GOP Presses Challenge to ’82 California Remapping

In the wake of a milestone ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, California Republicans are attempting to breathe new life into a legal challenge to the congressional reapportionment plan enacted in 1982 by the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

The justices, in an Indiana case, ruled last June for the first time that the longtime practice of gerrymandering can be found unconstitutional if it “consistently degrades” the voting influence of a segment of the electorate.

Now, in a key test of that decision, attorneys for the Republicans will appear before a three-judge federal district court here Friday to contend that they should be allowed to proceed with a suit against the 1982 plan.

They say the boundaries included in the plan virtually guarantee Democratic control of California’s congressional delegation and should be declared unconstitutional under the high court ruling.

The case could have far-reaching impact. A trial could see a procession of officeholders and political consultants testifying about the purpose and effect of the redistricting plan--discussing campaign strategies, polling data, fund-raising information and other politically sensitive factors that may have been involved in designing congressional boundaries.

And if they win the suit, the Republicans are hoping that such a decision will require the Legislature--or perhaps the district court itself--to redraw the boundaries in time for the 1988 election.

“This will be the crucial case for determining what the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling is actually going to be,” said James R. Parrinello of San Francisco, attorney for a group of Republicans challenging the 1982 plan.

“If the court decision meant anything, it meant that the California plan is unconstitutional. . . . There are really no other congressional lines in the country that are as bad as these.”

Lawyers for the Assembly and the Democratic members of the California congressional delegation, the defendants in the suit, are asking the district court to dismiss the case, arguing that the Republicans are far from “shut out” of the political process and thus cannot prove they have suffered discrimination.

“The Supreme Court does not want the federal courts dragged into every dispute the political parties get into,” said Jonathan H. Steinberg of Los Angeles, attorney for the congressional Democrats.

“It just wants to make sure that nothing really serious is going on--like the kind of electoral discrimination blacks were subjected to for decades in the South,” Steinberg said. “This ruling is a sort of ‘judicial safety net.’ ”

The congressional boundaries at issue were conceived by the late Rep. Phillip Burton, a powerful San Francisco Democrat, and then approved by the Democratic-controlled Legislature and signed into law by Democratic Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. shortly before he left office.

Incumbents Protected

The effect of the plan has been to give incumbents strong political protection by drawing boundaries in such a way that most districts were either heavily Republican or heavily Democratic, thus minimizing competition between the major parties for congressional seats.

In 1982, under a previous plan later disapproved by the voters, Democrats won 28 congressional seats and the Republicans 17. In 1984, under the new plan, the Republicans gained a seat to make the margin 27-18. In 1986, the Democrats retained the 27-18 majority in an election in which the closest race was decided by a difference of 13% of the vote. No incumbent on either side was defeated.

The Republicans filed suit in federal district court in 1983 seeking to invalidate the congressional boundaries, claiming that the Democrats, without public debate, rammed a plan through the Legislature that created bizarre-shaped districts designed to ensure Democratic control of the delegation throughout the decade. (Boundaries for Assembly and state Senate districts, about which similar complaints have been made, are not at issue in the case).

Suit Set Aside

The district court finally set aside the suit while the Supreme Court reviewed an Indiana case that in some respects mirrored the California case.

In Indiana, Democrats contested a Republican redistricting plan under which Democrats won only 43% of the seats in the Legislature despite winning 52% of the overall vote. Based mainly on that disproportionate impact, a federal district court ruled the Indiana plan unconstitutional because it improperly favored one party over the other.

The California Republicans supported the Indiana ruling, saying they were suffering the same kind of discrimination in this state under the 1982 plan. The Republicans noted that in California, GOP congressional candidates in 1984 received more than 49% of the overall statewide vote--compared to 48% for the Democrats--but won only 40% of the seats.

The Supreme Court’s ruling last June said that courts were empowered to overturn gerrymandered redistricting plans that were discriminatory in purpose and effect against political groups. Previously, the justices had upheld only those challenges to district boundaries that discriminated against racial minorities.

General Guidelines

The high court issued only general guidelines for determining when such a reapportionment plan should be found unconstitutional. It did say that the result of a single election would not be sufficient in itself to strike down a reapportionment plan. But it held further that there was not enough proof of discrimination in the Indiana case to sustain the lower court ruling, which it overturned by a vote of 7 to 2.

Now, as lawyers in the California case return to court here, both sides in the dispute are claiming that the Supreme Court ruling supports their position.

The Republicans say that the reapportionment plan violates Republican voters’ rights to equal protection of the law, freedom of speech and freedom of association.

The plan, their lawyers say, has resulted in the same kind of diluted GOP political influence, predictable election results and lack of electoral competition that Justice Byron R. White cited in the high court’s plurality opinion as providing the kind of proof that would be needed to show discrimination.

‘10-Year Terms’

Because redistricting is required only once per decade to ensure that legislative boundaries meet “one-man, one-vote” standards, the Democratic plan effectively grants members of Congress “10-year terms” and perpetuates a congressional delegation that is “immutable,” the Republicans say.

The Republicans concede that they were not completely shut out of the process, but say that under the high court decision they must only show that the system consistently diluted Republican voter strength, not that they were denied any representation altogether.

The 1986 election resulted in the same disproportionate balance between overall votes and congressional representation that existed after the 1984 election, they say. Republicans received 47% of the overall vote--with one Democratic incumbent running unopposed--but still ended up with only 40% of the seats, the GOP lawyers point out.

The Democrats respond that the suit should be dismissed because the Republicans cannot show they have been the victims of discrimination under the high court ruling.

Considerable Control

A party that controls the White House, the governor’s office and one of California’s two Senate seats cannot say it has been victimized in a manner “that will consistently degrade its influence” on the political process, the Democrats say.

In addition, they observe, Republicans are still being appointed to courts, commissions and other government jobs and offices.

With 40% of the delegation, Republicans are still being heard “loud and clear” in Congress and cannot contend they are a helpless minority in need of a judicial ruling to secure their rights, the Democrats argue.

Since the Republicans cannot show that the plan had a discriminatory effect, the district court need not even consider whether the plan had discriminatory intent, the Democrats contend.

Lawyers for the Democrats add that Republicans generally have enjoyed representation proportionate to their registration. This fall, they point out, the Republicans still held 40% of the delegation with only 38% of the voters registered as Republicans.

The Democrats say also that there is nothing unusual about the fact that all of California’s congressional incumbents were reelected in 1986 and that the political balance of power within the delegation remained the same. In the entire Congress, they point out, there was a net partisan change of only six seats out of 435 in the last election--and in 36 states there was no change in the political makeup of the congressional delegation.