Opinion ID: 1151125
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The State Constitution, Reinecke IV, and the Act

Text: Under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution (art. VI, § 2), the Act ( supra, 42 U.S.C. § 1471 et seq.) takes precedence over any state guidelines with which the Act conflicts. In the absence of such a conflict, however, the directions given to the Masters require that, to the extent possible, we be guided by ... the provisions of article XXI, section 1 of the state Constitution and the guidelines of Reinecke IV. ( Wilson v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 473.) These three sets of requirements constitute the foundation on which the redistricting plan is built. We have previously described the Act, the federal imperative. Here, we discuss the commands of the state, as expressed in the Constitution and by our Supreme Court, and their interrelationship with overriding national policy. Further, while the state criteria which we are directed to follow come from two sources  Article XXI of the Constitution and Reinecke IV, supra, 10 Cal.3d 396, several of the Reinecke IV criteria, on close examination, simply express in different words the basic criteria contained in Article XXI. [17]
Article XXI, section 1, an amendment to the state Constitution adopted by the people as Proposition 6 in June 1980, requires that each member of the Senate, the Assembly, Congress, and the State Board of Equalization be elected from a single-member district (Art. XXI, subd. (a)), that districts of each type be numbered consecutively from the northern boundary of the state to the southern boundary (Art. XXI, subd. (d)), and that the population of all districts of a particular type be reasonably equal (Art. XXI, subd. (b)). The first two of these provisions require no further discussion. We have previously dealt with the federal constitutional requirements of population equality. The remaining two requirements of California's Article XXI are central to our redistricting responsibility and require further discussion: (c) Every district shall be contiguous. (e) The geographical integrity of any city, county, or city and county, or of any geographical region shall be respected to the extent possible without violating the requirements of any other subdivision of this section [i.e., contiguity and population equality]. To determine more specifically what was intended by these two provisions, we turn to the Ballot Pamphlet analysis and arguments to the voters for the Primary Election of June 3, 1980. Such material is often relied upon in construing constitutional provisions. (See Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 802-803 [268 Cal. Rptr. 753, 789 P.2d 934] [ballot arguments are accepted sources from which to ascertain voters intent and intent of voters governs interpretation of constitutional provisions enacted by them]); White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 775 [120 Cal. Rptr. 94, 533 P.2d 222] [ballot argument identifies the principal mischiefs at which the constitutional amendment is directed].)
The Legislative Analyst's analysis of Proposition 6, by which Article XXI was adopted, described the measure as providing that [a]ll districts shall be adjoining. The ballot argument in favor of Proposition 6 added: Contiguous districts. Proposition 6 would require that districts be composed of adjacent territory and not widely separated areas. It would also help deter odd-shaped districts which join distant communities only by corridors along beaches, highways and waterways. (Ballot Pamp., Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Primary Elec. (June 3, 1980).)
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. )
As noted, the Masters have also been instructed by the Supreme Court to consider the following criteria used by the Special Masters and accepted by the court in 1973: 1. As required by the federal Constitution, the districts in each plan should be numerically equal in population as nearly as practicable, with strict equality in the case of congressional districts [citation].... 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. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 2. The territory included within a district should be contiguous and compact, taking into account the availability and facility of transportation and communication between the people in a proposed district, between the people and candidates in the district, and between the people and their elected representatives.

5. The social and economic interests common to the population of an area which are probable subjects of legislative action, generally termed a `community of interests' [citation] should be considered in determining whether the area should be included within or excluded from a proposed district in order that all of the citizens of the district might be represented reasonably, fairly and effectively. Examples of such interests, among others, are those common to an urban area, a rural area, an industrial area or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process. ... It is clear that in many situations county and city boundaries define political, economic and social boundaries of population groups. Furthermore, organizations with legitimate political concerns are constituted along political subdivision lines. Therefore, unnecessary division of counties and cities in reapportionment districting should be avoided. ( Reinecke IV, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 411-412, fn. omitted.) As to all of the recommended criteria, their applicability, priority and scope, other than population equality, depend on circumstances indigenous to the area under consideration. To the extent required by the federal Constitution, population equality controls. ( Reinecke IV, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 414.)