[EL] AZ commissions upheld 5-4

[Fredric Woocher]

I am comforted to know that the analysis was correct, but I apologize for not having seen that you had already pointed out the error.  That's what I get for waiting to read your blog until its entries are posted on the list-serve later in the evening or the next morning!

Fredric D. Woocher
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90024
fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
(310) 576-1233
From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:33 PM
To: Fredric Woocher; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] AZ commissions upheld 5-4

I agree and posted this earlier this afternoon at ELB:



Edit<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=73882&action=edit>
Small Error in Justice Ginsburg's AZ Redistricting Decision<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73880>
Posted on June 29, 2015 2:33 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73880> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

A reader via email notes to me that Justice Ginsburg's decision in the AZ redistricting case contains a minor error of fact on page 8 of the slip opinion<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/az.pdf>. The opinion states:

The California Redistricting Commission, established by popular initiative, develops redistricting plans which become effective if approved by public referendum.7

7. See Cal. Const., Art. XXI, §2; Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §§8251-8253.6 (West Supp. 2015).

In fact, there is no referendum requirement in Art. XXI<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_21> of the state Constitution. Instead, the go into effect after being approved, but they are subject to potential referendum under the usual rules for referenda of legislative matters. See Cal. Consts. Art. XXI section 2(i):

(i) Each certified final map shall be subject to referendum in the same manner that a statute is subject to referendum pursuant to Section 9 of Article II. The date of certification of a final map to the Secretary of State shall be deemed the enactment date forpurposes of Section 9 of Article II.

The last time readers pointed out an error<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67193> in a Justice Ginsburg opinion, I noted it on the blog and the Justice quickly<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67275> corrected it<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67566>.


On 6/29/15 6:29 PM, Fredric Woocher wrote:
In her opinion for the Court, Justice Ginsburg observes that a number of other states, including California, have also established Citizen Redistricting Commissions, and she describes California's system as follows:

"The California Redistricting Commission, established by popular initiative, develops redistricting plans which become effective if approved by public referendum.7"

That is not correct, however, is it?  In California, redistricting plans adopted by the Commission are subject to referendum in the same way that any statute passed by the Legislature would be subject to referendum (i.e., by submitting a sufficient number of signatures in support of a referendum petition), but the Commission's plans are not required to be approved by a public referendum in order to become effective.  Perhaps I'm being picky, but the opinion's wording suggests to me that the Commission's plans become effective only if they are approved by a public vote, when I do not believe that to be the case.

Fredric D. Woocher
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90024
fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
(310) 576-1233
-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 7:30 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>
Subject: [EL] AZ commissions upheld 5-4

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/az.pdf

Analysis to come

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election




--

Rick Hasen

Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science

UC Irvine School of Law

401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000

Irvine, CA 92697-8000

949.824.3072 - office

949.824.0495 - fax

rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>

http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/

http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150630/53a917cc/attachment.html>