[Text]

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Procedural History

"In light of the acknowledged necessity of affording all interested parties an opportunity to be heard in such matters [i.e., the process of redistricting], it is appropriate that we appoint three Special Masters to hold public hearings to permit the presentation of evidence and argument with respect to proposed plans of reapportionment. (See Legislature v. Reinecke (1973) 9

[Page 2]

Cal.3d 166, 167 [Reinecke III.] We will expeditiously select and appoint these Masters, and they will be guided by the procedures and criteria developed by an earlier panel of Masters for the reapportionment plans adopted by this court in 1973 (see [Legislature v. Reinecke (1973)], 10 Cal.3d [396,] 402, 410-414 [Reinecke IV]), as well as by the provisions of article XXI, section 1 of the state Constitution.[⁽¹⁾] In addition, the Masters will consider the application of federal law, including the Voting Rights Act (42 U. S. C. § 1971 et seq.).

"Following the hearings, the Masters will file their report and recommendations for possible adoption of reapportionment plans which will provide for 52 single-member congressional districts, 40 single-member Senate districts, 80 single-member Assembly districts, and 4 State Board of Equalization districts. The Masters shall set forth the criteria underlying the plans they recommend for adoption and the reasons for their recommendations." (Wilson v. Eu (1991) 54 Cal 3d. 471, 473.)

Upon appointment, the Masters held organizational meetings; and, with court approval, employed a staff and retained consultants to assist in their work.⁽²⁾ Rules to govern the conduct of the

[Page 3]

public hearings and the submission of oral and written presentations were adopted. Hearings were scheduled in Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco, and written notice of the hearings was given the parties to the actions and to others. A press release giving the times, places and purposes of the hearings was distributed statewide to the wire services, the major newspapers, and radio and television stations.⁽³⁾

Thereafter, public hearings were held in the various cities, as scheduled, at which oral presentations were made.⁽⁴⁾ Participating in one or more of the hearings were counsel for the parties or for other persons, organizations or political subdivisions, and individuals appearing on their own behalf or as representatives of groups, organizations, cities and counties. Exhibits used in support of those presentations were appropriately marked and made a part of the record. In addition to these materials, the Masters reviewed excerpts of transcripts of 12 public hearings held by the Senate from December 1990 to September 1991 on the subject of Senate and congressional redistricting.⁽⁵⁾

In our deliberations, we have been fully aware of the written presentation submitted by the Secretary of State, dated October 18,

[Page 4]

1991, stressing the importance of timely action by the Masters. We especially note her statement on page 5, as follows:

"[I]t is absolutely essential that federal constitutional and federal Voting Rights Act requirements receive the highest possible consideration in order to minimize the risk of challenge and resulting delay. In terms of drawing lines, any doubts with respect to compliance with constitutional and federal law should be resolved in favor of that alternative most likely to avoid a challenge. . . .

"To the extent it is possible to comply with the criteria requiring that census tracts be used, that districts be contiguous and compact, that they respect city and county boundaries, that they recognize geographic regions, and that they combine Assembly districts to comprise State Senate districts, it will facilitate implementation. However, these must yield to considerations of appropriate population parities and Voting Rights Act requirements which cannot be compromised for any reason." We believe that, to the maximum extent possible, we have addressed the Secretary of State's concerns.

The oral and written presentations covered a wide range of subjects. Twenty-two statewide plans were submitted (including three for the Board of Equalization). Much of the testimony in support of a particular plan was designed to demonstrate why that plan was superior to other plans, almost all of which were the subject of criticism by one or more participants.

Both written and oral presentations concerned interpretations

[Page 5]

of the Voting Rights Act, with each of the parties contending that its plan was fully consistent with the Act, as interpreted in various court opinions. The interaction between the Act, state Constitutional provisions, and the Reinecke IV requirements were discussed variously and at length.

Several witnesses (primarily those representing the Latino Coalition) urged the Masters to adjust the census figures underlying the redistricting to offset the alleged undercount of certain minority groups; in each case, the parties were advised that, while we understood the nature of the request, we had no authority to make such an adjustment. Since we are under the court's direction to follow the Reinecke guidelines, we are required to use the latest decennial census. (See Reinecke IV, 10 Cal 3d. at p. 413; see also Karcher v. Daggett (1983) 462 U.S. 725, 737 ["the census count represents the 'best population data available'"].)

Finally, a number of interested parties, some representing organizations or communities, others speaking as individuals, addressed such issues as the desirability of respecting a particular county line, the proper grouping within a district of neighboring cities or counties, or the particular needs for representation of a minority group. We were uniformly impressed by the sense of responsibility and good-will exhibited by these witnesses and their belief that the Masters would attempt to address their concerns, fairly and equitably. This we have attempted to do. 

[Page 6]

B. Conclusions and Recommendations