Silver v. Brown

63 Cal.2d 316 (1965) PHILL SILVER et al., Petitioners,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, as Governor, etc., et al., Respondents.

Sac. No. 7684. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

Sept. 16, 1965. Phill Silver, in pro. per., for Petitioners. [317]

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Charles A. Barrett, Assistant Attorney General, Launer, Chaffee & Hanna and Walter B. Chaffee for Respondents.

THE COURT.

In this proceeding petitioners as citizens, taxpayers, and voters seek a writ of mandate or other appropriate relief to enforce their rights and the rights of all others similarly situated to equality of voting power in the election of members to the House of Representatives of the United States Congress. (U.S. Const., art. I, 2; U.S. Const., Amend. XIV; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 [84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481].) The respondents are the Governor, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and all of the Representatives in Congress from the State of California.

In 1961 the Legislature divided the state into 38 congressional districts (Elec. Code, 30000) pursuant to section 27 of article IV of the California Constitution. [fn. 1] Owing to the requirement of that section that congressional districts consist either of whole counties, whole assembly districts, or combinations thereof, many of the resulting districts departed substantially from the ideal population of one thirty-eighth of the total population of the state. Nine districts deviated from the ideal population of 413,000 by more than 15 per cent. The largest district was 43.4 per cent larger than the ideal district, and the smallest was 27.2 per cent smaller. The ratio of the largest to the smallest was 1.96 to 1.

[1] Although these deviations may be constitutionally impermissible under Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 [84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481] (see also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 578 [84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506]; Silver v. [318]