Case Title: Reapportionment Cases

Citation: 160 Vt. 9, 624 A.2d 323

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-01-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
REAPPORTIONMENT_CASES.92-088; 160 Vt. 9; 624 A.2d 323


[Opinion Filed 27-Jan-1993]

[Motions for Reargument in Docket Nos. 92-261 and 92-291 Denied 24-Feb-1993]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


            Nos. 92-088, 92-136, 92-230, 92-259, 92-261 & 92-291

                                Supreme Court
                            Original Jurisdiction


 In re Reapportionment of Towns of
 Hartland, Windsor and West Windsor           September Term, 1992


 In re Reapportionment of Town
 of Montgomery                                September Term, 1992


 In re Reapportionment of Town of
 Shrewsbury                                   September Term. 1992

 In re Reapportionment of Town of             October Term, 1992
 Berlin

 In re Reapportionment of Town of             October Term, 1992
 Springfield

 In re Reapportionment of Town of
 Richford                                     October Term, 1992


 Thomas O. Kenyon, et al., pro se, Brownsville, for petitioners (92-088)

 Douglas D. DeVries, Enosburg Falls, and Michael Rose (On the Brief),
   St. Albans, for petitioners (92-136 and 92-291)

 James M. Jeffords and Rebecca R. Osterhoudt, Shrewsbury, for petitioners
 (92-230)

 Robert Halpert, Montpelier, for petitioners (92-259)

 Stephen S. Ankuda and Patrick M. Ankuda, Law Clerk (On the Brief), of
   Parker & Ankuda, P.C., Springfield, for petitioners (92-261)

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, William E. Griffin, Chief Assistant
   Attorney General, and Claudia Horack Bristow and William P. Russell,
   Legislative Council, for respondents


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

           Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Maloney, Supr.
           J., Specially Assigned (92-230 only)

      GIBSON, J.    Six groups of petitioners from various towns in the state
 challenge the reapportionment of legislative districts by the General
 Assembly during the 1992 legislative session.  Five of the groups contest
 various House districts, and the other group challenges a Senate district.
 We dismiss five of the petitions, and, with respect to the other petition,
 remand the House plan to the Legislature for revision and correction, if
 possible.
                        I.  Legislative Redistricting
      To comply with federal and state constitutional requirements that state
 legislatures afford substantially equal weight to citizens' votes, the
 General Assembly is required to redraw legislative voting districts after
 each federal decennial census or after a state census taken for the purpose
 of redistricting.  Vt. Const. ch. II, { 73; 17 V.S.A. { 1903(a).  In
 forming representative and senatorial districts "which shall afford equality
 of representation, the General Assembly shall seek to maintain geographical
 compactness and contiguity and to adhere to boundaries of counties and other
 existing political subdivisions."  Vt. Const. ch. II, {{ 13, 18.  Statutory
 criteria also require, "insofar as practicable," that the districts be drawn
 consistent with the following policies: "(1) preservation of existing
 political subdivision lines; (2) recognition and maintenance of patterns of
 geography, social interaction, trade, political ties and common interests;
 [and] (3) use of compact and contiguous territory."  17 V.S.A. { 1903(b).
      Following the 1990 census, the Legislature reapportioned the House and
 Senate.  See 1991, No. 116 (Adj. Sess.) (initial House districts); 1991, No.
 147 (Adj. Sess.) (subdivided House districts and established Senate
 districts).  The Legislature also amended the statutory procedures for
 redistricting the House in the same bill that redrew the initial House
 districts.  1991, No. 116 (Adj. Sess.), {{ 7-12.  Under the new law, the
 bipartisan Legislative Apportionment Board, whose members do not serve in
 the General Assembly, must prepare a tentative redistricting proposal,
 consider the responsive recommendations of the municipal boards of civil
 authority, and then prepare a final proposal for dividing the state into
 initial districts for the election of the 150 representatives.  17 V.S.A. {{
 1905-1906.  The final proposal is referred to the appropriate legislative
 committee, and eventually the General Assembly, which may accept or amend
 the proposal, or substitute another plan.  Id. { 1906.
      House districts may have no more than two members, Vt. Const. ch. II, {
 13, but larger districts may be approved preliminarily subject to further
 subdivision.  See 17 V.S.A. { 1906a(c).  Similarly, two-member districts may
 be subdivided at that time.  Id. { 1906a(b).  The boards of civil authority
 within districts that are subdivided must prepare a proposal for drawing the
 internal lines within the districts, based on considerations of
 "incumbencies" in addition to the statutory criteria specified above.  Id.
 {{ 1906b(b), (c) and 1906c(b), (c).  The proposal is referred to the
 appropriate legislative committee, and eventually the General Assembly,
 which "shall" approve the House districts proposed by the town boards "if
 they are consistent with the standards set forth" in the statutes.  Id. {{
 1906b(e), (f) and 1906c(e), (f).  If a majority of the town boards fail to
 agree to a subdivision proposal for a two-member House district, the
 Legislature "may divide the initial district into single-member repre-
 sentative districts."  Id. { 1906b(e).  If a majority of the town boards
 fail to agree to a subdivision proposal for a House district with three or
 more representatives, the Legislature "shall divide the initial district
 into representative districts."  Id. { 1906c(e). (FN1)
      Any five citizens may petition this Court, which has original and
 exclusive jurisdiction, for review of a final House or Senate plan.  See id.
 { 1909(a).  If this Court finds the plan in violation of constitutional or
 statutory requirements, it must forward its decision to the General Assembly
 and retain jurisdiction until the Legislature has approved a plan conforming
 to those requirements.  Id. { 1909(e); see Vt. Const. ch. II, { 73 (autho-
 rizing Supreme Court to order reapportionment of legislative districts if
 Legislature fails to revise the districts as required).
      In the present case, the Legislative Apportionment Board proposed a
 Senate and a House plan, neither of which was accepted by the Legislature.
 The legislative committees devised their own plans, which were adopted by
 the Legislature in most respects.  The initial multimember districts created
 by Act 116 were subdivided by Act 147, resulting in a final House plan with
 an overall deviation of 17.6%. (FN2) The Legislature approved a final Senate
 plan with an overall deviation of 16.4%.  Five petitions challenged specific
 districts within the House plan, and one petition challenged the Senate
 plan.  In all but one of the petitions, hearings were held before masters,
 who took testimony and made findings of fact.  See 17 V.S.A. { 1909(d).  We
 declined to order any interim relief, pending resolution of the petition,
 and elections have proceeded under the new redistricting plans.
                         II.  The Standard of Review
      Redistricting is "primarily a matter for legislative consideration and
 determination."  In re Senate Bill 177, 130 Vt. 365, 371,