Filed 1/27/12
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
JULIE VANDERMOST,))Petitioner,))v.))DEBRA BOWEN,)as Secretary of State, etc.,) S198387)Respondent;))CITIZENS REDISTRICTING )COMMISSION,))Intervener.) _____________________________________)On December 9, 2011, we issued an order to show cause in this matter to consider an election-related question that must be addressed expeditiously to avoid potentialdisruption of the statewide primary and general elections to be held in June and November 2012. A proposed referendum (designated No. 1499), for which petitionsignatures have been gathered and submitted to election officials, would require theelectorate to decide, at the November 2012 general election, whether to accept or rejectthe California state Senate district map that has been certified by the CitizensRedistricting Commission (Commission).
The Commission, a new constitutional entity
1
Under the California Constitution, the referendum power refers to the authority of the people to require that a statute that has been adopted by the Legislature, or aredistricting map that has been certified by the Citizens Redistricting Commission, besubmitted to a vote of the electorate, and be approved by the electorate before suchmeasure becomes effective. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 9;
id.
, art. XXI, § 2, subd. (i).) The1
recently established by the voters to draw voting district boundaries (instead of theLegislature)
in light of population changes identified in the national census undertaken atthe beginning of each decade, completed its eight-month-long task in August 2011 andcertified new voting district maps for not only the state Senate, but also for the stateAssembly, the United States Congress, and the State Board of Equalization. TheSecretary of State and county election officials have been using these four Commission-certified maps since mid-August 2011 in preparation for the upcoming June and November 2012 elections.County election officials and the Secretary of State currently also are in the process of verifying the petitions submitted to determine whether there are sufficientvalid signatures to qualify the proposed referendum for placement on the November 2012general election ballot. If the referendum qualifies, the state Senate map certified by theCommission will automatically be stayed, presenting the question of what Senate districtsshould be used for the 2012 primary and general elections of the state Senate. In view of the numerous interconnected election-related events that must occur soon after the end of January 2012 in order to avoid disrupting the 2012 primary and general elections,
thisinitiative power, by contrast, refers to the authority of the people to propose statutes andconstitutional amendments to be submitted to a vote of the electorate, and the authority of the electorate to adopt or reject the proposed measure. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8.)
2
See California Constitution, article XXI, sections 1 to 3.
3
The calendar of steps in preparation for the June 5, 2012, Primary Election isavailable on the Secretary of State’s Web site, <http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/calendar/pdfs/section-6-primary-election.pdf> (as of Jan. 27, 2012). Among theevents particularly relevant to the present case are the following: From December 30,2011, to February 23, 2012, state Senate candidates may obtain, in lieu of paying filingfees, the requisite number of signatures of registered voters who are eligible to vote for that candidate — in other words, those who are registered in the district in which thecandidate will run (Elec. Code, § 8106); and between February 13, 2012, and March 9,2012, candidates must file a “Declaration of Candidacy” and nomination papers (
id
.,§§ 8020, 8040, 8041) for the district in which he or she will run.The Secretary of State has submitted a declaration by Jana M. Lean, Chief of theElections Division, describing procedures used to implement the new district lines.2
action has been filed requesting this court to decide at this juncture which state Senatedistrict map should be utilized if
the proposed referendum qualifies and triggers a stay of the Commission’s certified Senate district map.Petitioner, Julie Vandermost, emphasizes the interest of referendum proponentsand petition signers in insisting on an “up or down” referendum vote by the statewideelectorate
before
the voting districts that are the subject of the proposed referendum areutilized as the basis for electing any state senators. Accordingly, she asserts, if theCommission’s state Senate map is stayed by the qualification of the referendum for the November 2012 ballot, we should not order the use of the Commission’s state Senatedistrict map as an interim remedy governing the 2012 primary and general elections.Indeed, petitioner argues, we should issue an “alternative [or] peremptory writ of mandate commanding Respondent Debra Bowen, in her capacity as Secretary of State of the State of California, to . . . refrain from taking any action . . . implementing theCitizens Redistricting Commission’s certified Senate map.” Moreover, petitioner urges,we should establish new interim state Senate boundaries by either (1) using the stateSenate district map that the Legislature created in 2001 based on the 2000 census and thathas been used for the last decade; (2) using a map creating new Senate districts by usingthe state Assembly districts recently certified by the Commission and combining twoadjacent Assembly districts to form each new Senate district (the “nesting” proposal); or (3) establishing alternate, court-drawn boundaries as described in a new so-called“model” map based on a proposal submitted by petitioner’s redistricting consultant.Finally, petitioner prays for an order directing the Secretary of State to implementAccording to the declaration, a system known as CalVoter II (CVII) “is used to set up anelection. Throughout the election cycle, which begins more than five months before theelection is held, CVII is used to certify statewide candidates [and] prepare the certifiedlist of candidates.” The declaration describes the various steps that must be taken to program CVII, and asserts — apparently assuming those same internal timelines, and noeffort to further expedite them — that “approximately six weeks would be required toimplement any changes to the Senate maps.”3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
