Morris v. Board of Estimate
Decision Date | 21 August 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 81 CV 3920 (ERN).,81 CV 3920 (ERN). |
Citation | 592 F. Supp. 1462 |
Parties | Beverly MORRIS; Joy Clarke Holmes; Joanne Oplustil, Plaintiffs, v. The BOARD OF ESTIMATE, The City of New York, Edward I. Koch, individually and as Mayor of New York, Carol Bellamy, individually and as City Council President, Harrison J. Goldin, individually and as Comptroller for the City of New York, Howard Golden, Andrew Stein, Stanley Simon, Donald Manes, Anthony Gaeta, each individually and as Borough Presidents of the boroughs of the City of New York, Defendants, and Frank V. Ponterio, Intervenor-Defendant, Robert A. Straniere, individually and as a member of the New York State Assembly, Intervenor-Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Richard Emery, Arthur Eisenberg, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, City of N.Y., New York City by Judith A. Levitt, Susan R. Rosenberg, for defendants.
Frank V. Ponterio, Staten Island, N.Y., pro se.
Robert A. Straniere, Staten Island, N.Y., pro se.
Alan Rothstein, Citizens Union of N.Y., New York City, amicus curiae.
John J. Marchi, Staten Island, N.Y., amicus curiae.
In December 1981, plaintiffs filed suit charging that the New York City Board of Estimate ("Board") deprived them of equal protection under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. More precisely, as Brooklyn residents, plaintiffs maintained that sections 61 and 62 of the New York City Charter, outlining the Board's legislative plan, devalued their ballots by violating the one person, one vote rule. See 1 New York City Charter & Ad.Code Ann. §§ 61-62 (Williams Press 1976 & Supp.1982-83).
In December 1982, however, the court held that the Board was not subject to that constitutional principle. The court, as a consequence, granted summary judgment to defendants — the Board and its members ("city defendants") — as well as to intervenor-defendant Frank V. Ponterio, a Staten Island resident. Morris v. Board of Estimate, 551 F.Supp. 652, 657 (E.D.N.Y.1982).
In May 1983, the Second Circuit reversed.
Morris v. Board of Estimate, 707 F.2d 686, 690 (2d Cir.1983). The Second Circuit, furthermore, remanded with instructions:
"The district court must determine the degree of malapportionment present (after deciding on the appropriate methodology for doing so) and rule on the policies and interests which the Supreme Court has held may justify deviations from the literal one person, one vote formula."
Id. (footnote omitted).
On return, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment; but, after conferring with the court, the parties stipulated that the proceedings should be bifurcated. In the first stage, the most suitable mathematical measure would be identified and superimposed over the Board's electoral scheme to ascertain the malapportionment. If more than a minor deviation were disclosed, the Supreme Court approved policies and interests served by the Board would be discerned in the second stage to settle the variance's acceptability.1
In accordance with that agreed course, the court has reviewed the submissions, the record and the law. Based on that examination, the court holds, as to the first stage issues, that the Supreme Court's methodology in Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182, 184 & n. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1904, 1906 & n. 1, 29 L.Ed.2d 399 (1971), is the appropriate standard and, when applied, reveals a 132.9% maximum deviation. The reasons impelling these holdings will be set forth after a brief relation of the limited facts pertinent to this suit's present posture.
The court and the Second Circuit have detailed the uncontested facts in the prior opinions. To forego needless repetition, reference is made to those previous treatments. Morris v. Board of Estimate, 551 F.Supp. at 653-55, rev'd, 707 F.2d at 687-88. Accordingly, only those facts particularly germane to the instant issues will be recounted.
The Board is one of New York City's governing bodies and consists of eight members, who — importantly — are a mixture of at-large (city-wide) and district (borough) representatives. As delineated in sections 61 and 62, the Mayor, Comptroller and City Council President possessing two Board votes each, are selected by the metropolitan electorate as a whole. The Borough Presidents of Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, Bronx and Staten Island (Richmond), having one Board vote each, are chosen by their respective borough constituencies.2
As manifest from the 1980 federal census, the boroughs range appreciably in population.
Borough Population Brooklyn 2,230,936 Queens 1,891,325 Manhattan 1,427,533 Bronx 1,169,115 Staten Island 352,121
Yet, notwithstanding that sweep where Brooklyn as the largest has more than six times the population of Staten Island as the smallest, each borough has but one assigned Board vote. That difference in population but equivalence in franchise is the primary basis for plaintiffs' charge that, as Brooklyn residents, the Board's legislative design violates their right to equal protection.
Broadly grouped, reapportionment disputes fall into two categories: quantitative and qualitative.
Nevett v. Sides, 571 F.2d 209, 215 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 951, 100 S.Ct. 2916, 64 L.Ed.2d 807 (1980) (emphasis added).
A distinctly qualitative suit, in contrast, transcends straightforward computations.
Corder v. Kirksey, 585 F.2d 708, 710 n. 2 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1013, 103 S.Ct. 1253, 75 L.Ed.2d 482 (1983). See also The Supreme Court 1982 Term — Elections, 97 Harv.L.Rev. 135, 139 (1983) ("Elections") () (emphasis in original) (footnotes to citations omitted).3
Here, though, plaintiffs have limited their attack to the quantitative aspect by intentionally omitting qualitative contentions. See, e.g., Pl.Br. at 28 n. 654 (). Necessarily then, as a quantitative action, this suit's outcome is governed mainly by the Board's variance from the one person, one vote principle. See, e.g., Andrews v. Koch, 528 F.Supp. 246, 252 (E.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd, 688 F.2d 815 (2d Cir.1982), aff'd sub nom. Giacobbe v. Andress, 459 U.S. 801, 103 S.Ct. 32, 74 L.Ed.2d 46 (1982) () .
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 567, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1384, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) (quoted in League of Women Voters of Nassau County v. Nassau County Board of Supervisors, 737 F.2d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 1984) ( ). See Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. at 185, 91 S.Ct. at 1906 (). See also Note, The Reapportionment Dilemma: Lessons from the Virginia Experience, 68 Va.L. Rev. 541, 569 (1982) ("Reapportionment Dilemma") ("Population equality remains the single most important factor in judicial evaluation of apportionment schemes.").
After that elemental investigation of the deviation, any subsequent steps depend on the variation exposed. In Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, ___, 103 S.Ct. 2690, 2696, 77 L.Ed.2d 214 (1983), the Supreme Court described that disparity's contingent effect on a more searching probe.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jackson v. NASSAU COUNTY BD. OF SUP'RS.
......Mackey, Elaine Nesin and David Ford, Plaintiffs, . v. . The NASSAU COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Joseph N. Mondello, Gregory P. Peterson, Benjamin L. Zwirn, Bruce Nyman, Angello A. ...of Estimate" v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 692-703, 109 S.Ct. 1433, 1437-1443, 103 L.Ed.2d 717 (1989). . \xC2"......
-
Morris v. Board of Estimate
...is assumed. See Morris v. Board of Estimate, 551 F.Supp. 652 (E.D. N.Y.1982), rev'd, 707 F.2d 686 (2d Cir.1983), on remand, 592 F.Supp. 1462 (E.D.N.Y. 1984). In brief summary, plaintiff residents of the Borough of Brooklyn instituted this action contending that, pursuant to sections 61 and ......
-
Morris v. Board of Estimate, s. 966
...to the 75.2% deviation of Staten Island as the most overrepresented borough, the court arrived at a maximum deviation or range of 132.9%. Id. at 1475. We commence by noting that the district court did not violate what we read as the mandate of this court in declining to consider citywide bo......
-
Max M. v. Thompson
....... Ralph Miller, John Collins, Brydges, Riseborough, Morris, Franke & Miller, Paul Millichap, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Ill., John A. Relias, N. Morrison Torrey, ...Thompson, Governor of Illinois; (2) the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE); (3) Donald Gill, the Illinois Superintendent of Education; and (4) Edward ......