Opinion ID: 1151125
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Legislative Districts

Text: The United States Supreme Court has allowed substantial leeway in population equality as to state legislative districts. In Gaffney v. Cummings (1973) 412 U.S. 735 [37 L.Ed.2d 298, 93 S.Ct. 2321], a total variation of 7.83 percent (in districts for the Connecticut Legislature) was held constitutional on its face, with no need for state justification. When substantial justification is shown, the Supreme Court has allowed even greater variation. (See, e.g. Mahon v. Howell (1972) 410 U.S. 315 [35 L.Ed.2d 320, 93 S.Ct. 979].) Aside from the federal constitutional limitations, Article XXI requires that the population of all districts of a particular type shall be reasonably equal. This section, enacted after Reinecke IV, has been interpreted by the Attorney General of California as incorporating the more restrictive population requirements contained in Reinecke IV that the population of senate and assembly districts should be within 1 percent of the ideal except in unusual circumstances, and in no event should a deviation greater than 2 percent be permitted. ( Reinecke IV, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 411; see 64 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 597, 613-615 (1981).) Since we have been directed by the Supreme Court to follow the Reinecke IV criteria, we have no occasion to determine whether this higher standard is also required by Article XXI. [12]