D'Adamo v. Cobb

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

The mayor, councilmen and clerk of the City of San Diego appeal a judgment mandating the City to equalize its council-manic districts according to population, on the ground the City Charter violates the equal protection clause (U.S. Const., Amend. XIV).

The San Diego City Charter provides for eight councilmanic districts as nearly equal in registered voter population as practicable, and as geographically compact as possible. Each of eight councilmen represents one district. Each must live in the district he represents. At a municipal primary election the voters of each district select two candidates for the office of councilman. At a general municipal election the voters of the entire city choose one of these two candidates.

[450]

Because it is based on registered voter population this system has created districts with large variances in total population:

The City maintains its election system is constitutionally valid because the superior court did not find it resulted in unfair discrimination. Although the United States Supreme Court has indicated a system of apportionment which is invidious, or contains a built-in bias, will fall before the equal protection clause

(Reynolds

v.

Sims,

377 U.S. 533, 561 [12 L.Ed.2d 506, 526-527, 84 S.Ct. 1362]; see

Calderon

v.

City of Los Angeles,

4 Cal.3d 251, 270, fn. 26 [93 Cal.Rptr. 361, 481 P.2d 489]), this is not the only constitutional test an apportionment plan must face. An absence of unfair discrimination in a plan will not justify a failure to equally apportion on the basis of population

(Abate

v.

Mundt,

403 U.S. 182, 186 [29 L.Ed.2d 399, 403, 91 S.Ct. 1904, 1907]).