Nation v. San Juan Cnty.

• Decision Date: 09 December 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:12-cv-00039
• Citation: 150 F.Supp.3d 1253
• Parties: Navajo Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe, et al., Plaintiffs, v. San Juan County, a Utah governmental subdivision, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Utah

150 F.Supp.3d 1253

Navajo Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.San Juan County, a Utah governmental subdivision, Defendant.

Case No. 2:12-cv-00039

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division.

Signed December 9, 2015

Eric P. Swenson, Salt Lake City, UT, Katherine Belzowski, D. Harrison Tsosie, Navajo Nation Department of Justice, Window Rock, AZ, Maya Leonard Kane, Steven C. Boos, Maynes Bradford Shipps & Sheftel, Durango, CO, for Plaintiffs.

Britton R. Butterfield, Carl F. Huefner, Jesse C. Trentadue, Suitter Axland, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

ROBERT J. SHELBY

, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Navajo Nation and several individual tribe members (collectively Navajo Nation) bring suit against Defendant San Juan County claiming voting-related violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973

. (Dkt. 75.)

Navajo Nation contends in its Fourth Claim for Relief that San Juan County's School Board districts violate the one-person, one-vote guarantee of the Equal Protection Clause. Reynolds v. Sims , 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964)

. Navajo Nation and San Juan County filed cross-motions for summary judgment on this claim. (Dkt. Nos. 173, 221.)

For the reasons stated below, the court grants Navajo Nation's motion for summary judgment and denies San Juan County's motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

A. The San Juan County School Board

San Juan County covers approximately 8,100 miles in southeastern Utah. According to the 2010 census, it has 14,746 citizens. (Dkt. 198, p. 31.) Among those citizens are some 3,000 children who attend San Juan County schools: six elementary schools, one middle school, and five high schools. (Dkt. 221, p. 3.); (Dkt. 221–1.)¹ The education of those children is the ultimate responsibility of the San Juan County School Board. Among other duties, the Board sets students' curricula, administers required state tests, tracks the progress of students and teachers, and cares for school buildings. Utah Code Ann. § 53A–3–402

; see Dkt. 221, pp. 24-25.

Like other school boards within Utah, the San Juan County School Board operates subject to state law requirements, set forth by statute. Three of these requirements are most relevant to the present motions. First, by law, the board of education for a school district of San Juan County's student population must consist of five members, each elected from a single member district. Utah Code Ann. § 20A–14–202(1)(a), (h)

. Members must be registered voters who are residents of the districts they will represent, and must have lived in that district for at least one year. Utah Code Ann. § 20A–14–202(2) -(3). Second, counties are required to “divide the school district so that the local school board districts are substantially equal in population and are as contiguous and compact as practicable.” Utah Code Ann. § 20A–14–201(1)(b). Finally, a county “shall reapportion district boundaries to meet the population, compactness, and contiguity requirements” set forth above “at least once every 10 years.”² Utah Code Ann. § 20A–14–201(2)(a)(i).

The San Juan County School Board has five school board members, each elected from one single-member district. (Dkt. 221, p. 24.) Each of the districts contains two or three schools of the twelve public schools in the County. (Dkt. 221–1.) The County Commission established these districts in 1992, and has not redrawn them since that time. (Dkt. 260, p. 25.)

At present, based on the results of the 2010 census, the districts have the following characteristics:

District 1, which includes La Sal Elementary, Monticello Elementary, and Monticello High, and is located in the northern part of the County, has a population of 3,285;

District 2, which includes Albert R. Lyman Middle and San Juan High, and is located in the center of the County, including a portion of Blanding, has a population of 2,820;

District 3, which includes Blanding Elementary and Bluff Elementary, and is located in the center and southeast portion of the County, including a portion of Blanding, has a population of 2,899;

District 4, which includes Montezuma Creek Elementary and Whitehorse High, and is located in the southeastern part of the County, has a population of 3,060; and

District 5, which includes Tse'bii'nidzisgai Elementary, Monument Valley High, and Navajo Mountain High, and is located in the south and southwestern part of the County, has a population of 2,195. (Dkt. Nos. 221, pp. 29-31; 221-1.)³

The districts are of unequal population, and have been since the time they were first drawn. To assess how unequal the districts' populations are, the benchmark is an ideal population distribution. If, for instance, 10,000 persons reside in a county with five school board districts, and each district contains 2,000 persons, then the population is distributed ideally within those districts. In the case of San Juan County, adjusting for those citizens within and without the School Board's jurisdiction (see above, p. 2, n.1), the ideal population distribution would be 2,852 persons per election district. (Dkt. 260, p. 21.) To calculate the total deviation from an ideal population distribution, experts typically look to the sum of two values: (1) the percentage deviation above the ideal distribution of the district with the largest population size; and (2) the absolute value of the percentage deviation below the ideal distribution of the district with the smallest population size. If the ideal population is thought of as sea level, this is the distance from the highest population peak to the lowest population valley.

Both parties agree that the San Juan County School Board districts deviate substantially from an ideal population distribution, where districts would be of equal size. Navajo Nation's expert, William Cooper, found a deviation of 37.69% from an “ideal”; San Juan County's expert, Kimball William Brace, found a deviation of 38.22%. (Dkt. 221, p. 31.) In either calculation, this percentage represents the combined deviations of District 1, which has the most members, and District 5, which has the least. District 3 and 4 have greater populations than an ideal distribution, while District 2 has a lesser population. In these three districts, the deviations are more moderate, and are less than 10% above or below an ideal population distribution.

B. Litigation Context

Navajo Nation brings four voting-related claims in this case, the first and second concerning the San Juan County Commission, and the third and fourth concerning the San Juan County School Board. The first three claims rest on allegations that election districts within the County are racially discriminatory, in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment (for the Commission) and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (for the Commission and the Board). Navajo Nation has made clear that it seeks in this lawsuit to redress an alleged historical pattern of racial discrimination in the County.

The Fourth Claim for Relief stands apart from the broader allegations of the litigation. Where the first three claims are based on alleged racial discrimination, the fourth rests only on the unequal distribution of population in the School Board election districts drawn by the County. Here, Navajo Nation need only prove that the election districts violate the one-person, one-vote demand of the Equal Protection Clause, recognized by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims , 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964)

. Though Reynolds and its progeny are not blind to the issue of race, and bear the unmistakable historical imprint of struggles to secure voting rights for racial minorities, the one-person, one-vote rule has no direct relation to the racial composition of election districts.⁴

Both parties move for summary judgment on this Fourth Claim for Relief. (Dkt. Nos. 173, 221.) In support of its motion, Navajo Nation argues that districts deviating in population as significantly as those here constitute a prima facie Equal Protection Clause violation, and that San Juan County has failed to establish that the deviation is “based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy.” Mahan v. Howell , 410 U.S. 315, 325, 93 S.Ct. 979, 35 L.Ed.2d 320

, modified , 411 U.S. 922, 93 S.Ct. 1475, 36 L.Ed.2d 316 (1973) (quoting Reynolds v. Sims , 377 U.S. 533, 579, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) ); see Dkt. No. 231, p. 3. San Juan County concedes the prima facie violation, but argues that it has legitimate reasons for the deviation from an equal population distribution in the districts. (Dkt. 198, p. 56-59; Dkt. 221, pp. 37-40); see Dkt. 260, p. 27. San Juan County also argues that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the Fourth Claim for Relief. (Dkt. 198, pp. 63-66; Dkt. 221, pp. 43-46.)

ANALYSIS

A. Summary Judgment Standard

A party is entitled to summary judgment only when it can show there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)

. A “genuine” dispute is one where a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). To the extent that the court can draw reasonable inferences from the record, it does so in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Berry & Murphy, P.C. v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. , 586 F.3d 803, 808 (10th Cir.2009).

Where the parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, it may suggest agreement between the parties that no issue of material fact remains, and that judgment as a matter of law is appropriate in favor of one party or the other. Here, neither party argues that a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. They instead dispute whether the Fourth Claim either succeeds or fails as a...