REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE Et Al. v. BURTON Et Al.

Background

State officials who drew new congressional districts after the 1980 census asked the Justice to pause a California Supreme Court decision. The Legislature had added two new seats. A statewide petition sought to suspend the new maps and force review by referendum. The California Supreme Court held that the referendum suspended the statutes but nonetheless ordered the June 8, 1982 primary to use the newly drawn districts. The state officials argued the primary should use the old districts and elect the two new seats at-large, citing two different federal statutes about how Representatives must be elected.

Reasoning

The core question was whether federal law required at-large elections for the newly allotted seats when redistricting was not complete. Justice Rehnquist explained that, even if there is a federal-law dispute, the California decision rests on independent state-law grounds. Because the state-law reasons are adequate, the Justice said the Supreme Court likely lacks power to reverse the California ruling on federal grounds. He therefore denied the request to pause the judgment but referred the applicants’ request for expedited argument to the full Court.

Real world impact

The immediate practical effect is that California election officials should proceed using the new district boundaries for the June primary, including the two added seats. The decision is procedural and not a final ruling on the federal statutes; the full Supreme Court may or may not take the appeal, so the legal dispute could still change later. Voters and election officials should expect possible further legal changes.