why did California redraw the lines in the years Reagan entered and left office?

[freepcrusher]

Considering it wasn't in a census year, does anyone know why the lines were redrawn? Was it sort of a delaymander type thing?

[will101]

Considering it wasn't in a census year, does anyone know why the lines were redrawn? Was it sort of a delaymander type thing?

Actually it was ordered when the "federal model" for state senates was ruled unconstitutional in Reynolds v. Sims in 1964.  In California no county was allowed more than one state senator, so LA County had one state senator for ~6.5 million people, where another one might serve Alpine, Amador and Calaveras counties, which at the time might have had 20,000 between them.  I was a wee tyke at the time, but I do remember my mom working for the state census part time that year.  And they figured as long as they had this census data, and they were re-doing the senate, why not do the assembly, too.

[Verily]

Yup. One man, one man came into full effect in that period. A lot of states had to redistrict.

[jimrtex]

Considering it wasn't in a census year, does anyone know why the lines were redrawn? Was it sort of a delaymander type thing?

In 1967 it was under pressure from One Man One Vote.  The California Supreme Court threatened to redistrict the congressional maps, and the legislature beat then to it.  I think California used to have one state senator per county.  Or perhaps no more than one senator per county.

Reagan vetoed all the maps in 1971 and everything dragged out into 1973, when the California Supreme Court drew the lines.  These were first used in 1974.

If you look at the anti-redistricting commission proposition from 2010, it mentions the last time the plan was drawn by "appointed" officials that many cities had been split.  This was a reference to the 1973 redistricting.

The "appointees" in 1973 were 3 retired appeals court judges who were appointed as special masters by the Supreme Court.  They used census tracts for the boundaries, which did not correspond to city boundaries.

Therefore, the initiative concluded that California should put redistricting back in the hands of the legislature, so that they might fail, and require the Supreme Court step in and appoint special masters who would be required to follow city boundaries to the extent possible when conforming to a retarded exact equality standard; when it should have concluded that the redistricting commission be funded by defunding the UCLA Law School, and sending its law professors to work in the rice paddies.

[freepcrusher]

yes but california increased the delegation from 38 to 43 for the 1972 elections so the lines were redrawn anyways. I have the 1974 Almanac with me that shows the districts. There was a 12,000 population difference between the smallest and largest district. Aside from that, why did the lines have to be redrawn?

Its also interesting to note that the 1973 court ordered redistricting produced some open seats. Two of those seats were taken by people who are still in office today, George Miller and Henry Waxman. Is it possible that the judges drew the districts in favor of them? Miller at the time was the son of a well known senator and Waxman was in the state assembly.

[jimrtex]

yes but california increased the delegation from 38 to 43 for the 1972 elections so the lines were redrawn anyways. I have the 1974 Almanac with me that shows the districts. There was a 12,000 population difference between the smallest and largest district. Aside from that, why did the lines have to be redrawn?

The California Supreme Court in Legislature of California v. Reinecke (Brown v Reagan, Thirty-Two Members of United States House of Representatives v Reagan) ordered that the 1972 legislative elections be conducted on the then then existing boundaries, and that the congressional elections be conducted on the boundaries passed by the legislature and vetoed by Reagan.

Reinecke was the Lieutenant Governor; Brown was Jerry Brown, Secretary of State at the time.  At that time, the California Constitution still contained the old provisions for senate apportionment (no splitting of counties, no more than senator per county, no more than 3 counties per districts), as well as a Reapportionment Commission which would enact legislative redistricting in case the legislature itself did not.  Reinecke as Lieutenant Governor would chair the commission.

The California Supreme Court ruled that the role of the reapportionment commission was not severable from the by-then unconstitutional provisions of legislative reapportioning.  That is, the reapportionment commission could only enact plans that complied with the California Constitution, which would inherently violate the US Constitution.  They also ruled that the governor was part of the legislative process, through his use of the veto, and so that there thus was no valid congressional or legislative plan.

As a temporary remedy (the decision was in January 1972, and the primary was in June), they ordered the use of the congressional plan approved by the legislature, since it provided for 43 districts, and was favored by a bipartisan majority of the incumbent representatives), and the then existing legislative plan (which must have been after the OMOV rulings).

They retained jurisdiction in case the legislature failed to enact a plan (which they didn't) and in 1973 drew their own maps for both the legislature and Congress.

At the present time, a court would probably act in time for court-drawn boundaries to be defined before any filing deadlines.

[freepcrusher]

was redistricting in 1974 the reason Bob Mathias lost? I mean I know it was 1974 but he was a hometown hero having put Tulare on the map with his success in the Olympics. That alone should have helped him survive.

[jimrtex]

was redistricting in 1974 the reason Bob Mathias lost? I mean I know it was 1974 but he was a hometown hero having put Tulare on the map with his success in the Olympics. That alone should have helped him survive.

Could be.  The district numbers for 1972 and 1974 are completely different.

[Meeker]

I've always found it odd that malapportionment of State Senate seats is unconstitutional while at the same time U.S. Senate seats are based solely upon a philosophy of malapportionment.

[JoeyJoeJoe]

Redistricting was definitely part of why Mathias lost - Bill Ketchum's seat picked up a ton of Republicans in the 1974 redistricting.  I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the 1972 seat was considered a swing seat by the 1974 political almanac.