Opinion ID: 1151125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interrelationships Between Article XXI and Reinecke IV Criteria

Text: Article XXI, adopted in 1980, the Reinecke IV ( supra, 10 Cal.3d 396) guidelines employed by the Masters and adopted by the Supreme Court in 1973, and the imperatives of the Act are clearly complementary. Here we group the state requirements and guidelines together for comment, followed by a discussion of their relationship to the Act. a. Population Equality The requirements of the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court are, of course, controlling, and we have discussed these requirements above. b. Contiguity, Geographic Integrity, Community of Interest and Compactness These four criteria all are addressed to the same goal, the creation of legislative districts that are effective, both for the represented and the representative. The constitutional requirement of contiguity is not an abstract or geometric technical phrase. It assumes meaning when seen in combination with concepts of regional integrity and community of interest. Thus, in the ballot argument concerning contiguous districts, the proponents talked of adjacent territory and not widely separated areas and the preservation of the integrity of geographic regions. The argument criticized odd-shaped districts connected only by corridors along beaches, highways and waterways. In more detail, the Special Masters in 1973 recommended the preservation of the integrity of California's basic regions (coastal, mountain, desert, central valley and intermediate valley regions).... ( Reinecke IV, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 412.) The territory included within a district should be contiguous and compact, taking into account the availability of transportation and communication. ( Id. at p. 411.) In addition, social and economic interests common to the population of an area, e.g., an urban area, a rural area, an industrial area or an agricultural area, ( id. at p. 412) should be considered. From this we conclude that districts should be contained, insofar as possible, wholly within one of the major geographic regions of the state. While geographic regions is not further defined in the Constitution, the acceptance by the Supreme Court of the Special Masters' definition is compelling. We believe, at a minimum, this requires recognition of the division between Northern and Southern California by the Tehachapi Mountains and of such major regions as the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys, the coastal areas of Northern and Central California, and the Mojave and other desert areas east of the Sierra Nevada and north of the San Gabriel Mountains. c. City and County Boundaries and Community of Interest Similarly, the state Constitution's inclusion of the geographical integrity of any city, county, or city and county is paralleled by the 1973 Special Masters' finding that in many situations county and city boundaries define political, economic and social boundaries of population groups. ( Reinecke IV, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 412.) In the context of both Article XXI and Reinecke IV this means that districts must have some reasonable functional compactness, in the sense that we have discussed above in our analysis of Thornburg and the Act. Compactness does not refer to geometric shapes but to the ability of citizens to relate to each other and their representatives and to the ability of representatives to relate effectively to their constituency. Further, it speaks to relationships that are facilitated by shared interests and by membership in a political community, including a county [18] or city. [19] There is one possible conflict between the Act and Article XXI involving cities: where a geographically compact minority group is located partly within and partly without a city. (The southern part of Sacramento is an example.) In some areas of California city annexations are a common occurrence; thus it is possible that minority areas remain divided either by intent or by effect, thus indirectly diluting the vote of the affected minority groups. In areas where such a situation exists, and where a minority influence district could be created, we have given precedence to keeping geographically compact minority groups together rather than maintain city boundaries.