Wilkins v. West
| Citation | 264 Va. 447,571 S.E.2d 100 |
| Decision Date | 01 November 2002 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 021003. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
| Parties | S. Vance WILKINS, Speaker of the House of Delegates, et al. v. Douglas MacArthur WEST, et al. |
Francis S. Ferguson, Deputy Atty. Gen.; E. Duncan Getchell, Jr , for appellants.
Ronald A. Klain (Jonathan D. Hacker, Washington, DC; Jeremy B. Bash, Alexandria; Marc E. Isserles, Washington, DC; William B. Hopkins, Jr., Roanoke; O'Melveny & Myers, Washington, DC; Martin, Hopkins and Lemon, Roanoke, on brief), for appellees.
Amicus Curiae: Lawyers for the Republic (Daniel F. Rinzel; Robert N. Hunter, Jr.; Redmon, Peyton & Braswell; Hunter, Johnson, Elam & Benjamin, on briefs), in support of appellants.
Amicus Curiae: Senator D. Nick Rerras (Jill Holtzman, on briefs), in support of appellants.
Amici Curiae: American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union of VA (Neil Bradley; Loughlin McDonald; Rebecca K. Glenberg, on brief), in support of appellees. Amicus Curiae: The VA Legislative Black Caucus (R. Claire Guthrie, on brief), in support of appellees.
Amicus Curiae: Governor Mark R. Warner; Pamela S. Karlan (Jeffery K. Mitchell; Flippen, Densmore, Morse & Jessee, on brief), in support of appellees.
Amici Curiae: DKT Liberty Project; Center for Voting and Democracy, and Cameron Barron (David J. Ervin; Scott A. Schneider; Christy Hallam DeSanctis; Douglas S. Kantor; Iva C. Smith; Collier, Shannon & Scott, on brief), in support of appellees.
Present: All the Justices.
Opinion by Justice ELIZABETH B. LACY.
Article II, § 6 of the Constitution of Virginia provides:
Members of the House of Representatives of the United States and members of the Senate and of the House of Delegates of the General Assembly shall be elected from electoral districts established by the General Assembly. Every electoral district shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory and shall be so constituted as to give, as nearly as is practicable, representation in proportion to the population of the district. The General Assembly shall reapportion the Commonwealth into electoral districts in accordance with this section in the year 1971 and every ten years thereafter.
The official 2000 United States census data showed that Virginia's population had grown 14.4% over the previous decade, from 6,187,350 residents in 1990, to 7,078,515 in 2000. The data also showed that the population growth in Northern Virginia and suburban areas of the state was greater than in other areas of the state. Some of the central cities and rural areas of the Commonwealth had experienced a decrease in population. To comply with Article II, § 6 the Virginia General Assembly was required to enact new electoral districts in 2001.
After receiving the 2000 census data, the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) and House Bill 1 (HB 1) creating new electoral districts for the Virginia General Assembly. The bills were signed by the Governor on April 21, 2001 and subsequently submitted to the Attorney General of the United States for pre-clearance as required by the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971 through 1974(e) (2000), (VRA). On June 15, 2001 and July 9, 2001, respectively, HB 1 and SB 1 received pre-clearance from the Attorney General.
This litigation was initiated by a Bill of Complaint filed on June 26, 2001 by 46 complainants against the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Acting Attorney General, Secretary of the State Board of Elections, and six members of the General Assembly.1 An amended bill of complaint was filed on August 10, 2001. Count I alleged that House of Delegates Districts 49, 63, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 77, 80, 89, 90, 92, and 95, and Senate Districts 2, 5, 9, 16, and 18, were "designed with the avowed, race-based goal of maximizing the number of minority voters" in violation of Article I, §§ 1 and 11 of the Constitution of Virginia. Count II asserted that the pairing of incumbent female legislators in SB 1 and HB 1 intentionally "disproportionately increase[d] the odds against re-election of certain Democratic female legislators" in violation of Article I, §§ 1 and 11 of the Constitution of Virginia. Count III asserted that the legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally discriminated against Virginia voters on the basis of political viewpoint by disproportionately pairing incumbent Democratic legislators. In Count IV, the complainants asserted that 17 House Districts and 9 Senate Districts were not comprised of "contiguous and compact territory" as mandated by Article II, § 6 of the Constitution of Virginia. Finally, in Count V, the complainants charged that the districts were unequal on the basis of population because the Commonwealth did not use statistically adjusted census figures in violation of Article I, §§ 1 and 11 of the Constitution of Virginia. Prior to trial, the defendants filed various motions to dismiss and a motion for change of venue. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Count V but denied the motions requesting dismissal on the basis of standing and for a change of venue. A three-day, ore tenus hearing was held in September 2001. Following presentation of the complainants' evidence, the trial court granted the defendants' motion to strike Counts II and III. The claims of racial gerrymandering and non-compact and non-contiguous election districts contained in Counts I and IV were submitted to the trial court for determination.
The trial court filed its amended written opinion on March 13, 2002. Applying a definition of contiguous that required reasonable internal access, the trial court concluded that Senate Districts 1, 2, and 6, along with House Districts 74, 91, and 100, did not satisfy the contiguous and compactness requirements of Article II, § 6 of the Constitution of Virginia. The trial court made no finding regarding challenged Senate Districts 3 and 4 because no evidence was introduced relating to those districts. The court found that the remaining districts challenged in Count IV reasonably complied with the requirements of Article II, § 6 as interpreted by this Court in Jamerson v. Womack, 244 Va. 506, 423 S.E.2d 180 (1992).2
Based on these findings, the trial court enjoined the defendants from conducting any elections under HB 1 or SB 1 until the General Assembly enacted, and the Governor signed, legislation establishing "new redistricting statutes for the House of Delegates and the Senate Districts that abide by all of the requirements of the Constitution of the United States and Constitution of Virginia, specifically adhering to Article 1, § 1, Article 1, § 11, and Article II, § 6, and the other laws of the Commonwealth. . . ." The trial court also ordered that "an election to elect representatives from each new electoral district enacted for the House of Delegates be conducted in 2002, as provided by law, to take office as members of the House of Delegates upon convening of the 2003 session of the General Assembly of Virginia." The trial court denied the defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal.
The defendants filed a notice of appeal, a petition for appeal, a motion for expedited appeal, a motion for a stay of the trial court's order pending appeal, and a petition for a writ of prohibition. We granted the defendants' petition for appeal and motion for stay pending appeal.4 On appeal, the defendants raise eight assignments of error. The first three assignments address the substantive findings of the trial court in this matter: (1) whether the complainants lacked standing to pursue the litigation; (2) whether certain districts met the constitutional requirement of compactness and contiguity; and (3) whether certain districts were racially gerrymandered. These issues, in our view, are dispositive of this appeal.
I. STANDING
The defendants argue that the trial court should have dismissed the bill of complaint because the complainants failed to establish that they had standing to pursue the claims asserted. Relying on this Court's precedent, the defendants maintain that standing to challenge an electoral district should not be inferred solely from residency in that district. Rather, the defendants argue, standing requires "a personal stake in the outcome" of the litigation. Cupp v. Board of Supervisors, 227 Va. 580, 589, 318 S.E.2d 407, 411 (1984) (emphasis deleted). Merely advancing a public right or redressing a public injury cannot confer standing on a complainant. Virginia Beach Beautification Comm'n v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 231 Va. 415, 419, 344 S.E.2d 899, 902 (1986). Thus, the defendants assert that to establish standing, the complainants were required to show that they suffered racial, gender, or political discrimination, and, if the injury was racial in nature, the complainant had the burden of establishing his or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections
......Womack, 244 Va. 506 [423 S.E.2d 180] (1992) and Wilkins v. West, 264 Va. 447 [571 S.E.2d 100] (2002). IV. Single–Member Districts: All districts shall be single-member districts. V. Communities of ......
-
Charlottesville Area Fitness Club Operators Ass'n v. Albemarle Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors
...... See Wilkins v. West, 264 Va. 447, 459, 571 S.E.2d 100, 106 (2002) (standing for equal protection claim requires an “injury in fact—an invasion of a legally ......
-
Page v. Va. State Bd. of Elections
......It then crosses the James River for the first time and juts west to capture parts of Petersburg. The district again crosses to the north shore of the James River to include parts of Newport News, though this ...satisfy the contiguity requirement in certain circumstances.” Wilkins v. West, 264 Va. 447, 571 S.E.2d 100, 109 (2002). While the Third Congressional District is not contiguous by land, it is legally contiguous because ......
-
BOARD OF SUP'RS v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
......, which they did not seek to expand for ten years, and they c[ould] enlarge the house without violating the setback requirement by adding to the west side of the structure. The evidence shows that the [homeowners] simply would prefer to expand to the east in order to have a better floor plan with a ...Lawrence, 161 Va. 589, 593, 171 S.E. 673, 674 (1933). That definition has been consistently followed by this Court. See, e.g., Wilkins v. West, 264 Va. 447, 458, 571 S.E.2d 100, 106 (2002) ; Trustees v. Taylor & Parrish, Inc., 249 Va. 144, 151-52, 452 S.E.2d 847, 851 (1995) ; ......
-
Where to draw the line? Judicial review of political gerrymanders.
...COLO. CONST. art. V, § 44, which the Colorado Supreme Court construed to permit only one decennial reapportionment. In Wilkins v. West, 571 S.E.2d 100 (Va. 2002), the plaintiffs unsuccessfully invoked the state constitutional requirements of compactness and contiguity, VA. CONST. art. II, ......