U.S. Justices Refuse GOP’s Plea to Act on Redistricting

In another setback for California Republicans, the Supreme Court refused Monday to intervene immediately to decide whether the congressional district boundaries drawn by the Democratic-controlled Legislature are unfair to GOP candidates.

Frustrated by a series of legal defeats and delays, attorneys for California’s Republican representatives in Congress had urged the justices to agree now to hear their complaint against district lines that they charge were “gerrymandered” to favor Democratic candidates.

Further delay, they said, would leave them with little hope of getting the districts changed before the 1990 elections.

However, in a brief order Monday, the high court denied without comment the motion to “expedite consideration” of the case. Only Justice John Paul Stevens voted to grant the Republicans’ motion.

Court May Act Soon

Legal experts said it is still possible that the high court may act soon, after receiving a brief due June 4 from the California Assembly in defense of the boundaries. The high court term does not end until about July 1.

However, if the justices do not consider the appeal until their fall term, a ruling cannot be expected before the late spring of 1989. District redrafting is a highly time-consuming process and election officials have said that firm boundaries must be in place at least a year before the November, 1990, elections.

California Republican officials say the impact of having another congressional election with the current district lines, which were set in a special legislative session in 1982, would be substantial. In 1980, before the redistricting, Democrats had only one more seat than the Republicans in the California congressional delegation. After the 1982 vote, the margin was 28 seats to 17. It is now 27 to 18.

The redistricting was based on population trends reflected in the 1980 census.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the Republicans are hoping to take advantage of a 1986 high court ruling in an Indiana case which concluded for the first time that extreme political gerrymandering can be unconstitutional.

The ruling, on a 6-3 vote, did not specify when manipulation of boundaries reached the point of illegality. The opinion by Justice Byron R. White cited only apportionment that “consistently degrades” one party.

“If they are ever going to find a gerrymander that is so bad as to be unconstitutional, this is it,” James Parrinello, a San Francisco lawyer for the Republicans, said in a recent interview.

Republican candidates for Congress got about 50% of the votes in the 1984 and 1986 elections, but only 18 of the 45 seats in Congress--or 40%. They contend that the Legislature bottled up Republican voters in a relatively small number of districts to give Democratic candidates an advantage in the others.

Despite the 1986 ruling, nothing has gone well for the Republicans in the courts since then. After a 16-month delay, a three-judge panel in San Francisco dismissed their suit last April.

Kathleen Purcell of San Francisco, a lawyer for the Assembly, said that the Republicans are losing because they do not have a good case. The lower court was correct in saying the Republicans are not “shut out” of the political process, so their rights are not violated. “They can take care of themselves in the political process. They don’t need the assistance of judges,” she said.

Purcell said she will urge the court to dismiss the case (Badham vs. Eu, 87-1818) and leave the boundaries as they are until after the 1990 census, when a new redistricting plan will be drawn.

In other actions, the high court:

- Ruled 5-4 that a defendant is not always entitled to the lawyer of his choice if a judge believes that a conflict of interest could arise (Wheat vs. U.S., 87-4). The court upheld the drug-trafficking conviction of an Escondido, Calif., man who wanted to add a new defense lawyer two days before his trial began. The attorney he sought represented two other defendants in the drug-selling ring, and the judge saw a potential conflict for the lawyer if he were forced to call one of his other clients to the witness stand. The judge refused the request for new counsel, and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said his ruling was correct because of the “showing of a serious potential for conflict.”

- Ruled 6-2 that states may add their own safety and health regulations for workers at federally owned nuclear plants (Goodyear Atomic vs. Miller, 86-1172). The Goodyear Atomic Corp., which runs a nuclear facility in Ohio for the federal government, had contended that as a federal contractor, it was immune from state regulatory laws.

- Agreed to decide whether a state may make it a crime to photograph nude children, even if the law could be read to make illegal a photo of a baby in a wading pool (Massachusetts vs. Oakes, 87-1651) . In February, the Massachusetts Supreme Court threw out that state’s broad child pornography law, along with the conviction of the man who took nearly nude photos of his 14-year-old stepdaughter. By a 4-3 margin, the state court said the law was too broad because it makes illegal home photography where no commercial use or exploitation is considered. But the state attorneys said that even home photos can result in the “degradation and exploitation” of children, and it urged that the law be reinstated.

- Agreed to decide whether members of the Church of Scientology may deduct from their taxes payments for “auditing” and other “training” costs (Graham vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 87-1616). The church contends these are religious donations, but the government says that they are fees for commercial services.