U.S. v. Blaine County, Montana
| Decision Date | 23 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. CV99-122GFPMP.,CV99-122GFPMP. |
| Citation | 157 F.Supp.2d 1145 |
| Parties | The UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. BLAINE COUNTY, Montana; Don K. Swenson, Arthur Kleinjan and Victor J. Miller, in their official capacities as members of the Blaine County Board of Commissioners; and Sandra Boardman, in her official capacity as Clerk and Recorder and Superintendent of Elections for Blaine County, Montana, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Christopher Coates, Joseph D. Rich, Sabrina Whitehead Jenkins, Avner Shapiro, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Bill Mercer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Missoula, for Plaintiff.
J. Scott Detamore, William Perry Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Denver, CO, Rebecca W. Watson, Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman, Helena, MT, for Defendants.
Before the Court for consideration is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. # 23, # 24, and # 25) filed by Defendants Blaine County, Montana, Don K. Swenson, Arthur Kleinjan, Victor Miller and Sandra Boardman (collectively referred to as "Blaine County") on January 31, 2001. Plaintiff United States of America ("United States") filed a Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. # 30 and # 31) on February 28, 2001. Blaine County filed a Reply (Doc. # 35) on March 14, 2001.
On May 17, 2001, this case was reassigned from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Great Falls Division to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada by order of Chief Judge Donald W. Molloy (Doc. # 47).
On July 6, 2001, this Court heard oral argument regarding Blaine County's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Blaine County, Montana is governed by a three member Board of Commissioners elected at large by all of the voters in the County. Candidates must reside in one of three districts, but the entire County elects each Commissioner. Commissioners are elected to six year terms, and the terms are staggered such that one County Commissioner position is open for election every two years.
According to the 1990 census, Blaine County has a total population of 6,728. The County is predominantly comprised of two ethnic groups, with 59.8% of Blaine County residents being Caucasian, and 39.2% of residents being Native American.1
The United States contends that the current system of at-large apportionment has resulted in discrimination against Native Americans. To support this claim, they note that no Native American has served as a County Commissioner in the eighty-six year history of Blaine County. The United States asserts that if the present voting scheme was converted to single member districts, the Native American population is sufficiently numerous and geographically compact so that Native Americans would likely constitute a voting majority in one of the single member districts.
In its complaint, the United States alleges that Blaine County's current voting system violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (1994), in that Native Americans have less opportunity than their Caucasian counterparts to elect representatives of their choice. Blaine County has filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that the 1982 amendments to § 2 of the Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional on their face and unconstitutionally applied in this case.
A motion for summary judgment is a procedure which terminates, without a trial, actions in which "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A summary judgment motion may be made in reliance on the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any." Id.
The United States Supreme Court delineated Rule 56 in a trilogy of opinions rendered in 1986. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). According to the Court, the movant is entitled to summary judgment if the non-moving party, who bears the burden of persuasion, fails to designate "'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). In order to preclude a grant of summary judgment, the non-moving party must do more than show that there is some "metaphysical doubt" as to the material facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348. Rather, the non-moving party must set forth "'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). The substantive law defines which facts are material. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
The court views all underlying facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Martinez v. City of Los Angeles, 141 F.3d 1373, 1378 (9th Cir.1998) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348).
Although the non-moving party has the burden of persuasion, the party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Metro Indus., Inc. v. Sammi Corp., 82 F.3d 839, 847 (9th Cir.1996). That burden is met by showing an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The burden then shifts to the respondent to set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue for trial. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In meeting this burden, parties seeking to defeat summary judgment cannot rest upon allegations of denials of pleadings, but must demonstrate a genuine issue for trial. Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir.1995). Under Rule 56(e), the adverse party must allege specific facts supported by affidavit that raise triable issues. Id. Affidavits that do not affirmatively demonstrate personal knowledge are insufficient. Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1278 (9th Cir.1996).
Blaine County claims that summary judgment is appropriate because § 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. It bases this assertion on the theory that § 2 violates the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments by excessively interfering with a state's right to conduct its own elections.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was adopted via Congress' power under the § 5 enforcement provision of the Fourteenth Amendment. Initially, Congress designed the Act to remedy literacy testing, poll taxes, and other devices used to disenfranchise black voters in the mid-1960's. While the Act was somewhat effective, eligible black voters continued to vote less frequently than their white counterparts. Congress amended the Act in 1970 and 1975 to combat new tactics used to restrict minority voting in response to the 1965 legislation.
Prior to 1982 and after the United States Supreme Court's decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980), a plaintiff under § 2 was required to show discriminatory intent on the part of state actors in order to prevail. This standard was difficult to meet in most cases, thus limiting the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act. In 1982, Congress amended the Act once again. This time lessening the burden for plaintiffs claiming discrimination. Instead of proving discriminatory intent, a plaintiff needed to merely demonstrate discriminatory results under the 1982 amendments to the Act.
The constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act has been unsuccessfully challenged many times, both before and after the 1982 amendments. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the Voting Rights Act was an excessive application of congressional power and, therefore, encroached on areas reserved to the states in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 86 S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966). The Court held that the Voting Rights Act was an "appropriate means for carrying out Congress' constitutional responsibilities and [is] consonant with all other provisions of the Constitution." Id. at 308, 86 S.Ct. 803. In U.S. v. Marengo County Comm'n, 731 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 976, 105 S.Ct. 375, 83 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984), the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the 1982 amendments imposing the results, rather than intent, standard was constitutional. Id. at 1556. Additionally, in Major v. Treen, 574 F.Supp. 325, 343 (E.D.La.1983), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana upheld the constitutionality of the 1982 amendments.2
Congress is broadly empowered by § 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment to prohibit state action that, though itself does not violate § 1, but instead perpetuates the effects of past discrimination. City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 176, 100 S.Ct. 1548, 64 L.Ed.2d 119 (1980).
Jones v. City of Lubbock, 727 F.2d 364, 373 (5th Cir.1984). The Voting Rights Act seeks in part to remedy minority vote dilution created by state and local electoral systems. Marengo County, 731 F.2d at 1556. In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Blaine County, Montana, 02-35691.
...Amendments. The district court ruled that section 2 did not exceed Congress's power and denied the motion. See United States v. Blaine County, 157 F.Supp.2d 1145 (D.Mont. 2001). The case then proceeded to a court trial. In its post-trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order, th......