Emison v. Growe
| Decision Date | 30 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 4-91-202. |
| Citation | 782 F. Supp. 427 |
| Parties | James EMISON, Judy Fairbanks, Marie Iverson, Ken Dean, Steve Castillo, Lew Freeman, and Yao Lo, individually and on behalf of all Citizens and Voters of the State of Minnesota similarly situated, Plaintiffs, and Patricia Cotlow, Phillip Krass, Sharon LaComb, James Stein, and Theodore Suss, individually and on behalf of all Citizens of Minnesota similarly situated, Intervening Plaintiffs, v. Joan GROWE, Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota; Mark Lundgren, Carver County Auditor, individually and on behalf of all County Auditors of the State of Minnesota, Defendants, and The Seventy-seventh Minnesota State House of Representatives; and the Seventy-seventh Minnesota State Senate, Defendants Intervenors, and Patrick O'Connor, Hennepin County Auditor, individually and on behalf of all County Auditors of the State of Minnesota, Defendant Intervenor. Duane BENSON, Terry Dempsey, Delores Hettig, Richard Harmon, David E. Peterson, E.M. Patricia Pidcock, and Frank Ringsmuth, Plaintiffs, v. Joan GROWE, Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, Defendant, and Patrick O'Connor, Hennepin County Auditor, individually and on behalf of all County Auditors of the State of Minnesota, Defendant Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Before LAY, Circuit Judge, MacLAUGHLIN, District Judge, and MAGNUSON, District Judge.
Certiorari Denied March 30, 1992. See 112 S.Ct. 1557.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In 1982, this court established Minnesota's congressional districts, see LaComb v. Growe, 541 F.Supp. 145 (D.Minn.), aff'd sub nom. Orwoll v. LaComb, 456 U.S. 966, 102 S.Ct. 2228, 72 L.Ed.2d 841 (1982), and Minnesota's state legislative districts, see LaComb v. Growe, 541 F.Supp. 160 (D.Minn.1982), as reflected in Minnesota Statutes §§ 2.019, 2.042, 2.702 (1983). At that time, this court also established minority concentrated districts in an attempt to preserve the voting strength of minority populations.
Over the last ten years, substantial population shifts from the northern part of Minnesota to the suburbs of the Twin Cities metropolitan area have resulted in great population disparities among the state's current legislative districts. For example, suburban Senate District 48 contains 104,235 people, while Senate District 6, in the northern part of the state, contains only 50,659 people.1 Thirty-four of the sixty-seven senate districts deviate from the ideal population of 65,300 by 10% or more.2 Eleven of the sixty-seven districts deviate from the ideal population by 20% or more.3 The congressional districts exhibit serious disparity as well. For example, surburban Congressional District 3 contains 668,263 people, while District 2, located outside the metropolitan area, contains only 480,079 people.4
On March 18, 1991, James Emison, a Caucasian resident of Hennepin County; Judy Fairbanks, a Native American resident of the White Earth Reservation in Becker County; Marie Iverson, a Caucasian resident of Dakota County; Ken Dean, a Caucasian resident of Stearns County; Steve Castillo, a Hispanic resident of Ramsey County; Lew Freeman, an African-American resident of District 60B in south Minneapolis; and Yao Lo, an Asian resident of Ramsey County, brought this action in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the 1982 congressional districts and the 1983 state legislative districts. The suit was brought against Joan Growe, Secretary of State, and Mark Lundgren, Carver County Auditor, individually and on behalf of all Minnesota county auditors.
The Emison plaintiffs allege that the 1982 congressional districting laws violate Article 1, § 2 of the United States Constitution; and that the 1983 state legislative districting laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Emison plaintiffs further allege that the 1983 state legislative districting laws violate Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (1988).5 They claim that these districting laws unnecessarily fragment the White Earth and Red Lake reservations into four separate legislative districts. The plaintiffs assert that such fragmentation minimizes, cancels out, and dilutes effective participation in the political process by Native Americans residing on or near those reservations, thereby denying them equal opportunity to elect or influence the election of representatives of their choice in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The Emison plaintiffs also allege that the legislative districts in the City of Minneapolis unnecessarily fragment the minority population into multiple districts so as to minimize, cancel out, and dilute the effective participation in the political process by minorities, thereby denying them equal opportunity to elect or influence the election of representatives of their choice in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
The plaintiffs ask the court for declaratory and injunctive relief barring the use of the districts for future elections. They also seek the adoption of new districts that consolidate the White Earth and Red Lake Reservations in a single legislative district, as well as consolidate minority populations in south Minneapolis with adjacent or nearby minority populations.
This court has subject matter jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343,6 as well as under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1973.7
On April 8, 1991, a three-judge district court panel was designated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) (1988).8 On May 16, 1991, a motion to intervene in this action was granted to the Seventy-seventh Minnesota State House of Representatives and State Senate (hereafter referred to as the defendant intervenors).9
Once convened, the jurisdiction of a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) "extends to every question involved, whether of state or federal law, and enables the court to rest its judgment on the decisions of such of the questions as in its opinion effectively dispose of the case." Armour v. State of Ohio, 775 F.Supp. 1044, 1048 (N.D.Ohio 1991) (quoting Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 393-94, 53 S.Ct. 190, 193, 77 L.Ed. 375 (1932)). Accordingly, this court now addresses the issues we must consider in affording complete relief to the plaintiffs. To this end, we adopt state legislative and congressional redistricting plans prepared by the court with the assistance of a Special Masters panel,10 which are attached to this opinion as Sections II and IV.
On May 18, 1991, the Minnesota Legislature passed a state legislative redistricting bill, Chapter 246. The enrolled bill was presented to Governor Arne H. Carlson on May 24, 1991, who vetoed the legislation on May 28, 1991. A suit was thereafter commenced in the Ramsey County District Court alleging the Governor's veto was not effective because it had not been delivered to the legislative house of origin within the time required by the Minnesota Constitution.11 The state district court ruled on August 2, 1991, that the Governor's veto was ineffective. The Governor did not appeal this ruling, and Chapter 246 became law. On August 9, 1991, a separate suit was commenced in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Chapter 246.12 This court subsequently consolidated the Emison and Benson cases.13
381 U.S. at 409, 85 S.Ct. at 1527. Our order recognized that Germano rests the primary responsibility for redistricting with the state legislative process.15Id. Counsel for the defendant intervenors represented to this court in August, 1991, that the legislature planned to amend Chapter 246 and pass a congressional plan when the session reconvened in January, 1992. Following the principles of Germano, this court thus deferred to the state agencies in order to allow them every opportunity to pass a redistricting law no later than January 20, 1992.16
This court refused to abstain, however, and we retained jurisdiction over the case for two reasons. First, we recognized that this court's jurisdiction was invoked under the Voting Rights Act. Proof of a violation could directly affect any state redistricting plan that might be adopted.17 Second, this court determined that the state court's appellate process would take too long to allow a valid plan to be approved and implemented in time for the 1992 election.
All parties agreed that a redistricting plan should be implemented in early February, and in any event no later than March 1, 1992. This court was cognizant that if the state district court issued a final opinion after the legislature recessed in January, 1992, an appeal to the Supreme Court of Minnesota would likely not be completed by March 1, 1992.18
We concluded that if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nixon v. Kent County
...(5th Cir.) reh'g denied, 849 F.2d 943 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 905, 109 S.Ct. 3213, 106 L.Ed.2d 564 (1989); Emison v. Growe, 782 F.Supp. 427 (D.Minn.1992), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 507 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993); Seamon v. Upham, 536 F.Supp. 93......
-
League of Women Voters Minn. v. Ritchie
...U.S. 621, 626, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1969) (emphasis added). This standard has been adopted in Minnesota. See Emison v. Growe, 782 F.Supp. 427, 435 (D.Minn.1992) (citing Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 562, 84 S.Ct. 1362). I could not agree more. When voting rights are involved, we must cond......
-
Johnson v. Mortham
...a super-majority minority senate district, when its own court-ordered remedial plan had contained such a district. Emison v. Growe, 782 F.Supp. 427 (D.Minn.1992). The Supreme Court reversed. Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 122 L.Ed.2d 388. The Supreme Court first noted that th......
-
Growe v. Emison
...combined in the new district. The Gingles preconditions were not only ignored but were on this record unattainable. Pp. ---- - ----. 782 F.Supp. 427, reversed and SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. John R. Tunheim, St. Paul, MN, for appellants, Sol. Gen. Kenneth W. Sta......