Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
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
118564856
label
Issue Papers - Reapportionment (4 of 4)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564856
contentType
document
title
Issue Papers - Reapportionment (4 of 4)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Issue Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564856
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
mediaId
15b5f96c7a539ef6
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
(4 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/
Putnam Livermore, Chairman
918 J Street, Sacramento, Ca, 95814
RSCCC
TEL: 916 442-7878
Republican State Central Committee of California
Contact: Al Donner
I'm here this morning to show you some of the things the Democrat leadership
in the Legislature would rather you didn't see. These plans are an insult to
all the people of California, regardless of their political affiliation.
The reapportionment bills passed here last night are partisan gerrymandering
in its grossest form. Instead of enacting a measure that would insure reasonable
representation for the 20 million people, the measures passed last night are
really a plan for non-representation of large segments of the state's population.
The Moretti-Mills-Burton leadership has concocted a program for reapportionment
whose main purpose, .as I read it from these maps, is to fragment the population
groupings of this state into meaningless splinters.
It breaks up population centers so that they are in three, four, or even more
di istricts. A community so Balkanized will not be able to marshall its people
to elect its own representative. Conversely, a person elected from such a group
of splinters, such as Mr. Cory whose proposed 69th Assembly District is
nothing more than a series of "Cory-dors" joined together, will not have to
pay very much attention to the particular interests of any of the communities
partially included in his district.
After twelve months of pious platitudes about their "good government" bill which
was to be unveiled in June and about "open hearings", the Democrats attempted
last night to give themselves a secret Christmas present.
RSCCC
Republican State Central Committee of California
This plan is an abuse of the responsibility vested in the leadership by the voting
public of the state.
I think that it is important at this stage of the proceedings to recall that the
last two reapportionments of Califom ia were drawn by Democratic majorities
in both houses of the Legislature with the eager concurrance of a Democratic
governor. Neither of the last two reapportionments could by any stretch of the
imagination be called non-partisan or in the best interests of the general public
of this state. They were simply executed with the prime purpose of maximizing
Democrat voting strength.
In this context the Republican leadership sought a 1971 reapportionment that would
have retained communities of interest and increased the representation of minority
groups. Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership in both houses of the Legislature
refused to work toward that goal of fair representation. The gerrymanders that
you see on these maps are the sad result.
Therefore, I am asking Governor Reagan to veto the measures which have been
rammed through by the Democrat leaders.
The citizens of California have a number of legal avenues open to prevent the
implementation of this gerrymander and we Republicans, for our part, will
commence immediately to pursue these remedies.
RSCCC
Republican State Central Committee of California
Page 3
Finally, I would like to express my appreciation and admiration for the very fine
efforts of the Republican leadership in both houses through this very difficult
reapportionment process. I have worked closely with the Republican members
of the Legislature and with the Governor during the past 12 months in an effort
to gain a fair reapportionment for the people of the state. Senators Marler
and Harmer, and Assemblymen Monagan, Stull and Lewis have worked very
dilligently on this important project. They deserve a vote of thanks from all
Californians interested in fair and adequate representation for the people of this
state.
Heapportionment
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
en banc
THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE
)
SAC 7917
OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Petitioners,
V.
ED REINECKE, as Lieutenant
Governor of the State of
California, et al.,
Respondents.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR. as Secretary of
SAC 7919
State of the State of California,
Petitioner,
V.
RONALD REAGAN as Governor of the
State of California,
Respondent.
MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE
SAC 7923
OF REPRESENTATIVES, CHET HOLLIFIELD,
et al.,
Petitioners,
V.
)
RONALD REAGAN as Governor of the State
of California, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
)
In these mandate proceedings we are called upon to
resolve the impasse created by the failure to date of the
Legislature to pass legislative and congressional reapportion-
ment bills acceptable to the Governor in time for the upcoming
1972 primary and general elections. For the reasons hereafter
1.
stated we have concluded that there is now no practical
alternative available to us but to order into effect readily
available temporary apportionment plan for the 1972 elections.
As we have repeatedly emphasized in the past however reapportion-
ment is primarily a matter for the legislative branch of the
government to resolve (Silver V. Brown (1965) 63 Cal, 2d 270,
280; Silver V. Brown (1965) 63 Cal.2d 316, 318; Silver V.
Reagan (1967) 67 Ca12d 452, 458). Accordingly we urge the
Legislature and the Governor in the exercise of their shared
legislative power to enact laws (See Lukens V. Nye j (1909)
195 Cal. 498, 501-505). To enact reapportionment measures
in time for the 1972 elections and thus to render unnecessary
the use of our temporary plan. In this respect we note that
the date of the June primary at least insofar as it relates
to the nominations of candidates for seats in the Legislature
and the Congress could be postponed by statute to allow
substantial or additional time for the orderly conduct of such
primary nominating election. Since however the legislative
impasse may continue indefinitely and since "It is our duty
to insure the electorate equal protection of laws" (Silver V.
Brown, supra, 63 Cal.2d 270, 282) we deem it essential to
state that we shall proceed well in advance of the 1974
elections to draft our own reapportionment plans based on the
1970 census unless by the end of the current regular session
the Legislature has enacted valid statutes reapportioning
Legislative and Congressional districts. (The parties to the
litigation involving legislative reapportionment are the
2.
Governor, the Legislature, various members of the Legislature,
representing the views of various groups of Legislators, the
Lieutenant Governor, the Attorney General, The Controller,
the Secretary of State and the Superintendent of Public
Instruction acting as members of the Reapportionment Commission,
and the Secretary of State acting as Chief Election official
of the state. The parties to the litigation involving
congressional reapportionment are 32 of the members of the
United States House of Representatives from California, the
Governor, the Secretary of State, other elected officials
of the state and all of the members of the Legislature. (We
turn to the conflicting contentions of the parties) since
the Legislature failed to enact statutes reapportioning the
Assembly and Senatorial districts at its first regular
session following the 1970 Federal census. At least the
majority of the members of the Reapportionment Commission
now assert the authority to reapportion those districts and
have commenced working toward that end. In the Legislature
V. Reinecke, SAC 7917, petitioners challenge the authority
of the Commission to act and seek a peremptory writ of
mandate directing it not to reapportion either house of the
Legislature. Section 6, of Article IV of the California
Constitution provides in part- "Should the Legislature at
1. Section 6 in its entirety provides: "
3.
the first regular session
following any decennial Federal
census fail to reapportion the Assembly and Senatorial districts
a Reapportionment Commission which is hereby created
shall forthwith apportion such districts in accordance with
the provisions of this section
"
This provision in
Section 6 was adopted in 1926 at the same time the People
amended section 6 to provide for a federal plan of legislative
apportionment whereby the Senate was apportioned largely on
its geographical basis and the Assembly was apportioned
largely, but not entirely, on a population basis. After
the United States Supreme Court held that the federal plan
provisions of section 6 applicable to the Senate violated the
one-man-one-vote requirement of the equal protection clause
(Jordan V. Silver (1965) 381 U.S. 415 affirming Silver V.
Jordan (1964) 241 F. Supp. 576) this court was confronted in
Silver V. Brown, supra, 63 Cal.2d 270) with implementing the
United States Supreme Court decision (we noted our prior
holding in Yorty V. Anderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 312, 316-317
that the failure of the Legislature to enact a valid re-
apportionment at its first regular session following a
federal decennial census did not deprive it of power there-
after to enact a valid reapportionment within the ensuing
stage (63 Cal.2d at page 274).
We pointed out that such power was part of the
legislative power vested in the Legislature by section 1 of
Article IV of the California Constitution subject to the
powers reserved to the people of initiative and referendum
(63 Cal.2d at page 280). We then held that the Reapportion-
ment Commission had no power to act on the ground that the
provision creating the Commission was inseverable from the
invalid part of section 6 restated: "There is also no merit
in the contention that since the Legislature has had the
opportunity but has failed to reapportion the Senate. The
Reapportionment Commission should now do so even if we could
reasonably disregard the express conditions precedent to the
Commission's power namely that the Legislature must have
failed to reapportion itself after the 1960 census. We could
not hold the provision creating the Commission severable from
the invalid parts of section 6. In amending section 6 in 1926
the people created the Commission to enforce a specific
apportionment plan. We do not believe they would have
delegated such broad legislative power to the Commission as
is now appropriate for the Legislature to exercise had they
known that the standards set forth in section 6 could not be
followed consistently with the United States Constitution
[citations ]." (63 Cal. 2d at page 281)
We adhere to that holding not only because of the
principle of stare decisis
but because it is compelled
by the language of section 6. The only authority of the
Commission is to "apportion such districts in accordance with
the provisions of this section" but for the Commission to so
apportion the districts would necessarily violate the United
States Constitution.
It is contended that insofar as the California
Senate and Assembly are concerned the reapportionment bills
passed by the Legislature at its 1951 first extraordinary
session are effective despite the Governor's vetoes. It is
urged that the doctrine of separation of powers compels the
5.
conclusion that the Legislature must have unfitted power to
reapportion its own houses within constitutional limits and
that therefore the Governor is without power to override the
will of a simple majority by exercising his vetoes.
We find no basis whatsoever in the California
Constitution however for concluding that measures reapportion-
ing the houses of the Legislature are not laws that must be
enacted pursuant to the Constitution (see Smiley V. Holm (1932)
285 U.S. 355) subdivision (b) of section 8 of Article IV
provides: "The Legislature may make no law except by
statute and may enact no statute except by bill. Subdivision
(a) of section 10 of Article IV provides: "Each bill passed
by the Legislature shall be presented to the Governor. It
becomes a statute if he signs it. He may veto it by return-
ing it with his objections to the House of origin which
shall enter the objection in the journal and seek to recon-
sider it. If each house then passes the bill by roll call
vote entered in the journal two-thirds of the membership
concurring it becomes a statute. A bill presented to the
Governor that is not returned within twelve days becomes
a statute.
"
There is no room in these provisions for
evading the Governor's veto power with respect to reapportion-
ment measures.
Since valid reapportionment measures based on the
1970 census have not been enacted and since population shifts
reflected in that census and increasingly strict standards
of electorial equality (see Calderon V. City of Los Angeles
(1971) 4 Cal.3d 251, 266-271 and cases cited). Make clear
that the present legislative and congressional apportionment
6.
no longer meet the one-man-one-vote requirement. It is now
incumbent upon this court to determine how this impasse should
be resolved in time for the orderly conduct of the 1972
elections.
The problem is intensely practical and extremely
urgent for election officials must know the district boundaries
by February 23, 1972 (see Election Code, section 6462; Silver
V. Brown, supra, 63 Cal.2d 270, 277) to prepare for a June
primary. Moreover, even a delay in fixing district boundaries
until that date would create serious complications for the
election officials in the larger counties. Reapportion ment
however is an extremely complex matter for innumerable plans
could be adopted that would satisfy the one-man-one-vote
requirement. Before this court in the discharge of its duty
to insure the electorate equal protection of the laws under-
takes to draft reapportionment plans of its own, it should
afford all interested parties an opportunity to be heard.
The court should be fully informed with respect to all of the
possible criteria that might be adopted for reapportionment
and with respect to all of the specific implementations of such
criteria that might be ordered into effect.
Insofar as the 1972 elections are concerned there is
obviously insufficient time before district boundaries must be
known for this court to allow all interested parties to be
heard to resolve the conflicting contentions presented and to
translate its conclusions into concrete reapportionment plans
for the legislative and congressional districts.
Accordingly, the only practical choices now available
7.
to us are either to allow the present apportionment to remain
in effect temporarily for the 1972 elections or to adopt
as temporarily court plans for the 1972 elections the plans
passed by the Legislature but vetoed by the Governor.
Neither choice is satisfactory and in determining which is
the least undesirable we consider reapportionment of
legislative districts and of congressional districts
separately.
Only the most compelling considerations would com-
pel us to disregard the solemn vetoes of the Governor and to
adopt the plans passed by the Legislature as court plans at
least in the absence of a complete hearing as described above,
which would allow us to exercise a pre-informed and independent
judgment with respect to those plans. Insofar as reapportion-
ment of the Legislature is concerned we find no such com-
pelling consideration. We believe that it will be far less
destructive of the integrity of the electoral process to
allow the existing legislative districts, imperfect as they
may be, to survive for an additional two years than for this
court to accept, even temporarily, plans that are at best
truncated products of the legislative process (see Reynolds V.
Simms (1964) 377 U.S. 533, 585; Silver V. Brown, supra,
63 Cal. 2d 270, 278; Silver V. Brown, supra, 63 Cal.2d 316, 318.
There are however compelling considerations that impel us to
adopt as a temporary court plan for the 1972 elections only
the bill passed by the Legislature to reapportion the
congressional districts (Assembly Bill No. 16, 1971 First
Extra-Ordinary Session) unlike the numbers of Assemblymen and
8.
State Senators which remain unchanged the number of
Representatives in the United States House of Representatives
to which California is entitled increased following the 1970
census from 38 to 43. Accordingly, unless congressional
districts are reapportioned, the offices of five representa-
tives will either have to be left unfilled or filled by
statewide elections. We cannot accept either alternatives
for Congress has expressly provided that California shall
elect 43 representatives from 43 single membered districts.
2. United States code, title 2, section 2c provides:
9.
We need only add that we fully agree with the congressional
mandate. It would be wholly unacceptable to avoid statewide
congressional elections by depriving the state of
representation of five congressmen to which it is entitled.
But to conduct statewide elections to fill five congressional
seats in a state of California's geographical size and
large populations would not only tremendously increase the
burden and expenses of effective campaigning but by increasing
the choices confronting the electorate from the candidates
for one to the candidates for six congressional seats would
seriously impede the casting of informed ballots.
We regret of course that the only readily avail-
able congressional reapportionment plan is one that has been
vetoed by the Governor. We note however that it has the
bi-partisan support of all of the California members of the
United States House of Representatives appearing herein
and that it is opposed by none of such members. We would be
naive not to recognize that the plan was drafted with the
interests of the incumbents in mind whether or not we may
deem it appropriate to consider those interest when and if
we must ultimately draft our own reapportionment plan for
post 1972 elections. The fact that Assembly Bill No. 16
may favor incumbents does not disqualify it from serving
as the court's temporary plan in exigent circumstance con-
fronting us.
To summarize, we hold that the Reapportionment
Commission has no jurisdiction to reapportion the Legislature.
10.
We further hold that unless the Legislature enacts valid
legislative reapportionment statutes in time for the 1972
elections the present statute apportioning the Legislature
shall remain in effect for the 1972 elections.
We finally hold that unless the Legislature
enacts a valid congressional reapportionment in time for the
1972 elections the congressional districts set forth in
Assembly Bill No. 16, 1971 First Extra-Ordinary Session,
shall be in effect for the 1972 elections.
We retain jurisdiction to draft new reapportion-
ment plans for the elections of 1974 thru 1980 in the event
that the Legislature does not enact valid legislation and
congressional reapportionment statutes by the close of its
1972 regular session.
Since there is no reason to believe that any of
the parties to these proceedings will not exceed to our
holdings herein no purpose would be served by issuing writs
of mandate (see Silver V. Brown (1966) 63 Cal. 2d 841, 848).
All parties shall recover their costs from the State of
California (see Code of Civil Procedure, section 1095).
This judgment is final forthwith.
Wright, C.J.
We concur:
McComb, J
Peters, J
Tobriner, J
Mosk, J
Burke, J
Sullivan, J
11.
News Release No. 153
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. REINECKE.
State Supreme Court issues temporary order direct-
ing Reapportionment Commission not to do any redistricting.
In an order filed today the California Supreme Court directed
the State Reapportionment Commission not to do any reappor-
tioning or redistricting until the matter is heard by the
Supreme Court. The order does not, however, restrain the
Commission from meeting or preparing tentative reapportion-
ment plans.
The action of the court was taken in response to a
petition filed Wednesday (Dec. 15) by Senator Mervyn M.
Dymally and Assemblyman Henry A. Waxman on behalf of the
State Legislature which sought immediate court action to
restrain the Commission from meeting, acting, or attempting
any redistricting.
The court specified that the writ must be issued,
served and filed on or before Tuesday December 21. This
action must be taken by the attorneys representing the
petitioning legislature. The Reapportionment Commission
has until Tuesday, December 28 to reply. The matter will
then be set for hearing by the court.
Members of the Reapportionment Commission are
Lt. Governor Ed Reinecke, Attorney General Evelle J.
Younger, Controller Houston Flournoy, Secretary of State
Edmund G. Brown Jr. and State Superintendent of Public
Instruction Wilson Riles.
Alternative Writ of Mandate
No. SAC 7917
The Legislature of the State
of California, et al.
vs.
Reinecke as Lt. Governor, et al.
Let an Alternative Writ of Mandate issue directing
respondents acting as the Reapportionment Commission to cease,
desist and refrain from in any way apportioning, reapportion-
ing, districting, redistricting or in any other way organ-
izing or establishing any senatorial and assembly districts
from and in which to elect members to the Legislature of
the State of California or in the alternative to be and
appear before this court when the matter is ordered on
calendar to show cause, if any they have, why a peremptory
Writ of Mandate should not issue as prayed.
The Alternative Writ is to be issued, served and
filed on or before Tuesday, December 21, 1971.
The written return to the writ is to be served and
filed on or before Tuesday, December 28, 1971.
Pending a further order of this court respondents
acting as the Reapportionment Commission are directed to
cease, desist and refrain from apportioning, reapportioning,
districting, redistricting or in any other way organizing
or establishing any senatorial or assembly districts from or
in which to elect members of the Legislature of the State
of California.
/s/ Wright
Justice
Requirentionment
STATEMENT ADOPTED DECEMBER 1, 1971, BY THE REPUBLICAN
COUNTY CHAIRMENS ASSOCIATION MEETING IN SACRAMENTO:
The County Republican Chairmen's Association
unanimously urges the Governor to veto any reappor-
tionment bill that is not fair to all segments of
California, based on the community of interest, natural
boundaries, and ethnic criterion as set forth by the
California Republican State Central Committee.
If Californians are not afforded a fair reappor-
tionment by the Legislature, then this Association
favors a veto to let the Constitutional Reapportionment
Commission fairly set boundaries so all people in Cali-
fornia can be fairly and properly represented in
Sacramento and Washington.
Ralph Rosedale
President
Republican County
Chairmen's Association
STATEMENT OF THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATIONAL FUND IN SUPPORT OF FAIR REAPPORTIONMENT
In our democratic form of government, the privilege of
voting is deemed a fundamental interest. The U.S. Supreme Court
has said; "No right is more precious in a free country than that
of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under
which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the
most basic are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our
Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way
that unnecessarily abridges the right."
Because reapportionment directly affects voting rights
which are a "fundamental interest," any reapportionment plan must
pass the "strict scrutiny" test. This test is one which the
Supreme Court has employed in measuring legislative classifications
against the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Under the "strict scrutiny" test, the State bears a heavy burden
of establishing that it has a compelling interest which justifies
the particular law enacted and its effect.
The reapportionment plans of both the Senate and the
Assembly are not justified by a compelling state interest and are
not necessary to further that purpose. The legislature has stated
at various times that the districts have been drawn in a manner
that protects the seats of incumbents and only incidentally
-2-
fulfills the one-man-one-vote requirement. We submit that the
protection of incumbents is not compelling state interest.
The legislature's reapportionment plans create a classifi-
cation which is constitutionally suspect because they invidiously
discriminate against Mexican Americans. The reapportionment creates
two classes: One class consists of all Californians who will have
full voting rights, and the second class is comprised of Mexican
Americans who are deprived of their voting rights by this reappor-
tionment. This violation of a fundamental right cannot stand the
test of constitutionality.
The interests of Chicanos have not been properly considered
in past legislation, and Chicanos of California will not tolerate
a plan which denies them a political voice in the future. Therefore,
unless the legislature passes a reapportionment plan which gives
Mexican Americans an effective political voice which they can use
to preserve their basic civil and political rights, the State will
have the heavy burden of justifying their plan in the Courts.
Statement made. by
Mario Obledo at
Press Conference on Reapportionment
November 2, 1971
November 3, 1971
MEXICAN AMERICAN POLITICAL ASSOCIATION
COALITION FOR A FAIR REAPPORTIONMENT,
composed of:
United Auto Workers
YWCA
Californians for Liberal Representation
and 12 other allied organizations
Chicano Youth for Representation
Contact: Roberto Rabago
Phone:
/916/ 446-7901
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
/415/ 626-6196
"According to the Mexican American Population Commission's
most recent figures, Chicanos make up approximately fifteen percent
(15%) of California's population. One of every six children in
California's public schools is Chicano," stated Armando Rodriguez,
President of the Mexican American Political Association of California.
"California has eighty (80) Assembly seats. Fifteen percent
of eighty is twelve (12) # yet there are now only two (2) Chicano
Assemblymen. There are forty (40) California State Senators. Fifteen
percent of 40 is six (6) , yet there is not one single Chicano Senator.
California has forty three (43) Congressmen. Fifteen percent of forty
three is six-plus (6+), yet there is only one Chicano congressman
23
Rodreguez said.
Herman Sillas, chairman of the California Coalition for Fair
Reapportionment, stated that previous legislative districts in California
have been drawn with general disregard of the Chicanos' community of
interest. "There are at least 750,000 Chicanos in East Los Angeles, yet
they have been divided up among at least ten (10) assembly districts,
with the result that no district now has over 28% Chicano registration,
thereby effectively diluting the Chicano political voice.
more
If any serious attenpt to affirmatively consider Chicano interests were
made, we would have at least four Chicano majority districts in Los
Angeles. "
Rodriguez, resident of Fresno, stated: "In the South Fresno,
Merced, and Madera areas, we have a majority Chicano area with a
population of over 250,000. Yet there is no Chicano assembly seat pro-
posed for the area (ideal population for each assembly district, based
on 1970 Census data, is 249, 414 people) "
Sillas claimed that "there is a large Chicano community
stretching from San Jose to Salinas. Most of the schools in this area
are over 50% Chicano. This area must be preserved to give it a political
voice.
"The three million (3,000,000) California Chicanos, most of
whom live in four large Chicano communities, must be represented by
at least seven (7) Chicano Assemblymen, three (3) Chicano State
Senators, and three (3) Chicano Congressmen. The present plan for the
Assembly, in particular, is a jig-saw puzzle to preserve incumbents,
an unconstitutional destruction of Chicano Communities and voting
power.
# # #
LAW OFFICES OF
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
901 "F" STREET-SUITE 130
JAMES F. SMITH
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814
CENTRAL OFFICE
ATTORNEY
TELEPHONE 446-7901
1212 MARKET STREET
PETER F. SCHILLA
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
(AREA CODE 916)
ATTORNEY
TELEPHONE: (415) 863-4911
ARTHUR A. TORRES
CRUZ REYNOSO
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
November 2, 1971
Honorable Mervyn Dymally, Chairman
Senate Committee on Elections and
Reapportionment
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Senator Dymally:
Thank you very much for the opportunity which
you have given us to express our legal opinion with
reference to representation of our Chicano clients
in the Legislature.
We hope that the questions which you and Senator
Harmer raised are adequately answered in the attached
Memorandum of Law Re Discrimination Against Chicano
Voters in Legislative Reapportionment.
In short, it is our view that the record of past
discrimination now requires the Legislature to affirm-
atively consider race and to give Chicano communities
the representation to which they are entitled.
If we may be of further assistance, please contact
us.
Yours very truly
Cruz Reynoso
Cruz Reynoso
Executive Director
Attachment
1
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
RE DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST CHICANO VOTERS
IN LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT
Cruz Reynoso
Phil Jiminez
Peter Weiner
Peter Schilla
Antonio Quintero
Lucy McCabe
Fred Altshuler
Mario Obledo
Martin R. Glick
Roberto Rubago
California Rural Legal
Mexican-American Legal Defense
Assistance
& Education Fund
1212 Market Street
145 Ninth Street
San Francisco, California
San Francisco, California
November 2, 1971
Apportionment of legislative districts is one of the
most deliberate, carefully planned acts performed by elected
officials. Legislators possess and make use of detailed
population data revealing the political affiliation, regis-
tration, voting patterns, and racial and ethnic composition
of present and proposed election districts. Decisions of
where to draw district lines are the result of trade-offs
and deals made by those who possess the power at the time
lines are drawn. In California this deliberate process has
resulted in dilution in natural Chicano voting strength and
consequent disenfranchisement of California's three million
Chicano voters.
The statistics and history tell a compelling story.
Under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo California was original-
ly a bi-lingual state which provided that electoral and legal
processes would be carried out in English and Spanish. Between
1849 and 1899 there were at least seventeen (17) Spanish-
surnamed legislators in California. However, in 1879 Spanish
was excluded as an official language and in 1894 English
literacy was made a prerequisite to voting. Between the
years 1900 and 1960 there was only one (1) Spanish-surnamed
legislator in California.
According to the Mexican-American Population Commission,
Chicanos make up approximately fifteen percent (15%) of
the state's population. According to 1971 statistics
released last month by the Department of Education one (1)
of every six (6) children in California's public schools is
Chicano. Chicanos are the largest minority group in California;
numerically they are the largest minority group in any state.
California has eighty (80) assembly seats. Fifteen
percent (15%) of eighty (80) is twelve (12), yet there are
now only two (2) Chicano assemblymen in California. There
are forty (40) California state senators. Fifteen percent
(15%) of forty (40) is six (6), yet there is not one single
Chicano senator. California has forty-three (43) congressmen.
Fifteen percent (15%) of forty-three (43) is six-plus (6+),
yet there is only one (1) Chicano congressman.
An analysis of maps of population and registration by
district readily explains this disparity. The legislature
has chosen not to form Chicano districts in areas where neigh-
borhood living patterns actually lend themselves naturally
to formation of Chicano districts. Just the opposite has been
done. The East Los Angeles area is a classic example. The
area, bordered by Downey on the south, Whittier, Walnut and
West Covina on the east, Azusa, San Marino, Glendale and
For purposes of consistency the term "Chicano" is used
throughout this brief instead of "Mexican-American" or "Spanish-
surnamed". Where statistics used are based on Spanish-surnamed
an appropriate deduction is made. [The Population Commission
found that 95% of California's Spanish-surnamed population is
Mexican-American.]
- 2 -
South Pasadena on the north, and Vermont Avenue on the west,
has an estimated seven hundred and fifty thousand (750,000)
Chicano residents. More than thirty (30) schools in this
area range between 75 and 100 percent Chicano, and few are
below thirty percent (30%).
The area could be divided so as to create four (4) block
shaped districts with Chicano majorities. [According to the
1970 census, each Assembly District should ideally contain
249,414 constituents.] Instead the contiguous Chicano com-
munity has been carved up into no less than ten (10) districts.
From this community, 18,731 voters are in the 48th district,
20,177 are in the 51st, 18,235 are in the 50th, 19,621 are
in the 45th, 14,084 are in the 40th, 9,291 are in the 66th,
8,135 are in the 58th, 7,538 are in the 52nd, 4,553 are in
the 56th, and 3,646 are in the 65th. (1971 figures, using
1965 boundary lines). In only one of these districts are
the Chicanos over twenty-three percent (23%) of the registered
voters.
The most recent fragmentation of the Chicano community
resulted from the 1965 reapportionment of the California
legislature. At the time Democrats controlled both houses
of the legislature and the Governorship. They knew from
registration statistics that Chicanos in the East Los Angeles
1/ The Legislature did not voluntarily reapportion itself
in 1965. After the California Supreme Court required such
reapportionment in Silver V. Brown, 63 Cal. 270 (1965), the
Governor called an extraordinary session of the Legislature to
consider reapportionment. The resulting plan was then reviewed
and modified by the state supreme court. (Silver V. Brown, 63
Cal. 2d 841 (1966)) Congressional reapportionment is chronicled
in Silver V. Reagan, 67 Cal.2d 452 (1967).
- 3 -
area were registered in excess of eighty percent (80%)
Democrat.
Furthermore, election returns showed that this
eighty-plus percent (80+%) Chicano group almost always voted
for the Democratic candidate in partisan elections. There-
fore, it was to their advantage to take especial note of
ethnic background and carefully apportion Chicano voters
among existing Democratic districts--enough Chicanos to
assure as many safe Democratic districts as possible.
At the same time the architects of the reapportionment
were careful to keep the Chicano population in any district
small enough so that no incumbent need fear a challenge from
a Chicano challenger. The Los Angeles example is paralleled
by the experience and the practice in the Fresno area and
the South Santa Clara-San Benito-Salinas area. (Fresno and
its surrounding areas has a Chicano community of approximately
150,000. Approximately 250,000 Chicanos reside in the South
Santa Clara-San Benito-Salinas area.)
1/ Indeed in many areas the figures more closely approximate
90%.
The figures are:
Spanish-
Spanish-
Spanish-
Spanish-
Total
surnamed
surnamed
surnamed
surnamed
District
Registered
Registered
Democrat
Republican
Other
40
51,017
14,084
12,677
868
539
45
85,582
19,621
17,297
1,700
624
48
90,249
18,731
16,201
1,749
781
50
97,999
18,235
16,095
1,636
504
51
86,522
20,177
18,120
1,526
532
52
84,717
7,538
6,297
869
372
56
97,066
4,353
3,231
829
293
58
84,161
8,135
6,792
1,051
292
65
89,529
3,646
2,814
636
196
66
91,498
9,291
7,773
1,231
287
The Chicano community is now entitled to redress of
past policies which deliberately excluded them from geograph-
ical voting strength and representation to which they were
and are entitled. The system of democratic government was
designed to give all citizens a meaningful voice in the affairs
of the government. Chicanos, and particularly young Chicanos,
have become acutely aware that those of their cultural and
ethnic background have been shut out of the affairs of the
government. There may not be another reapportionment until
1981.
The burdens imposed on the California Chicano community
by this history of legislative discrimination, make it imperative
that the legislature now act to remedy these inequities and
give the Chicano an effective voice. The law, as well as
elementary principles of justice, demands no less.
- 5 --
I. THE LEGISLATURE'S DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
CHICANO VOTERS VIOLATES THE UNITED STATES
AND CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONS.
It is clear from the facts outlined above, that the
1965 California legislature deliberately played politics
with race by dividing and diluting the Chicano vote in an
effort to minimize the voting strength of the minority
community. This gerrymandering along racial and ethnic
lines is similar to that condemned by the United States
Supreme Court in Gomillion V. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960)
and is particularly egregious considering the importance to
minorities of "a political voice if they are to have any
realistic hope of ameliorating the conditions in which they
live. 11 Castro V. State of California, 2 Cal.3d 223, 240
(1970) 2/
Admittedly, the California legislature has not attempted
to disenfranchise all Chicano voters. But "the right to vote
1/
In Gomillion, the City of Tuskeegee, Alabama, sought
to exclude black voters altogether, but the Court, speaking
through Justice Frankfurter, found that any scheme whereby
a legislature singles out a readily isolated segment of a
racial minority for special discriminatory treatment would
be unconstitutional. 364 U.S. at p. 346.
2/ It is clear that any alleged infringement of the right
of citizens to vote will be carefully and meticulously scruti-
nized by the courts. Reynolds V. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561-62
(1964) This maxim is even more forceful when the denial of
the right to vote, or the dilution of a vote, is imposed upon
a racial minority. Calderon V. City of Los Angeles, 4 Cal. 3d
251 (1971) ; Castro V. State of California, supra; Gomillion V.
Lightfoot, supra.
- 6 -
can be affected by a dilution of voting power. Fairley V.
Patterson, 393 U.S. 544 (1969) And such a dilution of the
vote of an identifiable racial minority can no longer with-
stand constitutional scrutiny:
" [A]pportionment schemes
will constitute
an invidious discrimination
if it can be
shown that designedly or otherwise, a.
scheme
would operate to minimize or cancel
out the voting strength of racial or political
elements of the voting population.' Burns V.
Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 88 (1966)
Just such an invidious discrimination was found in a
legislative plan that effectively precluded the election of
a black to the Alabama House. The plan was declared uncon-
stitutional by a three-judge federal court: "Systematic
and intentional dilution of Negro voting power by racial
gerrymandering is just as discriminatory as complete dis-
franchisement or total segregation." Sims V. Baggett, 247
F. Supp. 96, 109 (M.D.Ala. 1965)
The California Supreme Court has gone beyond the decisions
of the United States Supreme Court in protecting the rights
of this State's minority groups. Only last year, in an unan-
imous opinion, the Court held that dilution of minority voting
strength by any scheme of representation "must be regarded
as constitutionally suspect. Calderon V. City of Los Angeles,
4 Cal. 3d 251, 261 (1971).
In Calderon, the plaintiffs were Chicano residents of
Los Angeles, who challenged the city council districts, which
had been apportioned on the basis of registered voters within
- 7 -
each district, rather than actual population. The effect
was, of course, to dilute the voting strength of Chicanos,
and the Court declared the scheme patently unconstitutional.
The Court further stated:
"Racial or ethnic minorities often have distinct
political interests, not shared by the general
public, for which they seek political redress
through their elected representatives.
[There-
fore], within the framework of population-based
apportionment, group interests may not be ignored.
Id. at p. 260 and fn. 10, emphasis added.
Whatever the motive, the Court made it clear that the
effect of racial or ethnic discrimination is sufficient to
invalidate a reapportionment scheme that reduces the voting
power of minority citizens: "[N]o discriminatory motive
on the part of districting officials need be shown to call
into question such an apportionment." Id. at p. 261, fn. 11.
Only the most compelling state interest can justify
diminution of the voting power of racial and ethnic minorities
by the state. No such compelling interest has been shown to
the satisfaction of any court within recent history. Here,
instead of any state interest governing reapportionment, what
has been demonstrated by the California legislature is a re-
apportionment scheme based on the rankest of political motives--
the protection of incumbents at the expense of any other
group in the state. This is not a permissible basis for the
drawing of district lines. In Klahr V. Williams, 313 F. Supp.
148 (D.Ariz. 1970), aff'd, 400 U.S. 963 (1971), a three-judge
federal court invalidated the reapportionment plan adopted by
- 8 -
the Arizona legislature. The legislative districts had been
adopted with the aid of a computer--and one of the criteria
fed into the computer was the protection of incumbents. The
court, in invalidating the plan, held that "the incumbency
factor has no place in any reapportionment or redistricting."
313 F.Supp. at p. 152. In League of Nebraska Municipalities
V. Marsh, 242 F.Supp. 357 (D.Neb. 1965), appeal dismissed,
382 U.S. 1021 (1966), a three-judge court declared unconstitu-
tional a bill reapportioning the Nebraska legislature, stating
that "[t]he goal of reapportionment
is just representa-
tion of the people, not the protection of incumbents in a
legislative body." Id. at p. 360.
- 9 -
II. THE LAW REQUIRES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO
UNDO PAST DISCRIMINATION
The legislature must cease its blatantly discriminatory
treatment of the Chicano community and take affirmative
action to eradicate the legacy of years of past discrimination.
It can do so only by expressly considering the special
group interests of the Chicano community in drawing district
lines. Affirmative action to undo the effects of past
discrimination, including the frank use of racial or ethnic
considerations to achieve that goal, is not only permitted
but is affirmatively required by law. Louisiana V. United
States, 380 U.S. 145, 154 (1965) ; United States V. Montgomery
Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225 (1969)
It has often been asserted, usually by those responsible
for previous discrimination, that the state may not take
race or ethnic background into consideration in order to
establish nondiscriminatory policies. These challenges
have universally and uniformly failed, for it is clear that
conscious interference with the status quo is required in
order to undo past discrimination. In the field of school
desegregation, for example, it was asserted that the state
could do no more than cease further discrimination, and
could not affirmatively consider race in order to draw
integrated school attendance zones. But as the courts have
- 10 -
firmly stated, "This is not the 'consideration of race'
which the Constitution discountenances
Courts will not
say in one breath that public school systems may not practice
segregation, and in the next that they may do nothing to
eliminate it." Wanner V. County School Board of Arlington
County, 357 F.2d 452, 454-455 (4th Cir. 1966) Indeed,
courts have consistently sanctioned or required the express
consideration of race and ethnic background to assure that
discriminatory treatment in the distribution of governmental
benefits and exercise of constitutional rights is not
perpetuated. Conscious consideration of race has been
required in assuring that minority citizens are assured
adequate housing, Norwalk CORE V. Norwalk Redevelopment
Agency, 395 F.2d 920, 931-932 (2nd Cir. 1968) ; Gautreaux V.
Chicago Housing Authority, 304 F. Supp. 736, 738-739 (N.D.
Ill. 1969), aff'd 436 F.2d 306 [imposing racial occupancy
quotas in public housing]; an equal opportunity to serve on
1/
The courts have consistently required school boards
to be "color conscious" in order to eliminate segregated student
bodies. Clark V. Board of Education, 426 F.2d 1035, 1045 (5th
Cir. 1970) ; United States V. Jefferson County Board of
Education, 372 F.2d 836, 876-878 (5th Cir. 1966), faculties
United States V. Montgomery Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225
(1969) [imposing racial quotas] ; Board of Education V. Dowell,
375 F.2d 158, 164 (10th Cir. 1961), and inequalities in
educational opportunity through the use of remedial programs
for minority students. United States V. Plaquemines Parish
School Bd., 291 F. Supp. 841 (E.D. La. 1967); United States V.
Jefferson County Board of Education, supra, at p. 900. As
stated in Offermann V. Nitkowski, 378 F.2d 22, 24-25 (2nd
Cir. 1967), "Where [consideration of race] is to insure
against, rather than to promite deprivation of equal educa-
tional opportunity, we cannot conceive that our courts would
find that the state denied equal protection to either race by
requiring its school boards to act with awareness of the problem."
- 11 -
juries, Brooks V. Beto, 366 F.2d 1, 22-23 (5th Cir. 1966)
and equal employment opportunities. Porcelli V. Titus, 431
F.2d 1254 (3rd Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 91 S.Ct. 1612 (1971) ;
Contractors' Ass'n of Eastern Pa. V. Secretary of Labor, 442
F.2d 159 (3rd Cir. 1971) 1/
Because the right to vote is of such fundamental
importance in a democratic society, courts have gone so far
as to forbid the use of what would otherwise be valid voting
standards in order to allow minority groups, previously
discriminated against, to register under lower standards.
See, e.g., Louisiana V. United States, supra; United States
V. Ward, 349 F.2d 795, 802 (5th Cir. 1965); United States V.
Duke, 332 F.2d 759, 768 (5th Cir. 1964).
California Chicanos, many of whom until recently were
not allowed to vote, Castro V. California, 2 Cal.3d 223 (1970),
must clearly be affirmatively considered in any legislative
reapportionment. Past reapportionment discrimination, in
which Chicano voting strength was minimized in order to
serve the selfish aims of incumbents, must be eradicated by
In Porcelli, the court sustained the Newark School
Board's scrapping of its regular promotion schedule and pro-
cedure in favor of giving black candidates priority, stating
that the action was justified by the goal of faculty integra-
tion. In the Contractors' case, the court sustained President
Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan, in which the Department of Labor
considered the racial composition of a contractor's work
force in awarding government contracts, because the use of
racial considerations was remedial rather than invidious.
See also, Etheridge V. Rhodes, 268 F.Supp. 83 (S.D. Ohio
1967), which required affirmative action to end discriminatory
hiring by contractors on state contracts.
- 12 -
affirmative action. The California Supreme Court, specifically
recognizing that the special group interests of racial and
ethnic minorities must be protected, expressly requires that
"within the framework of population-based apportionment,
group interests may not be ignored." Calderon V. City of
Los Angeles, 4 Cal.3d 251, 260, fn. 10 (1971)
1/
The recent case of Wright V. Rockefeller, 376 U.S. 52
(1964) highlights the propriety of legislative action seeking
to afford representation to previously disenfranchised racial
and ethnic minorities. In Wright, minority plaintiffs
challenged the apportionment of a predominently black
Congressional district. In rejecting the plaintiffs' claim,
the Supreme Court reiterated that the creation of the dis-
tricts at issue in that case had not been shown to be
detrimental to minorities, and in fact may have aided
minority voting power. In his recent opinion questioning
the permissibility under Wright of providing fair represen-
tation to Chicanos (Opinion No. 19123), the Legislative
Counsel ignores the critical distinction between legislative
action seeking to discriminate against minorities by mini-
mizing their voting power and legislative action seeking
The California Supreme Court did not of course require
that the Legislature draw lines so as to create 100% Chicano
districts. Nor is such a claim made here. Indeed, concen-
trating Chicanos in districts SO completely homogeneous
would be as detrimental to their group interests and voting
strength as is the present "dispersal" line-drawing policy.
The California Supreme Court has previously had occasion to
warn that such minimization of minority voting strength,
accomplished by putting all of one group within a single
district, will not be sanctioned. Silver V. Brown, 63 Cal. 2d
841 (1965), 48 Cal. Rptr. 609, 612.
- 13 -
to eradicate past discrimination by affording minorities
voting power they previously have been denied. In California,
any express consideration of racial or ethnic background in
order to eradicate discrimination against minority voters
would clearly be ameliorative rather than burdensome and
would serve to correct past discrimination, both in legis-
lative districting and in access to the electoral process.
See Castro V. California, supra; cf. Elec. Code $14217.
Moreover, California law now requires the Legislature to
consider group interests, and more particularly, to con-
sider the special interests of racial and ethnic minorities.
Calderon V. City of Los Angeles, supra; at pp. 260-261.
It is thus clear that express legislative action to remedy
past discrimination by aiding minority groups to elect one
of their own people to the legislature would be sustained
by both California and federal courts.
- 14 -
MEMBERS
COMMITTEE ADDRESS
STATE CAPITOL
MERVYN M. DYMALLY
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. 95814
CHAIRMAN
916-445-2601
M. L. RICHARDSON
VICE CHAIRMAN
California Legislature
ALAN ROSIN
ALFRED E. ALQUIST
PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT
CLAIR W. BURGENER
AND STAFF COORDINATOR
DENNI E. CARPENTER
DORIS BERRYMAN
GEORGE R. MOSCONE
SECRETARY
JOHN A. NEJEDLY
NICHOLAS C. PETRIS
Senate Committee
GEORGE N. ZENOVICH
m
Elections and Reapportimment
SENATOR
MERVYN M. DYMALLY
CHAIRMAN
November 11, 1971
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Sacramento - Senate Democratic and Republican leaders today
jointly announced they resolved their partisan differences over
Senate reapportionment and would submit a bill for a full vote on
the Senate floor later this morning.
Sen. Mervyn M. Dymally (D-L.A.), Chairman of the Senate Elections
and Reapportionment Committee, and Sen. John L. Harmer (R-Glendale),
Vice Chairman, publicly presented detailed maps of the redistricting
before the floor vote at a Capitol press conference.
Sens. Dymally and Harmer, also Chairmen of their respective
party caucuses, termed S.B. 18 "a compromise considered fair and
equitable to both political parties."
Senate Floor Leaders George R. Moscone (D-S.F.) and Fred W.
Marler (R-Redding) said they hoped the bill would pass today without
difficulty.
The compromise plan is expected to maintain the present ratio
of 21 Democrats and 19 Republicans.
The Senate leaders said the bi-partisan plan would permit the
east Los Angeles Mexican-American community to "speak with a responsible
representative in Sacramento, one who would probably be of Mexican-
American descent."
senate reapportionment
222
"I am, of course, pleased that we have reached an agreement
which satisfies most Senate members and which takes care of the
most pressing political business in California, increased
representation for the Mexican-American community," Sen. Dymally
stated.
"Negotiations were long and hard, sometimes bitter. Never-
theless, that is sometimes a part of the political process.
What is gratifying is that we can sit together now, members of
opposite parties with different political views, and come to
a compromise," Sen. Dymally said.
"And I am pleased that we have been able to agree on the
two vital issues that made this possible," state Sen. Harmer,
"the northern California district to be moved to the southern
part of the State, and the establishment of a district for the
Mexican-American community of Los Angeles."
"By virtue of these two agreements between the parties,
we were able to then build a plan for reapportionment that will
assuredly be upheld by the courts and considered fair and
equitable to all concerned.
"It was the ability of the Republican Caucus to support
the concept of the Mexican-American district 'in principle'
several weeks ago which facilitated the final negotiations
leading to an agreed upon plan," Sen. Harmer said.
"Sometimes it was not possible to give everyone exactly
what they wanted, but a valiant effort was made to produced the
most feasible and effective plan. If
###
HORTE
Protectors
N
LOVELION
3
2
INCORPORATED CITY
COUNTY SEAT
UNINCORPORATED
THE
SAPET
NTC
RAME
or
TAX:
CALAVERAS
Fost
PUPIDGEPORT
Passeland
SAN
4
10
SAM FRANCISCO
TRACK
*
-
9
SAN
13
14
0*****
15
MATED
SANTA
D
*
SERVING
I2
Jay
*****
COALING
RIOGECREST
*PASO
wasco*
LUI
18
NEEDLES
o
24
LANGASTER
15
yearser
BARBARA
Lost
13
SEE
AZRIA
Marringa
Para
L.A.MAR
LOS ANGELES
NOT
*conoms
35
36
BOYTHE
Despite
Desert
ANA
CONCHELER
34
ANDEL
visa
MARCOS
CARL53AD
38
40
SENATORIAL DISTRICTS
MESTMORLAND
SAM
39
Lakerite
Group
well
YUNK
SAN DIEGO
SENATE BILL 18 -November 10,1971
40
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
190
190.01
38
45
INDLETON
(52.02
49
187
PAUMA
46
191.01
CLARK LAKE
FALLBROOK
10RT
ONLY.
-
188
144.02
4
54
48
A
209.01
BORREGO SPRINGS
VALLEY CENTER
LAKE
NORTH
COUNTY
OCEANSIDE
191.02
132.01
with
195.00
HENEHAW
19202
47
50
10501
VISTA
PALOMAR-JULIAN
145.00
201.02
control
210
200 $2
IMPERIAL
41
SAN MARCO
,
LATER
CAR BAD
40
20702
**
200.00
ESCONDIDO
-
207
204
39
53
171
"
42
4
RAMONA
ANZA
TACZ
SAN DIEGUIT
208
170.01
170.04
14
15
NORTH SAN DIEGO
POWAY
5
UTANACA
170.00
1
209.02
EAST COUNTY
13
170.03
NORTH
CITY
83.09
3
DEL MAR
169 36
**
MIRA MESA 39
51
LAKESIDE
EAST
SUBURBAN
LAGUNA-PINE VALLEY
160.00
years
12
LAND
38
NIVERSITY
MIRAMAR
ELLIOT-NAVAJO
:
ANT
37
ALPINE
6103
212.01
is? p)
HARBISON
212:02
15.01
O
95.07
CREST
#307
100.00
155
COUNTY
)
***
KEARNY MESA
the
1
CAJON
$2.07
104.02
MES
A
-
134.0
apr
135.02
DUE
F
13
z
TRAL,
Time
LEWIN
SPRING
income
ONEGO
52
GROVE ALLEYALLEY
120.07
TR
MOUNTAIN EMPIRE
⑇
THEAST
-
211
30
MORENA
CORONADO
SAM 3104
DIEGO
JAMUL
LACK
213
Senatorial
134.02
eta
CIV
20
Districts
3
12401
SWEETWATER
count
40
CHUL
120
SAN DIEGO
133.05
2
total
12101
AND VICINITY
SOUTH SUBURBAN
22
C
100
122
-
SOUTH BAY
X
SENATE BILL 18 - November 10, 1971
E
10107
M
MEXICANDS
UNIDOS
ESTADOS
2
SECRAMENTO
has
@
12
Vineburg
29
08
R
S
0
M
2
(HD
N
$0000
(2)
0
FAIRFIELD
100
@
29
-hellville
x
Rechtille
N
A
-12
SUISUM
PETALUMA
P
A
12
©
a
SOUTHERN
Denverton
12
Cordelia
2
Yope
a
12
Nopa
N
21
$
0
A
N
o
OF
31
80
Birds
1
Landing
Boy
RIVER
VALLEJO
NOVATO
ED
SAN
PABLO
141
Loke Hermon
Suisun
68
Boy
Collinsville
lignacio
SACRAMENTO
Bay
e
0
BAY
M
A
R
I
N
Crockett
®
Chicago
A
4
Port Costa
STATE
a
Redgeo
Forest
West Pittsburg
PITTSBURG
Knolls
IO
-Associated
Woodacre
HERCULES
MARTINEZ
D
Lagunitas SanGeronimo
R
PINOLE
ACORD
Oakley
FAIRFAX
80
SAN ANSELMO
SAN RAFAEL
OEI Sobrante
4
7
CONCORD
BonTempe Lake ROSSO
242
as
S
SAN PABLO
1
(93)
PLEASANT HILLO
Kentfield
7
680
Cowell-
Ampine Lake
MUIC
D
CLAYTON
LARKSPUR
Quentin
Son Pable
24
CORTE MADERA
Reservoir
BRENTWOOD
EL CEP TO
680
MILL
0
Bolinas
VALLEY
Stins ach
123
WALNUT
FRANCISCO
24
((CREEK
131
&
C
0
N
T
R
A
a
ALBANY
Orinda g
Lafayette
TIBUR
Village
DIABLO
Orinda
Marin
C
S
T
BELVEDER
(6)
BERKELEY
o
A
City
ANGEL
ISLAND
13
(93)
SAUD
#
(93)
(17)
Aloma
PREASURE
EMERYVILLE
ost
ISLAND
101
24
0
Moraga
GATE
ALCATRAZ
PIEDMONT
ISLAND
lanville
GOLDEN
0
A
NooD
3
180
(480)
BUENA
ISLAND
Merritt
E
IO
BAY
580
Upper
(II)
Sen Leandro
X
an Ramon
my
Reservour
40
1
A
ALAMEDA
580
MOIS
04
F
R
(
185
230
Cake Chobot
LakeMerced
on
SAN LEANDRO
8
A
L
A
M
E
D
A
580
1)
(82) DALY CIT
Costro
Dublino
NAME
Valley
DALY
CITY
580
1921
LIVERMORE
3
COLMA
SBANE
WARD
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
B
PLEASANTON
Russell
BRUNO
PACIFICA
380
LLBRAE
FRANCISCO
@
E
N
#
E
A
L
A
M
E
D
A
UNION
CITY
85
sont
@
235
Andreas\
Sunot
Lake
35
aBU
IN
@
SAN
7.°
Niles
HILLSBOROUGH
ATEO
BAY
14
238
Centerville
00
Procides
E
LORS
#
Montara
III
FREMONT
92
B4
Mission
Jose
Moss Beach
Crystol
Springs
NEWARK
LMONT
Ros
5
El Granada
Princeton
SAN
CARLOS
@
92
RED
(262)
HALFMOON BAY
&
Colovidos
Reserveir
@
@
MENL
PALO
2
PARK
ALTO
101
2
35
82
Arriso
210
MILPITAS
JUSIDE
(2)
6
237
0
From
Agnew
280
ALTOS
Berryessa
Tunifas
the
o
PORTOLA
SUNNY VALE
VALLEY
LOS ALTOS
130
HILLS
SANTA CLARA
17
SAN
A
S
JOSE
(6)
65
all
La
84
Honda
Gregorio
PERTINO
Perm
nie
Stem
@
a
Pamponie
Res
CAMPBELL
a Res.
Loma Mar.
B
85
Pescadero
SARATOGA
Senatorial
to
14
Districts
I
MONTE SERENO
14
P
SAN FRANCISCO
n)
GATOS
A
N
T
AND VICINITY
236
17
k
@
San Lorenzo
101
1
Park
adolupe
Res.
Riverside
Big Basin
Grove
C
L 15
R
Caleer
Almoden
Res
)oHoly City
236
SENATE BILL 18 - November 10, 1971
Wildwood
S
A
N
T
A
C
R
U
Z
Forest Springs
Lake
Elsmon
Forest Park Boulder Creek
12
DECRAMENTO
28
12
R
Vineburg
29
BO
S
0
N
O
M
2
(PD
A
0000
11
FAIRFIELD
(1)
X
18
29
a
Rachville,
cheliville
(12) SUISUN
A
12
13
PETALUMA
N
P
Denverton
SOUTHLAS
as
12
Cordelia
120
R
29
on
Napa
a
a
S
0
A
N
O
--
30
31
80
Birds
37
Landing
RIVER
@
Boy
AN
VALLEJO
(4)
NOVATO
SAN
PABLO
LakeHerman
Suisun
190
Boy
Collinsville
lignacio
Honker
SACRAMENTO
)
Boy
O
BAY
M
A
R
I
N
Crockett
Port.Chicage
A
4
(7)
Port Costa
STARC
hos
Rodeoo
West Pittsburg
PITTSBURG
VISAN
Associated
Forest
Knolls
Woodacre
Lagunitas SanGeronimo
IO
HERCULES
AMARTINEZ
c
17837
a
PINOLE
2
Oakley
FAIRFAX
08
0
SAN ANSELMO
SAN RAFAEL
OEI Sobrante
CONCORD
242
BonTempe Loke ROSS
S
SAN PABLOQ
(93)
7
PLEASANT HILLO
C
17
24
CO
Kentfield
680
Coweil
MUIC
CLAYTON
D
LARKSPUR
San Quentin
Son Poble
2
Reservair
CORTE MADERA
BRENTWOOD
EL CE TO
(690)
MILL
a
Bolinas
VALLEY
23
Stinse
ach
WALNUT
FRANCISCO
2
(CREEK
C
O
N
R
A
131
ALBANY
Orinding
Lafayette
DIABLE
TIBUR
Village
Orinda
C
0
S
T
A
Marin©
City
BELVEDER
BERKELEY
ANGEL
13
(93)
SAUS
(33)
Alama
(77)
TREASURE
EMERYVILLE
ISLAND
24
(101
0
0
Morage
GATE
AUGATRAZ
PIEDMONT
ISLAND
lanville
GOLDEN
0
A
NoOD
@
180
TERMS
(480)
Merritt
ISLAND
15
580
IO
BAY
Upper
San Leandra
an-Ramon
260
(II)
Reservoir
41
0
A
ALAMEDA
680
(34)
F R
C
9
1385
23
Lake Chebor
SAN LEANDRO
5)
LokeMarced
of
A
L
M
E
D
A
580
1)
(82) DALY CIT
Castro
Dubling
CITY
AAN
$
Volley
DALY
580
0
Her
S
LIVERMORE
COLMA
ISBANE
(10)
AWARD
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
16
PLEASANTON
o
FRANCISCO
Russell
R
84
N BRUNO
92
&
A
L
A
M
E
D
A
PACIFICA
380
LLBRAE
UNION
CITY
84
D
238
sonts
92
Sunot
Andreas
Loke
aBUP
6)
35)
IN
E
HILLSBOROUGH
SAN- W.°
Niles
ATEO
BAY
84
14
238
Centervite
a(1)
Pitorcitos
@
$
el
LORE
Montara
FREMONT
for
92
BR
Mission
Jose
Moss Beach
Crystal
NEWARK
1
Springs
LMONT
Res
by
El Granada
Princeton
SAN
CARLOS
S
(7)
92
REDICO
2
&
Coloragos
HALF MOON BAY
Reser
Z80
@
MENL
PARK
PALO
ALTO
1013
of
35
N
62
Arriso
(23)
MILPITAS
JUSIDE
237
6
237
6
(55)
280
ALTOS
Berryessa
Tunitas
4
PORTOLA
SUNNY VALE
VALLEY
LOS ALTOS
30
HILLS
SANTA CLARA
17
SAN
&
(82)
OSEL
(680)
E
La
84
Hondal
Gregorio
SPERTING
and
Perm
nte
@.
Store
a
Pemponio
Res
CAMPBELL
A Res
Loma Mar
35
85
Jj
SARATOGA
82
Pescadero
Senatorial
9
14
3
85
@@@@@@@@@
Districts
-
MONTE SERENO
SAN FRANCISCO
1)
0
GATOS
A
N
T
RT
@
AND VICINITY
236
101
San Lorenzo
Park
adolupe
Res
Riverside
Big Basing
Grove
C
L 15
R
Colero
Res
Almoden
City
236
Wildwood
39
SENATE BILL 18 - November 10, 1971
S
A
N
T
C
R
U
Z
Forest Springs
Take
TElsmon
Forest Part
Boulder Creek
@
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
190
100.01
38
45
ENDLETON
49
187
46
PAUMA
191.01
FALLBROOK
CLARK TAKE
GNALL
IDEA
LASK
188
194.02
4
54
48
209.01
BORREGO SPRINGS
VALLEY CENTER
LAKE
NORTH
COUNTY
OCEANSIDE
191.02
182.01
with
195.82
MENTHAW
192.02
47
50
-10501
VISTA
PALOMAR-JULIAN
105.04
185.02
201.02
controll
210
41
IMPERIAL
SAN MARCH
7
LAFE
CAR BAD
40
%
207.02
MARCHAS
200 01
ESCONDIDO
200
297
204
39
171
53
Loss
42
4
RAMONA
$14.02 SAN DIEGUIT
208
ANZA
170.01
170.04
14
15
NORTH SAN DIEGO
POWAY
TITAMACA
5
1
209.02
EAST COUNTY
13
170.03
NORTH
CITY
83.09
3
DEL MAR
169 36
MIRA MESA
51
LAKESIDE
EAST SUBURBAN
LAGUNA-PINE VALLEY
18
100.00
12
LARE
38
35
NIVERSITY
MIRAMAR
ELLIDT-NAVAJO
a
ANY
37
ALPINE
***
****
212.01
16205
HARBISON-
$5.01
(supe)
212.02
05.27
CREST
***
-
-
155
COUNTY
MESA
CRASTAL
its
22.62
-
DIOZINE
CAJON
E
-
class
Mrs
V
146
ast
144.0
136,02
YOUR
$
z
3.3
CENTRAL,
7706
WE
ON
SPRING
11507
OVEGO
52
TR
13502
MOUNTAIN EMPIRE
123
OUTHEAST
-
30
211
CORONADO
SAM not
MOREMA
DIEGO
JAMUL
LAKE
not
213
Senatorial
134.02
CR
12.04
20
Districts
(g)
SWEETWATER
with
40
SAN DIEGO
i
133.05
2
10101
122.04
AND VICINITY
SOUTH SUBURBAN
22
0
100
C
102
1
SOUTH BAY
X
SENATE BILL 18 - November 10, 1971
UIS
E
M
MEXICANOS
UNIDOS
ESTADOS