State of Minnesota
|
Susan M. Zachman, Maryland Lucky R. Rosenbloom,
Victor L.M. Gomez, Gregory G. Edeen, Jeffrey E. Karlson, Diana V. Bratlie, Brian
J. LeClair and Gregory J. Ravenhorst, individually and on behalf of all
citizens and voting residents of Minnesota similarly situated, Plaintiffs,and Patricia Cotlow, Thomas L. Weisbecker, Theresa Silka, Geri Boice, William English, Benjamin Gross, Thomas R. Dietz and John Raplinger, individually and on behalf of all citizens and voting residents of Minnesota similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, and Jesse Ventura, Plaintiff-Intervenor, and Roger D. Moe, Thomas W. Pugh,
Betty McCollum, Martin Olav Sabo, Bill Luther, Collin C. Peterson and James
L. Oberstar, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, vs. Mary Kiffmeyer, Secretary of State of Minnesota,
and Doug Gruber, Wright County Auditor, individually and on behalf of all
Minnesota county chief election officers, Defendants. |
|
SCHEDULING Order NO. 2 Stating
Initial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Directing Filing of
Stipulation on Redistricting Criteria and Submissions on Disputed Criteria |
|
|
|
|
By
order of October 9, 2001, the parties to this action were directed to work
toward a stipulation on preliminary matters and to submit separate statements
of unresolved issues. Based on these
submissions and subsequent oral argument, the panel concludes as follows:
1. Jurisdiction:
The panel has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See Scott v. Germano, 381 U.S. 407,
409 (1965) (“The power of the judiciary of a State to require valid
reapportionment or to formulate a valid redistricting plan has not only been
recognized by this Court but appropriate action by the States in such cases has
been specifically encouraged.”); see also Cotlow v. Growe, No. MX
91-001562 (Special Redistricting Panel July 29, 1991) (Pretrial Order No.
1). In addition, this panel was
properly appointed pursuant to the chief justice’s power to assign judges to
hear particular cases. Minn. Stat. §§
2.724, 480.16 (2000).
2. Population Data:
United States Census 2000 Public
Law 94-171 Redistricting Data as of April 2001, with population data down to
the census block level, shall be used in this redistricting process. The appropriate geographic data is available
through the Geographic Information Systems Office of the Legislative
Coordinating Commission and in the Maptitude for Redistricting software. The panel will use Maptitude for
Redistricting to view and analyze all proposed redistricting plans.
3. Current Congressional Districts: The population of the State of Minnesota is unconstitutionally
malapportioned among the state’s current congressional districts. The United States Supreme Court has held that the
populations of congressional districts must be as nearly equal as
practicable. Wesberry v. Sanders,
376 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1964); see also U.S. Const. art. I, § 2 (“Representatives and direct
taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included
within this Union according to their respective numbers * * *.”) The
ideal population of a congressional district after the 2000 Census is
614,935. We reach this number by
dividing Minnesota’s total population, which is 4,919,479 according to Census
2000 numbers, by the eight congressional representatives apportioned to Minnesota
after the census. However, current congressional
district populations range from 720,995 in the Sixth District to 557,819 in the
Fifth District. This creates population
deviations of up to +17.25% and -9.29%.
4. Current
Legislative Districts: The population of the State
of Minnesota is unconstitutionally malapportioned among the state’s current
legislative districts. See Minn. Const. art. IV, § 2
(“The number of members who compose the senate and house of representatives
shall be prescribed by law. The
representation in both houses shall be apportioned equally throughout the
different sections of the state in proportion to the population thereof.”) The
ideal state senate district population is 73,425 after dividing the state’s
total population by its 67 senate districts.
Current senate district populations deviate from the ideal by +36.08%
(Senate District 37) to -14.68% (Senate District 46). The ideal state house district population is 36,713, based on
dividing the state’s total population by its 134 house districts. Current house district populations deviate
from the ideal by +60.15% (House District 56B) to -16.19% (House District 63A).
5. Scheduling: Although the parties have stipulated to most aspects of the panel’s provisional timetable, the following issues remain:
First, the parties jointly request that the panel move the deadline for the parties’ responses to each other’s redistricting plans from January 7, 2002 to January 11, 2002. The panel adopts this change.
Second, over the objections of the Cotlow, Ventura, and Moe plaintiffs, the Zachman plaintiffs propose that the redistricting schedule should include a period for the parties to conduct discovery. Because we believe that the schedule gives the parties a sufficient opportunity to examine and comment on each other’s redistricting plans, we decline to provide for discovery.
Third, the parties disagree as to when the panel should release its final order and plan. We have considered the arguments in favor of a release date of March 19, 2002, as well as those in favor of an earlier release, and hereby finalize a release date of March 19.
We are bound by the directive of the chief justice to respect the primacy of the legislature. Zachman v. Kiffmeyer, 629 N.W.2d 98 (Minn. 2001) (noting the primacy of the legislature in the redistricting process and ordering that the special redistricting panel “release a redistricting plan that satisfies constitutional and statutory requirements only in the event a legislative redistricting plan is not enacted in a timely manner”) (Order of Chief Justice). In the 1991 legislative session, the legislature itself enacted a decennial deadline for the issuance of timely redistricting plans. See 1991 Minn. Laws ch. 349, § 31, codified at Minn. Stat. § 204B.14, subd. 1a (2000) (“It is the intention of the legislature to complete congressional and legislative redistricting activities * * * in no case later than 25 weeks before the state primary election in the year ending in two.”). This deadline next falls on March 19, 2002.
Some parties argue that declining to release a redistricting plan until after March 5, 2002, the date Minn. Stat. § 202A.14, subd. 1 (2000) sets for precinct caucuses, will upset the electoral process. However, the legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 202A.14, subd. 1 during the same 1991 session when it enacted the redistricting deadline, and then again in 1993. See 1991 Minn. Laws ch. 349, § 29; 1993 Minn. Laws ch. 150, § 1. The legislature had an opportunity at those times to set precinct caucuses for a date that would have followed the redistricting deadline, but it chose not to do so. We must assume that the legislature established this order of events without intending a result that is “impossible of execution” or “unreasonable.” Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1) (2000). Furthermore, we note that Minn. Stat. § 204B.14, subd. 1a expressly states a deadline for redistricting, while the statute discussing precinct caucuses does not reference redistricting at all. Our scheduling in this matter is guided by the more explicit statute and by the need to give the legislature a full and fair opportunity to complete redistricting by the statutory deadline. We therefore set March 19, 2002 as the date for release of our final order.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following schedule
shall govern these proceedings:
Nov. 21, 2001 Closing date
for parties’ responses to each other’s criteria
Dec. 4, 2001 Oral arguments
on redistricting criteria
9:00 a.m.
Week of Issuance of
order on redistricting criteria and form of map submissions
Dec. 10, 2001
Dec. 28, 2001 Closing date for submission of proposed redistricting plans and
supporting justification
9:00 a.m.
Mar. 19, 2002 Issuance of
final order and redistricting plan
There shall be
no exceptions to the December 28 deadline for the submission of redistricting
plans. Oral argument on January 16,
2002 may include reference to minor adjustments to previously submitted plans,
but the panel will consider all proposals final as of the close of oral argument
on January 16.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties work together
toward a stipulation regarding the appropriate redistricting criteria. One original stipulation of proposed
redistricting criteria and nine copies shall be filed with the Clerk of Appellate
Courts by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 13, 2001. As a general policy, the panel encourages the parties to use
their own initiative to discuss and resolve conflicts where possible. To the extent any party disagrees with a
group’s stipulation, or to the extent the parties cannot agree at all on a
particular issue, a disagreeing party shall submit a separate submission of
proposed redistricting criteria by 5:00 p.m. on November 13, 2001, by the
procedure described above.
Dated: BY THE PANEL:
Edward
Toussaint, Jr.
Presiding Judge