CRC Header

Press Release

October 11, 2011

For Immediate Release
Contact: Rob Wilcox

Communications Director

916-709-6358

California Citizens Redistricting Commission

Citizens Redistricting Commission 
Moves for Summary Denial of the Only Two Lawsuits Filed

Sacramento, CA (October 11, 2011) --   

 

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission has asked the California Supreme Court to summarily reject the only two lawsuits filed because they fail to provide any facts showing the Commission's work was an unreasonable application of the redistricting criteria. The Commission explained that there is no basis to reconsider the Senate and Congressional districts that were carefully created in accordance with California enacted initiatives that amended the California Constitution to put citizens in charge of the redistricting process.

 

The Commission has asserted to the Court that the two petitions filed do not properly allege any violations by the Commission. The time has expired for any additional lawsuits to be filed in the California Supreme Court.

 

The independent Commission consists of 14 members from diverse ethnic, geographic and professional backgrounds and were selected from over 30,000 applicants. The Commission held 34 public input hearings across the state hearing from over 2,700 speakers, and received over 20,000 written comments. The Commission also held 22 public line-drawing meetings which were live streamed and are now archived on the Commission's website.   In short, the Commission reasonably created districts based on the nonpartisan criteria enacted by Propositions 11 and 20 which were passed by the voters.

           

The Commission asserted in its filing that the U.S. and California Constitutions, the Voting Rights Act and all criteria were reasonably considered and applied by the Commission.

 

The Commission also moved to dismiss a declaration filed in support of the lawsuits by Mr. Anthony Quinn. The Commission asserted that Mr. Quinn has been, his whole life, a partisan for one political party, did not submit his opinions to the commission for public scrutiny during the public review process, and did not support his opinions in accordance with rules of evidence and should not have his individual opinions substituted for the eight months of work put in by the Commission.

 

The Commission made a number of points about why Mr. Quinn's opinions are flawed, inadmissible and should be stricken. "The Quinn declarations are comprised almost exclusively of legal arguments and legal opinion." "Quinn's opinions also are inadmissible on relevancy grounds because he uses the wrong standard." "Quinn's opinions are further irrelevant because they consider expressly the effect of redistricting on incumbents and other political candidates, a criterion that the California Constitution prohibited the Commission from considering in its line-drawing process."

 

 

In the Commission's Preliminary Opposition filed today, the Commission provided a comprehensive response to both the Vandermost and the Radanovich Petitions. The Commission explained:

 

"The State Senate and U.S. Congressional districts certified by the Citizens Redistricting Commission (the "Commission") are the result of an extraordinary, multi-month process mandated by the Voters First Act, which amended the California Constitution to vest redistricting authority in the Commission and required the Commission to "conduct an open and transparent process enabling full public consideration of and comment on the drawing of district lines." (Cal. Const., art. XXI, � 2, subd. (b).)

 

The public's participation in this redistricting process-and the Commission's careful consideration of input by citizens and groups throughout the state-is unprecedented. All of the Commission's deliberations-and all public submissions to the Commission-are available for public review on the Commission's website.

 

The Commission is an independent, non-partisan constitutional body whose 14 members were selected by a rigorous process designed to create a fair and capable Commission. The Commission was aided by mapping consultants and legal counsel and had unfettered access to all data in the Statewide Database which was previously used in the Legislature's redistricting efforts. The Commission's resulting maps comply in every respect with the Constitution and its current redistricting criteria, and provide for fair and effective representation.

 

The Petitioners, by contrast, rely exclusively on the unsupported factual speculation and legal conclusions of a single, shared "expert"- whose preferences they would substitute for the Commission's public process, measured deliberations, and careful exercise of its constitutional mandate. In doing so, Petitioners urge application of the wrong standard of review-arguing that the Commission's application of the constitutional redistricting criteria and its line-drawing decisions are subject to de novo review, rather than the high level of deference this Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have always afforded redistricting plans by the Legislature or other body vested with redistricting authority and the complex balancing of multiple factors that it entails.

 

In identical language (apparently copied from the first-filed petition) the Petitions also suffer the common fatal flaw of misstating (and conflating) Article XXI's current redistricting criteria. (Cal. Const., art. XXI, � 2, subd. (d)(1)- (6).) Petitioners fail to recognize that Article XXI, as amended by Propositions 11 and 20, does not endorse entirely the "recommended criteria" used by special masters in the California Supreme Court's prior decisions and instead establishes different criteria, in different order of priority, which the Commission applied correctly. Petitioners also ignore that, pursuant to current Article XXI, lower-level redistricting criteria-such as the relative "compactness" of districts-must be balanced with and sometimes subordinated to higher-level criteria, such as compliance with the strict equal population requirement and with the federal Voting Rights Act ("VRA").

 

Each of the claims in the Vandermost Petition, which challenges State Senate districts drawn by the Commission, is legally flawed and should be summarily rejected:

  • Its First Cause of Action alleges violation of "geographic compactness" without acknowledging the demands of four higher-level constitutional criteria and without supporting precedent of any kind. It also alleges that the Commission failed to properly divide the state into geographic regions, an approach followed by the 1991 court-appointed special masters, but in no way required by current Article XXI or any applicable law (nor necessary given advances in map-drawing technology during the last two decades).
  • Its Second Cause of Action for "unnecessary division of counties" similarly ignores the demands of higher-level criteria, including the top-level priority of strict adherence to equal population, and ignores that the fourth-level criterion on which Vandermost relies requires that equal consideration be given to the integrity of other political divisions, including cities and local communities of interest. As with regard to her First Cause of Action, Vandermost presents no precedent supporting this claim.
  • Its Third Cause of Action for violation of the VRA fails on its face to state a claim since it alleges (1) no retrogression from established benchmarks as required by VRA Section 5, and (2) no potential "majority-minority" district, which is a first pre-condition to a VRA Section 2 claim.
  • And its Fourth Case of Action, based on "likely qualification" of a referendum fails on its face because (1) it alleges no facts showing that the referendum is likely to qualify, and (2) likely qualification is not a basis under Article XXI for staying the certified maps.

The Radanovich Petition makes two inconsistent claims with regard to Los Angeles County Congressional Districts-that the Commission simultaneously failed to take race into account to the detriment of African Americans in violation of the VRA, and did take race into account to the benefit of African Americans in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like Vandermost's claims, all claims in the Radanovich Petition are legally flawed and should be summarily denied:

  • Its First Cause of Action for "racial gerrymandering" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment fails to allege let alone demonstrate any facts showing that race was the predominant factor in drawing the challenged Los Angeles County districts under controlling Supreme Court precedent that requires a showing that the redistricting decision is unexplainable on grounds other than race. Indeed, the districts are the result of an extensive process that considered and correctly applied the race-neutral redistricting criteria in Article XXI.
  • Its Second Cause of Action-for alleged failure to create a majority African American district under VRA Section 2-fails on its face for failure to show, as a necessary precondition, that majority voters in the Los Angeles County region at issue regularly vote as a bloc to defeat African American-preferred candidates. In fact, the Commission heard overwhelming evidence, including from leaders of the African American community, that African Americans in this region of Los Angeles have a long history of success in electing candidates of their choice.
  • Its Third and Fourth Causes of Action for violation of "geographic compactness" and "unnecessary division of cities" are based on the identical flawed legal analysis used by Vandermost. Like the Vandermost claims, they fail to take into account the demands of higher level criteria-including the need to create majority Latino Districts to comply with VRA Section 2-and allege no supporting facts or supporting legal precedent, relying only on the opinions and preference of their proffered expert.

"As explained in detail herein, with regard to every challenged district, the Commission considered and applied faithfully the protections of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, and all other Article XXI redistricting criteria, in the order of priority mandated by the California Constitution. None of the Petitioners' challenges to the certified maps have merit, and each can and should be summarily rejected."          

 

The Commission's full filing with the California Supreme Court can be found at the Commission's website at www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov

 

 

 #     #     #     #

   

  

 

Follow the Commission on Twitter Follow us on Twitter and on Facebook at the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

 

 

California's first Citizens Redistricting Commission is a new 14-member Commission charged with redrawing California's Senate, Assembly, State Board of Equalization, and Congressional districts based on information gathered during the 2010 census. The Commission must draw the State Senate, Assembly, State Board of Equalization, and Congressional districts in conformity with strict, nonpartisan rules designed to create districts of relatively equal population that will provide fair representation for all Californians.