Both filed preliminary responses supporting the 
Legislature’s request.2  Shortly thereafter, we issued a Palma 
                                        
2  
Pursuant to state statute, the Commission is created by 
August 15 of each census year.  (Gov. Code, § 8252, subd. (g); see 
also Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 2, subd. (a) [constitutional 
requirement that the Commission be created by December 31 of 
each census year].)  Because the 2020 Commission had not been 
formed at the time our orders were filed, the 2010 Commission 
filed responses. 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
7 
notice advising the parties that we might issue a peremptory 
writ of mandate in the first instance extending the time limits 
for the Commission to release draft and final maps and inviting 
the Commission and the Secretary of State to file any formal 
oppositions by June 29.  (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, 
Inc., supra, 36 Cal.3d 171; see Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 
Cal.4th 1232.)  Both the Commission and the Secretary of State 
again filed statements supporting the Legislature’s request. 
In its request, the Legislature invokes our authority to 
issue an extraordinary writ under article VI, section 10 of the 
California Constitution, which grants this court original 
jurisdiction in proceedings for extraordinary mandamus relief.  
We have previously exercised this jurisdiction to consider and 
grant appropriate relief when necessary to the orderly 
functioning of our electoral system, and it is undisputed that we 
have the same authority here.  (Vandermost v. Bowen (2012) 53 
Cal.4th 421, 451–453.)  For the reasons explained below, we 
grant the Legislature’s petition and issue a peremptory writ of 
mandate adjusting the relevant deadlines in accordance with 
the forecasted delay in the Census Bureau’s release of the 
federal census data necessary to draw the new district maps.3 
II. 
The first deadline faced by the Commission is the July 1, 
2021, deadline for displaying the first preliminary statewide 
maps for public comment.  (Gov. Code, § 8253, subd. (a)(7).)  
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Census Bureau has 
announced that it anticipates moving its scheduled deadline for 
                                        
3  
The Legislature’s request for judicial notice, which was 
filed in connection with its emergency petition for a writ of 
mandate, is granted.  
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
8 
releasing the federal census data needed to draw the maps to 
July 31, 2021 — nearly a month after the Commission’s 
statutory deadline for publishing the draft maps.  Indeed, as a 
practical matter, the delay is even more substantial than it 
might at first seem.  The Legislature reports that the 
Commission cannot begin the process of creating the maps until 
the Legislature has first built the redistricting database for the 
Commission to use.  (Id., § 8253, subd. (b).)  In a declaration 
submitted with the Legislature’s petition, the director of the 
database explains that it takes approximately one month to 
create this database after the state receives the census data.  
This means that if the census data are not delivered until July 
31, 2021, then the earliest the Commission could begin drawing 
maps would be August 31, 2021 — fully two months after the 
statutory deadline for the Commission to publicly release the 
first round of draft maps.   
In other words, the Census Bureau’s adjusted timeline for 
release of the census data will make it impossible for the 
Commission to meet the statutory July 1 deadline for release of 
the first preliminary statewide redistricting maps.  The 
Legislature, Secretary of State, and Commission all contend 
that, given the extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances 
that have rendered compliance with the deadline impossible, the 
proper remedy is for this court to extend the deadline and 
thereby preserve the intended operation of the statutory 
framework.  We agree, and we do so here.   
We comprehensively discussed our power to grant the kind 
of relief the Legislature seeks in Kopp v. Fair Pol. Practices Com. 
(1995) 11 Cal.4th 607 (Kopp).  In that case, we addressed a 
challenge to the constitutionality of a suite of voter-enacted 
statutes that governed the financing of state and local political 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
9 
campaigns.  (Id. at p. 614.)  After holding certain statutes were 
unconstitutional as written, we considered whether, instead of 
invalidating the statutes, we could reform the statutes to 
preserve them.  (Id. at p. 615.)  We explained that “[u]nder 
established decisions of this court and the United States 
Supreme Court, a reviewing court may, in appropriate 
circumstances, and consistently with the separation of powers 
doctrine, reform a statute to conform it to constitutional 
requirements in lieu of simply declaring it unconstitutional and 
unenforceable.  The guiding principle is consistency with the 
Legislature’s (or, as here, the electorate’s) intent.”  (Ibid.)  “[A] 
court 
may 
reform 
a 
statute 
to 
satisfy 
constitutional 
requirements if it can conclude with confidence that (i) it is 
possible to reform the statute in a manner that closely 
effectuates policy judgments clearly articulated by the enacting 
body, and (ii) the enacting body would have preferred such a 
reformed version of the statute to invalidation of the statute.”  
(Ibid.) 
In Kopp, we concluded that the statutes in question could 
not be reformed consistent with the intent of the voters in 
enacting the statutes.  (Id. at p. 671.)  But in the years since, we 
have applied Kopp to reform statutes where it was feasible to do 
so in a manner that would effectuate the clearly articulated 
policy judgments of the enactors.  (See, e.g., Property Reserve, 
Inc. v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 151, 208–209 [reforming 
statute to remedy a constitutional flaw by providing property 
owners the right to a jury trial in precondemnation 
proceedings].) 
In California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos (2011) 
53 Cal.4th 231 (Matosantos), we applied Kopp to a situation in 
which a statute could not be implemented as written because 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
10 
circumstances had made it impossible for the statute to be 
carried out in accordance with the deadlines written into it.  In 
Matosantos, we had partially stayed the implementation of two 
statutes pending our review of a challenge to their validity.  (Id. 
at p. 274.)  After upholding the validity of one of the two 
statutes, we recognized that several “critical deadlines” in the 
statute had passed and could no longer be met.  (Ibid.)  “This 
impossibility,” we said, “ought not to prevent the Legislature’s 
valid enactment from taking effect.”  (Ibid.)  In situations like 
these, we explained, the standard from Kopp applies for deciding 
whether a statutory deadline can be reformed:  “Reformation is 
proper when it is feasible to do so in a manner that carries out 
those policy choices clearly expressed in the original legislation, 
and when the legislative body would have preferred reform to 
ineffectuality.”  (Matosantos, at p. 274; see id. at p. 275.)  “By 
exercising the power of reform . . . we may as closely as possible 
effectuate the Legislature’s intent and allow its valid enactment 
to have its intended effect.”  (Id. at p. 274.)  In other words, the 
court has the inherent authority to reform a statute in situations 
where impossibility would have the same effect as invalidity, 
preventing the statute from being carried out in accordance with 
its literal terms, but only if the court can do so consistent with 
the enactors’ intent.  In Matosantos, we extended several 
statutory deadlines by the duration of the court’s stay to “retain 
the relative spacing of events originally intended by the 
Legislature and simplify compliance for all affected parties.”  
(Id. at p. 275.)  This included deadlines that had passed during 
the stay as well as future deadlines that needed to be adjusted 
to maintain the sequence of events spelled out in the statute.  
(Ibid.; see also Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808, 861–862 
[exercising the court’s “inherent power of reformation to revise 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
11 
the effective date of stayed legislation in order to avoid problems 
of compliance with statutory deadlines” affected by the stay].) 
The situation we confront here is similar.  Because the 
release of the federal census data will be delayed by four months 
under the Census Bureau’s plan, it will be impossible for the 
Commission to meet the July 1, 2021, deadline for displaying 
the first round of draft maps for public comment.  (Gov. Code, 
§ 8253, subd. (a)(7).)  What we must ask, then, is whether this 
deadline can be reformed in a manner that closely approximates 
the framework designed by its enactors, and whether the 
enactors would have preferred the reform to the effective 
nullification of the statutory language.  (Matosantos, supra, 53 
Cal.4th at p. 275.)  The answer to both questions is yes.   
The basic purpose of the deadline set out in Government 
Code section 8253 is to ensure the timely display of draft 
redistricting maps to the public so that Californians can voice 
their views about the proposed district boundaries.  The statute 
was first enacted as part of Proposition 11 — the 2008 ballot 
initiative that created the Commission, outlined a selection 
process for its members, and assigned it the responsibility of 
drawing the boundaries for the State Assembly, Senate, and 
Board of Equalization districts.  (Voter Information Guide, Gen. 
Elec. (Nov. 4, 2008) analysis of Prop. 11 by Legis. Analyst, 
pp. 70–71; id., text of Prop. 11, pp. 137–140.)  As relevant here, 
Proposition 11 amended article XXI of the Constitution to 
specify that the Commission shall “conduct an open and 
transparent process enabling full public consideration of and 
comment on the drawing of district lines.”  (Cal. Const., art. XXI, 
§ 2, subd. (b)(1).)  This process is described in Government Code 
section 8253, which guarantees public access to the redistricting 
process by requiring open meetings, public notice for each 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
12 
meeting, and procedures for public input on the proposed maps.  
(Gov. Code, § 8253, subd. (a).)  Additionally, the statute directs 
the Legislature to establish procedures to provide the public 
with access to redistricting data and mapping software to 
facilitate participation in the process.  (Id., subd. (b).)  The 
framework reflects a policy judgment that the public should 
have the opportunity to be involved throughout the redistricting 
process.  (Vandermost v. Bowen, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 445 [Cal. 
Const.  and statutes “establish a public redistricting process”].)  
And public comment is typically robust:  In the 2010 
redistricting cycle, the Commission held 34 public hearings in 
32 cities, reviewed more than 2,000 written submissions, and 
received input from more than 20,000 entities and individuals. 
Of course, for the public to provide feedback on proposed 
district boundaries, the Commission must first make its work 
available for public review.  As initially passed by the voters in 
2008, subdivision (a)(7) of Government Code section 8253 
stated, in relevant part:  “The commission shall display the 
maps for public comment in a manner designed to achieve the 
widest public access reasonably possible.  Public comment shall 
be taken for at least 14 days from the date of public display of 
any map.”  (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2008), 
supra, text of Prop. 11, p. 140.)  In 2012, the Legislature 
amended this language to read, as relevant here:  “Public 
comment shall be taken for at least 14 days from the date of 
public display of the first preliminary statewide maps of the 
congressional, State Senatorial, Assembly, and State Board of 
Equalization districts, which shall be publicly displayed no later 
than July 1 in each year ending in the number one.  The 
commission shall not display any other map for public comment 
during the 14-day period. . . .  Public comment shall be taken for 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
13 
at least seven days from the date of public display of any 
subsequent preliminary statewide maps and for at least three 
days from the date of public display of any final statewide 
maps.”  (Gov. Code, § 8253, subd. (a)(7), as amended by Stats. 
2012, ch. 271, § 4, italics added.)  As an Assembly bill analysis 
explained, the requirement “guarantee[d] that the public will 
have the ability and time to review the maps and respond to the 
Commission” at least six weeks before the August 15 deadline 
for the final maps set by the California Constitution.  (Assem. 
Com. on Elections & Redistricting, Analysis of Sen. Bill 
No. 1096 (2011–2012 Reg. Sess.) July 3, 2012, p. 5.)  The 
amendments also limited the 14-day public display requirement 
to the first set of draft maps released by the Commission, as 
opposed to all of the draft maps.  (Id. at pp. 1–2.)  The deadline 
ensured the public would be given adequate time to comment on 
at least one set of draft maps (and the Commission would have 
time to respond) before the August 15 deadline. 
In short, the July 1 deadline for displaying preliminary 
maps was chosen to ensure that the public has the opportunity 
to provide input on the proposed maps before the Commission 
certifies them as final.  But if the Census Bureau does not 
deliver the federal data until July 31, 2021, as it anticipates, it 
will be impossible for the Commission to comply with the July 1 
deadline.  The remedy the Legislature seeks is both temporary 
and limited in nature:  a one-time adjustment of the statutory 
deadline, for purposes of this redistricting cycle, in accordance 
with the adjustment to the schedule for releasing the federal 
census data.  By granting this limited remedy, we effectuate the 
policy judgment underlying the provision and preserve the 
public’s right to provide input on electoral district maps before 
those maps are finalized.  We consider it clear that the enactors 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
14 
would have preferred this deadline be adjusted — and the 
opportunity for public comment on the preliminary maps 
preserved — to effectively eliminating the public comment 
process because of extraordinary circumstances that make 
compliance with the statutory deadline impossible. 
This brings us to the second relevant deadline faced by the 
Commission:  the August 15, 2021, deadline for approving and 
certifying final redistricting maps to the Secretary of State.  
(Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 2, subd. (g).)  If a delay in the federal 
data makes the July 1 deadline for the draft maps impossible to 
meet, it stands to reason that the deadline for the final maps, 
which the Constitution sets at just six weeks later, will be 
impossible to meet as well.  If the census data are sent to the 
states on July 31, 2021, and the Legislature takes one month to 
prepare the dataset to be used for redistricting, the Commission 
cannot begin its work until September 2021 at the earliest — 
well after the constitutionally prescribed August 15, 2021, 
deadline.  Allowing a period for public comment, as the statutory 
scheme envisions, will result in even greater delay. 
As we explained above, this court’s precedent establishes 
that a court may reform statutory deadlines to effectuate the 
enactors’ clearly articulated policy judgments when it is feasible 
to do so and when the enacting body clearly would have 
preferred reformation to invalidation.  (Kopp, supra, 11 Cal.4th 
at p. 615; Matosantos, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 274–275.)  
Although the August 15 deadline is set by a constitutional 
amendment passed by the voters, rather than by statute, we see 
no reason why the same principles would not permit a one-time 
adjustment 
of 
the 
deadline 
given 
the 
extraordinary 
circumstances we confront here. 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
15 
The August 15 deadline was enacted against the backdrop 
of the federal deadline that requires the Census Bureau to 
transmit census data to the states by March 31 of the year 
following the census.  (13 U.S.C. § 141(c).)  We presume that the 
voters 
who 
approved 
the 
initiatives 
establishing 
the 
Commission and the deadline for the approval of the final 
redistricting maps were aware of this federal deadline, and that 
the choice of the August 15 date reflects their judgment about 
the amount of time that is ordinarily appropriate for an effective 
redistricting process after the necessary federal census data are 
released.  (See In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 890, fn. 11; 
Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2008), supra, text 
of Prop. 11, p. 138 [setting the deadline for the Commission’s 
final maps as Sept. 15 of the year following the census]; Voter 
Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2010) analysis of Prop. 
20 by Legis. Analyst, pp. 18–19; id., text of Prop. 20, p. 96 
[changing the deadline for the approval of final maps from Sept. 
15 to Aug. 15].)  
We consider it clear from the constitutional framework 
that, confronted with extraordinary pandemic-related federal 
delay, the enactors of article XXI, section 2, would have 
preferred shifting the date for approval of the Commission’s 
final maps to the available alternatives.  It is true that the 
Constitution provides for certain scenarios in which the 
Commission is unable to approve a final map.  In that event, the 
Secretary of State must petition this court for an order 
appointing special masters to adjust district boundaries instead.  
(Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 2, subd. (j).)  But by its terms, the 
Constitution reserves this backstop for situations in which the 
Commission fails to approve a final map because it cannot 
muster “the requisite votes” (or voters disapprove of a final map 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
16 
by referendum).  (Ibid.)  It is not designed to address the 
situation here, where the Commission will be unable to complete 
its work by the prescribed deadline because of extraordinary 
events outside of its control.  There are, moreover, strong 
reasons to believe voters would not have preferred deploying 
this backstop — and thereby transferring primary responsibility 
for redistricting from the Commission to this court — to 
employing the usual redistricting procedures on an adjusted 
timeline.  The voters enacted Propositions 11 and 20 to transfer 
the responsibility of drawing new district maps from the 
Legislature to an independent panel of citizens.  (Voter 
Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2008), supra, analysis of 
Prop. 11 by Legis. Analyst, pp. 70–71; see Wilson v. Eu (1991) 
54 Cal.3d 471, 473.)  In so doing, the voters tasked this court 
with redistricting only as a matter of last resort.  (Cal. Const., 
art. XXI, § 2, subd. (j).)  For this court to undertake to draw maps 
in the first instance would both displace the role voters 
envisioned for the Commission and preclude opportunities for 
the public to participate in the process as the voters intended.  
(See Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 2, subd. (b)(1) [instructing the 
Commission to “conduct an open and transparent process 
enabling full public consideration of and comment on the 
drawing of district lines . . .”].)  Adjusting the August 15 
deadline, by contrast, gives effect to the voters’ intent that the 
Commission play the lead role in drawing new district maps, 
with input from the public received in a timely manner. 
As always, our goal in fashioning such a remedy is to 
disturb the original language of the provision as little as 
possible.  (Kopp, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 661.)  The Legislature 
proposes that, for purposes of the 2020 redistricting process, we 
adjust the deadlines to account for the anticipated federal delay 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
17 
— here, four months.  The Commission and the Secretary of 
State concur.  We agree this adjustment is appropriate.  The 
state law provisions setting forth the deadlines for the 
Commission to release draft maps and approve final maps were 
designed to ensure that the Commission can take the necessary 
steps to prepare for a public redistricting process with some 
degree of certainty about when those steps will occur.  The 
Commission’s forecasted delay runs the risk of rendering these 
provisions hollow.  As the Legislature and the Secretary of State 
explain, without clear deadlines, the Commission will be ill 
equipped to plan and coordinate the public process of drawing 
new maps.  A four-month adjustment of these deadlines 
addresses this issue while leaving sufficient time for the maps 
to be finalized in advance of the 2022 primaries.4  For these 
reasons, we agree that a four-month adjustment of the deadlines 
for the release of the draft maps and the approval of the final 
maps is appropriate.   
We recognize, however, that the dynamic nature of the 
global pandemic may lead the federal government to further 
postpone its delivery of the census data.  In the event of further 
federal delay, we conclude the relevant state deadlines should 
be shifted accordingly, for the reasons outlined here.  Thus, 
while we today grant a minimum four-month adjustment to the 
relevant deadlines, we also order that the deadlines be further 
extended by the length of any additional delay in release of the 
federal census data beyond four months.  In the event that an 
                                        
4 
We note that legislation is currently pending to move the 
March 2022 primary elections to June 2022 in light of the 
pandemic.  (Sen. Bill No. 970 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) § 1, p. 2, as 
introduced Feb. 11, 2020.) 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
18 
additional extension of time risks interference with the timeline 
for conducting elections, appropriate parties may seek further 
relief in this court.  Conversely, should the federal government 
release the census data sooner than July 31, 2021, the 
Commission should make every effort to expedite its process and 
release the preliminary and final maps in advance of the 
deadlines set forth in this order. 
Finally, we again emphasize that these adjustments to the 
relevant deadlines are limited to this redistricting cycle and 
these extraordinary circumstances.  It is these circumstances 
that necessitate the remedy we authorize today:  a public health 
crisis that has compelled declarations of emergency by both the 
President and the Governor, and that has compelled the federal 
government to pause the decennial census and seek 
congressional authorization for an extension of its own deadline.  
And the remedy we authorize is a narrow one:  a one-time 
adjustment 
to 
the 
deadlines, 
to 
enable 
the 
relevant 
constitutional and statutory redistricting provisions otherwise 
to operate as written and intended. 
 
 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
19 
III. 
We grant the Legislature’s petition and issue a 
peremptory writ of mandate as follows: 
(i) 
The Commission is directed to release the first 
preliminary statewide maps for the congressional, 
State Senatorial, Assembly, and State Board of 
Equalization districts for public display and comment 
no later than November 1, 2021, notwithstanding 
Government Code section 8253, subdivision (a)(7). 
(ii) 
The Commission is directed to approve and certify the 
final statewide maps to the Secretary of State by no 
later than December 15, 2021.  If the maps are 
approved and certified by this date, the Secretary of 
State shall consider the maps approved and certified 
consistent with the requirements of article XXI, section 
2, subdivision (g) of the California Constitution. 
If the federal government transmits the census data to the 
state later than July 31, 2021, the number of days of additional 
delay shall be considered to be the “additional federal delay.”  In 
the event additional federal delay occurs, the Commission is 
directed to release the first preliminary statewide maps by no 
later than the date following November 1, 2021, that extends 
the November 1 deadline by the additional federal delay, and to 
approve and certify the final maps by no later than the date 
following December 15, 2021, that extends the December 15 
deadline by the additional federal delay.   
In the event the federal government transmits the census 
data to the state before July 31, 2021, the Commission should 
make every effort to expedite its process and release the 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PADILLA 
Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. 
 
20 
preliminary and final maps in advance of the deadlines set forth 
above. 
This decision shall be final upon the filing of this opinion.  
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A); Ng v. Superior Court 
(1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 34, fn. 1.) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      KRUGER, J. 
 
We Concur: 
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J. 
CHIN, J. 
CORRIGAN, J. 
LIU, J. 
CUÉLLAR, J. 
GROBAN, J. 
 
 
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. 
 
Name of Opinion Legislature of the State of California v. Padilla 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Unpublished Opinion 
Original Appeal 
Original Proceeding XXX 
Review Granted 
Rehearing Granted 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Opinion No. S262530 
Date Filed: July 17, 2020 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Court: 
County: 
Judge: 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Counsel: 
 
Olson Remcho, Robin B. Johansen and Thomas A. Willis for Petitioner. 
 
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Thomas S. Patterson, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony R. Hakl and 
P. Patty Li, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent Alex Padilla. 
 
Marian M. Johnston for Respondent Citizens Redistricting Commission. 
 
Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni and Marguerite Mary Leoni for Charles Munger, Jr., as 
Amicus Curiae.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): 
 
No oral argument.