Museado / NARA Collection rr-0840 — Collection rr-0840
Recent Folios
Login Register
English (inglés) español magyar (húngaro) हिन्दी (hindi)

Survos folio item chat

Back to Issue Papers - Reapportionment (3 of 4)

Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page
doc
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory. For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.

Scholar Source Context

Document identity
localId
118564854
label
Issue Papers - Reapportionment (3 of 4)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564854
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564854
sourceUrl
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564854
contentType
document
title
Issue Papers - Reapportionment (3 of 4)
citationUrl
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564854
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Issue Files
iiifBase
https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P31-012-2017.pdf
thumbnailUrl
https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P31-012-2017.pdf
largeImageUrl
https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P31-012-2017.pdf
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
url
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564854
naId
118564854
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P31-012-2017.pdf
mediaId
0ebf2af771f84313
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Digital Library Collections This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections. Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers, 1966-74: Press Unit Folder Title: Issue Papers - Reapportionment (3 of 4) Box: P31 To see more digitized collections visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected] Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/ ASSEMBLY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Senate Bill - 195 1 2 4 8 6 3 9 5 7 11 10 12 Boy 23 30 22 31 33 32 34 21 28 29 14 73 36 37 62 64 60 See Los 72 Angeles Hap 74 52 75 171 58 80 CALIFORNIA R 77 10 11 Richmond Walnut Creek 17 Berkeley 16 San 18 From 19 20 d 15 Daly City 27 Hayward 23 19 13 Foster San City Mateo Red 26 Pado Alto 24 31 22 25 s S on EAST & SOUTH 29 BAY CITIES 31 41 62 64 42 Pasadena s 47 Burbank 43 Mon Glendale 457 54 & Glendora 7 60 48 45 Monte 49 61 23 a 56 E, West Covina Pomono sopia 59 40 50 53 51 Riverg 63 Pic Whittier Inglewood 65 38 South L I N E 55 Gate Howtherne No walk66 74 35 67 Fullerton VOX 0 101 Lakewood Anaheim 52 44 O 69 LOS ANGELES & 68 Long Beach 46 39 58 ORANGE COUNTIES NM 54 S 70 71 58 80 UCSD 76 5 2 78 G 79 SAN DIEGO 77 PROPOSED PRESS RELEASE For release Thursday A.M., April 26. Governor Ronald Reagan announced today that a bill is being introduced in the Assembly, with bipartisan support, to permit the Governor to reorganize the top level executive structure by Executive Order. The bill will be authored by Mike Cullen, (D-Long Beach) and coauthored by Senator Donald Grunsky (R-Watsonville). The bill gives the Governor the authority to change the names of the four major Agencies headed by Cabinet Secretaries. Departments, Boards, and Commissions could be assigned or reassigned to or from the four Agencies by executive order, but the Governor would not have the authority to abolish these operating entities of the Executive Branch. In announcing the introduction of the bill, the Governor commented that this measure will have little impact during his Administration, but as a good management tool, this proposal will provide for legislative review and the availability of current organization structure information to the public while giving Chief Executives the management flexibility needed to meet the ever- changing needs of a large and dynamic society. Manning J. Post, Chairman of the Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, more popularly known as the 'Little Hoover Commission', said the Commission has long supported the concept of a Governor having the authority to assign departments to cabinet-level agencies by executive order. The Commission therefore commends this bipartisan approach to executive flexibility as a sound management principle. to reasongn a depart ment from one tot At present time, a statute ,08 StreA and 15 tegd agency secy revel to another. odd there 63 it's invertental still THE 00 bespection Надова bleast nd of IIIV 106 of John without Y level DO blence Y box (Tonta (-0) soliti deles rout are Yes assign with agreedo of all odd BOUNG with accidentived brie (street Internation vé behabit actories proble w truoit sit you 4.0 Sungldates 20 Sensions sd Calloda NO Date at evan den sed 2015 Be state doda INTERNED sity bills to ship el have C. an and and 013311 subil RID# STUBCEN ship his webret svispicigal to 111v sixt (Cood sittleg add ed students destrue the willidofings date 0112 Jose of bebane and asviduoars puliving bird egant S to about directifiento scott 112 adication? with to (5209 .t. reverál offit an entre bus one gelival SUBTOVED C X CHE becoment given belf of bling with svidences you asindion 11 administration uglane de differention without a describe and abroad streeted: with stologing Indica B. an 0 R E G 0 N 2 4 3 9 6 10 I2 FRANCISCO See S.F. Bay Map N 13 25 30 31 0 4 33 31 4 32 to 21 6 34 9 33 29 at 28 A 36 62 6 N S 64 73 60 Z See L.A. Area Map 75 ASSEMBLY BILL NO. I2 80 R 76 74 A Assembly Districts 78 79. 1 C O 77 M E X 5 VALLEID SAN RAFAEL RICHMOND 17 BERKED 17 DAKLAND SA SAN FRANCIS 20 10 ALAMED PACIFICA SAN 15 14 BURDINGAME SAM MATEO FREMONT REDWOOD 13. 26 CITY SAN MATEO PALO LTD 23 LOS ALTOS ASSEMBLY BILL NO 12 Assembly Districts 24 SAN JOS 22 25 SARATOGA SAN FRANCISCO BAY 1:62,500 To County Line - (f) 2 Santh B., E # $ LINCOLN NAME R a = 18 N 2 N A 6 C (1) a o 20 I 19 THE 19 E y C latte $**** J. FAME SAN FRANCISCO * MILAREN South BATTA NAVAL SHIPYARD A 18 or C PARK OLYMIC CLUB - Base Map : public service by the California Automobile Resociation Copyright Owner. ASSEMBLY BILL NO 12 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY this is probibities consent of the Gener. MONO NEW OSEMITE NATIONAL Class OAKDALE MORE PARK LAKE CROWLER Wallace BISHOP JOSE MERCED COUSTINE Mustang Pr 37 LOS BANOS Thumb Striped Min MADERA NATIONAL PANK in UNITED RESY Min - YULARE SEQUOIA Whithey MI 31 NATIONAL United PARK ASSEMBLY BILL NO 12 Assembly District 31 Base Map material furnished as a public service by the National Automobile Club Copyright Owner. Reproduction of this map is prohibited without consent of the capyright owner. ASO ROBLES Antioch 10 Makland Jose Base Map material lumished as a public service by the Catifornia State Automobile Association Copyright Owner. 10 Reproduction of this map is prohibited without consent of the copyright owner, ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 12 Assembly District 10 SCAND 12 30 12 ADVENDED AAA NETCHX MODESTO NETCH NETCHY Assembly Districts Street SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY - ASSEMBLY BILL NO 12 - Base Map material furnished as public service by the Creek Celifornia State Automobile Association Copyright Dener. Reproduction this map is prohibited without consent of - the copyright 62 62 41 64 MTF 42 47 41 43 48 IT 11 61 47 54 swice 58 54 60 59 56 ALHAMBR 48 CITY 45 49 40 SANTA 53 63 51 D 45 57 50 65 65 55 55 46 38 66 67 17 BLACK 69 44 39 ASSEMBLY BILL NO 12 68 46 BEACH LOS ANGELES COUNTY Assembly Districts the LA MIRADA NORWALK COUNTY BELLFLOWER FULLERTON LAKEW000 DAIRYLAND ANAHEIM CYPRESS ASSEMBLY BILL NO 12 Assembly District 69 ORANGE GARDEN GROVE SANTA ANA TOUNTAIN 0 R E G 0 N as SENATORIAL DISTRICTS S.B. 2 2 3 N SEE SAN FRANCISCO MAP 4 12 0 4 15 15 18. a A = 24 16 * 0 Z SEE LOS ANGELES MAP 36 R 0 38 40 A 39 a say C 0 M E x Z VALLEID. SAN/BAFAEL RICHMOND 7 BERNETE DAMIAND SAN FRANCISCO 9 ALAMEDA 14 PACIFICA IO SAN LEANORO 1- BURLINGAME SAM MATED FREMONT REDWOOD CITY 6 , PALO VITO 13 17 SARATOGA 14 SAN FRANCISCO BAY S.B. 2 SENATORIAL DISTRICTS SEBASTOPOL YOUNTVILLE PRESTONE BODAGE not FORD CALIENTE SPRS SPRS. NAPA SONOMA TEMELEC DILLON 23/116 PETALUMA $3 BAY Herman 10 SOLAND CONTRA COSTA DRAKES SAN RAFAEL SB 2 AVE SUBRANTE RICHMOND Brianes SENATORIAL BERKEL DISTRICT 10 EMERYVILLE Base Map material furnished as a public service by the LAND California State Automobile Association Copyright Owner. Reproduction of this map is prohibited without consent of SAN ALAMEDA the copyright owner. FRANCISCO late SAN L THANK O Salada BURLINGAME su SAN the Plareites MATEO Lake NOSS CRENADA SAN CARLOS REDWOOD CITY 01 CHALF MOON BAY SEE INSET MAP FOR NORTHERN PART OF OUNTY 21 COUNTY COUNTY 19 25 20 28 32 30 COUNTY the KERN COUNTY 33 S.B. 2 SAN BERNARDING COUNTY 32 VENTURA Senatorial Districts LA County 11 NORTHERN PART OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Santa Paula SANTA ANGELES MOUNTAINS San " Lakens Northridge 7 Crescent Oxnard N A N Canada Reseds North (Nuys Burbank Altadena 1 Sierre 10) Glendale Pasadena Eagle Rock N/S Hollywood Highland Pasadena Gabriel Park Albambral Rosemead Monterey Sar Park East Angeles Los Angeles Montebel Huntington Park Flurence PACIFIC South Lennox Gate Lynwood (5) OCEAN Compton Norwalk The VER SENATE BILL NO. 2 Torrance Senate District 25 4 Base Map material furnished as a public service by the Automobile Club of Southern California Copyright Owner. Reproduction of this map is prohibited without consent of the copyright owner. SINILLROSE AVE 8 AT MISSION BLVD 08 MILLS SUNLAND ANGELES carse STONEHURST 1420 FOREST STA ST ARI ST. EL 1714 SLVD seed BELLA SUNL 405 TUJUNGA Arroyo MF DISAPPOINTMENT PLUMMER ST FL 3994 ERRA AVE SAN GABRIEL PR 1230' BROWN CANTON 6156 ST $1 DEPARTMENT BROWN MTN HIGHWAY HIGHLANDS 5752 785 TUNA CANYON at MARKHAM SEPULVEDA AVE as 1573 LA CRESCENTA FL.5 OK NATIONAL CRES? VEROUGO 3126 SB 2 VERDUGO CITY ROSEMON A CANADA COUNTRY 1257 EL 1315' LA CANADA ANSWONTH MONTROSE DAEMONT FLINTR EL 1224 SENATORIAL DISTRICT 27 BRAND ALTADENA 2475 PARK AND BANK 08 case MAGNOLIA CANADA NEW YORK AVE DRIVE VERDUGO RD 25 IA PARK TNDA BLVD " MOUNT BLVD $ COLLEGE DRIVE Base Map material furnished as a public service by the ALAMEDA BLVD FLINT PARK Verduga CHASE ARMORY GROVE BL California State Automobile Association Copyright Owner. citizes Reproduction of this map is prohibited without consent of PASA ENA EL V8 the copyright owner. HILLS VERGA GLEND JULHOLLAND DRIVE A FIRE DEPT IN/N PATROL NOSP Lake DRIVE WILSON E1\367 N Upper Rus Holly wood SAN MARINO DRIVE 0 Stone BEVERLY LACY HOLLYWOOD SOUTH & Canyon CANYON BOWL 0 ********* DELLY UNITED LOS FELIZ Hes LOOKOUT MTM PASADENA ROSES HD N379 650 HOLLY ARROVO $ sero Franklin COLOWATE# WEST 51 Canyon HOLLYWOOD DR ACHAMBRA Res POLICE BLVD SANTA ME nod ST PISTOL SUNSET YOUNG DR ALHAMBRA - BEL-AIR MELHOSE BEVERLY 481 COUNTRY CLUB BLVD AVE HILLS AVE BUNDY BEVERLY At BLVD VALLEY 330 ANGELES BUDITOR BROADWAY BLVD AV - BURION FAIRFAX NORMANDE $1 & WESTWOO LINCOLN **** EASTERN 07 BLVD MAIN ST CENTURY the SHIRE II CITY BLVD VALLEY GARVEY BLVD BLVG 8TH ST. BLVD SAN MONTEREY BRENTWOOD BERNARDINO PARK OLYMPIC 380' COUNTRY BLV ORPHANAGE PICO PICO ST PARK VENICE SEAL WEST BLVD HOSPITAL GARVIELE GARD Gurvey Res course LOS ANGELES ROSEDALE CEM EVERSOLEN BROOKLY AVE GRANDE EL 232 7TH POMONA STATES WITHOUT SRD POMONA SLVD BLVD FEE AVE BLVD TIME MONTEBELLO R.VD BLVD LOS AND COURSE BLVD EAST GIVO 2'm DIVE LOS ANGELES LINCO ANGELES BLVD AVE MORE OLYMPIC 47 72 . VISTA (L93 4:57 ST ST ST is 8478 VEHICE KER VERNON AVE ERNON MONTEBELLO WASH STOCKER statement ARLINGTON 405 WESTERN VERMONT is ALAMEDA LEONIS EL 205 AVE AVE COMMERCE SCAUSON SLAUSON MAYWOOD when ANY AVE AT AVE 2 1 4 5-11,14, 15 18 16 12 36 33 13 19-35,37 38 27 Congressional Districts 39 43 Assembly Bill -16 42 40 MEXICO 41 Z VALLEJO 4 SAN RAFAEL VIARIN RICHMOND 14 ONTRA BERKELEY COSTA OAKLAND SAN 6 FRANCISCO 5 ALAMEDA 8 SAN LEANDRO 11 PACIFICA BURLINGAME SAN MATEO REDWOOD FREMONT CITY 17 PALO ALTO e 9 LOS ALTOS SAN JOSE Congressional Districts SARATOGA Assembly Bill 16 10 SAN FRANCISCO BAY 1:62,500 VA Vallemar Dist BLVD WHIPPLE VALLECHOS Rochaway Beach Millbrae Andreas BRIDGE 2 Union Decoto NUCL Dist. CENTER VALLE Linda Mar LUGAL Dist. MAIRO Sunoil PARK Alvarado City Pt Dist. FRWY Dist. BANCHES MISSION W7, Scotts Corner Hills) THE TEMPLE 33 M eo 3.AKS Niles / Faster City 18 Pibrect Centervite Dist. STATE Fremont Montara 101 Invington ISLAND THORNTON AMERION 2016 WELCH Mission Newark San lose Belmont Dist. *centon Granada Carles (Redwood City Warm Springs Dist. WI ALAMEDA SANTA CLARA DANE LEWIS - Nook By Coyote- Moolo Park - Res. Palo Alto MO at House SELTER BLACK MTN. Milpitas DAY citizen SIZERA *ONEWS Agnew Perfols Los Lister LINE Valuey Altos Los : Altos Hills of Santa Clara Froor HILLS COPERMIEUS 8 35 The Jose agreess Sais th STEVENS this (R) TN LICK Permanente Cupertino ** Smith Creek DOTE protecide X live PROSPECT 2 Campbell SIEVENS on CREEK PARK 2 was No. = CAPITOL SARATOGA PRONTIER 13 Personato 430 2 BUIDING Saratoga * / BLOSSOM RD - CANA YORKST Monie Sereno CASTLE MILL PERSON WITCHE " PLEASANT 11.305 2 MT Los Gatos 277 Coyole FOREST TERESA = WAS **** BIG BASIN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 17 REDWOODS Big STATE PARK Basin Latence = ASSEMBLY BILL 16 ROCK Madrone Base Map material furnished as a public service by the 345 California State Automobile Association Copyright Owner. Morgan [ Hill Brookdale Reproduction of this map is prohibited without consent of the copyright owner. 12 Ben 15g Lomond WAS the COUNTY Canvel Swanton - FOREST OF Herson (CR) SEE INSET MAP FOR NORTHERN PART OF COUNTY 24 22 27 COUNTY 20 COUNTY 26 N 33 29 28 30 25 38 35 37 19 21 23 COUNTY PRELIMINARY KERN COUNTY 31 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 0 SAN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Congressional Districts 34 35 Assembly Bill 16 # 24 COUNTY 32 NORTHERN PART OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY the FUENTR 25 17 COUNTY SAN LOS/ ANGELES TO LaHabra BERNARDINO Fland Control COUNTY Barin Norwalk Yorba Linda Fuller /Buens Corona Artesia Park REAL LAKE MATHEWS Anaheim Orange Garden AND Grove Modenol VEHAVAL Long Midway Beach Santa a SAN PEDRO BAY Ana - 39 Sunset Beach 32 NATIONAL 1) Elsinore LAKE Huntington Beach Costa -- Mesa Village ICE If Newport Beach Corona i Balboa del Mar 42 FOREST Base Map material furnished as public service by the Automobile Club of Southern California Copyright Owner Reproduction of this map is prohibited without consent of the copyright owner C Laguna Beach - SSAN DIEGO C.O South Lagune Juan Capistrano Date Paint ORANGE COUNTY ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 16 San Clemente 42 CAMP JOSEPH H. PENDLETON (USMC) Congressional Districts N alitia Failbroo DIGEST OF REMARKS OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SPECIAL MASTERS ON REAPPORTIONMENT, JUNE 28, 1973 The legitimate goals of reapportionment should be to achieve fair and equal representation in the Legislature and in Congress for all the people of California and to improve the capacity of our legislators to represent their constituents. So called "gerrymandering" based on political or racial considerations is inconsistent with those goals. Instead of allowing such motives to distort the districting process, I believe the Legislature should adhere consistently to such criteria as relative equality of population, compactness, preservation of local boundaries and communities of interest, and other factors which would result in districts which preserve and enhance the quality of legislative representation. The principle that the legislature should be guided by standards or criteria in reapportioning itself and the State's Congressional districts has a long history. Article IV, Section 6 of the California Constitution, adopted in 1926, provided in part as follows: Such districts shall be composed of contigu- ous territory, and assembly districts shall be as nearly equal in population as may be In the formation of assembly districts no county, or city and county, shall be divided, unless it contains sufficient population within itself to form two or more districts, ... .nor shall a part of any county, or of any city and county, be united with any other county, or city and county, in forming any assembly or senatorial district.' Article IV, Section 27 of the California Constitution contains similar provisions for Congressional districts. During the mid-1960's, the United States Supreme Court adopted the rule that the paramount consideration which should govern State Legislatures in redistricting themselves was the achievement of population equality between districts. United States Supreme Court has relaxed this cold mathematical rule where State legislative, as distinguished from Congressional, districting is concerned. Specifically, it held that the Virginia Legislature, in drawing a redistricting plan for the lower house which respected the boundaries of local governmental subdivisions, was permitted greater flexibility in population deviation between the districts. Other decisions of the United States Supreme Court have struck down racial gerrymanders. The California Legislature has set forth in Government Code Section 25001 the criteria which should be followed in reapportioning county supervisorial districts. That section provides that the boards may consider, in addition to equality of population, the following: " (a) topography, (b) geography, (c) cohe- siveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of territory, and (d) community of interests of the districts." With the recent Mahan decision further confirming the language of the California Constitution and of my veto messages of January, 1972, I wish to reemphasize criteria which should be considered as a basis for a fair and equal redistricting. These are as follows: 1. Districts should be as nearly equal in population as possible. 2. Districts should be as compact as possible and provide easy accessibility between different areas in the districts. 3. Districts should be composed of contiguous territory. 4. District lines should follow existing county and city boundaries where possible. 5. Districts should be composed of communities which share common historical, geographical, topographic, cultural, and other interests. 2. 6. District lines should be drawn solely with regard to the above criteria and without regard to race or ethnic back- ground. District boundaries should not attempt to exclude or include particular ethnic or racial minorities in one constituency to dilute the voting strength of such minorities, and when such minorities exist in large communities, those communities should not be carved up among several districts in order to protect incumbents of another race or ethnic background. These principles improve citizen access and identi- fication with their elected representatives, facilitate com- munications of representatives with their constituents, and reduce the costs of campaigns. Moreover, these criteria preclude meandering lines which reach out in order to attach portions of other communities which may be many miles away and separated from thecheart of the district by mountain ranges or large expanses of unpopulated territory. In summary, such criteria, consistently applied, will produce districts which are fair to all Californians and which enhance rather than impair the representative process. The "one person, one vote" rule was applied to eliminate gross population disparities among districts. By 1971, the courts were requiring mathematical exactness between districts. Unfortunately, many legislatures concluded from this development that population equality was the only yard- stick for measuring the legality and fairness of a redistricting plan -- that any plan, no matter how absurd, would be acceptable if its districts were precisely equal. Armed with census and political data, applying the new computer technology, and adhering only to the rule of equality of population, legislatures developed redistricting plans which made a mockery of the goal of fair and equal representation and reached new heights of sophisticated political gerrymandering. The requirement of equality of population is a good one and provides an important starting point for fair and equal districting, but it cannot stand alone. Its use in combination with the computer and without any other cri- teria can lead to a distortion of the entire representative process. Conversely, the computer combined with unbiased criteria can be used to create equitable districts with population variations within acceptable limits. I believe the current controversy over reapportionment in California, now well into its third year, demonstrates the need to restore balance to the redistricting process by requiring the consistent application of common sense criteria such as those outlined above. Although the Special Masters face an enormously difficult task, they also have an historic opportunity to restore ration- ality and fairness to the districting process in California. As a citizen and voter, I join millions of others throughout the State in the hope that the Special Masters will achieve success in their efforts to provide California with the kind of equitable reapportionment to which it is entitled, under guidelines similar to those presented here. In a day when too many already doubt the ability of government to act fairly in the interest of the voters, it would be tragic should the redistricting process result in the debasement of the voters' franchise through modern versions of the ancient gerrymanders. We look to you to draw redistricting lines that will enable the people of California to be fairly and effectively represented. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR RELEASE: Immediate Sacramento, California Contact: Paul Beck 445-4571 12-30-71 #729 Governor Ronald Reagan today issued the following statement: "When the legislature adjourned its regular session early this month without complying with its constitutional mandate to reapportion the Assembly, Senate and Congressional districts, I immediately called them back. In doing so, I shared the hopes of all Californians that their elected representatives would put aside strictly selfish, parti- san interests and instead work out a fair plan putting the interests of the people and their communities first. "But our hopes quickly faded as once again the legislative process deteriorated into blatant partisanship. The Democrats, who control the legislature, were in a position to work out a good and fair plan giving the highest priority to preserving community interests and fair representation for ethnic minorities. "Regrettably, the Democratic leadership ignored these and other important factors. So they drew tortuous boundary lines around arti- ficial and bizarre shaped districts aimed solely at perpetuating them- selves in office. "The Democrats made no secret of the fact that their bills were totally partisan- and therefore unfair to their Republican colleagues. Far worse, however, was the unfair way in which these gerrymandered bills split communities throughout the state and minimized representa- tion of minority groups who hoped that finally their particular concerns might be met. unsupportable "These bills did such odd and / things as placing the same people in two different districts at the same time through overlapping boundaries, and using precinct boundaries instead of census tract lines. That makes it impossible to prove a district has equal population because precincts only show party registration. "The U.S. Supreme Court has held that legislatures must prove that they have made a good faith effort to achieve substantial equality between districts according to population. It has also been held by other courts throughout the country that a reapportionment plan can or should give attention to contiguity, compactness, preservation of communities of interest, avoidance of partisan gerrymanders, protection of the rights of minority groups, and access between different regions within a district. -1- #729 "These bills clearly fall short of these standards. "I would be derelict in my responsibility as governor to sign these bills into law. I cannot take pleasure, however, in announcing that I have today vetoed these three bills. "Because of the seeming impasse of the legislature and its inability to act, at least so far, I sincerely hope the Reapportionment Commission under the leadership of the lieutenant governor, will con- tinue its studies. "Our goal is still a fair reapportionment something California has not had for many years. "Out of all our deliberations, including the work of the Reappor- tionment Commission and the legislature, we can still make a new and positive beginning toward preventing the difficulties we have experienced on reapportionment difficulties which have cast the entire governmental process into disrepute. "But more important, we can seek to assure the people of California that they will be fairly and honestly represented in the legislature and the congress." # # # -2- EJG OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR MEMO TO THE PRESS Sacramento, California Contact: Paul Beck 445-4571 12-30-71 #730 Enclosed are maps of various Assembly, Senate and Congressional districts as proposed by bills enacted by the Democratic-dominated legislature. The following descriptions are aimed at assisting you in seeing some of the reasons for the governor's vetoes of these bills. (The descriptions relate to maps that are enclosed.) (NOTE: For your information, special permission has been granted for reproduction of these maps. You will note that some of the maps contain a copyright clause, but special permission has been granted for reproduction of them.) (STATEWIDE MAP - CD 36) The 36th district in Kings, Kern and San Luis Obispo counties has a long arm with almost no population in it, and no road in it connecting one end to the other, reaching all the way down the coastline to take Goleta and Isla Vista out of Santa Barbara County. The people at the end of this arm are effectively cut off from the rest of the district and denied the opportunity for effective representation. (ELOWUP OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 17 MAP) The 17th district in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties has a heavily Mexican-American area on the east side of San Jose connected like an appendage to the bulk of the district by a narrow corridor that splits the downtown area of San Jose. The people at the end of this corridor are discriminated against because they have little common interest with the main part of the district, and are unnecessarily far removed from the main part of the district. -1- #730 (ORANGE COUNTY BLOWUP MAP) Orange County and the communities within it are unnecessarily divided into six different congressional districts, instead of the slightly over three full districts to which its population entitles it. This decreases the effective voice of this growing area by putting most Orange County residents in districts dominated by population centers sometimes far removed in distance and interests from their own area. (STATEWIDE MAP - SD 15) The 15th district contains two large areas at opposite sides of the state one bordering on the Pacific Ocean and the other on the Arizona- Nevada border connected only by an extremely narrow corridor through a sparsely populated area of the Central Valley. These virtually non- contiguous parts of the 15th district make effective communication within the district unlikely and make effective representation unneces- sarily difficult. (BLOWUP OF SD 10) The San Mateo portion of the 10th district is only technically con- nected to the San Francisco and Marin portions across the waters of San Francisco Bay, where the county boundaries meet. The voters of the San Mateo portion of the district are unnecessarily separated from the San Francisco and Marin portions, making representation for them more difficult and less effective. (BLOWUP OF SD 25) The 25th district stretches along the length of the coastline from Oxnard in Ventura County in the north in a sometimes very narrow corridor south to the Palos Verdes peninsula in Los Angeles County. Voters at one end of the district have few common interests with voters at the other end and are unnecessarily separated in distance. (BLOWUP OF SD 27) The 27th district wanders in a narrow corridor across the heart of Los Angeles, arbitrarily splitting local communities from Santa Monica on the coast, through Culver City, Hollywood, Los Angeles, Glendale and Pasadena to the boundary of the Angeles National Forest. This is a blatant gerrymander for partisan political purposes, dividing the voice of these local communities and needlessly confusing the voter. -2- #730 (SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY - PARTS OF ADs 9, 10, 12 and 30) San Joaquin County's 290,000 citizens are entitled to 1.16 Assemblymen under the court-required equality standards. AB 12 would carve the county and its principal city, Stockton, into parts of four districts, only one of the incumbents of which is likely to be a resident of San Joaquin County. (BLOWUP OF AD 10) The 10th district stretches between three widely-separated centers of population- Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County in the Central Valley and in San Jose at the southern end of the Bay. All are con- nected by sparsely populated or unpopulated corridors. The residents of these areas have few interests in common, but are denied effective representation because of the widely-dispersed portions of the district wandering around Central California and the Bay Area. (BLOWUP OF AD 18) The 18th district is comprised of two virtually non-contiguous parts of the city of San Francisco, connected only by a corridor the width of a street in an obvious gerrymander for political advantage. This has the effect of virtually separating the 19th AD into two separate parts. This is confusing to the voters of each district, makes effective rep- resentation unnecessarily difficult, and needlessly divides local communities of interest. (STATEWIDE MAP - AD 31) The 31st district contains part or all of Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey, Fresno, Madera, and Merced counties. Coastal Santa Cruz County contains virtually half the district's population and would dominate the election of the district's Assemblyman, leaving the dis- parate Central Valley and Sierra constituents effectively voiceless in influencing their representative on matters of regional concern. (BLOWUP MAP OF AD 69) The 69th district, currently wholly within Orange County, is represented by Assembly Democratic Caucus Chairman Kenneth Cory. Its peculiar shape, dubbed a "Cory-Dor," is a clear effort to include every Democrat available/in at least a dozen cities in two counties. # # # -3- PB OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR MEMO TO THE PRESS Sacramento, California Contact: Paul Beck 445-4571 12-30-71 #731 Following are the texts of the Assembly, Senate and Congressional reapportionment bills vetoed by Governor Reagan: AB 16 - Waxman "This bill is defective in achieving equality of representation in two ways, (1) the failure to achieve substantial equality of population in every instance, and (2) the denial of effec- tive equal representation for all voters due to the shapes of a number of the districts. Inequality of Population In at least two districts (5 and 6) there has not been a good faith effort to achieve equality of population with the other districts in the state. These two districts were left entirely within the boundaries of San Francisco and Marin Counties, with the result that each district has a population of only some 461,000 persons, 3,000 short of the ideal size of 464,026. (District 5 has 460,838; District 6 has 461,594). As a result two other Northern California districts are left over- populated, and under-represented by about the same number of persons. (District 3 with 467,743, and District 4 with 468,560). Lack of Effective Representation for Every Voter The congressional plan has shortcomings in several other areas, all of which tend to work to the disadvantage of a number of citizens in achieving effective equality of representation. Underlying the concept of 'one man - one vote' is the principle that all citizens should have a voice in their government. That principle is vitiated when districts are drawn so that the members of a constituency have little in common or are confused by the vagaries of tortuously constructed lines. Some of these shortcomings are as follows: Difficulty of Access to All Parts of the District Some districts have unnecessary appendages attached that are not effectively contiguous to the rest of the district. An example is the 36th district in Kings, Kern, and San Luis Obispo counties, which has a long arm with almost no population in it, and no road from one end to the other, reaching all the way down the coastline to Goleta and Isla Vista in Santa Barbara County. The 43rd district includes a portion of San Diego County on the coastal side of the mountains that separates these people unnecessarily from the bulk of the population in Riverside and Imperial counties. The 42nd district has the bulk of its population in central San Diego County, but includes voters as far up the coast -1- #731 as Newport Beach. In my view, to the extent possible, every part of a district should be directly accessible to the rest of the district, to facilitate ease of communication, to provide access to elected public representatives and to achieve effective equal representation. Lack of Geographical Compactness Several districts are not as reasonably compact as they might be. The 28th district extends in a narrow strip along virtually the entire western coast of Los Angeles County from Malibu to Palos Verdes. The 36th, 42nd, and 43rd districts already mentioned are other examples. The 23rd and 34th districts both wind tortucusly through Los Angeles and Orange counties, and the 37th through central Los Angeles, for obvious partisan purposes unrelated to effective representation. Dis- tricts should be at least reasonably compact to facilitate ease of com- munication between voter and representative. Division of Communities of Interest There is a random disregard for preservation of communities of interest in this bill, with many communities arbitrarily divided---sometimes solely for political purposes. The 17th district in Santa Clara County includes a narrow corridor dividing downtown San Jose, and picking up a predominately Mexican-American community on the east side, removed from the bulk of the population on the west side of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. The 35th district arbitrarily takes a portion of downtown Long Beach out of the 32nd District. The cities of San Bernardino, Pomona, and Riverside are all split by the 38th district for partisan advantage. Two adjacent Alameda County districts, the 7th and 8th, arbitrarily pick up areas of Contra Costa County. Effective representation should dictate that local political boundaries and com- munities of interest be kept intact as much as possible to avoid unnecessarily confusing voters with respect to whom his representative may be. The apportionment of California's seats in the House of Representatives will have an extremely important impact on the nature and quality of California's representation as a state in the federal system for at least a decade to come. The many deficiencies I have outlined show that a far better job of Congressional reapportionment should have been done. These factors, taken cumulatively, should leave no doubt in the mind of anyone truly seeking a fair plan of Congressional apportionment that this legislation is unacceptable and certainly not in the best interests of the people of California. "Accordingly, I am returning the bill unsigned," the governor said. AB 12 - Waxman "This bill is defective in at least six major ways. First, it appears that there are several districts that deviate sub- stantially from equality of population. This problem is exacerbated by the way in which census unit boundaries have been ignored in construct- ing some districts. Instead of census units, precincts have been used in several cases as building blocks. It is well established, of course, that districts must be created on the basis of population, not on the -2- #731 basis of the number of registered voters in precinct. The mixture of the use of precinct lines, and census boundaries, is inappropriate for the purposes of reapportionment and, in addition, makes it impossible to perform an efficient verification of population totals. Another associated flaw is the fact that there is at least one instance in the bill in which the same voters are included in more than one district. A second major flaw is the failure to give due attention to compactness as a standard for establishing the new districts. Compactness is one of the chief requirements of a rational reapportionment policy, for compact districts create constituencies that are more easily and effectively represented, that allow the people more direct access to their assemblymen, and that lighten the task of conducting elections. The sole reason for the failure to establish compact districts in this bill appears to have been the attempt of the majority party to obtain partisan advantage. Examples of this flaw in the bill include the 10th Assembly District which stretches from Concord to Stockton, south 150 miles to the southernmost tip of Santa Clara County, and thence northward into the City of San Jose, and the 2nd, the 31st, the 16th, the 29th, 65th, and the 69th Assembly Districts. I strongly believe that in a rational plan the new districts should be at least as compact as those in the present law, and that every effort should be made to improve on existing standards of compactness. A third flaw is the failure to establish districts that reflect the ways in which the people of the state actually interact and communicate. Districts should be established in such a way as to allow the people to communicate easily with their representatives and to allow representa- tives to travel without difficulty from one part of the district to another. In this bill, however, districts are created that are cut by mountain ranges and other natural obstacles and that join very different areas by narrow corridors of unpopulated territory. In some districts there are even no reasonable routes of highway travel between one part of the district and another. Again, there is no rational purpose for the creation of such districts, but simply an effort to make partisan gains. Only political motivation explains the lines of the 4th and 29th districts. The 4th Assembly District, traditionally a northern central valley district, is needlessly extended westward over the coastal mountains to include a portion of the City of Santa Rosa, whose -3- #731 residents have negligible commonality with the central valley citizens who would undoubtedly dominate the selection of this district's repre- sentative. In the proposed 29th district, I fail to see even the most remote relationship between the interests of rural San Luis Obispo County and southeastern Ventura County. What access to his representa- tive would a resident of either end of this district have, in the event the representative is elected from the opposite end, hundreds of miles away? In addition, the 31st district, which would stretch from Santa Cruz to the High Sierra, is totally indefensible, and an insult to the very concept of participatory representation. Its effect upon its proposed constituents would be to deny numerous communities any effec- tive access to their representative, no matter how able he might be. I believe that a rational redistricting plan would provide for districts that avoid these problems and give both the people and their represent- atives unrestricted opportunities for communication and access. A fourth flaw in the bill is the blatant failure to pay due respect to the needs and interests of the different communities and political divisions in the state. The districts provided for in this bill cut across county and city lines, fragment the established political divisions of the state, and violate the identity of innumerable communities. Again, the sole purpose seems to have been to achieve partisan gains. Thus, Stockton is divided among four districts and Santa Clara County is given similarly irrational treatment. The southern boundary of the 2nd Assembly District divides virtually every community of any size, throwing some citizens of each community into a predominantly rural, north coast district, and others of the same com- munities into the 7th District, whose interests are distinctly of a metropolitan Bay Area nature. A rational apportionment of assembly districts requires an effort to preserve the political identities of the cities and other political divisions of the state and to establish districts that add to rather than diminish that sense of community which is one of the prime bases of our system of representative government. A fifth flaw in the bill is the apparent use of minority group popula- tion data to construct districts that will remain safe for white incum- bent Democrats through the decade of the 1970s. Reapportionment should be conducted with an eye blind to color and race. But, in many areas, this bill reflects what can only be a deliberate effort to establish districts that will not permit the election of minority representatives. This is the only explanation of the fragmentation of the Mexican-American communities in Los Angeles and of lines drawn for the 45th, 51st and 65th Assembly Districts. The collapse and reappearance of the 57th District merits special attention. First, there is clearly no population pressure justification for this change, inasmuch as the district reappears just a few miles away from its current location. Second, once the decision is made to create a new, non-incumbent district in Los Angeles, to place it in such a location as to ensure the election of an Anglo at a time when respons- ible, yet long-under-represented minorities are struggling to find ways to work within our political system, is astounding and completely indefensible. I am sure the great majority of Californians of all races will agree. Apportionment cannot be biased by an effort to keep incumbents of one race in power, and the new districts should be established in such a way that all the people of California are fairly and equally represented. A sixth flaw in the bill is the failure to create districts that reflect the shifts in population that have occurred in the state since the 1960 census. The data that was made available many months ago by the Bureau of the Census reveals very clearly that some counties have dramatically increased in population. In several cases, these counties deserve additional new seats and the counties that lost in relative population should lose seats. In this bill, however, deliberate efforts appear to have been made to resist the impact of these shifts in population. Again, the motive appears to be simply that of partisan advantage. Obvious examples of this flaw in the bill include Alameda County. Indeed, the manner in which this bill proposes to draw Assembly districts in Alameda County is responsible for many of the principal failures of this legislation throughout the state. Assembly districts 14, 15, 16 -4-- #731 and 17, as now composed, contain insufficient population for three districts under the court's requirement of equality. The way in which these districts were drawn clearly necessitated many of the misshapen districts and divided communities throughout the balance of the state. Thus, the County of Contra Costa, with a population entitlement of more than two full Assembly Districts, is fragmented amongst four districts, with total disregard for longstanding economic, social, and regional and local governmental communities in a clear effort to preserve the incumbents in four deficient Alameda districts. Similarly, the County of San Joaquin, and specifically the City of Stockton, are divided among four districts, when the county's population entitles it to 1.16 Assembly districts. It is clear that, at a minimum, the rep- resentatives elected from both the 9th and 10th districts could never be expected to reside in or properly represent the citizens and legit- imate interests of San Joaquin County. Perhaps no one of these flaws alone would decisively debilitate this plan, but taken together they point to an effort to subvert the repre- sentative process for partisan advantage. Nowhere does this bill more richly deserve the label of blatant, partisan gerrymander than in the City and County of Fresno. The tortuous changes, inserted at the last minute before passage, of the lines of the 32nd and 33rd districts may or may not enhance the prospects of the election of a Mexican-American from the 32nd district, though the bulk of evidence suggests such a contention is a cruel hoax. Clearly, however, there was no motivation save sheer heavy-handed partisan gain behind the decision to include the incumbents from the two districts within the proposed new boundaries of the 33rd district. Other flaws in the bill could be cited, but the evidence is overwhelming that a good faith effort has been lacking to develop a plan for Assembly districting that is rational and fair. This bill serves only a narrow partisan purpose. As was publicly admitted, it is a plan to maintain and strengthen a Democratic majority in the Assembly. That majority won power in 1970 with barely 50 percent of the two party vote, but now seeks to establish districts so heavily biased in favor of Democratic candidates that it is unlikely that Republicans could win more than 31 or 32 districts in the 1972 elections, even if Republican candidates again secured 49 or 50 percent of the two-party vote. The whole nature of the Democratic process depends on effective competition be- tween the candidates of different parties, but this bill would seek to eliminate competition from all but a handful of seats now held by Republican incumbents. In effect, as a result of the efforts to meet the single goal of partisan gain, all the standards that should go into the elaboration of a rational state policy on Assembly reapportionment have been jettisoned. I cast this veto with the deepest disappointment. I had thought that the lengthy legislative deliberations of the past year would have pro- duced an Assembly apportionment that was fair and equitable. However, I have been presented with a bill which violates every major standard that should inform a rational state policy on reapportionment and which, in a very real sense, jeopardizes the whole future of repre- sentative government in this state. "Accordingly, I am returning the bill unsigned," the governor said. SB 2 - Dymally "The reapportionment of our state Senate districts, which this bill would mandate, is replete with misshapen and oddly drawn lines which not only stretch the imagination, but which in many cases, stretch beyond the point of reason. For example, the 15th District follows the California-Nevada border on the East from Riverside County northward to above Bridgeport and stretches across a narrow corridor of the San Joaquin Valley westward to Monterey on the North and Arroyo Grande on the South. The ludicrousness of the district's boundaries totally ignores the principle of compactness---- which should be fundamental to the drawing of boundaries around any voting district. The virtually non-contiguous parts of the district make effective communication and access within the district unlikely and effective representation unnecessarily difficult. -5- #731 Another flaw in the bill is that the San Mateo portion of the 10th District is only technically connected to the San Francisco and Marin portions of the district across the waters of San Francisco Bay where the county boundaries meet. The district was composed by hopping from ship to ship along the eastern half of San Francisco in order to gain access into San Mateo County. Four of these ships had no population when the census was taken and the ships could move to another location at any time. The fact that this ridiculous approach was used to justify gerrymandering of the district once again disregards the principle of compactness. Another area of deep concern is Alameda County where districts 8 and 11 constitute the only multi-member districts in the state. This means that voters in Alameda County would be in a single district represented by two Senators with twice the population of an ordinary district. Regrettably, it will have the effect of depriving racial minorities in the district of the full weight of their voting strength, due to com- bining the districts and making them twice as large as they otherwise would be. Finally, the problem of artifically splintering communities of interest by dividing representation of cities and counties among Senate districts is of grave concern, not only to me, but also to citizens and local officials of many jurisdictions around the state. The problem is especially acute in Los Angeles where 40 incorporated cities have been split. For example, the City of Encino, with a population of 41, 579, would be represented by four Senatorial districts (the 19th, the 22nd, the 23rd, and the 25th). Orange County would be split into six sena- torial districts (the 26th, the 34th, the 35th, the 36th, the 37th, and the 38th). I realize, of course, that under the 'one man-one vote' doctrine, it is inevitable that some cities and counties will be divided. However, if local government is to survive, it is imperative that such divisions be kept to a minimum. This bill fails miserably in this regard, and in sum, falls far short of those standards of fair and effective representation the people of California have a right to expect from a reapportionment measure of this consequence and magnitude. "Accordingly, I am returning the bill unsigned," the governor said. # # # -6- PB