This afternoon, the Supreme Court denied the original writ petition — filed Monday (see here) — by four Republican state legislators seeking to prevent the super-majority Democratic Legislature from enacting bills that would allow for the temporary redrawing of the state’s congressional districts.
But that is likely not the final word on the topic. I don’t read the denial as a decision on the petition’s merits.
The court’s denial order in the case — Strickland v. Weber — says, “Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under California Constitution article IV, section 8.”
The key words, I believe, are “at this time.” The petition sought to prevent voting on redistricting bills, alleging action on the bills violate article IV, section 8(a), which generally prohibits action on legislation “until the 31st day after the bill is introduced.” But, when the petition was filed, and when the court denied the petition, the Legislature hadn’t voted on the bills. Those votes are expected tomorrow (Thursday).
If, as seems likely, the Legislature enacts the bills and Governor Gavin Newsom signs them, petitioners will then have a stronger argument that they have “[met] their burden of establishing a basis for relief . . . under California Constitution article IV, section 8.” But, until then, the lack of definitive positive action on the bills probably, in the justices’ eyes, renders premature a claim of a section 8 violation.
In other words, it seems the court is saying the Republicans acted too quickly in claiming the Democrats are acting too quickly.
Justice Carol Corrigan was absent and did not participate in today’s ruling. Nor did she participate in any decisions made at today’s regularly scheduled court conference.
