How have the courts reviewed a referendum petition in the context of the California Assembly re-apportionation issue?

^28. Three issues ripe for preelection review were directly presented: (1) Because the referendum petitions directed signers to use their address as registered to vote, rather than their residence address, as required by the then-existing Elections Code, were the petitions defective? (2) If defective, should the petitions be allowed to qualify for placement of the referendum before the voters? (3) May the referendum process be used to challenge reapportionment statutes? (See Assembly v. Deukmejian, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 643, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939.) A fourth issue subsequently arose after the referendum qualified and approximately six weeks before the court filed its opinion: In light of the intervening qualification of the referendum and the consequent automatic stay of the challenged maps, under what maps should the upcoming election be conducted? ( Id., at p. 644, 180 Cal.Rptr. 297, 639 P.2d 939.)