Wattson v. Simon
| Decision Date | 15 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | A21-0243, A21-0546 |
| Citation | 970 N.W.2d 56 |
| Parties | Peter S. WATTSON, Joseph Mansky, Nancy B. Greenwood, Mary E. Kupper, Douglas W. Backstrom, and James E. Hougas, III, individually and on behalf of all citizens and voting residents of Minnesota similarly situated, and League of Women Voters Minnesota, Plaintiffs, and Paul Anderson, Ida Lano, Chuck Brusven, Karen Lane, Joel Hineman, Carol Wegner, and Daniel Schonhardt, Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. Steve SIMON, Secretary of State of Minnesota ; and Kendra Olson, Carver County Elections and Licensing Manager, individually and on behalf of all Minnesota county chief election officers, Defendants, and Frank Sachs, Dagny Heimisdottir, Michael Arulfo, Tanwi Prigge, Jennifer Guertin, Garrison O'Keith McMurtrey, Mara Lee Glubka, Jeffrey Strand, Danielle Main, and Wayne Grimmer, Plaintiffs, and Dr. Bruce Corrie, Shelly Diaz, Alberder Gillespie, Xiongpao Lee, Abdirazak Mahboub, Aida Simon, Beatriz Winters, Common Cause, OneMinnesota.org, and Voices for Racial Justice, Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. Steve Simon, Secretary of State of Minnesota, Defendant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
FINAL ORDER ADOPTING A CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING PLAN
On February 19, 2021, plaintiffs Peter Wattson, et al. initiated an action in Carver County District Court alleging that the current congressional and legislative election districts are unconstitutionally malapportioned in light of the 2020 Census. The Wattson plaintiffs then petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction and appoint a special redistricting panel to hear and decide the issues raised in the action and any other redistricting cases if the Minnesota Legislature failed to address those issues. The chief justice granted the petition but stayed the action and appointment of a panel in deference to the legislature's primacy in the redistricting process. Wattson v. Simon , No. A21-0243 (Minn. Mar. 22, 2021) (Order of Chief Justice).
Plaintiffs Frank Sachs, et al. subsequently initiated an action in Ramsey County District Court alleging that the current congressional and legislative districts are unconstitutional. The chief justice consolidated the Sachs plaintiffs’ action with the Wattson plaintiffs’ stayed action. Wattson , No. A21-0243 (Order of Chief Justice). On June 30, 2021, the chief justice lifted the stay and appointed this panel to hear and decide the consolidated action and any other challenges to the congressional and legislative districts based on the 2020 Census. Wattson , No. A21-0243 (Minn. June 30, 2021) (Order of Chief Justice). The order directed the panel to implement redistricting plans "in the event that the Legislature and the Governor have not done so in a timely manner." Id. We subsequently granted the motions of plaintiff-intervenors Paul Anderson, et al. and plaintiff-intervenors Dr. Bruce Corrie, et al. to intervene in this action.
To afford counties and municipalities time to complete local redistricting, the statutory deadline for completing congressional and legislative redistricting is "25 weeks before the state primary election in the year ending in two." Minn. Stat. § 204B.14, subd. 1a (2020). In this decennium, that date is February 15, 2022. That date has arrived, and the legislature has not yet enacted a congressional redistricting plan. To avoid delaying the electoral process, the panel must now act. We begin by addressing the constitutionality of Minnesota's current congressional districts.
The seats in the United States House of Representatives are apportioned among the states according to their respective populations. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2. Those seats are reapportioned every ten years following completion of the United States Census. Id. ; Wesberry v. Sanders , 376 U.S. 1, 13-14, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964). Minnesota's total resident population after the 2020 Census is 5,706,494 people. Minn. State Demographer, Minnesota's Demographic and Census Overview for 2020 Redistricting (Aug. 18, 2021), https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/docs/C3TfSEuiGkWTnghCkp9IYg.pdf. Minnesota achieved this total by growing at a rate of 7.6 percent—slightly higher than the nationwide growth rate. Hearings Before Minn. H.R. Redistricting Comm. (Aug. 18, 2021) (testimony of S. Brower, Minn. State Demographer). As a result, Minnesota narrowly retains the eight congressional seats it has been apportioned since the 1960 Census. U.S. Census Bureau, Apportionment Population & Number of Representatives by State: 2020 Census , https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/data/apportionment/apportionment-2020-table01.pdf; see Hippert v. Ritchie , No. A11-0152 (Order Adopting a Cong. Redistricting Plan).
Under the United States Constitution, congressional election districts must be as nearly equal in population as is practicable. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; Wesberry , 376 U.S. at 7-8, 84 S.Ct. 526. Based on the statewide total, the ideal population of a Minnesota congressional district after the 2020 Census is 713,312.1 Because Minnesota's growth over the last decade was not uniform, none of the congressional districts matches this ideal. The five districts centered in the 11-county metropolitan area2 all gained population at a higher rate than the statewide average, making them overpopulated, while Minnesota's three rural-centered districts all gained population at a lower rate, making them underpopulated. Minn. Dep't of Admin., State Demographic Center, Redistricting Data: Census 2020, Congressional Districts [hereinafter 2020 Congressional Data ], https://mn.gov/admin/demography/data-by-topic/population-data/2020-decennial-census/redistricting/ (select "Congressional Districts" data file for 2020). For example, the third congressional district is overpopulated by 24,586 people, or 3.4 percent, while the seventh district is underpopulated by 39,798 people, or 5.6 percent. Id. Accordingly, we hold that the population of Minnesota is unconstitutionally malapportioned among the state's current congressional districts established following the 2010 Census in Hippert , No. A11-0152 (Order Adopting a Cong. Redistricting Plan).
To remedy this constitutional defect, the congressional districts must be rebalanced so that they all contain the same number of people; this ensures that each voter has equal power to select a representative. Wesberry , 376 U.S. at 7-8, 84 S.Ct. 526. Minnesota's constitution empowers the legislature to perform this task. Minn. Const. art. IV, § 3 (). This responsibility accords with the legislature's position as "the institution that is by far the best situated to identify and then reconcile traditional state policies" regarding redistricting. Connor v. Finch , 431 U.S. 407, 414-15, 97 S.Ct. 1828, 52 L.Ed.2d 465 (1977) ; see also Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n , 576 U.S. 787, 808, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 192 L.Ed.2d 704 (2015) ().
When the legislature fails to exercise its constitutional authority, it is the role of the state courts to develop a valid congressional plan and order its adoption. Growe v. Emison , 507 U.S. 25, 33, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993) (). In approaching this task, we are mindful that courts lack the "political authoritativeness" of the legislature and must perform redistricting in a restrained manner. Connor , 431 U.S. at 415, 97 S.Ct. 1828. Simply put, we are not positioned to draw entirely new congressional districts, as the legislature could choose to do. Rather, we start with the existing districts, changing them as necessary to remedy the constitutional defect by applying politically neutral redistricting principles. Still, our restrained approach does not leave any congressional district unchanged. Nor does it mean that all Minnesotans will view the changes as insubstantial.
As prior special redistricting panels have done, we sought input from the parties as to the appropriate redistricting principles. After considering the parties’ written submissions and oral arguments, we adopted seven principles to guide us in achieving the constitutional mandate of population equality. These redistricting principles include drawing districts: (1) in accordance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (2018), and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (2) that respect the reservation lands of federally recognized American Indian tribes; (3) that consist of convenient, contiguous territory; (4) that respect political subdivisions; (5) that preserve communities of interest3 ; (6) without the purpose of protecting, promoting, or defeating any incumbent, candidate, or political party; and (7) that are reasonably compact. We balanced these neutral principles in performing the task of redistricting.
To supplement the population data provided by the United States Census Bureau, the panel gathered information from many sources to aid it in the redistricting process.
We held nine in-person public hearings and one virtual hearing. See Wattson , No. A21-0243 (Order Scheduling Public Hearings). As we drove around the state to hear directly from Minnesotans,4 we had the honor and privilege to see the communities in which they live. We also invited and received written statements and redistricting plan proposals...
To continue reading
Request your trial