In California, redistricting is done by an independent commission. Republican activists, who were not happy with the maps drawn for the state Senate, circulated a referendum petition to force a vote on the maps; that vote would happen in November, 2012. It is not clear if the referendum will qualify; the number of signatures is close enough to the required number that random sampling won't determine the answer and so every signature must be randomly counted.
This leads to an interesting legal question: if the referendum qualifies, what district lines should be used for state Senate in the 2012 elections? The state constitution says that laws subject to referendum don't go into effect until after the referendum, so that would mean that if the referendum qualifies for the ballot, the commission's lines aren't in effect. The existing (2001) lines are probably malapportioned. There wouldn't be time to draw new lines after the referendum qualifies (since we won't know until March, most likely, and the legislative primary is in June).
So someone sued, and asked the state Supreme Court to answer the question.
They handed down the decision today.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/...
Most of the decision is spent discussing two questions: (a) can the court even hear this case before the referendum qualifies (because, arguably, there's no actual issue or controversy until qualification happens) and (b) if it can, is the court allowed to consider the Commission's maps at all?
The court said yes to question (a), basically arguing that the short timing of election cases creates an emergency situation rendering it reasonable to decide the case on a hypothetical basis in advance of an actual controversy, and said yes to question (b), pointing out that even if the maps are not in effect, they are still legitimate maps for interim consideration. They don't automatically go into effect, but a court can still adopt them on an interim basis.
The court then looked at four alternatives for maps to use in 2012 if the referendum qualifies:
(a) the 2001 maps. It rejected these because (a) population movement means that there's now a 30% variation in size between largest and smallest districts, which is clearly federally unconstitutional, and (b) the state constitution now prohibits adopting districts which were drawn in order to favor or disfavor a particular political party, and everyone knows that the 2001 maps were an incumbent protection gerrymander.
(b) nesting two assembly districts into a senate district. It rejected this option because (a) there would be issues under the VRA because, given the uncontested new assembly districts, there is no way to draw a district in monterey county which doesn't reduce hispanic percentage and thereby constitute retrogression; (b) the lines would not preserve communities of interest and would cross more county and city boundaries than the commission's plan.
(c) drawing new maps. It rejected this option for lack of time.
(d) adopting the commissions' maps on an interim basis for 2012, with new maps to come if the referendum rejects the maps. The court decided to do this under the theory that it was the least bad option.
The opinion was effectively unanimous. Everyone agreed with the result. Justice Liu concurred with a lengthy discourse on the issue of whether the court could take the case at all, offering a different rationale for it.
Thus, the Commission's Senate maps will be used in 2012, whether or not the referendum qualifies for the ballot