Beens v. Erdahl, 4-71-Civil 151.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-71-Civil 151.,4-71-Civil 151. |
| Parties | Richard A. BEENS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Arlen ERDAHL, Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, et al., Defendants, The Sixty-seventh Minnesota State Senate, Intervenor, Roland H. Crawford, et al., Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Alan W. Weinblatt, Berde, Leonard & Weinblatt, St. Paul, Minn., for Richard A. Beens, and others.
John M. Mason, Sol. Gen., St. Paul, Minn., for Arlen Erdahl.
Robert O. O'Neill, Scott County Atty., Shakopee, Minn., for Joseph W. Noterman, Scott County Auditor.
William Young, Asst. Hennepin County Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for George B. Hickey, Hennepin County Auditor.
W. R. Glaeser, Carver County Atty., Chaska, Minn., for William J. Schneider, Carver County Auditor.
Robert M. A. Johnson, Jr., Asst. Anoka County Atty., Anoka, Minn., for Charles LeFebvre, Anoka County Auditor.
Frank Hammond, Richard H. Kyle, Jr., Briggs & Morgan, St. Paul, Minn., for intervenors, Crawford, King and Voss.
H. Blair Klein, Bruce D. Campbell, St. Paul, Minn., for intervenor Sixty-seventh Minnesota State Senate.
James T. Hale and Gregory R. Howard, Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, Minn., for Democratic Farmer Labor Party of Minnesota and others, amicus curiae.
A. M. Keith, Rochester, Minn., for Americans for Democratic Action, Minnesota Chapter, amicus curiae.
Jack Fena, in pro. per. and for Rudy Perpich, Hibbing, and Earl B. Gustafson, Harper, Eaton, Gustafson & Wilson, Duluth, Minn., for Rudy Perpich and Jack Fena, amicus curiae.
Joseph P. Summers, Rosen, Ravich & Summers, St. Paul, Minn., for Minnesota Farmers' Union and others, amicus curiae.
Joseph A. Maun, Lawrence J. Hayes and Garrett E. Mulrooney, Maun, Hazel, Green, Hayes, Simons & Aretz, St. Paul, Minn., for Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation, amicus curiae.
Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, DEVITT, Chief District Judge, and LARSON, District Judge.
ORDER AND PLAN OF APPORTIONMENT
This action has been pending for nearly ten months. During that time, there have been many hearings, as well as numerous briefs and motions. In order to clarify the nature of the problem involved and the Court's resolution of that problem, we outline the history of the litigation.
On April 9, 1971, the plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking to have the Court declare the Minnesota legislative apportionment statutes unconstitutional. They also asked the Court to enjoin future elections under the present apportionment statutes and to devise a plan of reapportionment which would meet the equal protection standards of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On June 25, 1971, Chief Judge M. C. Matthes, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, designated a three judge panel to hear the matter. Those named were Gerald W. Heaney, Circuit Judge, Edward J. Devitt, Chief Judge for the District of Minnesota, and Earl R. Larson, Judge for the District of Minnesota, before whom the case had been filed.
During the initial months of the litigation, the 67th Session of the Minnesota Legislature continued to meet in regular session, fully aware of this lawsuit and the reapportionment problem generally. No reapportionment plan was adopted during the regular session of the Legislature. Following adjournment of the regular session in May, the Governor called a special session of the Legislature, which continued to meet throughout most of the summer, took a brief recess and then reconvened in October.
On September 21, 1971, while still in special session, the Minnesota State Senate moved to intervene as a defendant in this action. On October 6, Roland H. Crawford, James M. King and Robert C. Voss petitioned the Court for leave to intervene. On October 12, both motions to intervene were heard before Judge Larson, and on October 15, Judge Larson filed a Memorandum Order granting the motions.
On October 26, a pretrial conference was held. Procedural matters were discussed, and a formal hearing was scheduled for November 5.
On October 29, 1971, the Legislature passed a reapportionment plan. On October 30, the Legislature adjourned sine die. On November 1, 1971, the Governor vetoed the reapportionment bill.
The November 5th hearing was held as scheduled. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court established a time schedule for the parties to meet in the resolution of the litigation.
By November 13, the parties were to suggest criteria to be used in apportioning the Legislature; by December 7, they were to submit proposals for apportioning the Legislature; and by December 21, the parties were to submit final comments on the plans of others. This time schedule was established in light of the nearly total agreement of the parties that a plan of apportionment would have to be ready by the end of January if the electoral process was to proceed in an orderly fashion.
On November 8, the Court granted leave to the Democratic Farmer Labor Party of Minnesota and certain related committees and individuals to appear as amici curiae.
On the same date, the parties filed a stipulation setting forth the relevant mathematical and statistical data regarding the then current plan of apportionment.
On November 15, the Court filed an Order finding:
(1) that it had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the lawsuit;
(2) that the challenged scheme of apportionment, as set out in Minnesota Statutes 1969, Sections 2.021 through 2.712, was constitutionally defective in the following ways:
(3) that the current apportionment of the Minnesota Legislature, in light of these disparities, failed to meet the standards of the United States Constitution;
(4) that the Minnesota Legislature had adjourned sine die and was not scheduled to reconvene until after the 1972 general elections; and
(5) that, having no reason to believe that the State would enact a new plan of apportionment before the 1972 general elections, the Court should proceed to adopt a constitutional apportionment plan for the 1972 general elections.
Having made these findings, the Court took the following action:
(1) it declared Minnesota Statutes 1969, Sections 2.021 through 2.712, to be in violation of the United States Constitution;
(2) it enjoined the defendants, including Arlen Erdahl, Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, and all County Auditors of the State of Minnesota, from holding or conducting any future elections under the invalid apportionment statutes;
(3) it appointed two Special Masters to aid in devising a new apportionment plan;
(4) it adopted a time schedule to be adhered to by the parties in submitting to the Court suggested criteria, plans of apportionment, and comments concerning the apportionment proposals of the other parties.
Subsequently, several of the parties, intervenors, and amici curiae suggested criteria to be used in apportioning the State and filed memoranda in support of these suggestions.
On October 17, 1971, Representative Jack Fena and Lt. Governor Rudy Perpich requested leave to appear as amicus curiae for the purpose of submitting a plan of apportionment based on a 33-member Senate and a 99-member House.
On November 22, a hearing was held to permit the parties to argue their positions with respect to the criteria to be used by the Court. The motion of Fena and Perpich to appear as amicus curiae was argued, submitted and taken under advisement.
On November 24, the parties stipulated which maps and basic census data were to be used in submitting plans of reapportionment.
On November 26, the Court filed two Orders. The first Order set out in detail the format to be followed by the parties in submitting suggested plans of apportionment.
The second Order set out the basic criteria to be considered by the Court in adopting a plan of apportionment. The Court ordered that all districts were to be single member, compact and contiguous, and of equal population. It was also established that "minor deviations" not to exceed 2% would be considered if they facilitated the maintenance of political subdivision boundaries. No consideration was to be given to the residence of incumbent legislators or to the voting pattern of electors. The Court also set Thursday, December 2, as the date for argument on the question of a reduction in the size of the Legislature. Finally, the Court granted leave to appear as amicus curiae to Representative Fena and Lt. Governor Perpich, and to the Minnesota Chapter of Americans of Democratic Action.
In a memorandum accompanying its November 15th Order, the Court outlined its initial views on the subject of the size of the Minnesota Legislature. Indicating its preference to reduce the size of both houses of the Legislature, the Court stated its intention not to do so without further briefs and argument on the issue.
At the December 2nd hearing, all interested parties, intervenors and amici curiae were permitted to express their views regarding the appropriate size of the Legislature. The motion of the Minnesota Farmer's Union to intervene in opposition to a reduction in size was heard. The Farmer's Union was allowed to express its views on the merits of its motion.
On December 3, the Court entered an Order finding that the Minnesota Legislature could best be apportioned, in accordance with the Constitution and with due regard for State policy, by dividing the State into 35 equally populated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minnesota State Senate v. Beens 8212 1024, 71 8212 1145
...1972. PER CURIAM. These two appeals are taken by the Minnesota State Senate from orders of a three-judge Federal District Court, Beens v. Erdahl, 336 F.Supp. 715, reapportioning the Minnesota Legislature. The appeals do not challenge the District Court's conclusion that the legislature is n......
-
LaComb v. Growe, Civ. No. 4-81-414.
...403 U.S. 124, 91 S.Ct. 1858, 29 L.Ed.2d 363 (1971). Ten years ago, the Supreme Court overturned this court's decision in Beens v. Erdahl, 336 F.Supp. 715 (D.Minn.1972), reducing the size of the Minnesota Legislature in its court-ordered plan. The Supreme Court had no difficulty in discernin......
-
Apportionment of Van Buren County Bd. of Com'rs-1972, In re
...of 13 plans, ranging from 5-man to 14-man boards were considered.8 M.C.L.A. § 46.402; M.S.A. § 5.359(2).9 On point is Beens v. Erdahl, 336 F.Supp. 715 (D.Minn.1972) where a Federal district court ordered the size of the Minnesota Legislature reduced for the purpose of achieving districts of......
-
Parsons v. Hickey
...District Court. Originally, the Federal court redistricted the state and substantially reduced the number of legislators. Beens v. Erdahl, 336 F.Supp. 715 (D.Minn.1972). That decision was set aside by the Supreme Court of the United States. Sixty-seventh Minnesota State Senate v. Beens, 406......
-
Do Multimember Districts Lead to Free‐Riding?
...in the American States.” American Political Science Review 96:767–77.Baker v. Carr. 1962. 369 U.S. 186.Beens v. Erdahl. 1972. 336 F. Supp. 715 (D. Minn).Burns v. Richardson. 1965. 384 U.S. 73.Banzhaf, John F. III. 1965. “Weighted Voting Doesn’t Work: A Mathematical Analysis.”Rutgers Law Rev......