Wilson?v.?Eu?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?471?,?286?Cal.Rptr.?280;?816?P.2d?1306
[No.?S022835.?Sep?25,?1991.]PETE?WILSON,?Individually?and?as?Governor,?etc.,?Petitioner,?v.?MARCH?FONG?EU,?as?Secretary?of?State,?etc.,?et?al.,?Respondents;?ASSEMBLY?OF?THE?STATE?OF?CALIFORNIA?et?al.,?Real?Parties?in?Interest.
(Opinion?by?The?Court.)
COUNSEL
Gibson,?Dunn?&?Crutcher,?Robert?E.?Cooper,?Theodore?B.?Olson?and?Daniel?M.?Kolkey?for?Petitioner.
No?appearance?for?Respondents.
Browne?&?Woods,?Allan?Browne,?Benjamin?D.?Scheibe,?Robert?B.?Broadbelt,?Michael?J.?Olecki,?Bion?Gregory,?Remcho,?Johansen?&?Purcell,?Joseph?Remcho,?Robin?B.?Johansen?and?Charles?C.?Marson?for?Real?Parties?in?Interest.
OPINION
THE?COURT.
In?these?mandate?proceedings,?we?are?called?on?to?resolve?the?impasse?created?by?the?failure?of?the?Legislature?to?pass?legislative?and?congressional?reapportionment?bills?acceptable?to?the?Governor?in?time?for?the?forthcoming?1992?Primary?and?General?Elections.?(See?Cal.?Const.,?art.?XXI,???1.)
On?September?23,?1991,?Governor?Wilson?exercised?his?authority?to?veto?the?legislative?plans?submitted?to?him.?On?that?same?day,?an?attempted?override?of?the?veto?failed,?and?the?Legislature?adjourned?for?the?remainder?of?the?year.?Because?we?lack?assurance?that?reapportionment?plans?will?be?validly?enacted?in?time?for?the?1992?elections,?it?is?now?incumbent?on?this?[54?Cal.3d?473]?court?to?exercise?its?original?jurisdiction?and?arrange?for?the?drafting?and?adoption?of?appropriate?reapportionment?plans.
[1]?As?we?have?repeatedly?emphasized?in?past?cases,?”reapportionment?is?primarily?a?matter?for?the?legislative?branch?of?the?government?to?resolve.?[Citations.]”?(Legislature?v.?Reinecke?(1972)?6?Cal.3d?595,?598?[99?Cal.Rptr.?481,?492?P.2d?385]?[hereafter?Reinecke?I].)?Accordingly,?we?urge?the?Legislature?and?the?Governor,?in?the?exercise?of?their?”shared?legislative?power”?(ibid.)?to?enact?reapportionment?plans?in?time?for?the?1992?elections,?and?thus?to?render?unnecessary?the?use?of?any?plans?this?court?may?adopt.?(See?ibid.;?see?also?Legislature?v.?Reinecke?(1972)?7?Cal.3d?92,?93?[101?Cal.Rptr.?552,?496?P.2d?464]?[Reinecke?II].)?[2]?But?because?the?impasse?may?continue?indefinitely,?because?”?’it?is?our?duty?to?insure?the?electorate?equal?protection?of?the?laws’?[citation]”?(Reinecke?I,?supra,?6?Cal.3d?595,?598),?and?because?California?is?entitled?to?seven?additional?congressional?seats?based?on?the?1990?census,?we?must?proceed?forthwith?to?draft?such?plans.?(See?also?Legislature?v.?Reinecke?(1973)?10?Cal.3d?396,?399,?fn.?1?[110?Cal.Rptr.?718,?516?P.2d?6]?[Reinecke?IV]?[necessity?to?act?to?fulfill?equal?protection?guarantees?and?assure?the?right?to?equal?participation?in?the?congressional?elections].)In?light?of?the?acknowledged?necessity?of?affording?all?interested?parties?an?opportunity?to?be?heard?in?such?matters,?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?Cal.3d?166,?167?[107?Cal.Rptr.?18,?507?P.2d?626]?[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?Reinecke?IV,?supra,?10?Cal.3d?at?pp.?402,?410-414),?as?well?as?by?the?provisions?of?article?XXI,?section?1,?of?the?state?Constitution.?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.
Subject?to?this?court’s?approval,?the?Masters?will?be?authorized?to?employ?counsel,?independent?experts?in?the?field?of?reapportionment?and?computer?technology,?and?other?necessary?personnel?to?assist?them?in?their?work.?They?[54?Cal.3d?474]?will?be?further?authorized?to?seek?the?full?cooperation?of?the?Legislature?and?Governor?in?producing?and?using?whatever?data,?computer?models?and?programs,?and?technical?assistance?that?may?be?made?available?to?them?by?the?Legislature?or?Governor?and?other?state?personnel?who?are?knowledgeable?in?the?mechanics?of?drafting?reapportionment?legislation.?(See?Reinecke?III,?supra,?9?Cal.3d?at?p.?168.)
The?Administrative?Office?of?the?Courts?(AOC)?shall?assist?the?Masters?in?securing?the?necessary?personnel?and?the?physical?facilities?required?for?their?work.?The?AOC?shall?also?prepare?for?prompt?submission?to?the?Governor?and?Legislature?a?request?for?a?special?appropriation?to?augment?the?appropriations?made?for?the?support?of?the?judicial?branch?by?the?Budget?Acts?of?1991?and?1992?in?order?to?reimburse?those?appropriations?for?the?expenditures?that?must?be?made?for?the?necessary?expenses?of?the?Masters?and?their?staff.?(See?Reinecke?III,?supra,?9?Cal.3d?at?p.?168.)
Public?hearings?shall?commence?no?later?than?30?days?from?the?date?of?the?Masters’?appointment,?and?the?Masters?shall?present?their?recommendations?to?the?court?no?later?than?November?29,?1991.?We?recognize?that?the?Masters?are?thus?given?considerably?less?time?to?formulate?their?report?and?recommendations?than?the?five-month?period?provided?in?Reinecke?III.?The?shorter?period?is?necessitated?by?the?close?proximity?of?the?June?2,?1992,?Primary?Election,?and?the?need?to?transmit?to?the?county?clerks?information?regarding?the?new?districts?no?later?than?104?days?prior?to?that?election?(Elec.?Code,???6462).?We?are?of?the?view?that?the?November?29?deadline?is?realistic?in?light?of?considerable?advances?in?computer?technology?since?1972.
Permission?for?additional?parties?to?intervene?in?these?proceedings?will?not?be?granted,?but?any?present?parties?may?file?briefs?with?the?court?within?30?days?of?the?filing?of?the?Masters’?recommendations.?Other?interested?parties?may?file?briefs?as?amici?curiae?within?the?same?period.?The?matter?will?be?set?for?oral?argument?shortly?after?the?period?for?filing?briefs?has?expired.
We?reiterate:?If?at?any?time?during?these?proceedings?congressional?and?legislative?reapportionment?plans?are?validly?enacted,?this?court?will?entertain?an?application?to?dismiss?these?proceedings.
Let?an?alternative?writ?of?mandate?issue,?to?be?heard?before?this?court?at?its?courtroom?when?the?proceeding?is?ordered?on?calendar.?[54?Cal.3d?475]
The?alternative?writ?is?to?be?issued,?served?and?filed?on?or?before?October?2,?1991.
The?written?return?is?to?be?served?and?filed?on?or?before?October?16,?1991.