NEWS RELEASE

San Francisco -- The Special Masters on Reapportionment filed their report on Friday, November 29 with recommendations for new districts for the state Legislature, Congress, and the Board of Equalization. The Supreme Court released the report today.

The Special Masters declined to adopt any of the plans submitted by the Legislature or by other parties. Instead, following public hearings held in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco, the Masters submitted plans that they drafted for consideration by the Supreme Court.

The report of the Special Masters is 100 pages long with map and statistical appendices totalling another 63 pages. The Masters review the criteria that they were directed to follow by the Supreme Court: the U.S. Constitution; the federal Voting Rights Act as amended by Congress in 1982; Article XXI section 1 of the California Constitution; and the criteria adopted by the Supreme Court in its 1973 redistricting opinion. The report then details why the Masters reject plans submitted by others. Finally, the report explains the process used by the Masters in drafting the plans that they recommend and describes the resulting districts.

In their report, the Masters describe their compliance with the Voting Rights Act by creating districts where "geographically compact" minority groups are located in a manner to protect their voting potential. Then, the remainder of the districts are constructed by complying with the criteria used in 1973 and those contained in Article XXI. The masters conclude that the intent of Article XXI, when it was adopted by the voters in June 1980, was to make sure that legislative districts were composed of "adjacent territory and not widely separated areas" and to "deter odd-shaped districts which join distant communities only by corridors along beaches, highways and waterways." Thus, the Masters endeavor to observe the integrity of the basic geographical regions of the state and to form compact districts, following county and city boundaries to the extent feasible.

The legislative districts are all within 1% of the ideal size of 372,000 persons for Assembly Districts and 744,000 persons for Senate Districts. Congressional districts are all within 0.25% of the ideal size of 572,308 persons. In creating state Senate districts, as instructed by the Supreme Court, the Masters combined two Assembly districts to form each Senate district, a practice known as "nesting." All districts are composed of whole census tracts, the basic unit of measuring population used by the Census Bureau. The Masters observe that drawing plans on a census tract basis would make it more feasible for community groups, including minority groups, to participate meaningfully in the reapportionment process.

Maps illustrating the recommended districts are attached to the report.

The Special Masters are Retired Justice George A. Brown, formerly with the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (Fresno), who served as Presiding Master of the panel; Retired Judge Rafael H. Galceran, formerly with the Los Angeles County Superior Court; and Retired Judge Thomas Kongsgaard, formerly with the Napa County Superior Court.

The Special Masters issued their report and recommended districts in response to an order of the Supreme Court issued on September 26, 1991. That order followed Governor Pete Wilson's September 23, 1991, veto of legislative plans submitted to him. On that same day, an attempted override of the veto failed and the Legislature recessed for the rest of the year.

The Supreme Court exercised its original jurisdiction by issuing an alternative writ of mandate that ordered the drafting and adoption of suitable reapportionment plans for the 1992 primary and general elections. In that order, dated September 26, 1991, the court appointed three special masters and directed them to hold public hearings "to permit the presentation of evidence and argument with respect to proposed plans of reapportionment." The masters were ordered to present their recommendations to the court no later than November 29, 1991.

On October 23, 1991, the Supreme Court filed a further memorandum order that approved a procedure proposed by the Secretary of State for the timely implementation of the reapportionment plans. In this order, the court noted that it expects to file its decision by January 28, 1991, the deadline suggested by the Secretary of State.

In a separate press release issued today, the Supreme Court announced today it will hold oral arguments in the reapportionment case on Monday, January 13.

733/H