The Hon. Owen M. Panner, United States District Judge for the District of

1

Oregon, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-1291EM

_____________

Lee Morgan; Norman Adkins; James *

Bersen; Richard Sisak; Carl Knott; *

Thomas Hansen; Gary Foley; Charles *

Beel; Ellis Sandow; Herbert Bastian; *

Vicki Anderson; Rick Shirley; *

Benjamin Bull; Petra Beel, and others *

similarly affected as a class, *

*

Appellants, * On Appeal from the

* United States District Court

v. * for the Eastern District

* of Missouri.

*

City of Florissant, a municipal *

corporation under the laws of the State *

of Missouri; James Eagan, individually *

and as Mayor of the City of *

Florissant, Missouri, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 11, 1998

Filed: June 29, 1998 

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges, and PANNER, District Judge. 1
-2-

___________

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

“Area West,” an unincorporated area of St. Louis County, Missouri, was

annexed into the City of Florissant, Missouri, following an election. Area West

residents and voters who opposed the annexation brought suit against the City of

Florissant and its Mayor, seeking a declaration that Mo. Ann. Stat. § 72.407.1(2) (West

1998), a state law providing for annexation elections, is unconstitutional. The District

Court dismissed the claim. We affirm.

I.

The City of Florissant is a municipal corporation located in St. Louis County,

Missouri. In April, 1996, the City submitted a proposal to the Boundary Commission

of St. Louis County for annexation of an unincorporated portion of the county referred

to as Area West, along with two other unincorporated areas. The Boundary

Commission approved the annexation proposal, and pursuant to Mo. Ann. Stat.

§ 72.407.1(2), ordered an election putting the question of the proposed annexation to

the voters of the City, Area West, and the two other unincorporated areas. Mo. Ann.

Stat. § 72.407.1(2) provides in pertinent part:

[I]f the [boundary] commission approves a proposed boundary change

containing one or more municipalities and at least one unincorporated

area which is classified as an unincorporated pocket, such proposal shall

be adopted if a separate majority of the votes cast on the question in each

municipality and a majority of votes cast in the whole municipality which

would result from the boundary change are in favor of the boundary

change . . .. As used in this subdivision, the term “unincorporated

pocket” means an unincorporated territory with an average residential

density in excess of one dwelling per three acres, and which has a

population of less than five thousand and which is accessible by public or
The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern 2

District of Missouri.

-3-

private roadway only from incorporated jurisdictions and/or another

county.

Area West and one of the other unincorporated areas were classified as

unincorporated pockets. An election was held in April, 1997, and the annexation was

approved by a majority of the voters in the city, defeated by a majority of voters in

Area West and the other two unincorporated areas, but approved by a majority of the

voters in the entire municipality which would result from the proposed boundary

change. Thus, annexation of the two unincorporated pockets was approved pursuant

to the statute, while annexation of the unincorporated area that was not a pocket was

defeated. 

Registered voters residing in Area West brought suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in

the District Court, contending that Mo. Ann. Stat. § 72.407.1(2) violates their

2

Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights because the voting procedure permitting

annexation, even if a majority in an unincorporated area opposes it, impermissibly

dilutes and diminishes the effect of their votes. The City moved to dismiss the

complaint, and the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted

the City’s motion to dismiss, determining that the statute is constitutionally sound

because it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.

II.

The plaintiff residents contend that the District Court erred in applying a rationalbasis standard of review in determining the constitutionality of the statute, and assert

that it should have been examined under a strict-scrutiny standard. In advancing this

argument, the plaintiffs rely on voting cases involving the diminution of representative

government through impermissible legislative apportionment schemes or a complete
-4-

denial of the vote through imposition of improper voting criteria. See, e.g., Wesberry

v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (glaring discrepancies in apportionment of congressional

districts discriminated against voters in violation of the constitutional requirement that

Representatives be chosen by people of the several states); Kramer v. Union Free Sch.

Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969) (granting franchise in school district election only

to property owners or lessors and parents of school children fails strict scrutiny).

In contrast to the cases relied on by the plaintiffs, the law governing the

annexation at issue is correctly reviewed for a rational relationship to a legitimate

governmental interest. There is a noteworthy difference in voting jurisprudence

between election laws providing for the drawing and redrawing of state political

subdivisions, and laws involving the choice of legislative representatives or imposing

restrictions on voters based on characteristics such as wealth or race. The former

subset of cases warrants review for a rational basis, while the latter affects more

significant rights and constitutional concerns, meriting strict-scrutiny review. See

Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907) (states have great latitude in

structuring political subdivisions); St. Louis County, Mo. v. City of Town and Country,

590 F. Supp. 731 (E.D. Mo. 1984) (challenge to voting scheme governing annexation

election subject to rational-basis review); Murphy v. Kansas City, Mo., 347 F. Supp.

837 (W.D. Mo. 1972) (legislative classifications of areas in annexation process upheld

on rational-basis review, including a provision altogether denying residents of the

annexed territory the right to vote). We agree with the District Court that plaintiff

residents have failed to allege that Mo. Ann. Stat. § 72.407.1(2) implicates the type of

concern worthy of strict-scrutiny review, or that the law is not rationally related to a

legitimate governmental interest. “Pockets,” as defined in the statute, present distinct

practical problems of governance, and it is not irrational for the Legislature to recognize

them.

Affirmed.
-5-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.