A group of Republicans have petitioned the California Supreme Court to put a check on the state’s redistricting commission, weeks before the state’s new congressional districts, some of which split cities in half, are finalized.
Update Dec. 15: The California Supreme Court denied the group’s petition.
The petition asks the California Supreme Court to replace the California Citizens Redistricting Commission’s counsel, disclose non-public commission meetings and explain the commission’s redistricting statistical analysis.
California voters created the California Citizens Redistricting Commission when they voted in Proposition 11 in 2008. Five Democrats, five Republicans, and four independent voters serve on the commission. Previously, elected representatives would redistrict the state.
Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands opposition
Rancho Cucamonga has said their redistricting would result in the disenfranchisement of 52,846 city residents by lumping them into Congressional and State Assembly districts that are almost totally in Los Angeles County, and will drown out the voices of 84,924 residents whose State Assembly District will now include 905,000 residents of the High Desert.
“The nature of the district as drawn will result in a primary focus in Los Angeles County with the residents of San Bernardino County having little voice or ability to influence policy,” the city said in a Nov. 18 letter to the redistricting commission. “Clearly, the proposed Draft Maps do not meet the Commission’s stated criteria to respect counties, cities, communities of interest, and neighborhoods, when possible.”
Redlands City Council voted to send a similar letter to the redistricting commission at their Dec. 7 meeting.
The proposed Congressional districts would split Redlands in half, with the city north of the highway sharing a representative with San Bernardino, and the city south of the highway sharing a representative with Barstow, an area which City Councilman Paul Foster said has no community of interest with Redlands.
“To the best of the commission’s ability, they should be keeping local communities intact, because those are the groups that need to work together, with congressional representation, to address their problems,” Foster said.
Fontana would also be split in half, Banning would share a congressional representative with the Imperial Valley under the new changes.
Transparency requested
The commission violated the California Constitution, and the Bagle-Keene Open Meeting Act, multiple times by having one-on-one private meetings with individuals, including members of Congress and the state legislature, Facebook, Google and the political organization Common Cause, the petition alleges.
“[California Citizens Redistricting] Commission members and staff may not communicate with or receive communications about redistricting matters from anyone outside of a public hearing,” the Constitution reads.
A backer of the 2008 Proposition 11, Charles Munger Jr., wrote a letter to the commission May 7, alleging their outreach efforts violate that Constitutional clause. The petition mentioned the letter as evidence.
The commission decided to keep a statistical analysis it used to decide boundaries confidential, and the new public documents show it was kept confidential to prevent criticism, the petition alleges.
Finally, the commission’s counsel, Strumwasser & Woocher, LLP, is inherently compromised to serve for the independent commission because they also work for the California Legislature and Congressmembers Katie Porter (D-Irvine), Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) and Nanette Barragan (D-San Pedro), the petition argued.
The lateness of the petition is due to the new information released about the commission’s meetings due to a public records request, the petition said.
Commission’s response
The petition is at best an untimely and unnecessary distraction and at worst a politically motivated attempt to obstruct the commission’s efforts, the commission’s counsel replied Dec. 7.
The meetings were between two or fewer people and others, which excludes the meetings from the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, were publicly disclosed at every meeting, and were about outreach, not about redistricting matters, the reply said.
The commission had revealed the results of its statistical analysis in maps, the reply said. Although the attorneys for the commission have additional communications and writings from the consultant the attorneys hired to assist them in analyzing racial voting patterns, those documents are protected from disclosure under the attorney work-product doctrine, the reply said.
Finally, the fact that the counsel had political clients, including the legislature, did not violate any constitutional or statutory prohibition, the reply said. The petitioner’s request to remove Strumwasser & Wasser as counsel lacks standing, the reply said.
Parties
Fredric Woocher of Strumwasser & Woocher wrote the reply. Anthony Pane is chief counsel for the commission.
Harmeet Dhillon, Mark Meuser and Michael Columbo of Dhillon Law Group Inc. are the attorneys for the plaintiffs. Dhillon is the former vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party. She has sued California for switching to a mail-ballot election, and sued the state over its coronavirus orders more than a dozen times on constitutional grounds, Politico reported.
The plaintiffs include volunteers and members of GOP groups across the state, including Lisa Moreno, who ran for California GOP Central Valley vice chair in 2019; Jynaia Badie, a member of Chico Republican Women Federated; Nanxun Conroy, an Orange County mother and government assistant; Bruce Bialosky, a Studio City CPA and political columnist who has worked with George W. Bush; and Sylvester Bland, a Los Angeles pastor.
Read the petition here.
Read the response here.
Supreme Court Number S272036
