Chambers v. Lautenbaugh, S-01-110.
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
| Writing for the Court | Hendry, C.J. |
| Citation | 263 Neb. 920,644 N.W.2d 540 |
| Parties | Ernie CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. Scott LAUTENBAUGH, Douglas County election commissioner, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. S-01-110.,S-01-110. |
| Decision Date | 24 May 2002 |
644 N.W.2d 540
263 Neb. 920
v.
Scott LAUTENBAUGH, Douglas County election commissioner, Appellee
No. S-01-110.
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
May 24, 2002.
Thomas G. Incontro, of Raynor, Rensch & Pfeiffer, Omaha, for appellee.
HENDRY, C.J., WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ.
Hendry, C.J.
INTRODUCTION
In August 2000, Ernie Chambers brought suit against Scott Lautenbaugh, Douglas County election commissioner, seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief relating to Lautenbaugh's act of redrawing the Omaha City Council district boundaries in August 2000 based on 1990 federal decennial census data. Lautenbaugh demurred, and on January 17, 2001, the Douglas County District Court sustained Lautenbaugh's demurrer. The court dismissed Chambers' petition with prejudice, finding that it could not be amended to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action. Chambers appealed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In his operative petition, Chambers alleged that on August 30, 2000, despite Chambers' demands that Lautenbaugh cease and desist from his announced plans to redraw the boundaries, Lautenbaugh proceeded to draw "new boundaries for the election of members of the City Council at the primary election to be held April 3, 2001 and the general election to be held May 15, 2001." Chambers further alleged that Lautenbaugh drew the new boundaries for the stated purpose of "maintain[ing] substantial equality of population among the districts." The petition asserted that Lautenbaugh exceeded his authority by drawing the new district boundaries based on 1990 federal decennial census data, rather than waiting to use the data from the 2000 federal decennial census.
Chambers also alleged in his petition that "[t]he Election Commissioner has no authority to draw district boundaries for the Omaha City Council for the purpose of maintaining substantial population equality among the districts except as set forth" in Neb. Const. art. Ill, § 5, and Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 14-201.03 (Reissue 1997) and 32-553 (Reissue 1998). The petition contended that Neb. Const. art. Ill, § 5, requires the Legislature to redistrict the state into legislative districts after each federal decennial census. According to the petition, the election commissioner, pursuant to § 32-553, must, if necessary to maintain substantial equality of population within the districts, redraw the boundaries within 6 months after passage and approval of the Legislature's bill which redistricts the state on the basis of the most recent federal decennial census.
Chambers' petition asked the district court to declare that Lautenbaugh's redrawing of the Omaha City Council district boundaries in August 2000 was unlawful, since it was done before the data from the 2000 federal decennial census was available and before the Legislature had passed legislation redistricting the state in 2001. The petition also asked the district court to declare unlawful any implementation of the new district boundaries and the consequent expenditures of employee time and public tax money. Finally, the petition
On December 15, 2000, Lautenbaugh filed a demurrer alleging that (1) the district court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, (2) the district court had no jurisdiction over Lautenbaugh, (3) Chambers had no legal capacity to sue, (4) there was a defect of parties, and (5) the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The district court held a hearing on the demurrer on January 8, 2001. On January 17, the court entered its order overruling allegations one through four of Lautenbaugh's demurrer, but sustaining allegation five on the basis that Chambers' petition failed to state a cause of action. In its order, the district court analyzed the arguments presented by Chambers and Lautenbaugh:
[Chambers] alleges that the second portion of Section 32-553 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes not only requires redistricting if necessary but also limits redistricting to the six month period of time referred to therein. [Lautenbaugh] argues that Section 14-201.03 requires the election commissioner to redraw the boundaries of Omaha's city council districts whenever they are no longer substantially equal in population and, therefore, that the election commissioner has a statutory duty and obligation to redraw the boundaries of the districts when their population is no longer substantially equal. The commissioner further argues that the basis to use to determine a redrawing of the districts was the most recent decennial census which in this case is the census taken in 1990.
The initial question is the meaning of the language in Neb.Rev.Stat. 14-201.03 which requires the commissioner to redraw the boundaries when the districts are no longer substantially equal in population pursuant to Section 32-553 (emphasis added). Does the redrawing of the districts pursuant to Section 32-553 simply mean that the redistricting is to be determined by the most recent federal decennial census or does it mean that the redistricting is to be determined by the most recent federal decennial census but only within six months after the passage and approval of the legislative bill providing for reestablishing the states [sic] legislative districts?
If the Court follows the logic and argument of [Chambers] then redistricting is to occur once every ten years, if necessary. If the Court follows the logic and argument of [Lautenbaugh] the redistricting is to occur whenever the districts are substantially unequal in population as determined by the most recent decennial census.
(Emphasis in original.)
The district court found it significant that the Legislature "in drafting Section 14-201.03 and Section 32-553 did not use limiting or restrictive terms such as `only' when mandating the redrawing of districts by the election commissioner when they became substantially unequal in population." The district court stated:
Since there is no language limiting the redrawing of districts by the election commissioner the Court further finds that the election commissioner can redraw, if necessary, districts more than the one time required in the year that the census figures are submitted to the State by the United States Department of Commerce.
On this basis, the district court found that Lautenbaugh's actions as election commissioner were lawful and that Chambers' petition could not be amended to state a
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Chambers assigns, rephrased, that the district court erred in (1) determining that his petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and (2) determining that Lautenbaugh, as Douglas County election commissioner, had the authority to redraw the Omaha City Council district boundaries before the data from the 2000 federal decennial census was available.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In considering a demurrer, a court must assume that the facts pled, as distinguished from legal conclusions, are true as alleged and must give the pleading the benefit of any reasonable inference from the facts alleged, but cannot assume the existence of facts not alleged, make factual findings to aid the pleading, or consider evidence which might be adduced at trial. Malone v. American Bus. Info., 262 Neb. 733, 634 N.W.2d 788 (2001).
In determining whether a cause of action has been stated, the petition is to be construed liberally. If as so construed the petition states a cause of action, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Heineman, S–14–158
...N.W.2d 288 (1999).66 Id. at 808, 594 N.W.2d at 293.67 State ex rel. Reed, 278 Neb. at 571, 773 N.W.2d at 355.68 Chambers v. Lautenbaugh, 263 Neb. 920, 644 N.W.2d 540 (2002).69 See Project Extra Mile, supra note 40.70 Id.71 Id. at 389–90, 810 N.W.2d at 159–60 (emphasis supplied).72 See, e.g.......
-
In re Guardianship of Tschumy, A12–2179.
...5 (Mo.1972) ; State ex rel. Ronish v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Fergus Cnty., 136 Mont. 453, 348 P.2d 797, 800 (1960) ; Chambers v. Lautenbaugh, 263 Neb. 920, 644 N.W.2d 540, 547 (2002) ; State v. Glusman, 98 Nev. 412, 651 P.2d 639, 643 (1982) ; State v. Swift, 101 N.H. 340, 143 A.2d 114, 116 (19......
-
Rath v. City of Sutton, S-02-1174.
...action to enjoin the illegal expenditure of public funds raised for governmental purposes. (Emphasis supplied.) Chambers v. Lautenbaugh, 263 Neb. 920, 928, 644 N.W.2d 540, 547-48 (2002). See, also, Wasikowski v. Nebraska Quality Jobs Bd., 264 Neb. 403, 648 N.W.2d 756 (2002); State ex rel. S......
-
Manker v. Manker, S-01-736.
...this action, and she offered no testimony which could fairly be interpreted as an explanation or justification for the delay. On appeal, 644 N.W.2d 540 Karen did not argue equitable estoppel as a basis for tolling the limitations period, but, rather, contended that "a putative spouse is not......