California

• Congressional and Legislative Process

  Primary Authority: Congressional and legislative plans are drawn and adopted by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, a 14-member body of randomly selected citizen-applicants. 5 Commissioners are registered with the state's largest political party, 5 with with second largest party, and 4 who aren't affiliated with either of those parties. Final plans are subject to referendum.

  • Members: The Commissioners are selected from a pool of 60 applicants that have been screened by the State Auditor’s Applicant Review Panel. The State Auditor forms the Review Panel by randomly selecting 3 independent auditors from a pool of all qualified independent auditors, with 1 being registered with the largest political party in California, 1 being registered with the second largest political party, and 1 being registered with neither of those parties. After the State Auditor removes applicants with conflicts of interest, the Applicant Review Panel selects 60 of the most qualified applicants to form the pool, including 20 registered with California’s largest political party, 20 with the second largest, and 20 registered with neither. That pool of 60 applicants is sent to the majority and minority leaders of California’s Senate and Assembly who may each strike up to 2 applicants from each sub-pool of 20. The State Auditor then randomly selects 8 names from the remaining applicants in each sub-pool, 3 from both parties and 2 unaffiliated. These 8 members then appoint 2 additional members from each sub-pool. The selection of members should reflect the state’s diversity and are chosen based on relevant analytical skills and their ability to be impartial. [Cal. Const. art. XXI, § 2; Cal. Gov. Code § 8252]
  • Timing: The State Auditor must open the citizen application process no later than August 15 in years ending in 9 and must deliver the list of non-conflicted applicants to the Applicant Review Panel by March 15 in years ending in 0. The Applicant Review Panel must deliver its finalized pool of 60 applicants to legislative leaders by May 15 in years ending in 0 and legislative leaders must make their strikes by June 30 in years ending in 0. The initial 8 commissioners must be selected by July 5 in years ending in 0. The final 6 commissioners must be appointed by August 15 in years ending in 0. The Commission as a whole must be formed no later than December 31 in years ending in 0. [Cal. Const. art. XXI, § 2; Cal. Gov. Code § 8252]
  • Eligibility: Commissioners must be California voters continuously registered with the same party or unaffiliated and must not have changed their party affiliation for 5 or more years immediately preceding the date of their appointment. Each commissioner must have voted in 2 of the last 3 statewide general elections immediately preceding their application. Within the 10 years immediately preceding their application, neither the applicant nor a member of their immediate family may have done any of the following: Been appointed to, elected to, or a candidate for federal of state office; Served as an officer, employee, or paid consultant of a political party or campaign committee for a federal or state candidate; served as an elected or appointed member of a political party central committee; Been a registered federal, state, or local lobbyist; Served as paid congressional, legislative, or State Board of Equalization staff; Contributed $2,000 or more to any congressional, state or local candidate for elected public office in any year (as adjusted every 10 years by California Consumer Price Index; or Been staff, consultants, under a contract with, or any person with an immediate family relationship with the Governor, a member of the Legislature, a Member of Congress, or a member of the State Board of Equalization. For a period of 5 years after their appointment, commissioners may not hold appointed federal, state, or local public office, serve as paid staff for, or as a paid consultant to, the Board of Equalization, Congress, the Legislature,
    or any individual legislator, or register as a federal, state, or local lobbyist in California. [Cal. Const. art. XXI, § 2; Cal. Gov. Code § 8252]
  • Voting: The initial 8 commissioners must appoint the final 6 commissioners by at least 5 affirmative votes, including at least 2 votes from commissioners registered with each of the two largest political parties and one vote from a commissioner not affiliated with either of those parties. 9 Commissioners are required for quorum, and at least 9 affirmative votes are required for any official action, including the selection of a chair and vice-chair who shall not be of the same party. Final redistricting plans must be approved by at least 9 commissioners, including at least 3 commissioners from both the largest and second largest parties and 3 unaffiliated commissioners. [Cal. Const. art. XXI, § 2; Cal. Gov. Code §§ 8252, 8253]
  • Public Input & Transparency: Commission must comply with California’s Open Meeting Act. Commissioners and staff are prohibited from communicating about redistricting matters without anyone outside of a public hearing and all records pertaining to redistricting and data considered by the commission are public records that must be publicly available. Commission must hold hearings to receive public input before drawing any maps and after drawing and displaying maps in a manner to achieve the widest public access reasonably possible. [Cal. Gov. Code § 8253]

  Backup Process: If the Commission fails to approve a final map by the requisite number of voters, or if voters reject a map by referendum, the Secretary of State immediately petitions the California Supreme Court for an order appointing special masters to fashion a plan in accordance with the state’s redistricting criteria and requirements. The Court approves the special masters’ plan and certifies it to the Secretary of State, at which point it becomes effective. [Cal. Const. art. XXI, §§ 2, 3]

  Mapping Timeline: The Commission must adopt and release preliminary congressional, legislative, and State Board of Equalization plans, one each, no later than July 1 in years ending in 1 for a public comment period of at least 14 days. Subsequently released preliminary plans must have a public comment period of at least 7 days. By August 15 in years ending in 1, the Commission must adopt final congressional, legislative, and Board of Equalization plans and certify them to the Secretary of State along with an explanatory report, at which point the maps are considered enacted. [Cal. Const. art. XXI, § 2; Cal. Gov. Code § 8253]

  Redistricting Criteria:

  • Congressional: As nearly equal in population as is practicable; Comply with federal Voting Rights Act; Contiguous; Minimize divisions of political subdivisions and communities of interest (defined as contiguous population sharing common social and economic interests not including relationships with political parties, incumbents, or candidates); Encourage compactness to extent practicable.
  • Legislative: Reasonably equal in population; Comply with federal Voting Rights Act; Contiguous; Minimize divisions of political subdivisions and communities of interest (defined as contiguous population sharing common social and economic interests not including relationships with political parties, incumbents, or candidates); Encourage compactness to extent practicable; Senate districts comprised of two whole, adjacent Assembly districts to extent practicable.
  • PROHIBITED (both): Consideration of incumbent or candidate residences; Favoring or discriminating against incumbents, candidates, or parties. [Cal. Const. art. XXI, § 2]

  Map Challenges: Filed in the California Supreme Court. Commission has sole legal standing to defend any action against a certified final map and decides whether Attorney General or other counsel shall assist in its defense. Any registered California voter may file a petition within 45 days after the Commission has certified a final map to the Secretary of State to bar the implementation of a plan on the grounds it violates the U.S. or California Constitution or federal or state law. May also file a petition to seek relief where a certified final map is subject to a referendum measure that is likely to qualify and stay the timely implementation of the map. If the Court determines the map violates any of those provisions, the Court shall fashion the relief that it deems appropriate, including the appointment of special masters to adjust the map’s boundaries. Upon approving an adjusted map, the Court certifies it to the Secretary of State at which point it becomes effective. [Cal. Const. art. XXI, §§ 2, 3]

• Ballot Measure & Referendum Process

  Types of Measures: Direct initiatives and referendums are permitted to amend statutes. Direct initiatives are permitted to amend the state constitution. Legislatively initiated ballot measures may amend both statutes and the state constitution.

  Single-Subject Rule: Yes.

  Initiative Subject Restrictions: Initiative measures cannot contain a provision guaranteeing its approval should it only get a certain percentage of votes.

  Signature Requirements: Constitutional amendments require signatures equal to 8% of all votes cast for all candidates for governor in the last general election, 5% for all other initiatives, and 5% for a veto referendum. 10,933,009 people voted for a gubernatorial candidate in the 2022 general election in California, so 874,641 signatures are required for constitutional amendments; 546,651 signatures are required for any other initiative; and 546,651 signatures are required for a veto referendum.

  Submission Deadlines: Initiative petitions must be submitted 131 days before the next general election (June 27, 2024). Referendums must be submitted within 90 days from the date the legislative bill was chaptered by the Secretary of State.

  Circulation Period: The circulation period for initiative petitions is 180 days.

  Ballot Title and Summary: The ballot title and summary are written by the Attorney General. Expedited reviews for titles and summaries are permitted.

  Other Requirements: A fiscal impact statement is required. Circulators are required to be 18 years old and a resident of California. There are no supermajority requirements. The legislature can amend or repeal an approved initiative statute by referring another statute to the people. Referendums may not provide for tax levies or appropriations for current expenses of the state. Initiatives are permitted on general, primary, and special election ballots, but not on odd-year ballots.

  [Cal. Const. art. II; Cal. Elec. Code §§ 100 — 108, 9000 — 9610; California Elections Division Website]

• Previous Redistricting Cycles

  2020

  • Congressional
    • Commission’s Original Plan
      • Adopted = December 26, 2021
    • Litigation History
      • Legislature of the State of California v. Padilla, No. S262530 (Cal. Sept. 22, 2021): Citing delays in the Census Bureau’s 2020 Census data collection as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic, California’s State Legislature petitioned the California Supreme Court to allow the California Citizens’ Redistricting Commission more time to produce the state's congressional, state legislative, and Board of Equalization districts. On July 17, 2020, the Court granted the petition and extended the Commission’s deadlines for the release of preliminary plans to November 1, 2021, and the certification of final maps to December 15, 2021. The Court’s order also provided those deadlines would be further extended by the number of days after July 31, 2021, that the Census Bureau provided the states with 2020 Census redistricting data, called the “additional federal delay.” On August 20, 2021, the Commission filed an emergency motion asking the Court to clarify when the “additional federal delay” period began and ended, to further extend the deadline for final maps certification, and to shorten certain public notice requirements for hearings. On September 22, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Commission's request. The Court declined to change the Commission's deadlines for releasing and approving preliminary and final redistricting plans but did permit the Commission to provide only three days' public notice for meetings held in the last 15 days prior to the final maps being certified.
      • Moreno v. Citizens Redistricting Comm'n, No. S272036 (Cal. Dec. 15, 2021): On November 30, 2021, a group of California voters filed a petition with the California Supreme Court challenging several of the Citizens’ Redistricting Commission's actions taken during the redistricting process as violating various California constitutional and statutory redistricting provisions involving transparency and public input. On December 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court denied the petition.
  • Legislative
    • Commission’s Original Plans
      • Adopted = December 26, 2021
    • Litigation History
      • Citizens for Fair Representation v. Padilla, No. 18-17458 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2020): On May 8, 2017, Citizens for Fair Representation, among other organizations, political parties, and voters filed a federal lawsuit against California’s Secretary of State challenging the constitutionality of the numerical caps on the amount of state legislators laid out in Article IV, § 2 of the California Constitution. On November 29, 2018, the district court dismissed the suit after finding the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on May 15, 2020. On December 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby letting the Ninth Circuit's dismissal stand.
      • Legislature of the State of California v. Padilla, No. S262530 (Cal. Sept. 22, 2021): Citing delays in the Census Bureau’s 2020 Census data collection as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic, California’s State Legislature petitioned the California Supreme Court to allow the California Citizens’ Redistricting Commission more time to produce the state's congressional, state legislative, and Board of Equalization districts. On July 17, 2020, the Court granted the petition and extended the Commission’s deadlines for the release of preliminary plans to November 1, 2021, and the certification of final maps to December 15, 2021. The Court’s order also provided those deadlines would be further extended by the number of days after July 31, 2021, that the Census Bureau provided the states with 2020 Census redistricting data, called the “additional federal delay.” On August 20, 2021, the Commission filed an emergency motion asking the Court to clarify when the “additional federal delay” period began and ended, to further extend the deadline for final maps certification, and to shorten certain public notice requirements for hearings. On September 22, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Commission's request. The Court declined to change the Commission's deadlines for releasing and approving preliminary and final redistricting plans but did permit the Commission to provide only three days' public notice for meetings held in the last 15 days prior to the final maps being certified.
      • Moreno v. Citizens Redistricting Comm'n, No. S272036 (Cal. Dec. 15, 2021): On November 30, 2021, a group of California voters filed a petition with the California Supreme Court challenging several of the Citizens Redistricting Commission's actions taken during the redistricting process as violating various California constitutional and statutory redistricting provisions involving transparency and public input. On December 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court denied the petition

  2010

  • Congressional
    • Commission’s Original Plan
      • Adopted = August 15, 2011
      • Preclearance = Granted on January 17, 2012
    • Litigation History
      • Vandermost v. Bowen, No. S196493 (Cal. Oct. 26, 2012); Radanovich v. Bowen, No. S196852 (Cal. Oct. 26, 2012): Plaintiffs petitioned the California Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Commission’s congressional and state Senate maps on the grounds the Commission improperly used race as the predominant factor when redrawing certain districts in violation of the California Constitution. The court denied the plaintiffs requests for an emergency stay of the certified maps, allowing them to go into effect.
      • Radanovich v. Bowen II, No. 2:11-cv-9786 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2012): After losing their petition with the California Supreme Court, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California challenging the commission’s congressional plan. They alleged several of the districts were drawn with race as the predominant motive in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. On February 9, 2012, the district court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds of res judicata because the plaintiffs had already attempted this challenge and failed before the California Supreme Court.
  • Legislative
    • Commission’s Original Plans
      • Adopted = August 15, 2011
      • Preclearance = Granted on January 17, 2012
    • Litigation History
      • Vandermost v. Bowen, 269 P.3d 446 (Cal. 2012): Plaintiffs, who were in the process of certifying a ballot referendum on the Commission’s senatorial districts plan, challenged the use of the plan for the upcoming 2012 elections, arguing alternative plans should be used while the petition was pending. The California Supreme Court held that the commission’s plan should be used in the interim for the 2012 elections while the referendum petition’s validity was still being processed.
    • Related Litigation
      • Connerly v. State of California, No. 34-2011-80000966 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty. Nov. 6, 2017): A California resident and non-profit organization sued the State and various elected officials challenging the method of selecting members of the newly formed independent redistricting commission as violating the California Constitution in that it gave improper preferences to applicants based on race, ethnicity, and gender. The California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the case with instructions to allow the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint with a new legal theory based on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint on November 6, 2011.

  2000

  • Congressional
    • Original Plan – AB 632
      • Passed = September 17, 2001 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = September 27, 2001
      • Preclearance = Granted on November 30, 2001
    • Litigation History
      • Cano v. Davis, 211 F.Supp.2d 1208 (C.D. Cal. 2002): Latino voters and non-profit groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging two of the congressional districts and one state senate district on the grounds they violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act. On June 12, 2002, the district court ruled in favor of the defendants and upheld the challenged districts.
  • Legislative
    • Original Plans – AB 632 (Senate); SB 802 (Assembly)
      • Passed = September 17, 2001 (D-controlled)
      • Signed = September 27, 2001 (Senate); September 26, 2001 (Assembly)
      • Preclearance = Granted on November 30, 2001
    • Litigation History
      • Cano v. Davis, 211 F.Supp.2d 1208 (C.D. Cal. 2002): Latino voters and non-profit groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging two of the congressional districts and one state senate district on the grounds they violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act. On June 12, 2002, the district court ruled in favor of the defendants and upheld the challenged districts.
      • Nadler v. Schwarzenegger, 137 Cal.App.4th 1327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006): A coalition of residents, voters, and public officials filed a state lawsuit challenging various state Assembly districts as impermissibly splitting the City of Santa Clara in violation of the California Constitution. On March 28, 2006, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the challenged Assembly plan fatally conflicted with the state constitution.

Current districts for California by chamber, shaded by the incumbent’s party.