Rice v. English

• Decision Date: 24 May 2002
• Parties: John W. RICE et al. v. Bill ENGLISH et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

835 So.2d 157

John W. RICE et al. v. Bill ENGLISH et al.

1010968.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 24, 2002.

Mark G. Montiel, Montgomery, for appellants.

Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and John J. Park, asst. atty. gen., for appellees Bill English, Gloria Sinclair, Albert O. Howard, Alfonza Menefee, Johnny H. Williamson, Nancy O. Robertson, Lamar Turner, Jimmy Stubbs, Reese McKinney, Jr., Alfred Q. Booth, John E. Hulett, J. MacDonald Russell, Dwight Faulk, William C. Stone, and James Bennett.

James E. Williams, Flynn Mozingo, and C. Mark Bain of Melton, Espy & Williams, P.C., Montgomery; and Larry T. Menefee Montgomery, for Governor Don Siegelman.

Robert D. Segall and Shannon L. Holliday of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery, for Senator Henry Sanders and Senator Lowell Barron.

LYONS, Justice.

This case involves a state-law challenge to the new redistricting plan for Alabama senate districts. That plan, proposed by Act No. 2001-727, 2001 Ala. Acts (hereinafter "the redistricting plan"), was approved by Governor Don Siegelman on July 3, 2001, and was precleared by the Attorney General of the United States on October 15, 2001. John W. Rice, William McCall Harris, and Patricia Christine N. Wood (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Rice plaintiffs") challenged the redistricting plan, naming as defendants state election officials and contending that the plan failed to satisfy the one-person, one-vote standard they viewed as mandated by Art. IX, § 200, Ala. Const.1901. The Montgomery Circuit Court entered a summary judgment in favor of the state election officials. This appeal followed.

I. Constitutional Background

Art. IX, § 200, Ala. Const.1901, describes the duty of the Legislature in the creation of senate districts. It provides:

"It shall be the duty of the legislature at its first session after taking of the decennial census of the United States in the year nineteen hundred and ten, and after each subsequent decennial census, to fix by law the number of senators, and to divide the state into as many senatorial districts as there are senators, which districts shall be as nearly equal to each other in the number of inhabitants as may be, and each shall be entitled to one senator, and no more; and such districts, when formed, shall not be changed until the next apportioning session of the legislature, after the next decennial census of the United States shall have been taken; provided, that counties created after the next preceding apportioning session of the legislature may be attached to senatorial districts. No county shall be divided between two districts, and no district shall be made up of two or more counties not contiguous to each other."

(Emphasis added.)

Section 200 prohibits a districting plan that divides a county between two districts. In other words, county lines must be preserved in any redistricting plan. To accommodate the obvious fact that only a remarkably fortuitous circumstance would permit absolute equality in population between districts while observing the integrity of county lines § 200 speaks in practical terms of the goal that the population of the districts be equal. It requires the districts to be "as nearly equal to each other in the number of inhabitants as may be."

In earlier litigation challenging the constitutionality of Alabama legislative districts on the basis of population disparity under the "one-man, one-vote" requirement as expressed in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), the Supreme Court discussed the necessity of harmonizing the requirement of § 200 for integrity of county lines with the requirement for substantial equality of population in legislative districts. Of course, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause in Art. VI of the United States Constitution, any provisions of § 200 that conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution would not be enforceable. Such a result was reached in Sims v. Amos, 336 F.Supp. 924 (M.D.Ala.), aff'd, 409 U.S. 942, 93 S.Ct. 290, 34 L.Ed.2d 215 (1972), in which the three-judge panel held:

"In approving the crossing of county lines, we necessarily fail to give effect to that part of Art. IX, § 200, Alabama Constitution of 1901, which forbids splitting any county between two or more legislative districts. We find that the requirements of equal protection necessitate, in some instances, that county lines give way in drawing legislative districts. To the extent that Section 200 forbids such, it must yield for `when there is an unavoidable conflict between the Federal and a State Constitution, the Supremacy Clause of course controls.'"

336 F.Supp. at 939 n. 20 (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 584, 84 S.Ct. 1362).

II. Procedural History

On August 9, 2001, the Rice plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Montgomery Circuit Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Rice plaintiffs named Bill English, probate judge of Lee County, and 13 other probate judges, as well as Secretary of State James Bennett, each in his or her official capacity, as defendants (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the election officials"). The Rice plaintiffs contended that the new senate districts failed to satisfy Art. I, § 33,¹ and Art. IX, § 200, Ala. Const.1901, in that the population of the new districts was not "as nearly equal to each other ... as may be." Art. IX, § 200. The Rice plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring that the new plan violates state law and injunctive relief that would, among other things, prohibit the use of the new districts in any election.

The election officials answered the complaint and moved to stay further proceedings pending preclearance of the plan by federal officials. When the State received a letter from the United States Department of Justice stating that the Attorney General of the United States interposed no objection to the plan, the State advised the trial court that the plan had been precleared by filing a copy of the letter with the court.

While preclearance of the redistricting plan was pending, Governor Siegelman moved to intervene as a defendant; the trial court granted his motion. After the State obtained preclearance, Senators Lowell Barron and Henry Sanders also moved to intervene as defendants. The trial court granted that motion on January 10, 2002.

On November 19, 2001, the trial court entered a scheduling order, pursuant to which the parties were to file any dispositive motions by December 19, 2001, and were to argue those motions at a hearing to be held on January 10, 2002. On December 19, 2001, Secretary of State Bennett, for himself and the other election officials, filed a motion for a summary judgment, together with a supporting brief and a narrative summary of the undisputed material facts. Governor Siegelman joined in the election officials' motion. Even though their motion to intervene had not been ruled on, Senators Barron and Sanders, on December 19, 2001, also moved for a summary judgment in their favor. On January 10, 2002, the trial court heard oral argument on the election officials' summary-judgment motion. At the time of the hearing, the Rice plaintiffs had not filed any written response to any of the summary-judgment motions. They did not file any response until January 17, 2002, when they filed what they entitled "Rice Plaintiffs' Response and Objection to Motions for Summary Judgment by Other Parties; or, Alternatively, Response and Opposition to Motion by Intervenors Barron and Sanders for Summary Judgment."

On January 28, 2002, the trial court entered two orders. In the first order, it held that the state-law claims before it were justiciable. In the second, it (1) granted the election officials' motion for a summary judgment, in which it noted that Senators Barron and Sanders had orally joined in the motion to the extent that it addressed the merits of the Rice plaintiffs' claims (as opposed to the justiciability of those claims); (2) stated that the summary-judgment motion filed by Senators Barron and Sanders was not before the court on January 9, 2002, and would not be considered; and (3) held that the Rice plaintiffs' response was not timely filed and would not be considered. On February 11, 2002, the Rice plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

The trial court's findings in its summary-judgment order can be summarized as follows:

(1) In adopting Art. IX, § 200, the drafters of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 did not require senate districts to be absolutely equal in population and, in fact, endorsed overall population deviations in excess of 202% for senate districts;

(2) Apportionment is primarily a legislative function; courts should act only if the Legislature fails to act constitutionally after having had a reasonable opportunity to do so. Brooks v. Bobbie, 631 So.2d 883, 890 (Ala.1993);

(3) The Legislature has itself adopted a 10% variance rule in its guidelines for reapportionment;

(4) Other states also apply a 10% variance rule;

(5) A federal district court in Alabama has already ruled that § 200 does not require greater equality in population in legislative districts than does federal law, and federal law generally permits deviations not exceeding 10%. Sims v. Amos, supra; and

(6) The plain meaning of § 200 itself does not require absolute population equality; instead, it requires the districts to be "as nearly equal as ... may be."

III. Jurisdiction

The election officials argue that the separation-of-powers doctrine enshrined in § 43, Ala. Const.1901, requires that this Court decline jurisdiction over this case. The election officials remind us that in earlier cases this Court has refused to recognize the justiciability of redistricting claims, citing Waid v. Pool, 255 Ala. 441, 51 So.2d 869 (1951), and Ex parte Rice, 273 Ala. 712, 143 So.2d 848 (1962). The election officials attempt to distinguish Brooks v. Hobbie, supra, in which, they argue, this Court...