Opinion ID: 1151125
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Geographical Integrity

Text: The Legislative Analyst's Analysis stated that the measure provided that [w]here possible, the geographical region of a city or county shall not be divided among different districts. The ballot argument favoring the proposition stated: [Proposition 6] requires preservation of the integrity of cities, counties, and geographic regions.... [P]roposition 6 would reduce abuses by requiring the Legislature to follow these rules: Respect city and county boundaries. This rule would prevent the irrational division of cities for purely partisan purposes. It would help protect minority communities from being carved up just to dilute their votes. And it would help maintain local control by giving cities and counties effective representation in the Legislature. (Ballot Pamp. analysis of Prop. 6 by Legis. Analyst as presented to voters, Primary Elec. (June 3, 1980), italics in original.) The ballot arguments opposing the proposition asked, Why is not `geographic regions' defined? and questioned whether the provision concerning the geographic integrity of city and county boundaries would water down the provision concerning equal population: [W]ill protecting the integrity of cities and counties elasticize the meaning of `reasonably equal'? (Ballot Pamp., Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Primary Elec. (June 3, 1980).) The proponents responded: City and county boundaries can be ignored only if necessary to comply with the equal population requirement. That is how Proposition 6 will prevent cities and minority communities from being arbitrarily divided to gain partisan advantage or to draw `safe' districts for incumbents. ( Ibid. )