V. PLANS RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION

A. Assembly Plan

1. In General

2. North Coastal Region Districts

Districts 1, 6 and 7 constitute the area north of the Golden Gate and Carquinez Straits. District 1 consists of the territory known as the Redwood Empire, including all of Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino and Lake counties and Sonoma County north of Santa Rosa, the most rural area of the county. District 6 consists of all of Marin County and the adjacent semi-suburban areas of Petaluma and Rohnert Park in Sonoma County. District 7 includes Santa Rosa and

[Page 52]

the town of Sonoma, all of Napa County and Vallejo, immediately to the south. Vallejo is the part of Solano County included within the North Coastal Region. Overall, the division of this area is quite similar to that which was recommended by the 1973 Special Masters.

Districts 12 and 13 constitute all of San Francisco and a very small part of adjacent San Mateo County needed to achieve population equality. We spent considerable time considering how to divide San Francisco so as to protect minority influence in the resulting districts. San Francisco has a large Asian community and smaller Latino and African-American communities. However, the populations of minorities are not concentrated in a single area.⁽⁴²⁾ We considered two main alternatives for creating an Asian influence district, one connecting "Chinatown" with Asian areas in the Sunset and Richmond districts and part of the southern fringe of the city; and the other, which we finally adopted as District 12, did not include "Chinatown" but did include more of the southern fringe and a small part of heavily Asian Daly City. Both had about the same percentage of Asians, and approximately the same amount of Asian registration.⁽⁴³⁾ The one we chose, however, was more suited for

[Page 53]

pairing (for purposes of creating a Senate district) with the neighboring Assembly district in San Mateo which also has a substantial number of Asians.⁽⁴⁴⁾ District 13, the other San Francisco district, includes most of the Latino and African-American population of the city and is almost 51 percent minority in population.

Districts 14 and 16 encompass the substantial African-American population in Alameda and Contra Costa counties adjacent to the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay. District 16 includes much of Oakland plus the City of Alameda. It has long had an African-American member of the Assembly and has 35.7 percent African-American population and has a substantial Latino and Asian population as well. As a result it has over 66 percent minority population. District 14 consists of Richmond, San Pablo and El Cerrito in Contra Costa County and Berkeley, Albany and some of the northern part of Oakland. It is 29.1 percent African-American (and is over 52 percent in total minority population) in an area where African-American candidates have often done well.⁽⁴⁵⁾ A number of

[Page 54]

residents of Richmond expressed concern about the possibility of being linked with Oakland because they have competing ports and thus may have a legislator with divided loyalties. We acknowledge this concern, but believe the recommended district is, nevertheless, preferable. Maritime concerns are largely a matter of federal law, and we have kept Richmond in a congressional district separate from Oakland. Further, the Contra Costa part of this district is substantially more populous than the part of Oakland included within it. The current Assembly districts (and those proposed by the Assembly) divide this African-American population between two districts and no African-American has ever been elected from either. Thus, in view of the requirements of the Voting Rights Act we believe that the only proper solution is to keep this African-American population intact within one district.

Districts 11, 15, 16 and 18  Districts 11, 15, 18 and 20 [corrected text] encompass the remainder of the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa. District 11 lies on or near San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait or Suisun Bay from Pinole to Antioch. The largest city is Concord. This area is functionally compact, has many industries related to the bordering bays. District 15 includes the interior parts of Contra Costa and Alameda counties (i.e. the area located east of the East Bay Hills) including Lafayette, Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Dublin and Livermore. The areas are linked by the Interstate 680 freeway. Pleasanton had

[Page 55]

to be divided, however, because of population equality reasons.⁽⁴⁶⁾ District 16 District 18 [corrected text] consists of San Leandro, Hayward, Union City and part of Pleasanton, all in Alameda County. District 18  District 20 [corrected text] includes Fremont in Alameda County and Milpitas and part of San Jose adjacent to it in Santa Clara County. Both the Alameda County and Santa Clara County parts of the district have a substantial Asian population, 14.5 percent for the district as a whole. [Corrected text.]

Districts 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24 are located in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. District 19 is the part of San Mateo County immediately south of San Francisco, including most of Daly City, all of South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, Hillsborough and the City of San Mateo and part of Foster City. The northerly part of the district has a substantial Asian population, so that the district is 20.9 percent Asian. District 21 includes the southern part of San Mateo County (including Belmont, Redwood City and Menlo Park) and part of Santa Clara County (including Palo Alto, and Los Altos.) District 22 consists mainly of Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara, plus part of western San Jose and District 24 includes Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Campbell and the southern part of San Jose. District 23 includes

[Page 56]

the most Latino parts of central and eastern San Jose and is 43.5 percent Latino and because of a large Asian presence and some African-American presence, is 69 percent non-white.

Districts 27 and 28 are located, primarily, in the Monterey and Santa Cruz County area. This is one of the places where, because of Section 5 pre-clearance concerns,⁽⁴⁷⁾ we did not follow our original districting concepts. But for the need for absolute certainty for pre-clearance approval without delay, we would not have divided Monterey County -- because it is close to the ideal population of an Assembly district. However, currently it is divided in the assembly, being joined with Merced County. (The Merced part of the current district actually "dilutes" the Latino population of the district, and is located in another geographic region of the state.) Even so, keeping Monterey County intact might be considered a "retrogression" in Latino representation, since the resulting district would have a smaller percentage of Latinos than the current district. So we divided Monterey County into Latino and non-Latino parts, creating District 28 as a Latino influence district by joining the Latino parts with San Benito County, the Watsonville area of Santa Cruz County and the somewhat Latino part of southern Santa Clara County. The resulting Latino population is almost 46 percent (and the total minority population is over 56 percent.) The Latino population is higher than the existing district. We were also aided in making this decision by

[Page 57]

the fact that District 27, which includes the remaining parts of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties resembles, in its populated area, a district created by the Special Masters in 1973. (District 27 appears to be very elongated, but it includes the extremely sparsely populated Big Sur coastline of southern Monterey County for which the main access is the scenic highway, route 1, leading south from Carmel.) 

3. North Interior Region Districts

Districts 2, 3, 4 and 8 are primarily rural districts. District 2 includes much of the Sacramento Valley agricultural region, including Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa and Sutter Counties, extending from Redding to near Sacramento. Though long and narrow, like the valley it encompasses, it is centered on Interstate 5. Two non-agricultural counties are also included, Siskiyou and Trinity Counties. Siskiyou is also located on Interstate 5 and Trinity is reached, primarily, from Redding. Small parts of Butte County (the area around Gridley) and Yolo County (the area around Knights Landing), both of which are wholly agricultural, have been included solely because of the population equality requirement. District 3 includes six northern mountain counties (Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Sierra, Nevada and Yuba plus most of Butte County, which is partly mountain and partly valley in

[Page 58]

orientation. District 4 is made up of six whole counties located in the Mother Lode region of the Sierras: Placer, El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, Alpine and Mono Counties. District 8 includes Solano County (less Vallejo which was included in the North Coastal Region), almost all of Yolo County and the delta region of Sacramento County, a sparsely populated rural region adjacent to eastern Solano and southern Yolo County.

Districts 5, 9, 10 and 17 encompass the urban areas of Sacramento and Stockton. District 5 contains most of the unincorporated northern part of Sacramento County. District 9 includes the bulk of the City of Sacramento. Based strictly on population, the city could constitute a separate Assembly district. However, in the south-central area of Sacramento there is a significant geographically compact minority population which is partly within and partly without the city. By including this within District 9, it was possible to create a district which is just over 50 percent in minority population. In view of the obligations we faced under the Voting Rights Act, we thought it preferable to do this rather than follow the city lines strictly. District 10 consists of the rest of Sacramento County and the northern part of San Joaquin County, including Lodi. District 17 includes almost all of the rest of San Joaquin County including the City of Stockton.

Districts 26, 30 and 31 are the product of our efforts to maximize the Latino presence in districts of the San Joaquin Valley

[Page 59]

in order to assure (insofar as we are able) pre-clearance by the Attorney General under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The construction of two districts, 30 and 31, were driven by the fact that Kings County was covered by the Voting Rights Act. We started by trying to capture all significant enclaves of minority (primarily Latino) population in Kern, Tulare and Fresno Counties, and eventually used some heavily Latino areas in Madera County for this purpose. One of the resulting districts, District 30 covers the rather sparsely populated, but heavily Latino, area of the southwestern part of the San Joaquin Valley. It is rather elongated, but it is centered on Interstate 5, a modern and as yet uncrowded freeway which facilitates communication. It has a "hook" at the southern end which reaches into (and divides) Bakersfield so as to add the minority parts of the city to the district. The result is an Assembly district with 49.5 percent Latino population and 60 percent overall minority population. District 30 includes all of Kings County (which, because it is covered by section 5, is what triggered the special effort in connection with this district) as well as parts of Fresno and Kern counties and a small part of Madera County. District 31 includes parts of only two counties, Fresno County including the southern part of the City of Fresno and western Tulare County. On the map it appears quite oddly shaped but it is more compact in a functional sense than District 30 and its shape was dictated by the geography of the Latino population. It does, however, divide the cities of Fresno, Visalia and Tulare in order to maximize the Latino presence in the district. The

[Page 60]

result is an Assembly district with 52.2 percent Latino population, and almost 69 percent overall minority population. This district was created for purposes of "nesting" with District 30, thus producing a Senate district of almost 51 percent Latino population which includes Kings County.⁽⁴⁸⁾ District 26 includes all of Merced County and the most Latino parts of Stanislaus County (which required the division of Modesto. The district has a Latino population approximately one percent lower than that of Merced County itself. The only way to increase the Latino population of this district by use of Latinos within the same geographically compact area would be to use some of the Latino population used to build the high percentages we achieved in Districts 30 and 31, which would have an overall dilution effect, which we think is undesirable as well as violative of the spirit of the Voting Rights Act.

Districts 25, 29 and 32 are made up of the remainder of the San Joaquin Valley after creating districts 26, 30 and 31 so as to maximize Latino population. District 25 has two major population centers, part of Modesto to the north, and the City of Madera and a small part of Fresno to the south. District 29 includes much of Fresno and most of Visalia, about 30 miles to the south. District

[Page 61]

30 includes several Tulare county cities, including Exeter, Porterville and much of the City of Tulare plus most of Bakersfield in Kern County. 

4. Southern California Region Districts

Districts 45, 46, 49, 50, 57 and 58 are Latino majority districts. We started both by tracing a line around census tracts with majority or near majority Latino population and by mapping out what areas were covered by Latino districts created by the various plans submitted to us. To a remarkable degree, these coincided and each showed it was possible to create six Assembly districts with majority Latino populations. Based on this preliminary research we set about constructing these districts. We were also requested to

[Page 62]

take into account significant Asian populations in part of this overall area, and we endeavored to do so. District 57 which is located in the eastern San Gabriel Valley includes the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, El Monte and La Puente. It is 63.5 percent Latino in population (and 78 percent in overall minority population) and, based on the registration figures provided us, appears to have over 40 percent Latino registration. District 58 includes Montebello, Pico Rivera, Norwalk and the western part of Whittier. It is 62 percent Latino and almost 72 percent in total minorities and also apparently has well over 40 percent in Latino registration. District 49, centered on Monterey Park, Alhambra, San Gabriel and Rosemead, has only 55 percent Latino population, but the Latino registration appears to be over 44 percent. The district also has a large Asian presence -- over 28 percent -- and both Latino and Asian groups requested that this district include the four cities that form its basis. Districts 45 and 46 are based on the downtown and eastern parts of the City of Los Angeles. District 45 has 63 percent Latino population and District 46 has over 70 percent Latino population. The registration figures provided us show only about 35 percent Latino registration in each. However both districts have a large Asian presence -- 18 percent for District 45 and 14 percent for District 46 and the combined Asian and Latino registration in both exceeds 42 percent. District 45 is, overall, 84 percent minority and District 46 is over 91 percent minority. Initially, because of a request from Asian representatives we constructed District 45 to include most of the

[Page 63]

Asian population which is now split between the districts. (This population is located in the Westlake region just west of downtown Los Angeles in the western parts of both districts.) However, in this configuration, because of very low registration by both Latinos and Asians in this area this appeared to dilute the voting strength of the Latinos in the district without creating a significant influence district for Asians.⁽⁴⁹⁾ For this reason we re-configured the district to its present form. The sixth Latino district is District 50. This is composed almost entirely of small cities southeast of downtown Los Angeles, including Huntington Park, South Gate, Maywood and Bell Gardens. It has a Latino population of over 88 percent and an apparent Latino registration of approximately 55 percent. We were concerned that we had inadvertently packed Latino population in this district, but discovered that most other plans submitted to us had somewhat similar percentages for a district encompassing this area -- MALDEF's plan, for example, had over 84 percent Latino population. A Latino delegation from the area had also urged us to create a district based on these cities. We explored whether there were any feasible methods to substantially reduce the concentration of Latinos, and ultimately concluded that none existed.⁽⁵⁰⁾

[Page 64]

Districts 47, 48, 51, 52 and 55 are African-American majority districts. In this instance we accepted the definitions offered by almost every participant at our hearings who addressed the point,⁽⁵¹⁾ that an effective African-American majority is in the range of 35 percent to 40 percent of the total population. Our initial step was the same as for Latino districts, to map out the areas of African-American concentrations in south-central Los Angeles. While the areas of such concentration are obvious from an inspection of a map, the total population of African-Americans in the area are not enough to provide an effective majority for five Assembly districts, which is the number of African-American members of the Assembly currently representing the area.⁽⁵²⁾ All but one of the African-American districts created by us actually have more Latinos than African-Americans, although the apparent Latino registration in these areas is abysmally low.⁽⁵³⁾ District 47

[Page 65]

includes Culver City and the Crenshaw area of Los Angeles, and it is 40.5 percent African-American and over 70 percent minority in composition. District 48, almost entirely in the City of Los Angeles includes the Exposition Park area south to the north border of Watts. It is over 46 percent African-American and, because of a huge, but as noted, mostly non-voting Latino population of 52 percent, the district is 98 percent minority. District 51 is centered on Inglewood and includes the city of Hawthorne as well as parts of south-central Los Angeles. It is 36.3 percent African-American and overall, over 77 percent minority. District 52 is centered on Watts and the north part of Compton, and includes the cities of Gardena and Lynwood. It is also 36.3 percent African-American and 48.5 percent Latino, though the Latino registration is apparently only 11 percent of the total registration. The district is over 90 percent minority. The final African-American district is District 55, which includes the southern part of Compton, the City of Carson, the Wilmington area of Los Angeles and part of western Long Beach. Although it is 80 percent minority in composition, it is only 23.3 percent African-American. Despite this fact, however, the current representative of this area is African-American. When we first outlined the districts in the African-American area, this district had an even lower African-American population although it was close to 80 percent minority and included almost 20 percent Asians.⁽⁵⁴⁾ In order to maintain the

[Page 66]

African-American basis for representation, we decided to re-cast District 55 by dividing the city of Compton in order to bring the number of African-Americans in the district up to the percentage of the existing district, although it brought both Districts 51 and 52 down to near the minimum that we felt necessary for an African-American majority district. The recommended District 55 is 17 percent Asian and over 40 percent Latino.

Districts 33, 35 and 37 are located in the counties northwest of Los Angeles. District 33 includes all of San Luis Obispo County and most of the populated area of Santa Barbara County north of the Santa Ynez Mountains, including Santa Maria and Lompoc. District 35 includes the remainder of Santa Barbara County (including the City of Santa Barbara) and the north and western parts of Ventura County (including the cities of Ventura, Ojai and Santa Paula.)⁽⁵⁵⁾ District 37 includes most of the rest of Ventura County, including

[Page 67]

Oxnard, Camarillo and Thousand Oaks.

Districts 34 and 36 are located almost entirely in the Mojave and other desert areas east of the Sierra Nevada and north of the San Gabriels. District 34 includes Inyo county and the desert part of Kern County assigned to the Southern California Region as well as most of the desert part of San Bernardino County, including Barstow and Victorville. District 36 includes the Los Angeles part of the Mojave Desert, the Antelope Valley, including Palmdale and Lancaster. It also includes most of the City of Santa Clarita, north of the San Fernando Valley.

Districts 38, 39, 40, 41 and 43 are located in and adjacent to the San Fernando Valley. District 38 includes Simi Valley from Ventura County and the Castaic area north of the valley as well as the Chatsworth and Northridge areas in the northwest part of the valley. District 39 was designed to include the minority population of the northeastern part of the valley. It has over 62 percent Latino population (and over 75 percent overall minority population) though apparently Latinos constitute only 25 percent of the registered voters. District 40 includes Studio City, North Hollywood and Van Nuys and has the second highest percentage of Latinos (just under 30 percent) and total minorities (almost 42 percent) in the valley. District 41 includes the Woodland Hills area of the southwest part of the Valley as well as Malibu, Calabasas, Pacific Palisades and Santa Monica. District 43

[Page 68]

includes Burbank in the southeast corner of the valley, but is made up primarily of Glendale and the Griffith Park and Los Feliz area near central Los Angeles.

District 42 includes Beverly Hills and the Hollywood, Westwood and Hancock Park areas of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the east and south by the Latino and African-American districts described above.

Districts 53, 54 and 56 are non-minority districts located in the southwest part of Los Angeles County. District 53 consists of coastal cities extending from the Venice area of Los Angeles through Torrance. (One tract of Rolling Hills Estates was included in this district to achieve population balance.) District 54 also is coastal, including the Palos Verdes Peninsula, San Pedro and the coastal section of Long Beach. District 56 includes Lakewood, part of North Long Beach, Cerritos, Bellflower and Downey.

Districts 44, 59 and 60 are located in the north and east parts of urban Los Angeles County. District 44 includes Pasadena, La Canada, and the Sunland-Tujunga area of the City of Los Angeles. District 59 includes Monrovia, San Dimas, Covina and Claremont as well as part of Pomona.⁽⁵⁶⁾ It is somewhat divided in effect because Azusa, which is a partial barrier between Monrovia and San

[Page 69]

Dimas, is part of a previously constructed Latino district. District 60 contains the remaining parts of Los Angeles County. It is centered in the east on West Covina and Diamond Bar, but it also includes La Mirada and part of Whittier. As explained earlier, its elongated shape is because the previously created Latino districts lie close to the Los Angeles County border.

Districts 61, 62, 63 and 65 are located wholly or primarily in San Bernardino county. Districts 61 and 62 were designed to concentrate minority areas in San Bernardino County into these two districts. As a result, District 61, which includes the more Latino part of Pomona from Los Angeles County and extends eastward through most of Ontario, has almost 55 percent minorities, of whom almost 42 percent are Latino. District 62, extending from the edge of Ontario and including the parts of the City of San Bernardino⁽⁵⁷⁾ that have minority concentrations is over 56 percent in minority population including 39 percent Latinos and 12 percent African-American. The district also includes Colton, Rialto and Fontana. District 63 includes the areas to the north and east of Districts 61 and 62 which lie south of the San Gabriel Mountains which have fewer minorities. This district includes Loma Linda, Upland and the non-minority parts of the City of San Bernardino. District 65 includes Redlands, Yucaipa, Big Bear and Twenty-Nine Palms in San Bernardino County and Moreno Valley, Hemet and San Jacinto in

[Page 70]

Riverside County to the south of Redlands and Yucaipa.

Districts 64, 66 and 80 are located wholly or primarily in Riverside County. District 64 includes all of the City of Riverside and adjacent Norco and about half of the City of Corona, which had to be split in order to obtain population equality. District 66 includes the rest of western Riverside County not included in Districts 65 or 64, including the remainder of Corona and all of Lake Elsinore and Temecula plus a small part of San Diego County in the Fallbrook and Mount Palomar areas just to the south of Temecula. District 80 includes all of eastern Riverside County, including Beaumont, Banning, Palm Springs, Indio and Blythe as well as all of the County of Imperial. Combining Imperial County with the eastern part of Riverside County resulted in a district which was almost 46 percent Latino and almost 51 percent in total minority population.

Districts 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73 are all Orange County districts. The first district constructed by us was District 69, in order to maximize the Latino population. It includes most of Santa Ana and the more Latino parts of Garden Grove and central Anaheim. The result is a district which is 64.6 percent Latino and over 76 percent in total minority representation. (The Latino registration, however, appears to be under 25 percent.) The second district constructed was District 68, which was designed to include as many of the remaining concentrations of minorities (mainly

[Page 71]

Asian) in Orange County. This district includes the remainder of Garden Grove, the western part of Anaheim,⁽⁵⁸⁾ and almost all of Buena Park, and it is almost 17 percent Asian in population and, overall, is 42 percent minority in population. The remaining districts were constructed so as to be as compact as possible and to minimize the division of cities. District 67 includes the north coastal part of Orange County including Los Alamitos, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. District 70 includes the central coastal part of the county including Newport Beach, Laguna Beach and Irvine. District 72 includes the north interior part of the county, including Fullerton, La Habra and Yorba Linda. District 71 includes the south interior part of Orange County, including the City of Orange, Tustin and the eastern part of Anaheim. Finally, District 73 includes San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano and Mission Viejo in southern Orange County, and because additional population was needed, it also includes Camp Pendleton, Oceanside and a small part of Carlsbad (needed to equalize population) from northern San Diego County.

Districts 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79 are all located entirely within San Diego County. We started with District 79 and centered it on the areas of greatest Latino and African-American concentra-

[Page 72]

tions. The district encompasses all of National City, about half of Chula Vista and the southernmost parts of the City of San Diego. The resulting district is over 76 percent in total minority population, with the Latino population at 49.3 percent, the African-American population at 16 percent and the Asian population at 11.2 percent. (The district resembles very closely one suggested by MALDEF in the plan submitted by that organization.) District 77 was the next to be constructed and it includes the remainder of Chula Vista, part of the City of San Diego and the inland cities of Lemon Grove, La Mesa and El Cajon just east of the City of San Diego. This district has the second greatest concentration of minorities in San Diego County at 34.7 percent. District 78 is coastal in orientation and extends from Imperial Beach in the south through Coronado and reaches the La Jolla area of the City of San Diego to the north. It also includes the Mission Bay area of the city and the University of California, San Diego campus near La Jolla. The district is quite elongated in the south, but this was due to our decision not to dilute the minority percentage in adjacent District 79 by including predominately non-minority Imperial Beach and Coronado in that district. The district is well served by freeways and the Coronado Bridge, the main access to Coronado is wholly within the district. District 76 lies wholly within the City of San Diego and includes most of its northern interior area, from Mission Valley to the south almost to Rancho Bernardo in the North. District 75 includes all of eastern San Diego County including mountain and desert areas (such as Ramona

[Page 73]

and Borrego Springs) but its main population centers are Santee, Poway and the most northerly reaches of the City of San Diego. The final district to be described, District 74 (which, along with District 73, was actually the last district that we constructed) contains the northern San Diego cities of Escondido, Vista and San Marcos and the small north county beach cities such as Encinitas and Solana Beach. It also includes most of the city of Carlsbad, which, as noted before, had to be split to equalize population.