Attorneys for the majority parties in the Senate and Assembly still contend there is enough time for the Legislature to act on a redistricting plan on its own, but asked a panel of judges to limit its purview to congressional maps if it decides to get involved.
In earlier blog posts, I suggested that court action was premature since the Legislature has not voted on a redistricting plan. Speaking on the Fred Dicker radio show in Albany, LATFOR co-chair Assemblyman Jack McEneny said that the state legislature’s redistricting plan may soon be voted on. He acknowledged that the Assembly and Senate are at a crossroads on the congressional plan. McEneny suggested that two separate plans may emerge.
The federal court filing seems to confirm McEneny’s view that the likelihood of agreement is remote. The joint Assembly-Senate filing said that “the Court should limit its consideration of appointing a special master to the congressional context…in light of the current primary schedule (June 26).”
Due to the SCOTUS ruling in Perez v. Perry, a Texas redistricting case, I believe that this Court will have to give deference to whatever plan(s) the Legislature puts forth. Therefore, I strongly urge LATFOR to produce a single congressional redistricting plan. The Legislature must not shirk this important responsibility.
Should the Court appoint a special master to draw the congressional plan?