How have courts interpreted the equal protection clause in the context of legislative reapportionment litigation?

Kaus, explained that it was improper to use new maps that had been stayed by qualification of the referenda and that using the old maps until [53 Cal.4th 498] the referenda were voted on would not violate the equal protection clause. ( Assembly v. Deukmejian, supra, 30 Cal.3d at pp. 680685, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939 (conc. & dis. opn. of Richardson, J.).) According to Justice Richardson, the majority completely disregards [the] stay [of the new maps] and imposes upon the people of California a state legislative reapportionment plan which has been stopped dead in its tracks by operation of law and which is heavily veiled in a cloud of political uncertainty. The majority's adoption of this plan prejudges the result and its action can only be perceived as an official alignment of the court with one side in a partisan dispute as to which we should remain scrupulously neutral. ( Id. at p. 680, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939.)