Garza v. County of Los Angeles,918 F. 2d 763 (9th Cir. 1990)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that actions of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, in intentionally splitting the Hispanic voting areas in reapportionment of supervisorial seats, resulted in a situation in which Hispanics had less opportunity than other county residents to participate in the political process and violated both the federal Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Wilson v. Eu,54 Cal. 3d 471; 816 P. 2d 1306 (1991)

In this case (Wilson I), the Supreme Court of California held that it would appoint three Special Masters to hold public hearings and to make recommendations for reapportionment plans, in accordance with specified criteria, for 52 single-member congressional districts, 40 single-member Senate districts, 80 single-member Assembly districts, and 4 state Board of Equalization districts within the State of California.

Wilson v. Eu, 54 Cal. 3d 546; 817 P. 2d 890 (1991)

In this case (Wilson II), the Supreme Court of California ordered that plans recommended by the three Special Masters for congressional, Senate, Assembly, and state Board of Equalization districts be immediately made available to counties in California and be submitted to the United States Department of Justice for preclearance under the federal Voting Rights Act.

Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal. 4th 707; 823 P. 2d 545 (1992)

In this case (Wilson III), the Supreme Court of California examined the reapportionment plans recommended by the three Special Masters for congressional, Senate, Assembly, and state Board of Equalization districts within California and, with minor changes, the court accepted and adopted each plan establishing district boundaries for the June 2, 1992, Primary Election in California.

Members of Cal. Democratic Cong. Delegation v. Eu, 790 F. Supp. 925 (N.D. Cal. 1992)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed an action by members of the House of Representatives who belonged to the Democratic Party and who were currently elected from districts in California.  The action challenged the reapportionment of the congressional districts in the State of California that had been adopted by the Supreme Court of California in January of 1992.  The district court also dismissed a complaint by intervenors represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund that challenged the reapportionment of the congressional districts in California on the basis of the United States Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.

Benavidez v. Eu, 34 F. 3d 825 (9th Cir. 1994)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the portion of the March 1992 federal district court decision that had dismissed the complaint of the intervenors represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which had challenged the reapportionment of congressional districts in California.  The appeals court remanded the case back to the federal district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

DeWitt v. Wilson, 856 F. Supp. 1409 (E.D. Cal. (1994)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California held that the reapportionment plans for congressional, Senate, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts adopted by the Supreme Court of California in January 1992 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the motion of the State of California for summary judgment.

Assembly of State of Cal. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 968 F. 2d 916 (9th Cir. 1992)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the federal district court requiring the Department of Commerce to release to the Assembly of California computer tapes containing statistically adjusted figures from the 1990 census under the Freedom of Information Act.

Senate of State of Cal. v. Mosbacher, 968 F. 2d 974 (9th Cir. 1992)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed an action of a federal district court that had directed the Secretary of Commerce to release to the Senate of the State of California certain tapes containing census calculations for California.  The appeals court held that the release of the tapes was not required by the United States Constitution, the federal census statutes, and the federal Voting Rights Act.
 

 State Contacts

Sandra Polka  Senate Office of Research  1020 N Street #565  Sacramento, CA 95814  916/445-1727 voice  916/324-3944 fax  sandi.polka@sen.ca.gov

Jim Wisely  Senior Assistant  Speaker's Office of Member Services  1020 N Street, #460  Sacramento, CA 95814-5624  213/629-4730 voice 213/620-4730 fax 300 S. Spring Street, Suite 16505 Los Angeles, CA 90013 213/620-4730 voice 213/620-4728 fax wisely@eql14.caltech.edu