Cummings v. Meskill
| Decision Date | 12 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 14736. |
| Citation | 341 F. Supp. 139 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Theodore R. CUMMINGS et al., Plaintiffs, and Nancy Aronie et al., Intervenors, v. Thomas H. MESKILL, Governor of the State of Connecticut, et al., Defendants, and J. Brian Gaffney, Intervenor. |
Robert Satter (Satter, Fleischmann & Sherbacow), and James A. Wade, Hartford, Conn., for plaintiffs.
David B. Beizer, for intervening plaintiffs.
Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen., State of Connecticut, and Raymond J. Cannon, and Barney Lapp, Asst. Attys. Gen., Hartford, Conn., for defendants.
Francis J. McCarthy, and Harry W. Hultgren, Jr., Hartford, Conn., for intervening defendant.
Before SMITH, Circuit Judge, and BLUMENFELD and ZAMPANO, District Judges.
Stay Granted June 12, 1972. See 92 S.Ct. 2441.
This action challenges the Reapportionment Plan for the Connecticut General Assembly devised by a Board of three members, the last available link in a chain of methods mandated by the Connecticut Constitution for the production of a plan of reapportionment for the 1972 elections. The plaintiffs are U. S. citizens, residents of towns in Connecticut, taxpayers, and registered voters. They claim that the Plan violates the Fourteenth Amendment because the deviations from mathematical equality among the districts are impermissibly large, particularly since they have not been justified on the basis of the pursuit of legitimate state policies. They also claim that residents of certain tracts have been entirely omitted from the Plan and that one assembly district is not contiguous. Intervenors Aronie et al. claim that the methods for appointment of personnel for drawing the Plan as well as the Plan ultimately produced deny unaffiliated voters a voice and are therefore unconstitutional. The defendants are officials of the State of Connecticut responsible for enforcing its laws, particularly the Secretary of the State, who is responsible for the conduct of elections. J. Brian Gaffney, intervening as an individual elector of New Britain, argues that the Plan is constitutional, that in any case this court should abstain pending state court action, and that inadvertent errors of omission and lack of contiguity may be corrected, preferably in a state court action now pending.
The action arises under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. Jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and 1343(4). Plaintiffs seek a temporary and permanent injunction restraining the officers of the state from holding elections in accordance with the present Plan and for further delineation of the rights of the parties.
A three-judge district court was convened to hear and determine the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284.
The Connecticut Constitution, adopted following the successful attack on the former system of apportionment in Butterworth v. Dempsey, 229 F.Supp. 754 (D.Conn.), aff'd Franklin v. Butterworth, 378 U.S. 564, 84 S.Ct. 1918, 12 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1964), and 237 F.Supp. 302 (D.Conn.1965), requires that the Senate consist of 30 to 50 members and that each senatorial district be contiguous as to territory. The House must consist of from 125 to 225 members; each district is to be contiguous as to territory and no town can be divided except for the purpose of forming assembly districts wholly within the town. Article Third, §§ 3, 4.1 The Constitution also requires that the establishment of districts comply with federal constitutional standards. Article Third, § 5.2
The Connecticut Constitution of 1965 provides further for decennial reapportionment by the General Assembly by two-thirds vote of each house at the first regular session next after the completion of the United States census provided that if the Assembly fails to act by the first of April, a Commission of eight members designated as provided in the Constitution should submit a plan to the Secretary of the State by the first of July and failing timely action by the Commission, a Board of three persons consisting of two Superior Court judges chosen respectively by the Speaker of the House and the Minority Leader of the House and a third member, an elector, selected by the two members so designated is required to submit a plan of districting to the Secretary of the State by October first. When the Assembly and the Commission failed timely to submit a plan, pursuant to this provision Superior Court Judges George A. Saden and Leo Parskey were chosen and in turn selected Justice John R. Thim as the third member of the Board. A plan was approved and adopted by two members of the Board, Judge Saden and Justice Thim, and submitted on September 30, 1971 to the Secretary of the State. The third member of the Board, Judge Parskey, did not approve of the Plan and submitted a minority report. The Plan reapportions the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut.
The population of the State of Connecticut, according to the 1970 census, is 3,032,217.
The Plan provides for a House of Representatives consisting of 151 members, each elected from a single assembly district. With a population of 3,032,217 and 151 assembly districts, the perfect number of people in each assembly district should be 20,081.
The Plan provides for a Senate consisting of 36 senators, each elected from a single senatorial district. With a population of 3,032,217 and 36 senatorial districts, the perfect number of people in each senatorial district should be 84,228.
The population of assembly districts created by the Plan deviates from the perfect average of 20,081 by a maximum of plus 3.93% or 789 people, and by a minimum of 3.90% or 784 people for a total deviation of 7.83%.
In 39 assembly districts under the Plan or 25.83% of the 151 assembly districts, the population deviates from the perfect average of 20,081 by plus or minus 3.0% to 3.93%. The population of 34 assembly districts, 22.52% of the total, deviates by plus or minus 2.0% to 2.99%; the population of 47 assembly districts, 31.12% of the total, deviates from 1.0% to 1.99%; and the population of the remaining 31 assembly districts of the total of 151 assembly districts, 20.53% of the total, deviates from 0.0% to 0.99%.
The average deviation from perfect equality for all the assembly districts under the Plan is 399 people or 1.9% and a mean deviation from perfect equality for all the assembly districts is 373 people or 1.8%.
The ratio of the largest assembly district to the smallest assembly district under the Plan is 1.082 to 1.
The population of senatorial districts created by the Plan deviates from the perfect average of 84,228 by a maximum of plus 0.88% or 745 people and by a minimum of minus 0.93% or 787 people for a total deviation of 1.81%. The average deviation from perfect equality for all the senatorial districts is 379 people or .45% and a mean deviation from perfect equality for all the senatorial districts is 392 people or .47%.
The ratio of the largest senatorial district to the smallest senatorial district under the Plan is 1.018 to 1.
The smallest number of people needed to elect a majority in the House of Representatives (sometimes known as the electoral percentage) is 49.33%.
The smallest number of people needed to elect a majority in the Senate (the electoral percentage) is 52.54%.
The boundary lines of 47 towns are cut under the Plan so that one or more portions of each of these 47 towns are added to another town or a portion of another town to form an assembly district.
Twenty-nine of the aforesaid 47 towns have their boundary lines cut more than once resulting in more than one portion of the town being added to another town or a portion of another town to form an assembly district. If a segment of a town is defined as a portion of a town being used to form an assembly district not wholly within that town, the Plan creates 78 segments of towns in the formation of 151 assembly districts.
The formation of 55 of the 151 assembly districts involved the segmenting of towns and 96 assembly districts are wholly within town boundaries or are formed by the combination of entire towns.
Twenty-three towns are segmented to create senatorial districts under the Plan.
The boundary lines of assembly districts do not mesh with the boundary lines of senatorial districts. Eighty-one assembly districts under the Plan are not located entirely within a senatorial district and in 48 of these 81 assembly districts, a division between two senatorial districts occurs within a town.
The smallest units of census data available to the Reapportionment Board were block groups within census tracts and enumeration districts. The average population of block groups is between 1200 and 1250 people. The average population of enumeration districts is between 750 and 800 people. There is a total of approximately 2750 block groups and enumeration districts; of these about 80% are block groups and about 20% are enumeration districts. Of these approximately 2750 census areas the Board had to work with, the average area contained approximately 1100 people, and the mean area contained approximately 1000 people; 88% of this total of 2750 areas exceeded 400 people in size.
Annexed hereto is a breakdown of the population of senatorial and assembly districts prepared by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, from the results of the census as of April 1, 1970.3
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
In developing the Plan, Mr. Collins, acting for the Board under the direction of Judge Saden, gave principal weight to two considerations in Senate and House districting, numerical equality and a partisan balancing of strength in each house, and in the House districting also the undesirability of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mahan v. Howell City of Virginia Beach v. Howell Weinberg v. Prichard 8212 364, 71 8212 373 71 8212 444
...S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964); Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695, 84 S.Ct. 1449, 12 L.Ed.2d 620-(1964). 3. See, e.g., Cummings v. Meskill, 341 F.Supp. 139 (D.Conn.1972) (maximum deviation for House, 7.83%, and for Senate, 1.81%); In re Legislative Districting of General Assembly, Iowa, 193......
-
Calvin v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
...seem to focus on equalizing census population across districts as an end in and of itself. See, e.g. , Cummings v. Meskill , 341 F.Supp. 139 (D.Conn.1972) (three-judge panel), rev'd sub nom. Gaffney v. Cummings , 412 U.S. 735, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 37 L.Ed.2d 298 (1973). And courts, including the ......
-
Raleigh Wake Citizens Ass'n v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Elections
...districts with a population deviation above 3% and 73 House districts with a population deviation above 2%. See Cummings v. Meskill, 341 F.Supp. 139, 142 (D.Conn.1972) (three-judge court) (opinion below). Moreover, the enacted House plan cut the boundary lines of 47 of Connecticut's 169 tow......
-
Ajello v. Schaffer
...it failed to meet the constitutional imperative of "one man, one vote." All of this is more fully set out in Cummings v. Meskill, 341 F.Supp. 139 (D.Conn.1972) (3-Judge District Court), and need not be repeated here. The order of the three-judge district court holding the board plan unconst......