Supreme Court Agrees to Rule on Legality of Political Gerrymandering

The Supreme Court, entering a far-reaching reapportionment dispute, agreed Monday to decide whether it is constitutional for legislatures to design election district boundaries that favor one political party over another.

The justices said that they would rule next term in an Indiana case that could produce a landmark decision on the legality of political gerrymandering, the time-honored practice of drawing legislative districts--often in bizarre shapes--for partisan advantage.

Affects California

At issue is a plan that gave Indiana Republicans a substantially greater share of the Legislature than they had of the statewide vote. The case has particular importance for California, where last fall, under a Democratic redistricting plan, Republican congressional candidates out-polled Democrats--winning 49.3% of the vote--but ended up with only 40% of the state’s 45 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Under its “one-man, one-vote” doctrine, the Supreme Court has held that election districts must contain virtually equal numbers of voters. The justices have also ruled that the voting strength of racial minorities may not be diluted by discriminatory redistricting plans. But the court has never decided whether one party may discriminate against another by imposing a plan that assures itself disproportionate legislative representation.

The court, in a separate case Monday, turned down without comment an appeal by California Republicans challenging “egregious” congressional gerrymandering by Democrats. The justices left intact a federal appellate decision sending the case to the state courts for trial on state law issues before any action in federal courts. (Badham vs. Secretary of State, 84-1226).

In another California case, the justices agreed to resolve a novel dispute over corporate free speech, saying that they would decide whether a privately owned utility company may be forced to include fund solicitations or information from consumer groups in its monthly billing envelopes. Similar cases have arisen in Nevada, Oregon and other states. (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. vs. Public Utilities Commission of California, 84-1044.)

In the Indiana redistricting case (Davis vs. Bandemer, 84-1244), a three-judge federal District Court struck down a Republican-devised legislative plan under which the Democrats won only 43% of the seats in the state House of Representatives despite winning 52% of the total vote in house races in the 1982 election.

In its unprecedented ruling, the court held that the Republicans had impermissibly “stacked” the districts to ensure victory for incumbent Republicans at the expense of Democrats.

Indiana Republicans appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court and were joined by lawyers representing California congressional and legislative Democrats, urging that the decision be overturned.

Attorneys representing the Democratic-controlled California Assembly said that the decision represented an unwarranted judicial intrusion into legislative matters--and that, if it were sustained, it would cast doubt on reapportionment plans throughout the nation.

California Republicans, supported by national GOP officials, backed the Indiana ruling even though its effect in Indiana was to hurt the Republican cause. They noted that, in each of the last three elections, California’s Democratic congressional candidates have won proportionately more seats than votes.

Nationwide Votes

Nationwide, in the 1984 congressional elections, Democratic candidates won 36,615,220 votes, compared to 36,576,336 for the Republicans, but the Democrats won a 71-vote majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

James R. Parinello of San Francisco, attorney for the group of Republicans challenging the Democratic California congressional redistricting plan, welcomed the justices’ decision to review the Indiana case. “This is the first case that will really present the question of political gerrymandering squarely,” he said.

Rep. William M. Thomas (R-Bakersfield), a staunch opponent of the Democratic reapportionment plan, also applauded the court’s intervention. “Given the computer technology available these days to design voting districts, this is a question that’s going to dog us until we get it resolved,” he said.

A lawyer representing Assembly Democrats, Kathleen J. Purcell of San Francisco, warned that, if the justices upheld the Indiana ruling, there probably would be a “whole new series of lawsuits” challenging the California reapportionment plan. She called the decision “ambiguous, confusing and incorrect,” saying that, if it is upheld, it would involve the courts in innumerable political complexities best left to legislators.

Newsletters in Bills

In the California utility billing case, the court will have the opportunity to expand on a previous ruling that, under the First Amendment, states may not prevent public utilities from enclosing newsletters and other political messages along with the bills they mail their customers.

In 1982, a consumer group called Toward Utility Rate Normalization sought to include its messages in the billing envelopes sent out by PG&E; to 3.7 million households.

Last year, the PUC ruled that the consumer group, a frequent critic of the utility company, is entitled to the “extra space” in PG&E; envelopes four times a year for two years. The insertions must be paid for by TURN and identified as its material, the commission said. Last fall, the California Supreme Court refused to review the commission’s order.

Lawyers for PG&E; brought the case to the high court, contending that the PUC order violated the utility’s rights by requiring it to carry the message of a third party against its will.

But PUC attorneys argued that there was no constitutional violation because the “extra space” in billing envelopes is the property of the ratepayers--not the utility--and thus subject to commission regulatory authority. TURN’s lawyers contended that there was no harm to PG&E;, whose political messages, they said, had been getting a “free ride” through the billing process.

Powell Back on Bench

On Monday, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., 77, returned to the bench to hear cases after an absence of more than two months during recovery from a prostate cancer operation on Jan. 4. During the recovery period, Powell continued to work at home but missed oral arguments in about 60 cases--about one-third of the number that the justices will decide this term. Ordinarily, justices do not participate in cases in which they have missed oral argument.

In an unusual action, the court Monday ordered rearguments next month in three cases that had been heard in Powell’s absence, raising the possibility that his vote would be needed to resolve the cases.

Fish Protection Ruling

In another action Monday, the justices left intact a federal appellate ruling upholding a move by the Interior Department to protect two species of fish by refusing to divert water from the Stampede Dam and Reservoir for municipal and industrial use in the Carson-Truckee area of Nevada.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last August rejected a bid by Nevada officials to prevent the department from using dam-project waters to conserve the cui-ui, an endangered species, and the Lahontan cutthroat trout, a threatened species. (Nevada vs. Hodel, 84-808).