Wattson v. Simon
| Citation | 970 N.W.2d 42 |
| Decision Date | 15 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | A21-0243, A21-0546 |
| 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 | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
FINAL ORDER ADOPTING A LEGISLATIVE 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 redistricting plan for the Minnesota Senate and Minnesota House of Representatives. To avoid delaying the electoral process, the panel must now act. We begin by addressing the constitutionality of Minnesota's current legislative districts.
Minnesota has 67 state senate districts and 134 state house districts, with two house districts nested within each senate district. See Minn. Const. art. IV, § 3 (); Minn. Stat. §§ 2.021, .031 (2020). In accordance with the principle of population-based representation, these state legislative districts must be substantially equal in population. U.S. Const. amend. XIV ; Minn. Const. art. IV, § 2 ; Reynolds v. Sims , 377 U.S. 533, 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) ; see also Connor v. Finch , 431 U.S. 407, 414, 97 S.Ct. 1828, 52 L.Ed.2d 465 (1977) ().
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. Based on this number, the ideal population of a senate district is 85,172, and the ideal population of a house district is 42,586. Because Minnesota's population growth over the last decade was not uniform across the state, most legislative districts are substantially above or below these ideals.
Many urban and suburban areas grew very significantly and are, consequently, overpopulated. Hearings Before Minn. H.R. Redistricting Comm. (Aug. 18, 2021) (testimony of S. Brower, Minn. State Demographer).
For example, the house district 53B established ten years ago, located within Woodbury, is now 9,034 people, or 21.2 percent, over the ideal population. Minn. Dep't of Admin., State Demographic Center, Redistricting Data: Census 2020, State Legislative Districts Lower (House) [hereinafter 2020 House Data ], https://mn.gov/admin/demography/data-by-topic/population-data/2020-decennial-census/redistricting/ (select "State Legislative Districts Lower (House) data files" for 2020). And the senate district 59 established ten years ago in north Minneapolis and downtown is 9,757 people, or 11.5 percent, overpopulated. Minn. Dep't of Admin., State Demographic Center, Redistricting Data: Census 2020, State Legislative Districts Upper (Senate) [hereinafter 2020 Senate Data ], https://mn.gov/admin/demography/data-by-topic/population-data/2020-decennial-census/redistricting/ (select "State Legislative Districts Upper (Senate) data files" for 2020).
At the same time, many rural areas saw slow growth or even population loss. For example, the house district 16A established ten years ago, which encompasses Lac qui Parle, Yellow Medicine, and parts of Lyon and Redwood Counties, is 4,778 people, or 11.2 percent, below the ideal population. See 2020 House Data. Similarly, the senate district 28 established ten years ago, which includes Houston, Fillmore, and southern Winona Counties, is 7,856 people, or 9.2 percent, underpopulated. See 2020 Senate Data. Accordingly, we hold that the population of Minnesota is unconstitutionally malapportioned among the state's current legislative districts established following the 2010 Census in Hippert v. Ritchie , No. A11-0152 (Order Adopting Legis. Redistricting Plan).
To remedy this constitutional defect, the legislative districts must be rebalanced so that they all contain substantially the same number of people; this ensures that each voter has equal power to select a representative. Reynolds , 377 U.S. at 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362. 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 , 431 U.S. at 414–15, 97 S.Ct. 1828 ; 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 legislative plan and order its adoption. See 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 legislative 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, this restrained approach does not necessarily yield little change. When one district changes, so must its neighbors—a cascading effect that means even a district drawn ten years ago that remains within appropriate population deviation will need to change along with the rest of the state.
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 determined to achieve the constitutional mandate of substantial population equality by drawing districts with a maximum deviation of no more than two percent from the ideal population. And we adopted seven principles to guide us in this work. 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 su...
To continue reading
Request your trial