California Court of Appeal

Judgment against plaintiffs, who challenged the 2001 reapportionment of Assembly districts because it separated their city into two districts, is affirmed because plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the reapportionment plan inevitably poses a total and fatal conflict with constitutional provisions.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/28/2006
• Published 03/28/2006

Judges

• SCOTLAND, P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Downey Brand,Matthew G. Jacobs and Jeffrey S. Galvin, Sacramento, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, Robin B. Johansen, Kathleen J. Purcell, Thomas A. Willis and Margaret R. Prinzing for Respondent California State Assembly., Diane F. Boyer-Vine, Marian Johnston;  Olson, Hagel & Fishburn, Lance H. Olson, Sacramento, Deborah B. Caplan and Erin V. Peth for Respondent California State Senate.