The Supreme Court today granted in part the Citizens Redistricting Commission motion, filed a month ago, to further extend the constitutional and statutory deadlines to release for public comment and to then certify and approve Congressional, state legislative, and Board of Equalization district maps for the 2022 election. The extensions are a bit shorter than the Commission asked for, however.
The court last year issued a writ extending from July 1 to November 1 the date for releasing proposed maps for public comment and from August 15 to December 15 the time to approve and certify final maps. Under today’s order, those deadlines are now November 15 and December 27. The Commission wanted the dates to be November 19 and January 14, to avoid the need for public meetings during the holiday season.
The order is procedurally unusual. The Commission’s motion was filed in the writ of mandate proceeding that yielded last year’s extension opinion (Legislature v. Padilla (2020) 9 Cal.5th 867) and it asked for modifications of the court’s writ. The order says that it “clarifie[s] and modifie[s]” the writ. But the court had made its decision issuing the writ final on filing, and the rules provide that a decision can’t be modified after its finality (rules 8.264(c)(1), 8.490(a), 8.532(c)).
The court’s order doesn’t mention the rules. Instead, it says, “We have jurisdiction under the state Constitution ‘to consider and grant appropriate relief when necessary to the orderly functioning of our electoral system.’ ([Legislature v. Padilla, supra, 9 Cal.5th] at p. 874; see Cal. Const., art. VI, § 10; Vandermost v. Bowen (2012) 53 Cal.4th 421, 451-453, 460 [see here].)” (Links added.)
The cited constitutional authority gives the court “original jurisdiction in proceedings for extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition.” But that seems to beg the question.
The court certainly had jurisdiction in last year’s writ proceeding and it would have had jurisdiction had the Commission filed a new writ petition last month. But the Commission instead filed a motion in the old writ proceeding, seeking to change the writ that issued — and became final — 14 months ago.
The issue today is the extent of the court’s original jurisdiction. The order suggests that the jurisdiction includes the authority to modify an earlier writ at any time after its issuance. (And the Constitution’s jurisdiction provision applies to Courts of Appeal and superior courts, too.)
It’s unlikely the court wants its order to be precedent for attempts to modify all sorts of old, seemingly final writs. This wouldn’t be the first urgent election law decision that a court considers sui generis. (See Bush v. Gore (2000) 531 U.S. 98, 109 [“Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities”].)