Nadler

Nadler v. Schwarzenegger

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 1327·41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 92
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 28, 2006C045708California6,116 words

Opinion

Opinion

Scotland, J.

Every 10 years, in the year following the year in which the national census is taken, the boundary lines of California’s Senatorial, Assembly, Congressional, and Board of Equalization districts are reapportioned to, among other things, reflect population shifts. (Cal. Const., art. XXI, § 1.) Our state Constitution assigns this task to California’s Legislature, with participation of the Governor through the power to approve or to veto legislation. (Ibid.; Legislature v. Reinecke (1972) 6 Cal.3d 595, 601 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 481 , 492 P.2d 385 ].)

In 2001, the Legislature enacted, and Governor Gray Davis approved, reapportionment legislation. It put most residents of the City of Santa Clara in Assembly District 22, but a meandering district boundary through the city put some of its residents in Assembly District 24.

Unhappy with this division, a number of Santa Clara’s residents, taxpayers, registered voters, and public officials (whom we will refer to as plaintiffs) brought this action, challenging the 2001 reapportionment of Assembly districts. They allege that its separation of Santa Clara into two Assembly districts violates article XXI, section 1, subdivision (e) of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.