City of Janesville v. Rock County
| Citation | 319 N.W.2d 891,107 Wis.2d 187 |
| Decision Date | 19 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-2241,81-2241 |
| Parties | CITY OF JANESVILLE, City of Beloit and City of Edgerton, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. COUNTY OF ROCK, Rock County Board of Supervisors, and Gregory A. Seefeldt, Rock County Clerk, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Wisconsin |
Robert D. Sundby, Madison (argued), for defendants-appellants; Victor Moyer, Corp. Counsel, Janesville, and DeWitt, Sundby, Huggett & Schumacher, Madison, of counsel, on brief.
Berta S. Hoesly, Janesville (argued), for plaintiffs-respondents; Daniel T. Kelley, Beloit, and Jeffrey T. Roethe, Edgerton, on brief.
Before GARTZKE, P. J., and DYKMAN and CANE, JJ.
Rock County, its board of supervisors and its clerk have appealed from the judgment of the circuit court in an action brought by the Cities of Janesville, Beloit and Edgerton, all located in Rock County. The dispute relates to the adjustment of the cities' election subdivisions (wards) and the county's supervisory districts following the 1980 federal census.
After the 1980 census, Rock County adopted a tentative plan to redraw its supervisory districts, which were last redrawn following the 1970 census. The plaintiff cities adjusted their ward boundaries to conform with that plan. The county then abandoned its tentative plan, adopted a second tentative plan and sent a letter to the cities asking that they adjust their wards to the second tentative plan. The cities commenced this action, arguing that they could not be compelled to readjust their wards a second time and that the county must adopt its original tentative plan, with minor changes.
The trial court agreed with the cities and entered a declaratory judgment requiring the county to adopt its original tentative plan. We affirm.
Wisconsin law (with exceptions not pertinent to this appeal) requires cities, villages and towns with a population of 1,000 or more to establish wards following publication of the final result of the federal decennial census. 1 Wis.Stat.Ann. sec. 5.15(1)(a) and (2)(a) (West 1981 pocket part). 2 The wards are used to form election districts of substantially equal population. Sec. 5.02(25), Stats. Municipal wards have been described as the "basic building blocks to be used by the legislature, county boards and municipal governing bodies in redistricting their respective election districts." 3
The 1981 legislature modified the procedure for adjusting municipal wards and their use as "building blocks" by counties when adjusting supervisory districts. Prior to ch. 4, Laws of 1981, the law required the county board to adjust its supervisory districts on the basis of the municipal wards after the cities, villages and towns adjusted their wards. Thus, sec. 5.15(1)(a), Stats.1979, required each municipality to adjust its wards within ninety days after the population count established in the decennial census became available. Section 59.03(3)(b), Stats.1979, provided that within ninety days after every municipality in the county had adjusted its wards, the county board "shall establish ... supervisory districts ... in such manner that by combining contiguous whole wards each [county] supervisor shall represent as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants."
Chapter 4, Laws of 1981, changed this procedure. The process is now divided into three periods of sixty days each. The county board initiates the first stage by adopting a "tentative plan" for dividing the county into supervisory districts of substantially equal population, after soliciting "suggestions from municipalities concerning development of an appropriate plan." Wis.Stat.Ann. sec. 59.03(3)(b)1 (West 1981 pocket part). The municipalities must adjust their wards within the next sixty days, giving "consideration to the tentative plan" and making "a good faith effort to accommodate the tentative plan submitted by the county ...." Wis.Stat.Ann. sec. 5.15(1)(b) and (2)(d) (West 1981 pocket part). In the third and last stage, the county board must adopt its "final" supervisory district plan within sixty days after each municipality has adjusted its wards. Wis.Stat.Ann. sec. 59.03(3)(b)2 (West 1981 pocket part). 4
April 13, 1981 Rock County received the population count established by the 1980 decennial census. June 11, 1981 the county board adopted a tentative plan fixing the boundaries of its supervisory districts and submitted the plan to the cities. Each city subsequently redrew its ward boundaries by ordinance to satisfy statutory requirements and to conform to the county's tentative plan. Each city forwarded its plan to the county. All other municipalities in Rock County required to adopt new ward boundaries did so and forwarded their plans to Rock County. The adjustment of wards was completed September 21, 1981.
October 8, 1981 the Rock County Board defeated a resolution which would have adopted a final plan establishing supervisory districts based on the plan tentatively adopted June 11, 1981. October 22, 1981 the Rock County Board established a new tentative plan. 5 The new plan does not include and utilize the readjusted ward boundaries adopted by the plaintiff cities. It contains supervisory districts that are not contiguous with the newly adopted ward boundaries of each plaintiff or with the newly adopted aldermanic districts of Edgerton. 6
October 23, 1981 the Rock County clerk wrote to the clerks of the plaintiff cities and several other municipalities in the county. The letter states that October 22 the county board adopted a new tentative plan, encloses a map showing the new districts and states that the recipient municipality "has until November 12, 1981 to review the tentative plan and to create voting wards which would accommodate" the new plan. The letter states that the county board "ask[s]" the municipality to create voting wards in accordance with the map. It concludes, "We ask your cooperation in this matter and if your municipality is not going to comply with this request, please contact the County Planning Office in writing by November 10, 1981."
The county asserts that, in the absence of an abuse of discretion, fraud or arbitrary action, the judiciary cannot compel a legislative body such as a county board to adopt or refrain from adopting particular reapportionment legislation. The contention misses the mark. The issue is whether judicial relief is available if a county fails to follow the statutory requirements for redistricting. We hold that judicial relief is available.
The judiciary can grant relief from an invalid legislative apportionment or the legislature's failure to apportion. Thus, if the legislature enacts an apportionment contrary to the state constitution, "then it is the duty of the courts to hold the same unconstitutional." State ex rel. Reynolds v. Zimmerman, 22 Wis.2d 544, 562, 126 N.W.2d 551, 561-62 (1964), quoting State ex rel. Broughton v. Zimmerman, 261 Wis. 398, 413, 52 N.W.2d 903, 910 (1952). When the legislature failed to adopt and execute a final plan of apportionment which conformed to art. IV, sec. 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution, the supreme court of this state granted affirmative judicial relief in the form of an apportionment plan. State ex rel. Reynolds, 23 Wis.2d 606, 128 N.W.2d 16, 128 N.W.2d 349, enforcing 22 Wis.2d 544, 571, 126 N.W.2d 551, 566 (1964).
The judiciary has granted relief on the county level when representation on the board of supervisors was constitutionally inadequate. State ex rel. Sonneborn v. Sylvester, 26 Wis.2d 43, 56-57, 132 N.W.2d 249, 256 (1965). The Sonneborn court declared that sec. 59.03(2), Stats.1963, establishing the composition of county boards, was unconstitutional because it did not adequately consider population. 7
The Sonneborn court noted that "the legislature in ch. 59, Stats., has granted a substantial bundle of legislative powers to county boards and may grant additional substantial powers." 26 Wis.2d at 56, 132 N.W.2d at 256. The court reasoned that since the composition of the legislature must conform to the principle of equal representation, the composition of an elected county board empowered to enact local legislation must conform to the same principle. 26 Wis.2d at 57, 132 N.W.2d at 256. The court ordered that if a system of county government in accordance with constitutional standards was not provided, application could be made to the court for "appropriate relief." 26 Wis.2d at 62, 132 N.W.2d at 258.
If the courts can compel the legislature to provide adequate representation on the state or county level, then certainly the courts can compel a county to follow the districting procedure mandated by the legislature for achieving adequate representation.
Counties have an absolute duty to establish supervisory districts as directed by the legislature. That Wis.Stat.Ann. sec. 59.03(3)(b) (West 1981 pocket part) imposes mandatory action on the county in the first and third stages in the formation of supervisory districts is not questioned. Our supreme court has "reaffirmed the principle that counties are creatures of the Legislature and their powers must be exercised within the scope of authority ceded to them by the state ...." Dane County v. H&SS Dept., 79 Wis.2d 323, 329-30, 255 N.W.2d 539, 543 (1977).
In governmental matters, the county is simply the arm of the state; the state may direct its action as it deems best and the county cannot complain or refuse to obey. McDougall v. Racine County, 156 Wis. 663, 146 N.W. 794 (1914). Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District v. Committee on Water Pollution, 260 Wis. 229, 50 N.W.2d 424 (1951).
79 Wis.2d at 330, 325 N.W.2d at 543.
How the county divides its supervisory districts is not subject to inquiry on this appeal. The specific number of supervisory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Putnam v. Time Warner Cable
....... Wausau Tile, Inc. v. County Concrete Corp., 226 Wis. 2d 235, 245, 593 N.W.2d 445 (1999) (citations ...Allen, 89 Wis. 98, 61 N.W. 361 (1894); G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. City" of LaCrosse, 105 Wis. 2d 152, 312 N.W. 2d 875 (Ct. App. 1981) . . \xC2"...2d 402, 407, 153 N.W.2d 523 (1967) ; see also City of Janesville v. Rock County, 107 Wis. 2d 187, 199, 319 N.W.2d 891 (1982) ; Sova v. ......
-
Tammi v. Porsche Cars North America
...by this court." State v. Armstead, 220 Wis.2d 626, 631, 583 N.W.2d 444 (Ct.App.1998); see also City of Janesville v. County of Rock, 107 Wis.2d 187, 199, 319 N.W.2d 891 (Ct.App.1982) ("Courts will not render merely advisory ¶ 4 We answer the fourth certified question as follows: The plain l......
-
Milwaukee Police Ass'n v. Ziarnik
...(emphasis added).16 Mogilka v. Jeka, 131 Wis.2d 459, 467, 389 N.W.2d 359, 362 (Ct.App.1986).17 City of Janesville v. Rock County, 107 Wis.2d 187, 200, 319 N.W.2d 891, 897-98 (Ct.App.1982).18 Wisconsin's Envtl. Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 69 Wis.2d 1, 13, 230 N.W.2d 243, 249 (1975).19 State ex rel.......
-
Western Leather Lofts Condominium Association, Inc. v. Busalacchi, No. 2009AP1451 (Wis. App. 6/15/2010)
...in Tammi). The requirement of ripeness allows courts to refuse to render advisory opinions. See City of Janesville v. County of Rock, 107 Wis. 2d 187, 199, 319 N.W.2d 891 (Ct. App. 1982) ("Courts will not render merely advisory opinions."). Our standard of review of whether a controversy is......