Opinion ID: 1151125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Objections of the California Assembly

Text: (9) The Assembly's primary objection to the Masters' plans is their asserted failure to achieve a politically fair reapportionment. The Assembly predicts substantial election gains by the Republican Party as a direct result of the new district lines. According to the Assembly, political fairness could best be achieved by adopting the plans drafted by them, and vetoed by the Governor. As we have previously indicated, we unqualifiedly approve the Masters' decision to devote their attention exclusively to the standards and criteria established by the Voting Rights Act, the state Constitution, and our prior opinion in Legislature v. Reinecke, supra, 10 Cal.3d 396, 402-403. In any event, the Assembly's major premise of political unfairness is subject to substantial question, being based on a dubious analogy to the results of the 1990 gubernatorial election, and on voter registration statistics of similarly doubtful utility. Political fairness, as the term is used by the Assembly, is based on an appraisal of a political party's chances in future elections. Yet predictions of future election contests are quite obviously speculative and imprecise, involving the weighing of countless variables. We think redistricting plans that comply with the federal Voting Rights Act and follow the various state standards and criteria outlined above, rather than seek to maintain the status quo or preserve or enhance the political power of any party, will necessarily produce plans at least as fair, politically or otherwise, as vetoed ones that are at best truncated products of the legislative process. ( Legislature v. Reinecke (1972) 6 Cal.3d 595, 602 [99 Cal. Rptr. 481, 492 P.2d 385].) The Assembly additionally suggests some minor changes in the Masters' plans that assertedly would avoid certain splits of city boundaries necessitated by the Masters' use of undivided census tract data. (See Report, pp. 754-757, infra. ) We decline the Assembly's offer, which would require us to deviate from the Masters' express policy to avoid splitting census tracts. (One of these minor changes proposed by the Assembly, and supported by the dissent herein, involves removing a slight division of the boundaries of Vallejo and Fairfield, necessitated by the Masters' use of undivided census tracts. We reject this proposed change because it likewise would involve splitting census tracts.)