Coleman v. Winbigler
| Docket Number | CIVIL CASE NO. 22-75-DLB-CJS |
| Decision Date | 15 July 2022 |
| Citation | 615 F.Supp.3d 563 |
| Parties | Charlie COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. Janis WINBIGLER, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky |
615 F.Supp.3d 563
Charlie COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs
v.
Janis WINBIGLER, et al., Defendants
CIVIL CASE NO. 22-75-DLB-CJS
United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division. at Covington.
Signed July 15, 2022
Brandon N. Voelker, Gatlin Voelker, PLLC, Covington, KY, Christopher David Wiest, Christopher Wiest, Atty at Law, PLLC, Crestview Hills, KY, for Plaintiffs.
Jason Vincent Reed, Covington, KY, Mary Ann Stewart, Adams Law, PLLC, Covington, KY, for Defendants Janis Winbigler, Joshua Perkins, Kimber Fender, Peggy Schultz, Richard Mason.
Jeffrey C. Mando, Adams Law, PLLC, Covington, KY, for Defendants James Luersen, Mike Jansen, Jack Snodgrass, Jim Schroer.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
David L. Bunning, United States District Judge
Sacrosanct to American Democracy is the principle of one person, one vote. This idea first emerged in Supreme Court jurisprudence in Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), but the popularized mantra was recited for the first time in Wesberry v. Sanders , which held that "one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's." 376 U.S. 1, 8, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964). Plaintiffs Charlie Coleman,
Noah Heim, Amy Dowton, and David Meyer each allege that due to a failure of Defendants, their votes for Campbell County School Board are diluted in violation of the one person, one vote principle. (See generally Doc. # 1). In order to timely address their concerns before the upcoming November election, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary or Permanent Injunction on June 8, 2022. (Doc. # 5). On July 7, 2022, Defendants Janis Winbigler, Joshua Perkins, Kimber Fender, Peggy Schultz, and Richard Mason, each sued in their official capacities as members of the Campbell County Board of Education, filed a Response opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion. (Doc. # 15). Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Reply. (Doc. # 16). Defendants James Luersen, Mike Jansen, Jack Snodgrass, and Jim Schroer, each sued in their official capacities as Campbell County Clerk, Campbell County Sheriff, and members of the Campbell County Board of Election, respectively, filed a joint Agreed Order with Plaintiffs, adopted by the Court, indicating that those Defendants agree to be bound by any order of the Court, but are not required to participate in the litigation. (Docs. # 13 and 14). On July 14, 2022, the Court held a Hearing on the Motion. (Doc. # 17). At the Hearing, the Court noted that it would enter an opinion adjudicating the Motion expeditiously. (Id. at 2). For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is granted .
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Coleman, Heim, Dowton, and Meyer are each residents and voters in Campbell County, Kentucky, who reside in the districts responsible for electing the third and fourth seat on the Campbell County School Board ("the School Board"). (Doc. # 1 ¶¶ 1-4). The School Board is comprised of five members, who are each elected from five districts. (Id. ¶ 9). Plaintiffs allege a single federal cause of action—a violation of the Equal Protection Clause under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. ¶¶ 17-24). Plaintiffs’ main contention is that two of the school board districts (Two and Four), one of which is where Plaintiffs reside, are over-populated as compared to the other districts, and thus violate the constitutional principle of "one person, one vote." (See generally Doc. # 5).
Population data from the 2020 Census gives the Court a starting point to evaluate Plaintiffs’ claims.1 Based on this data, each of the School Board districts at issue have the following populations according to the 2020 Census:
District 1
| Precinct | Population |
| Southgate C | 390 |
| Southgate D | 823 |
| Wilder | 1887 |
| Highland Heights B | 1361 |
| Johns Hill | 2132 |
| Highland Heights E | 1898 |
| TOTAL: | 8491 |
District 2
| Precinct | Population |
| Highland Heights C | 691 |
| Highland Heights D | 1337 |
| Cold Spring A | 981 |
| Cold Spring B | 1397 |
| Cold Spring C | 2153 |
| Cold Spring D | 1432 |
| Cold Spring F | 2730 |
| TOTAL: | 10721 |
District 3
?
[615 F.Supp.3d 568
District 4
| Precinct | Population |
| Alexandria B | 1452 |
| Alexandria C | 2425 |
| Alexandria D | 1521 |
| Alexandria E | 2041 |
| Alexandria F | 2474 |
| Alexandria G | 1403 |
| TOTAL: | 11316 |
District 5
| Precinct | Population |
| California | 988 |
| Claryville | 2349 |
| Grants Lick | 2860 |
| Mentor | 1102 |
| Sun Valley | 2569 |
| TOTAL: | 9869 |
Based on the alleged vote dilution occurring in the above School Board districts, Plaintiffs request the following relief: (I) a declaration that Defendants’ refusal to redraw the school board maps was unconstitutional, (II) issuance of an injunction enjoining the use of the malapportioned districts, requiring the Board of Education to draw new districts in time for the November 2022 election, (III) nominal damages for the constitutional violations complained of, and (IV) an award of costs, including attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (Doc. # 1 at 6).
II. ANALYSIS
...
To continue reading
Request your trial