The odds were good, but the outcome looks bad.
Yesterday the Court proceedings over redistricting in Berkeley took place before Judge Evelio Grillo at the Oakland Post Office chambers of Alameda Superior Court. Five people representing disenfranchised Berkeley voters, including two disaffected Councilmembers, one alternative redistricting plan proponent representing himself, one attorney representing both Councilmember Worthington and the proponent of the non–Bates machine student plan together, and one attorney representing a Berkeley voter who supported the referendum faced the one lonely attorney representing the city, Margaret Prinzing, from high-powered and Demo-party-structure–connected Remcho, Johansen & Purcell. (The City Clerk also sent a legal representative, who played a careful and refreshingly neutral role in the arguments.)
The referendum supporters knew the case law better and argued better, but not well enough, it seemed likely, to overcome the judge’s inclination to defer to the legislative body whose deliberations were in question, our City Council. Judges, understandably, want to respect the division of power, and you need a strong and clear argument to overcome that tendency.
I hope my sense is in error, but the judge didn’t seem much swayed by the sheer numbers of plans submitted (four against the Council plan), nor the fact that all the Council plan opponents seemed willing to have any of the other plans approved, so long as they weren’t the Council plan. His focus instead was on whether, and if so just why, the Council plan was manifestly inappropriate.
-more-