Johnson v. Miller
Citation | 864 F. Supp. 1354 |
Decision Date | 12 September 1994 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 194-008. |
Parties | Davida JOHNSON; Pam Burke; Henry Zittrouer; George Deloach; and George Seaton, Plaintiffs, v. Zell MILLER, et al., Defendants, and Lucious Abrams, Jr., et al., Intervenors-Defendants, and United States of America, Intervenor-Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
A. Rowland Dye, Dye, Tucker, Everitt, Wheale & Long, Augusta, GA, Larry H. Chesin, A. Lee Parks, Kirwan, Goger, Chesin & Parks, Atlanta, GA, for plaintiffs.
Dennis Robert Dunn, David Frank Walbert, Walbert & Herman, Atlanta, GA, for Zell Miller, Pierre Howard and Max Cleland.
Sam George Nicholson, Augusta, GA, Sewell R. Brumby, Office of Legislative Counsel, Atlanta, GA, for Thomas Murphy.
Laughlin McDonald, Neil Bradley, Mary Ellen Wyckoff, ACLU, Atlanta, GA, for Lucious Abrams, Jr., G.L. Avery, Rev., William Gary Chambers, Sr., Rita Valenti and Karen Watson.
Laughlin McDonald, Mary Ellen Wyckoff, ACLU, Atlanta, GA, for Judy Lammers.
Judybeth Greene, Loretta King, Daniel H. Claman, Dept. of Justice—Civ. Rights Div., Donna M. Murphy, Dept. of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Voting Section, Washington, DC, for U.S.
Doug Teper, pro se.
A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., New York City, for Congressional Black Caucus amici curiae.
Before EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, EDENFIELD, Chief District Judge, and BOWEN, District Judge.
Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Georgia's Eleventh Congressional District and seek an injunction against its further use in congressional elections. Because we find that the district violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, we grant Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief and will impose a revised plan in keeping with this Memorandum and Order.
In 1993, the Supreme Court recognized a citizen's right under the Equal Protection Clause to challenge a strangely shaped voting district as an impermissible racial gerrymander. See Shaw v. Reno, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993). The way was thus cleared for constitutional claims against congressional voting districts in North Carolina, Louisiana, Texas, Florida, and now Georgia.
Southern states have proved fertile ground for Shaw claims, as many of their legislatures labor under the long shadow of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: By that law, certain states or political subdivisions are prohibited from enforcing "any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting" unless they (1) obtain a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia that such change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color," or (2) have submitted the proposed change to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has pre-cleared it. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973b-c (1993). This procedure applies to redistricting plans, 28 C.F.R. § 51.13 (1993), and it is intended to police those regions of the United States that had, as of certain dates, maintained voting "tests or devices" serving to disenfranchise minority voters. 42 U.S.C. § 1973b. Many Southern states were so designated. See 28 C.F.R. § 51 (at Appendix) (listing, among other areas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and sections of North Carolina and Florida).
Consequently, many southern states seek preclearance from the Department of Justice (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "DOJ") before enacting their proposed redistricting plans. Department regulations require DOJ to decide "whether the submitted change has the purpose or will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group"; if the change may be so described, DOJ will not preclear it. 28 C.F.R. § 51.52. In making its determination, DOJ is required to consider the following "important background information":
Id. § 51.58. It must also consider the following factors specific to the redistricting process:
Id. § 51.59.
This litany makes it fairly clear that, by instruction of the United States Congress, racial concerns are DOJ's overriding criterion for approving a redistricting plan.
Shaw v. Reno holds that if a plaintiff shows that racial concerns were the overriding criterion for drafting a redistricting plan, leading to the creation of dramatically irregular district boundaries, that plan is unconstitutional, unless it survives constitutionally strict scrutiny. See Shaw, ___ U.S. at ___-___, 113 S.Ct. at 2826-27.
And therein lies the problem.
Pursuant to the results of the 1980 Decennial Census, the State of Georgia was entitled to ten seats in the United States House of Representatives. Due to population increases revealed by the 1990 Census, that number increased to eleven. This change required the reformatting of Georgia's congressional districts, a task begun by House and Senate reapportionment1 committees during the 1991 session of the Georgia General Assembly. The task would prove far more onerous than anticipated.
In order to clarify the drafting process, on February 28, 1991 both the House and Senate adopted redistricting guidelines. See Joint Exh. 9, 10. Both versions required public hearings, allowed for submissions by "third parties" outside the Assembly, and provided a list of drafting criteria: single-member districts only, equality of population among districts, contiguous geography, avoiding dilution of minority voting strength, following precinct lines where possible, and compliance with sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act ( ) 42 U.S.C. § 1973, et seq. Once these requirements were met, drafters could consider maintaining the integrity of political subdivisions, preserving the core of existing districts, and avoiding contests between incumbents.
While the House and Senate surely considered these criteria a realistic tool for drafting reasonable voting districts, and while many of their members were veterans of past redistricting wars, the legislators could not have known what the DOJ would require by way of compliance with sections 2 and 5 of the VRA.
One of the "third party" redistricting proposals submitted to the legislature in 1991 would later earn the ominous moniker, "the max-black plan." That plan, created by Ms. Kathleen Wilde, then an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") and in her capacity as advocate for the Black Caucus of the Georgia General Assembly, provided for three "majority-minority" congressional districts2 in Georgia: the Second, Fifth and Eleventh. Tr. IV, at 70-72, 93; Joint Exh. 4 ( ). In contrast, the then existing congressional plan had only one majority-minority district: the Fifth. Joint Exh. 15.
Ms. Wilde's drive to create three majority-minority districts came, predictably enough, from her clients, including Rep. Tyrone Brooks. Brooks made several illuminating statements during the redistricting debate on the floor of the Georgia House:
Pltf.Exh. 132, at 40. Ms. Wilde claimed that her purpose "was to draw as many districts as possible consistent with equal opportunity for black citizens in Georgia." Tr. IV, at 71. That is, her plan attempted to secure proportional...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
White v. State of Ala.
...is fair to the state as a whole. It represents an answer to the conflicting views found in a recent redistricting case, Johnson v. Miller, 864 F.Supp. 1354 (S.D.Ga.1994) (three-judge court) (per curiam). The majority of the court in that case held the Georgia congressional districting plan ......
-
Singleton v. Merrill
...concentrations, commuting habits, and other aspects of life" do not share a "tangible communit[y] of interest," Johnson v. Miller , 864 F. Supp. 1354, 1389–90 (S.D. Ga. 1994), aff'd and remanded , 515 U.S. 900, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995)."[T]he first Gingles condition requires t......
-
Abrams v. Johnson
...113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993). The District Court panel found the district invalid, with one judge dissenting. Johnson v. Miller, 864 F.Supp. 1354 (1994). We affirmed. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995). We rejected appellants' argument that "re......
-
Miller v. Johnson
...upheld as a proper exercise of Congress' Fifteenth Amendment authority, into tension with the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. ____. 864 F.Supp. 1354 (S.D.Ga.1994), affirmed and KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and THOMAS, JJ., joined......
-
Reconnecting doctrine and purpose: a comprehensive approach to strict scrutiny after Adarand and Shaw.
...808 F. Supp. 461 (E.D.N.C. 1992) (No. 92-357) [hereinafter State Appellees' Brief] (citation omitted). (285) See Johnson v. Miller, 864 F. Supp. 1354, 1364 (S.D. Ga. 1994) ("Mr. Dunne also observed that, while the submitted plan properly utilized black voting potential in Atlanta and east-c......
-
A Shared Existence: the Current Compatibility of the Equal Protection Clause and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
...states" that saw challenges to congressional redistricting plans following Shaw). 122. 515 U.S. 900 (1995). 123. Johnson v. Miller, 864 F. Supp. 1354, 1360 (S.D. Ga. 1994), affd 515 U.S. 900 (1995). For a full description of the dance between the Justice Department and the Georgia Assembly ......
-
From Ashcroft to Larios: recent redistricting lessons from Georgia.
...Office from 1978-2001, as "probably the single most knowledgeable person available on the subject of Georgian redistricting." 864 F. Supp. 1354, 1361 (S.D. Ga. (83.) Interview with David Sutton, Press Secretary to Ga. Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor, in Atlanta, Ga. (Oct. 16, 2001). (84.) Interview wi......
-
Let's Not Call the Whole Thing Off Just Yet: a Response to Samuel Issacharoff's Suggestion to Scuttle Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
...debate at the state and local level often focuses on how the Department of Justice will view the changes made"); cf. Johnson v. Miller, 864 F. Supp. 1354, 1378 (S.D. Ga. 1994) (describing how state legislators' "only interest" in drafting a redistricting plan was to satisfy the Attorney Gen......