Judges Question GOP’s Bid to Dump California Remap Plan

SAN FRANCISCO â€”  Members of a special three-judge federal court expressed skepticism Friday about a legal bid by California Republicans to overturn a congressional reapportionment plan adopted in 1982 by the Democratic-controlled state Legislature.

The Republicans are contending that the plan should be invalidated under a landmark ruling last June by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held for the first time that gerrymandering--the design of political boundaries to gain partisan advantage--could be found unconstitutional when it “consistently degraded� the voting influence of a segment of the electorate.

Among other things, the Republicans argue that the plan was designed to assure that Democrats maintain control of the congressional delegation throughout the decade. The GOP has won only 40% of the seats--18 of 45--in the past two elections, while receiving 49% and 47% of the overall congressional vote, respectively.

The judges closely questioned an attorney for the Republicans for more than an hour as to why they should not grant a motion by lawyers for the state Assembly and California congressional Democrats to dismiss the GOP suit before trial.

“You have to show you were ‘shut out’ of the process--that’s the ruling of the Supreme Court--don’t you agree with that?� asked U.S. District Judge Alfonso J. Zirpoli. “The Republicans have the governorship, a senator, 18 congressmen--and how many state assemblymen, senators and mayors?�

Similarly, Federal Appellate Judge Cecil F. Poole of San Francisco repeatedly asked how the party could argue it had been unable to make itself “heard and felt� in the political process.

Poole said that he placed “great importance� on that part of the high court ruling that indicated the mere fact that a reapportionment plan made it “more difficult� for a minority party to elect candidates did not mean the plan was unconstitutionally discriminatory.

The lawyer for the Republicans, James R. Parrinello of San Francisco, conceded that the party had readily succeeded in electing statewide candidates, such as the governor, but added: “That doesn’t mean the right to elect congressmen can be taken away.�

Parrinello called the Democratic plan “the most egregious partisan gerrymander, not only of this decade but any other decade as well.� The plan “locked in� the Republicans as a minority in the congressional delegation and eliminated competition for seats, unfairly diluting Republican voting strength, he said.

The third member of the panel, U.S. District Judge Robert H. Schnacke, asked how the Republicans could show they were “substantially excluded� from the political process.

Parrinello replied that he believed the party could show that the ability of Republican congressmen to represent Republican voters had been “considerably diminished� under the reapportionment plan.

Jonathan H. Steinberg of Los Angeles, representing the Democratic members of the congressional delegation, said the Republicans “don’t even come close� to meeting Supreme Court requirements for showing that they have been denied their constitutional rights by the plan.

Schnacke asked Steinberg if he was contending that “no matter what Republicans do to Democrats or Democrats do to Republicans,� there can never be a successful challenge to a political gerrymandering.

Steinberg said he believes there could be such a challenge if members of a party were as “badly treated� as racial minorities had been in previous cases where the Supreme Court has overturned districting plans designed to prevent blacks and Latinos from participating in the political process.

“We’re not anywhere near that in this case,� the attorney said. “The political process works very well for Republicans in California.�

The court took the case under submission and is expected to rule by early next year whether the case can go to trial.