Case Title: In re Reapportionment of Towns of Woodbury & Worcester

Citation: 177 Vt. 556, 2004 VT 92, 861 A.2d 1117

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-09-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Reapportionment of Towns of Woodbury & Worcester (2002-304); 
177 Vt. 556; 861 A.2d 1117

2004 VT 92

[Filed 13-Sep-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 92

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-304
       
                              MARCH TERM, 2004

  In re Reapportionment of Towns of Woodbury     }     Original Jurisdiction
  and Worcester                                  }
                                                 }     
                                                 }     
                                                 }     

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.     Petitioners, citizens of the towns of Woodbury and
  Worcester, challenge the Legislature's 2002 reapportionment of voting
  districts for the Vermont House of Representatives on grounds that
  placement of their towns in the new Lamoille-Washington-1 district violates
  constitutional and statutory requirements.  We deny petitioners' challenge.

       ¶  2.     To maintain equal representation in the General Assembly,
  the constitution requires the Legislature to reapportion its voting
  districts after each decennial census.  See Vt. Const. ch. II, § 73.  While
  the primary constitutional criteria is numerical equality, the Legislature
  must also "seek to maintain geographical compactness and contiguity and to
  adhere to boundaries of counties and other existing political
  subdivisions."  Vt. Const. ch. II, § 13.  

       ¶  3.     The statutory criteria for reapportionment reflect these
  requirements.  In the process of reapportioning by population, 17 V.S.A. §
  1903(a), statutory provisions also require that 

       districts shall be formed consistent with the following
       policies insofar as practicable: 
        (1) preservation of existing political subdivision lines; 
        (2) recognition and maintenance of patterns of
        geography, social interaction, trade, political ties and
        common interests; 
        (3) use of compact and contiguous territory.  

  17 V.S.A. § 1903(b).  

       ¶  4.     The reapportionment process for the House is initiated by
  the appointment of a bipartisan legislative apportionment board (the
  board).  Id. § 1904.  The board must prepare a tentative proposal dividing
  the state into initial districts, and then notify the affected municipal
  boards of civil authority for their review.  Id. § 1905. After considering
  recommendations from the towns, the board must forward its final plan of
  initial districts to the clerk of the house.  Id. §§ 1905, 1906.  The
  Legislature may then accept the proposal, or enact a substitute plan.  Id.
  § 1906.  Once initial district boundaries are drawn, those districts with
  two or more members may be subdivided either by agreement of the towns in
  the district or by the legislature.  Id. §§ 1906a, 1906b, 1906c.  The final
  reapportionment plan must be composed of districts containing no more than
  two members.  Id. § 1906c. 

       ¶  5.     In the present case, the board's proposed initial
  redistricting plan placed the petitioning towns of Woodbury and Worcester,
  along with Calais, Middlesex, and East Montpelier in the two-member
  Washington-4 district, and the neighboring towns of Middletown, Elmore, and
  Wolcott in the two-member Lamoille-3 district.  Statewide, civil
  authorities in at least forty-seven towns criticized the board's proposed
  plan.  Petitioners' towns did not object. 

       ¶  6.     The board forwarded its plan, and a list of issues raised by
  the dissatisfied towns, to the house government operations committee (the
  committee) on August 15, 2001.  Over the next five months, the committee
  conducted a series of public hearings around the state and at the state
  house and hosted an interactive web site that allowed citizens to draft
  their own plans.  The committee also held at least 23 meetings, where
  members took testimony, discussed objections, prepared maps and
  spreadsheets and voted on numerous redistricting options.     In response
  to public input and objections from various towns, the committee eventually
  prepared a revised plan for initial House districts that, among other
  things, moved Woodbury and Worcester, into a newly created
  Lamoille-Washington-1 district along with the towns of Elmore, and
  Morristown.  The district forms the shape of a capital T.  Elmore is
  located at the top center of the T and is bounded by Morristown on the
  west, Woodbury on the east, and Worcester on the south.

       ¶  7.     Both chambers, and their respective redistricting
  committees, engaged in significant debate and multiple votes to amend the
  initial plan and several times rejected proposals to remove Woodbury and
  Worcester from the proposed Lamoille-Washington-1 district.  After the
  Senate passed a "strike all" bill substantially modifying the House
  proposal and returning Woodbury and Worcester to the districts initially
  proposed by the board, the chambers appointed a conference committee to
  resolve their differences.  The conference committee's compromise plan,
  which was eventually adopted and signed by the Governor, see 2001, No. 85,
  § 1 (Adj. Sess.), placed Woodbury and Worcester in the
  Lamoille-Washington-1 district.  

       ¶  8.     Woodbury and Worcester then voted to divide
  Lamoille-Washington-1 into two single-member districts.  That proposal,
  which would have split Morristown, was rejected by the boards of Elmore and
  Morristown.  The House also rejected the proposal to split the district. 
  The final statewide reapportionment plan subdividing the initial districts
  into one- and two-member districts, left Lamoille-Washington-1 as a
  two-member district composed of the towns of Woodbury, Worcester, Elmore 
  and Morristown.  2001, No. 151, § 53 (Adj. Sess.).  This appeal followed.

       ¶  9.     The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction
  over any challenge to a legislative reapportionment made by five or more
  citizens.  17 V.S.A. § 1909(a), (f).  However, we review the Legislature's
  redistricting plan with considerable deference. 

       Redistricting is primarily a matter for legislative
       consideration and determination.  Accordingly, the
       redistricting plans approved by the General Assembly are
       presumed to be valid, and there is a heavy burden of proof on
       those who allege that a redistricting plan violates the
       Constitution.  Further, it is primarily the Legislature, not
       this Court, that must make the necessary compromises to
       effectuate state constitutional goals and statutory policies
       within the limitations imposed by federal law.  Accordingly,
       the Legislature must resolve the tension that exists between
       the one-person, one-vote requirement and state laws
       concerning the maintenance of compact and contiguous
       districts made up of communities with common interests.  If a
       plan is consistent with the fundamental constitutional
       requirement that districts be drawn to afford equality of
       representation, we will return it to the Legislature only
       when there is no rational or legitimate basis for any
       deviations from other constitutional or statutory criteria.

  In re Reapportionment of Towns of Hartland, Windsor & West Windsor, 160 Vt.
  9, 14-15,