Redistricting in California after the 2010 census

Note: Redistricting takes place every 10 years after completion of the United States Census. The information here pertains to the 2010 redistricting process. For information on more recent redistricting developments, see this article.

Redistricting in California

General information

Partisan control: Democrat

Process: Independent Redistricting Commission

Deadline: August 15, 2011

Total seats

Congress: 53

State Senate: 40

State House: 80

This article details the timeline of redistricting events in California following the 2010 census. It also provides contextual information about the redistricting process and census information.

Process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission is responsible for redistricting. This is one of 9 commissions nationwide that is responsible for redistricting. This redistricting commission is composed of 14 members, made up of the following:

• 5 Republicans
• 5 Democrats
• 4 Independents

Government auditors selected eight members from a pool of 60 voters, then the first eight commission members selected chose the final 6 commissioners.

Each commissioner was paid $300 per day worked during the process.

Once the maps were drawn by the commission, they had to be approved by at least nine of the 14 members. Those nine were also to contain at least three Democrats, three Republicans, and three who are not affiliated with either party.

If the Commission map were to be rejected via either lawsuit or the Department of Justice then courts would have had to draw the final maps.

With respect to redistricting, the California Constitution provided authority to and outlined the duties of the Citizens Redistricting Commission in Article XXI.

Prior to the passage of Proposition 11 in 2008 and Proposition 20 in 2010 the Legislature was responsible for redistricting. Proposition 20 amended Section 1, Section 2, and Section 3 of Article XXI.

In four counties in California -- Kings, Merced, Monterey, Yuba -- the final redistricting map required Department of Justice approval as part of the Voting Rights Act.

Leadership

2011 Commission

There were 14 members of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, originally split evenly by gender, with seven male and seven female members. However, Commissioner Elaine Kuo subsequently resigned and was replaced with Commissioner Angelo Ancheta, bringing the gender balance to eight male and six female members.

The first eight members of the commission were chosen at random on November 18, 2010. They were:

Registered Democrat

• Cynthia Dai
• Elaine Kuo (resigned)
  Replaced by
  Angelo Ancheta
• Jeanne Raya

Registered Republican

• Vincent Barabba
• Jodie Filkins Webber
• Peter Yao

Independent or other

• Stanley Forbes
• Connie Galambos Malloy

The final six members were chosen on December 15, 2010. They were:

Registered Democrat

• Gabino Aguirre
• Maria Blanco

Registered Republican

• Gil Ontai
• Michael Ward

Independent or other

• Michelle DiGuilio-Matz
• M. Andre Parvenu

Kuo resigned from the commission on January 14, 2011, citing time limitations as her reason for leaving the position. Angela Ancheta was appointed to replace Kuo on the commission. Ancheta was a San Francisco resident and became the second commissioner from San Francisco County.

Commission demographics

The racial makeup of the commission was:

• 4 Asian-American members
• 3 Hispanic members
• 3 White members
• 2 African-American members
• 1 Pacific Islander member
• 1 American Indian member

The geographic makeup of the commission was:

• 4 from Los Angeles County
• 1 from San Francisco County
• 1 from Yolo County
• 1 from San Diego County
• 1 from Alameda County
• 1 from Santa Cruz County
• 1 from Orange County
• 1 from Santa Clara County
• 1 from Ventura County
• 1 from Riverside County
• 1 from San Joaquin County

Commission staff

The rules that applied to commission members also applied to the staff who were hired to facilitate the process. Lobbyists were barred from applying, as was anyone who gave more than $2,000 in political donations in a two-year cycle. Daniel Claypool was hired as the executive director.

Census Results

California retained its 53 Congressional seats, despite early speculation that it would lose one. California officials claimed that the official census figure was 1.5 million less than what the population was reported as. California was not the only state to question its census population count.

Based on the census figures, San Francisco was expected to lose one state Senate seat. Additionally, San Francisco looked to lose one of its 12 Congressional House seats. State Senator Leland Yee (D) had the fewest number of people in any district in the state. Mark Leno (D) had the second fewest. Both were senators for the San Francisco area. Yee said he would oppose the removal of one district. "I am going to fight tooth and nail to ensure we have the representation we currently have. We cannot lose any seat. The fact is one vote is not enough for San Francisco given its diversity and we need to continue to exert the power that we have always had," Lee said.

According to the census results, Los Angeles County grew at a rate of 3.1 percent, which is less than a third of the state's roughly 10 percent growth. Conversely, Riverside and San Bernardino counties experienced an increase in population by 29.8 percent.

A study from the Rose Institute at Claremont McKenna College found that Riverside County experienced significant population growth and would have a large increase in legislative and congressional representation. Tony Quinn, a former Republican redistricting staffer, said a second Latino seat would not surprise him.

Census Data Released

On March 8, the local census data figures were released for California. "In my mind the goal of what this is, is to come up with maps that the public has confidence in, that were fairly drawn and not drawn to achieve some other, somebody else's purpose," said commission member Sam Forbes.

The demographic breakdown of the state was as follows:

• 40.1 percent White
• 37.6 percent Latino
• 12.8 percent Asian
• 5.8 percent African-American

The Asian population had the largest percentage growth, growing 31 percent to about 4.8 million. The Latino population increased by 28 percent to 14 million residents. There were 861,000 fewer Whites in 2010 (5.4 percent drop). The state's African-American population fell by 1 percent to about 2.2 million residents.

The fastest growing counties were Riverside (41.7 percent), Placer (40.3 percent) and Kern (26.9 percent) -- all inland locations.

One million constituents

Based on the 2010 figures, William Emmerson (R) represented the most people of any state legislator in the country. His district had 1,215,876 people. The target district size was 931,348.

California had eight senators with more than one million constituents based on 2010 data. The other seven were:

• Ted Gaines (R)
• Lois Wolk (D)
• Tom Berryhill (R)
• Sharon Runner (R)

• Jean Fuller (R)
• Joel Anderson (R)
• Juan Vargas (D)

The assembly person who held the largest district was Paul Cook (R) with 611,978 constituents. The target size after redistricting was 465,674.

Population deviation

Based on the 2010 census figures, the following Congressional representatives and state legislators had the largest population deviations, and thus required the most substantial changes to their districts.

U.S. House

• Barbara Lee (D) (Oakland)
• Jackie Speier (D) (Hillsborough)
• Anna Eshoo (D) (Palo Alto)
• George Miller (D) (Martinez)

Senate

• Leland Yee (D) (San Francisco)
• Joe Simitian (D) (Palo Alto)
• Loni Hancock (D) (Berkeley
• Mark Leno (D) (San Francisco)

Assembly

• Sandré Swanson (D) (Alameda)
• Fiona Ma (D) (San Francisco)
• Rich Gordon (D) (Menlo Park)
• Jared Huffman (D) (San Rafael)

Public Input

In late March 2011, the Commission set its public input schedule. The full list of input hearings is available here. Public hearings were to be held until late May, with a target date of June 10 to release a first draft of maps. The Commission would then hold more public hearings to gather reactions from citizens across the state. A total of 67 meetings were expected to be held across the state through July 2011.

In April 2011, the California Independent Voter Network sent a letter to the Commission, urging members to remember that the redistricting process should not use political parties as a factor in the drawing of districts. According to the letter, "over 50% of California's voters identifying themselves as independent or nonpartisan, regardless of their formal registration."

• More than 100 residents from San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara County attended a public meeting on April 13, 2011. About 30 residents spoke, with some expressing a desire that counties not be split when new districts are drawn. "We don’t want to split counties, but you can tell from the (population) numbers we’re not going to be able to do that every time. We’re going to have to split counties. We don’t want to, but we have to get down to one single person on the congressional districts." said Commissioner Cynthia Dai.
• Roughly 200 residents attended a Long Beach meeting on April 27, 2011. Long Beach, which was entirely contained within Los Angeles County, was partly represented by a Congressman from Orange County. Two Long Beach City Council members started a letter campaign to push for the new Congressional District to keep Long Beach in one county. Other residents at the meeting pushed for maintaining the districts. "Our current representation reflects the diversity and the values of this unique area," said Jacqui Stewart, a Carson resident.
• Residents in Marin County weighed in on the prospects of combining Marin and Sonoma counties into one congressional district. Marin County was bordered on three sides by water, which was presented as a reason for the county not being split.
• At least 100 residents in Norco attended a three-hour meeting in early May 2011. At the meeting, residents urged the commission to keep communities and cities intact. For example, a San Bernardino resident testified about the city being split among three Assembly districts when it had the population to support one.

Congressional redistricting

Impact on U.S. House Districts

Of the 53 Congressional Representatives at the time, 14 had served less than 10 years. One incumbent had been defeated since 2006. Mike Thompson (D), a member of the U.S. House for District 1, said he did not believe the redistricting commission would be accountable to voters. "I think it's a prime example of people who don't like what's going on looking for an easy fix," he said. For the first time, sitting legislators did not control the redistricting process.

Based on the final approved maps, the following are selections of changes that occurred.

• Solana Beach was moved from the 50th District to the 49th.
• The 29th District was drawn without a sitting incumbent.

Final approved map

California Redistricting Maps
Congressional map

Click [show] for released drafts of redistricting maps.

Early maps The staff of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission released preliminary "visualization maps" on June 2, 2011, meant as a starting point for the actual maps to be released on June 10. These maps were based on public testimony. The maps did not show where incumbents lived, but simply visualized what districts could look like based on population and the public input. Those maps are reproduced below with additional analysis from Redistricting Partners, a political consulting group in California.  Congressional Redistricting Map Draft as released by staff on the Redistricting Commisssion on June 1, 2011  Districts around San Francisco. Districts in the San Gabriel Valley Districts in the San Fernando vicinity Districts in Sacramento Districts in Northern California. Districts around Los Angeles. Districts in the Los Angeles beach area. Districts in East San Fernando Valley. Draft maps On June 10, 2011, the Commission approved draft maps for Congressional, State Senate, State Assembly, and Board of Equalization Districts. These maps were shown to the public for reaction and then amended before the August 15, 2011 deadline. The maps are reproduced below.  Congressional Redistricting Draft Maps as approved by the Redistricting Commission on June 10, 2011  San Diego Orange County Eastern California Onatrio and Inland South Bay Los Angeles San Gabriel Valley Districts around Los Angeles Los Angeles San Fernando Valley Southern Central Valley Central Coast Central Central Valley San Francisco Bay East Bay North San Francisco Bay Sacramento Northern California Second round of draft maps canceled The California Citizens Redistricting Commission decided not to release a second round of maps. Originally the maps were to be publicized before July 28, 2011, but the commissioners voted 13-1 to instead focus on the final maps. Commissioner Stanley Forbes said the schedule became too burdensome and map-drawers fell behind as they attempted to incorporate the comments from the first draft maps. Draft maps are not required according to the guidelines from the 2008 ballot measure.

Legislative redistricting

State Senate Map

After the 2000 redistricting process, the Senate districts were drawn up to include roughly 850,000 constituents. In 2011, that figure was 931,000.

During the 2000 redistricting process, Santa Cruz County was divided into two State Senate districts. Both senators lived outside the county -- a point of contention locally. Commissioner Vince Barabba represented Capitola, and although he could not legally discuss his ideas, commissioners were meant to keep Communities of Interest intact. Senate District 15 -- represented by Sam Blakeslee (R) -- included part of Santa Cruz County but also included four other surrounding counties. Santa Cruz County Treasurer Fred Keeley, who supported Proposition 11, looked forward to a new district boundary being formed. "When these people look at the census, the Voting Rights Act and communities of interest, they're going to laugh at the 15th Senate District," Keeley said.

State senators Jean Fuller (R) and Michael J. Rubio (D) both lived in Bakersfield, representing District 18 and 16, respectively. Early speculation was that the dual representation of one community would be avoided in the redistricting process.

Based on the final approved maps, the following are selections of changes that occurred.

• About 186,000 residents in Coachella Valley went two years without a traditional state senator representing them. In California, senators are elected to 4-year terms, with half of the 40 seats up every 2 years. Because the valley was moved into the new 28th Senate district, instead of the 37th District, those voters would have a steward representing them until the 2014 elections. The 37th District was represented at the time by Bill Emmerson (R), who after the 2010 census data had the most constituents of any state legislator in the country -- 1,215,876.

When the Senate map was drawn, some new districts overlapped old districts. Half of the senate seats were up for election in 2012. Some areas that did not hold elections in 2012 were moved into districts that did not hold an election until 2014. Thus, about 4 million residents did not have an elected senator for two years. In order to address the issue, senators served as caretaker representatives for the unrepresented areas.

State Assembly Map

During the 2000 redistricting process, a large Korean neighborhood in Los Angeles was split into three assembly districts, which then elected three representatives who were not Korean. "Whether communities are kept together or split up makes all the difference in whether the [political] game is fair," said Rosalind Gold, senior director of policy, research and advocacy at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund in Los Angeles.

Imperial County Intergovernmental Relations Director Bob Ham said he expected the county's slower growth to require that the legislative districts be grouped in with Riverside or San Diego counties.

When the Commission arrived in Santa Clara Valley, residents asked the commissioners to keep the community in one district. "We, for too long, have been dominated by L.A. Basin or by Bakersfield, which is 90 miles away. These people here deserve their own assembly district and I really encourage you to do that," said Scott Wilk, a local resident.

Final approved maps

California Redistricting Maps
Senate map Assembly map

Click [show] for released drafts of redistricting maps.

On June 10, 2011, the Commission approved draft maps for Congressional, State Senate, State Assembly, and Board of Equalization Districts. These maps were shown to the public for reaction and then amended before the August 15, 2011 deadline. The maps are reproduced below. Congressional Draft Maps  Congressional Redistricting Draft Maps as approved by the Redistricting Commission on June 10, 2011  San Diego Orange County Eastern California Onatrio and Inland South Bay Los Angeles San Gabriel Valley Districts around Los Angeles Los Angeles San Fernando Valley Southern Central Valley Central Coast Central Central Valley San Francisco Bay East Bay North San Francisco Bay Sacramento Northern California Senate Draft Maps  Senate Redistricting Draft Maps as approved by the Redistricting Commission on June 10, 2011  San Diego Orange County Onatrio and Inland Eastern California Los Angeles North Los Angeles San Joaquin Valley -- South San Joaquin Valley -- North Central Coast South San Francisco Bay East San Francisco Bay North San Francisco Bay Sacramento Northern California Assembly Draft Maps  Assembly Redistricting Draft Maps as approved by the Redistricting Commission on June 10, 2011  San Diego Orange County Eastern California Onatrio and Inland San Gabriel Valley South Bay Los Angeles Districts around Los Angeles San Fernando Valley Central Coast North Los Angeles County South San Francisco Bay East San Francisco Bay North San Francisco Bay Sacramento Northern California Second round of draft maps canceled The California Citizens Redistricting Commission decided not to release a second round of maps. Originally the maps were to be publicized before July 28, 2011, but the commissioners voted 13-1 to instead focus on the final maps. Commissioner Stanley Forbes said the schedule became too burdensome and map-drawers fell behind as they attempted to incorporate the comments from the first draft maps. Draft maps are not required according to the guidelines from the 2008 ballot measure.

Legal issues

August 2011: Republicans proposed lawsuit

Republicans announced in August 2011 that they might challenge the new legislative district maps. California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro said they might file a referendum on August 16 for the 2012 statewide ballot to overturn the maps.

After the maps were approved, the California Supreme Court issued an order that any lawsuits be submitted electronically to the court in order to expedite the process. Registered voters had until September 29 (45 days) to file a challenge to the new maps.

Other organizations expressed dissatisfaction with the maps. The Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) issused a statement that the group was disappointed in the final district lines. The National Association of Latino Elected Appointed Officials (NALEO) also expressed concern that the new maps would dilute the Hispanic vote.

September 2011: Senate map lawsuit

On September 15, 2011, Republicans filed a lawsuit seeking to repeal the new California State Senate map that was approved by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The suit -- which was prepared by the Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting (FAIR) organization -- asked the court to redraw the map. Charles Bell Jr, a Sacramento attorney, filed the suit with the California Supreme Court. As of September 2011, FAIR had raised more than $500,000 for its referendum and lawsuit efforts.

September 2011: Congressional map lawsuit

On September 29, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the congressional districts by former Republican Congressman George Radanovich along with four others. This suit asked the court to appoint a special master to draw a new map for all 53 districts.

October 2011: Commission asked suits to be thrown out

In October 2011, attorneys for the California Citizens Redistricting Commission requested that the California Supreme Court toss out lawsuits related to the new maps.

The commission's response to the suits can be found here.

October 2011: Both lawsuits dismissed

On October 26, 2011, the California Supreme Court unanimously rejected the two lawsuits that had been filed by Republicans against the Congressional and State Senate maps. In throwing out the suits, the Court also rejected requests for an emergency order to halt implementation of the maps. The court vote was 7-0.

November 2011: Appeal to federal government

After the lawsuits were rejected by the Supreme Court, Republican leaders filed arguments with the Department of Justice, saying that the Senate map was not legal because it diluted Latino voting power. Radanovich and four other plaintiffs announced they would file a lawsuit in federal district court because the state court had already dismissed a prior lawsuit.

November 2011: Additional federal suit

At the end of November 2011, a group of Republicans led by former Governor George Radanovich filed a suit in federal court alleging that the congressional map violated the Voting Rights Act and U.S. Constitution. A similar suit was thrown out by the state court earlier that year. The lawsuit centered on the districts of three Democratic incumbents: Karen Bass, Maxine Waters, and Laura Richardson.

December 2011: Motion to stay Senate map

The group that filed a referendum to withdraw the new California State Senate map filed a motion on December 2, 2011 to request that the court immediately put a hold on using the newly drawn district map. Instead, the group requested one of three options: have a special master draw the map, use old districts, or use the new California State Assembly map and create Senate districts that combine two Assembly districts each.

January 2012: California Supreme Court heard oral aruments

On January 10, 2012, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding what state senate map to use in the 2012 elections. The state was reviewing submitted signatures for a referendum on the new map. If the referendum qualified, the court would decide whether the map would still be used or if a different interim map would instead be drawn up.

At the hearing, GOP lawyers asked the court to throw out the new Senate map for the 2012 elections. The legal fight was tied to the 47-word passage of the California Constitution which uses the phrase likely to qualify regarding a map being removed by referendum. The court had 90 days to issue a ruling. Counties had until February 24, 2012 to check signatures.

January 2012: Motion denied

On January 27, 2012, the State Supreme Court upheld the state Senate maps drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The high court ruled that even if the referendum to toss the Senate maps qualified for the ballot, the new commission-drawn map should be used in the 2012 election.

February 2012: Judge dismissed suit

On February 10, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a group of Republicans over the new congressional district map. The suit's dismissal meant that commission-drawn maps would be used in the 2012 elections.

Referendums against new maps

August 2011: Referendum to withdraw Congressional map

See also: California Referendum on U.S. Congressional Maps After Redistricting (2012)

On August 30, 2011, the Attorney General reported that a referendum was filed to overturn the Congressional map approved by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The measure was filed by Julie Vandermost and Charles Bell. Petitioners had until November 13, 2011 to gather the required 504,760 valid signatures needed for the referendum to appear on a ballot before voters.

August 2011: Referendum to withdraw Senate map

See also: California Proposition 40, State Senate Redistricting Plan Referendum (2012)

The Republican Party backed a veto referendum to overturn the Senate map. If at least 504,760 valid petition signatures were verified, a question would appear on the June 2012 ballot as to whether the commission-approved map should be implemented or whether a new map should be drawn by the courts.

On August 16, 2011, the Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting (FAIR) coalition filed a form (dead link) with the Attorney General’s office to request the titling and summary of a referendum to withdraw the State senate map. The coalition was run by Dave Gilliard with the support of the California Republican Party and the Senate Republican Caucus. If there were at least 504,760 signatures verified, the measure would be placed on the 2012 ballot. The Senate map as passed by the Commission would then be suspended, and a new temporary map would be drawn by the California Supreme Court for use in the 2012 state senate elections.

The referendum read:

"(1) Place the revised State Senate boundaries on the ballot and prevent them from taking effect unless approved by the voters at the next statewide election; and (2) Require court-appointed officials to set interim boundaries for use in the next statewide election."

On August 29, 2011, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission asked the Attorney General and Secretary of State to alter the petition wording because commissioners believed it was misleading. The commission also contended that if successful, the referendum would not require new maps be drawn, but that the California Supreme Court could allow the new districts to still be used for the 2012 elections.

Among the drive supporters were former Governor Pete Wilson and State Senate Minority Leader Bob Dutton. Five other Republican senators contributed more than $5,000 to the referendum group FAIR:

• Mark Wyland: $25,000
• Tony Strickland: $25,000
• Mimi Walters: $25,000
• Joel Anderson: $10,000
• Doug La Malfa: $5,000

September 2011: 200,000 signatures reached

The referendum on the state senate maps passed the 200,000-signature mark on September 26, 2011. The Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting (FAIR) group had until November 13 to obtain 504,760 valid signatures in order to qualify for the ballot.

November 2011: Signatures turned in

On November 10, 2011, FAIR began turning in signatures to the 57 counties across California. A total of 710,924 signatures were turned in. Signature organizers believed that number was sufficient to place the measure on the November 2012 ballot.

The Secretary of State of California began the lengthy process of certifying the signatures. If a full count of the signatures was required, then certification could be delayed until March 2012. If it took that long, the commission-drawn maps would be used in the June 2012 primary. Certification did not begin until late November 2011.

November 2011: Advance to verification

At the end of November 2011, the Secretary of State of California deemed that there were enough signatures turned in by the effort to overturn new California State Senate maps that it could advance to signature verification.

A total of $2.5 million was donated to the campaign to collect signatures, with more than 700,000 reported signatures turned in to the state.

On February 24, 2012, the California Secretary of State's office announced that the measure had qualified for the November 2012 ballot.

July 2012: Proponents withdraw support

Supporters of Proposition 40 announced on July 12, 2012, that they would not raise additional funds or campaign for the measure. Proposition 40 remained on the ballot, however. Supporters said that the ballot measure was intended primarily to try and delay the implementation of the Senate map in 2012 -- however, since the Supreme Court allowed its use, the supporters felt the measure was moot. The measure passed on November 6, 2012.

Timeline

The redistricting commission had until August 15, 2011 to create the maps that would govern the Congressional and legislative districts until 2020. The Commission successfully certified its final maps and handed them over to the Secretary of State on August 15, 2011. These maps went into effect in time for the June 5, 2012 primary.

Ballot measures

Official voter guide image for Proposition 1 in 1928.

Below is a list of California statewide ballot propositions pertaining to redistricting:

a Proposition 40 (2012)
d Proposition 27 (2010)
a Proposition 20 (2010)
a Proposition 11 (2008)
d Proposition 77 (2005)
d Proposition 118 (1990)
d Proposition 119 (1990)
d Proposition 39 (1984)
d Proposition 14 (1982)
d Proposition 10 (1982)
d Proposition 11 (1982)
dProposition 12 (1982)
a Proposition 6 (1980)
a Proposition 1 (1928)

On February 8, 2011, the Justice Department provided pre-clearance to California to implement Proposition 20. Pre-clearance made official the California Citizens Redistricting Commission's oversight over U.S. House redistricting.

Partisan Registration by District

California had the most Congressional districts of any state -- 53. California was one of 29 states that released its full partisan registration data.

California's districts were some of the most partisan in the country. The California Congressional delegation had been 34 Democrats and 19 Republicans for most of the decade preceding 2010 redistricting. The following are the 10 districts where Democrats had the largest percentage advantage over Republicans, in terms of number of registered voters.

• District 9: 585.38 percent Democratic
• District 8: 538.20 percent Democratic
• District 33: 527.67 percent Democratic
• District 35: 418.96 percent Democratic
• District 31: 334.98 percent Democratic
• District 37: 262.40 percent Democratic
• District 34: 227.97 percent Democratic
• District 28: 227.83 percent Democratic
• District 13: 214.19 percent Democratic
• District 12: 188.76 percent Democratic

History

Voters passed Proposition 11 in 2008 and Proposition 20 in 2010. These two propositions took control over redistricting away from the state legislature and established an independent commission that was charged with drawing the new boundaries for Congressional and state legislative districts.

Proposition 11 was approved with 50.9% of the vote. It authorized the creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. This commission was tasked with drawing the 120 legislative districts and four Board of Equalization districts. Previously, that process was governed by the California State Legislature. Proposition 20, which was approved by 61.3% of voters, added the task of re-drawing the boundaries of California's U.S. Congressional districts to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

One reason for the implementation of an independent redistricting commission in California was the non-uniform nature of the district boundaries. Lois Capps' (D) district -- the 23rd Congressional District -- followed along the coast from Oxnard to Monterey County. This district was won by a Democratic candidate in every election from 2000 to 2010. The 46th Congressional District also received criticism for its boundaries.

In the 5 elections that followed the 2000 redistricting process, one district flipped partisan control. In other words, in 265 races between 2002-2010, the incumbent party won 264 times.

2001 redistricting

Figure 1: This map shows the California Congressional Districts after the 2000 census.

Republicans presented a reform proposal in 1999 that would have given redistricting authority to the Supreme Court. Despite gathering adequate signatures to place the issue on the ballot, the state's highest court struck down the initiative for violation of the single subject rule. No other reform efforts collected enough signatures, and the 2001 redistricting process went forward under legislative control with a Democratic trifecta. Following the Census Bureau's delivery of 2000 results, California gained a single seat, its smallest gain in 80 years. In 2000, Congressional Democrats flipped four Republican seats and began the 107th Congress with 32 seats, over 60% of California's delegation. At the state level, Democrats held the Senate 26 to 14 and the Assembly 50 to 30.

2001 was also the first time California redrew boundaries after having been designated as a state without a racial majority and after passing term limits. The former impacted majority-minority seats and one person, one vote issues under Amendment XIV.

For a redistricting plan to be immune to a citizen referendum, it needed two-thirds of legislators supporting it, a number that required Republicans to join the Democratic majority's vote. During the summer, Republicans effectively conceded California's new seat would be a Democratic one, instead focusing on protecting the incumbents they had.

Democrats hired Michael Berman to spearhead redistricting. At the end of August 2001, San Bernardino Democrat John Longville, chairman of the Assembly elections committee, announced that information surrounding the Assembly's proposed plans would go online where citizens would be able to analyze and comment. His Senate counterpart, John Burton, said his chamber had not yet decided how much data to share.

The eventual Assembly map retained much of the previous map. Senate and Congressional plans followed suit. Ahead of the September 2001 hearings, the early signal from the Republican Party was that they would agree to the plan.As debate moved forward, Stephen Horn, a moderate Republican Congressman whose L.A. district had been changed, announced his retirement. Gary Condit's seat had also been changed.

Some women's and minority groups said the map diluted their voting power. As a result, a contested San Fernando Valley district was changed. On September 12, 2001, the state Senate voted 38-2 to approve its own districts and a Congressional plan. That bill was passed on to the Assembly, expected to bundle in its own map and vote on all three plans at once. On the 13th, the combined bill passed the Assembly and was forwarded to Governor Davis' desk.

Davis signed the act on September 23, 2001. The first lawsuit was filed the same day. San Joaquin County officials, whose county had been split into four separate Assembly Districts and bisected in its Senate and Congressional representation, said the redistricting resulted in an unconstitutional diminution of their influence. That case, along with two similar ones, ended in mid-November, when the California Supreme Court refused the hear arguments. Within days of Davis' signing, two Hispanic advocacy groups had also challenged the map. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed suit on October 1, 2001, naming both legislative chambers and Secretary of State Bill Jones as defendants. They later filed an additional request to delay the March 2002 primaries, pending the resolution of their suit.

In October 2001, Assemblyman Juan Vargas, a San Diego Democrat, alleged Berman, the Democrat's architect in drawing the district maps, had drawn his district unfavorably for refusing the pay the $20,000 fee most other lawmakers had paid. MALDEF also named two other Democrats whom they alleged benefited illicitly from the border Michael Berman drew: Representative Brad Sherman and Representative Howard Berman. Two Hispanic state Senators, Martha Escutia and Gloria Romero, sided against MALDEF in an op-ed piece.

In early November, a panel of federal judges from the 9th Circuit denied MALDEF's request to delay the following spring's primary. As November ended, MALDEF was among a coalition of Latino interest groups who asked the U.S. Justice Department to overturn California's redistricting and draw new boundaries.

In June 2002, the U.S. District Court for California ruled Latino voting rights had not been violated, a ruling upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2003.

Deviation from Ideal Districts

2000 Population Deviation
Office		Percentage
Congressional Districts		0.00%
State House Districts		0.00%
State Senate Districts		0.00%
As of 2010, under federal law districts may vary from an 'Ideal District' by up to 10%, though the lowest number achievable is preferred. 'Ideal Districts' were computed through simple division of the number of seats for any office into the population at the time of the Census.

See also

• State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting after the 2010 Census
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• California Proposition 20, Congressional Redistricting Initiative (2010)
• California Proposition 11 (2008)

External links

• California Citizens Redistricting Commission
• Los Angeles Times, "2010 census counts by California's congressional districts, Interactive Tool"

• Draft Plans from Rose Institute Interactive Tool
• Los Angeles Times Interactive Map Comparing Old Districts to New Districts

Additional reading

• Citizens Redistricting Commission, "Legal Guide" 2010
• Common Cause Redistricting Pocket Guide