The California Supreme Court grappled at a hearing in San Francisco today with whether a not-yet-qualified referendum requires it to bar a state Senate redistricting plan from being used in the November election.
The California Supreme Court grappled at a hearing in San Francisco today with whether a not-yet-qualified referendum requires it to bar a state Senate redistricting plan from being used in the November election.
The state Senate map is part of a reapportionment plan prepared by the California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission, which was established by state voters in 2008.
The state Senate district lines are being challenged in a referendum proposed by Orange County businesswoman and Republican leader Julie Vandermost.
The referendum hasn’t yet qualified for the November ballot. A lawyer for Secretary of State Debra Bowen told the court today that a hand count of referendum signatures is needed and will be completed at the end of February.
But Vandermost claims that because the referendum appears likely to qualify, the court should suspend the commission’s Senate redistricting map and substitute a different plan.
Vandermost’s attorney, Charles Hall, suggested today that the court could use any of several alternatives, including retaining the current 10-year-old districts or appointing a special master to set new lines.
“We believe the people’s right to a referendum is sufficiently important that the court should consider other remedies,” Hall said.
“The only thing that is precluded is the existing commission maps,” the attorney argued.
James Brosnahan, representing the commission, argued that there is no proof that the referendum is likely to qualify and said that even if it does qualify, it might not be approved by voters.
The commission attorney said it’s too late to draw new districts for the fall election and said, “The only sensible decision is to use the commission districts.”
Brosnahan said that because of population shifts, using the old 2001 districts would violate the federal voting rights law on treatment of minority voters and equalization of population in districts.
The court’s seven justices have said they will issue a ruling by the end of this month.
Voters in November will elect state senators in California’s 20 odd-numbered Senate districts.
To qualify for the ballot, the referendum needs 504,760 valid signatures. Vandermost turned in 711,000 signatures. Sampling thus far indicates a 72 percent validity rate, but because the numbers are close, state law requires a full hand count of all signatures.
Julia Cheever, Bay City News
Want more news, sent to your inbox every day? Then how about subscribing to our email newsletter? Here’s why we think you should. Come on, give it a try.
