Redistricting Task Goes to State Justices : Reapportionment: High court will appoint panel to draw political boundaries in time for June primary. Both Wilson and Brown support the decision.

With Gov. Pete Wilson and Democratic legislators in a deadlock, the state Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to redraw California’s legislative and congressional districts in time for next June’s primary election.

The justices granted a request by Wilson to intervene in the politically charged dispute two days after the Republican governor vetoed reapportionment plans by the Democratic-controlled Legislature. The lawmakers failed to override his veto and adjourned, presumably until January.

The action marked the fourth consecutive decade in which the state high court has been required--in one manner or another--to enter the partisan thicket of reapportionment. The outcome will shape the state’s political landscape through the 1990s.

The court, in an unsigned five-page order released Wednesday, noted that redistricting is primarily a legislative task and emphasized that it will drop its role if the governor and Legislature can agree on their own plan.

“We urge the Legislature and the governor . . . to enact reapportionment plans in time for the 1992 elections, and thus to render unnecessary the use of any plans this court may adopt,” the justices said.

Under the state Constitution, boundary lines must be redrawn in the year after each national census, with the population of all districts made “reasonably equal” to conform with the U.S. Supreme Court’s “one man, one vote” mandate.

Reapportionment, always a heavily partisan issue, has taken on added significance this year. At stake is party control of the Legislature and composition of the California congressional delegation, which will grow from 45 seats to 52 because of an increase of nearly 7 million in the state’s population. Republicans are hopeful that with their recent gains in voter registration, the party will increase its legislative and congressional strength.

In their order, the justices said they were intervening now because the impasse may continue “indefinitely,” the court had a duty to “ensure the electorate equal protection of the laws,” and California is entitled to seven new seats in Congress based on the 1990 census.

The court said it would appoint “expeditiously” three special masters to gather data, hold public hearings and draft a reapportionment plan by Nov. 29. The governor, state Senate and Assembly and other interested parties are expected to submit redistricting proposals to the masters.

The court said the masters will be guided by procedures and criteria used by a similar court-appointed panel that drafted a plan during an impasse in 1973. The new panel also must apply provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act, which grants special protections to minority voters.

The justices gave interested parties until Dec. 29 to file court briefs commenting on the reapportionment proposals. They did not set a deadline for their final adoption of a redistricting plan, but they noted that county clerks must receive information about new districts no later than Feb. 20, 104 days before the June 2 primary.

Wilson welcomed Wednesday’s move by the court as “an important and responsible action,” and he blamed Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and Assembly Democrats for failing to produce an acceptable redistricting plan. The governor said he would stand ready to sign “a fair and timely bill” if one can be produced by the Legislature.

Brown has said the Democrats would get a better shake in the court than they would from Repubican lawmakers.

“I hope they will have an open hearing process by these masters so that whoever comes in, including the Legislature, has a chance to make their case,” Brown said Wednesday.

Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) said he was “disappointed” that the issue might be determined by the court, but added: “We are confident that the state Senate plan will withstand all challenges.”

Neither Brown nor Roberti expressed any concern that the seven-member court--with five members appointed by Republican governors--would be unfair to Democrats.

Anticipating a deadlock with Democratic leaders, Wilson had filed a petition with the high court Sept. 6 asking the justices to begin drawing new lines that could be used in the 1992 elections.

The three bills vetoed by Wilson Monday each included alternative Assembly and congressional plans and copies of a single Senate plan.

The Assembly plans all were drafted by the Democrats under Brown’s direction. Republicans had complained that the districts Brown drew would keep them a minority in the Legislature’s lower house.

The congressional alternatives were drawn by Rep. Howard Berman (D-Los Angeles) after consultations with his congressional colleagues. At least one of the plans had significant bipartisan support and appeared to give the Democrats at best a 28-24 edge in the 52-seat congressional delegation.

The Senate plan was a joint effort by Roberti and Republican Leader Ken Maddy of Fresno. It appeared to assure the Democrats of at least 23 seats in the 40-member Senate after the 1992 elections.

Democrats now control the Assembly 47 to 33. The Senate includes 26 Democrats, 13 Republicans and one independent. The congressional delegation is made up of 26 Democrats and 19 Republicans.

Prospects for Wilson and the Legislature to reach an accord looked bleak Wednesday. Brown, through the Rules Committee, ordered the Republicans to shut down their redistricting operation and turn over their computers to the Democrats, in effect ending the minority party’s ability to participate in the process.

Wilson responded that neither he nor Republican lawmakers would be cowed by Brown’s tactics.

“Speaker Brown can take those threats and stick them in the same drawer as his vetoed gerrymander,” Wilson said.

Hager reported from San Francisco and Weintraub from Sacramento. Times staff writer Ralph Frammolino in Sacramento contributed to this article.