Title: In Re Apportionment, State Legislature-1992

State: michigan

Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court

Document:

439 Mich. 251 (1992)
483 N.W.2d 52
In re APPORTIONMENT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE  1992
(NEFF
v.
SECRETARY OF STATE)
Docket No. 92092.

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Entered April 1, 1992.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Gay Secor Hardy, Solicitor General, and Gary P. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.
Sachs, Nunn, Kates, Kadushin, O'Hare, Helveston & Waldman, P.C. (by Theodore Sachs), for the intervening defendants.
ORDER
On order of the Court, the matter of the 1992 reapportionment of the Michigan Legislature is again considered.
We are called upon to reapportion the Michigan Legislature. To accomplish this task, we appointed a panel of special masters, whose product we have carefully considered. Having also considered the views of those who commented upon the plan, in writing or in person at the public hearing held on March 4, 1992, we today approve, with modification, the apportionment plan presented by the masters.
The apportionment plan of the masters has been drawn in accordance with the criteria stated in In re Apportionment of State Legislature  1982, 413 Mich 96, 141-142, 154-156; 321 NW2d 565 (1982), reh den 413 Mich 149; 321 NW2d 585 (1982), app *252 dis sub nom Kleiner v Sanderson, 459 US 900; 103 S Ct 201; 74 L Ed 2d 161 (1982). The masters also examined § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982 (VRA), 42 USC 1973. After the parties stipulated that, as in 1982, 16.4 percentage points was the maximum allowable population divergence, the masters ruled that they would consider no plan with greater divergence than 16.4 percentage points.
Some who commented on the report of the masters expressed concerns regarding the population divergence found in the masters' plan. In 1982, we directed that the divergence between the largest and smallest districts could not exceed 16.4 percentage points. Mahan v Howell, 410 US 315; 93 S Ct 979; 35 L Ed 2d 320 (1973). The plan developed by the masters approaches, but does not exceed, that limit. We remain persuaded that a population divergence of 16.4 percentage points is constitutional in light of the "substantial and legitimate state concerns" which underlie this apportionment. Brown v Thomson, 462 US 835; 103 S Ct 2690; 77 L Ed 2d 214 (1983). These valid state concerns focus on the importance of honoring jurisdictional lines, in order to foster effective representative government. We are persuaded that the objectives of preserving county and municipal boundaries, and of minimizing shifts of municipalities and voters, justify the population divergence that is present in the masters' plan.
Others have suggested that the masters' plan would violate the VRA, particularly with regard to the apportionment of Wayne County. This statute is violated if "the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political *253 subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by [the VRA] in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." 42 USC 1973(b). Thornburg v Gingles, 478 US 30, 43-46; 106 S Ct 2752; 92 L Ed 2d 25 (1986), teaches that one makes this determination through an examination of the "totality of circumstances."
We are persuaded, however, that the masters did consider the totality of circumstances and that they were appropriately concerned with recognition of VRA interests. To that end, in adopting today's reapportionment plan, we have accepted for the most part the masters' plan while reconfiguring House Districts 4, 5, 11, 13 and 14 in order to provide a better racial balance throughout these districts.[1] See appendixes A-E.
With the modifications noted in the preceding paragraph, we adopt the reapportionment plan drawn by the masters. It is hereby ordered and the Secretary of State is directed to publish as provided by law and hold legislative elections in accordance with the reapportionment plan hereby approved.
This Court retains no further jurisdiction.
[1]  The following table reflects percentage of minority population in the plan proposed by the masters and that adopted by the Court in these House districts.