Case Name: James P. WENDLER et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Honorable Richard (Dick) STONE, Secretary of State of the State of Florida, Defendant; Joseph A. PEREIRA, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Reuben O'D. ASKEW et al., Defendants
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1972-08-18
Citations: 350 F. Supp. 838
Docket Number: Civ. A. Nos. 72-923, 72-928
Parties: James P. WENDLER et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Honorable Richard (Dick) STONE, Secretary of State of the State of Florida, Defendant. Joseph A. PEREIRA, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Reuben O’D. ASKEW et al., Defendants.
Judges: Before DYER, Circuit Judge, and ATKINS and ROETTGER, District Judges.
Reporter: Federal Supplement
Volume: 350
Pages: 838–844

Head Matter:
James P. WENDLER et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Honorable Richard (Dick) STONE, Secretary of State of the State of Florida, Defendant. Joseph A. PEREIRA, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Reuben O’D. ASKEW et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. Nos. 72-923, 72-928.
United States District Court, S. D. Florida, Miami Division.
Aug. 18, 1972.
Robert S. Korschun, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff Pereira.
Edward L. Magill, of Stephens, Ma-gill, Thornton & Sevier, and Dixon, Dixon, Lane & Mitchell, Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs Wendler, George, Holtman, Martin, Wisenfeld and Wolper.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Jerry E. Oxner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants.
Before DYER, Circuit Judge, and ATKINS and ROETTGER, District Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
PER CURIAM.
These cases, both of which challenge the constitutionality, under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, of Florida's recently enacted congressional redistricting provision, Senate Bill 1291, Ch. 72-390, Florida Laws (1972), came before a three-judge court for hearing on pending motions to dismiss. Based upon a determination that the complaints fail to state justiciable causes of action, a majority of the court has decided that the motions to dismiss must be granted.
In Pereira v. Askew, et al., plaintiff, "an announced candidate for the Republican nomination" in the 15th United States Congressional District, contends that the dividing line between the 14th and 15th districts was the result of political gerrymandering designed to enhance the interest of one political party. He also alleges that the cities of Coral Gables and Miami Beach are cohesive subdivisions with their own cultural, economic, and political identities. The bisection of the cities in the redistricting allegedly deprived these entities of "their former and habitual political ties."
Plaintiffs in Wendler, et al. v. Stone, residents and registered voters in the cities of Miami, Miami Beach, and Coral Gables, complain of the boundary lines separating the 13th district from the 14th and the 14th from the 15th. These lines, they allege, divide several large cities, thus "diminishing the weight and influence of the votes of the residents of said cities." They argue that the redistricting constitutes an invidious discrimination against identifiable political, economic, and ethnic groups in the named cities. Allegedly the boundary lines were "gerrymandered" for the political purposes of securing re-election of incumbents or election of candidates of the same party. At the hearing on the motions to dismiss, plaintiffs disavowed any one man, one vote malapportionment challenge that might be read into paragraph 10 of their complaint. It is conceded that the redistricting created districts of virtually equal population.
The initial issue raised by these eases is the justiciability of the equal protection challenge to redistricting allegedly motivated by partisan political considerations. Plaintiffs would lead the federal courts into a new "political thicket" of unmatched density, that of political gerrymandering. As discussed in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), "[t]he nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers." Id. at 210, 82 S.Ct. at 706. One critical criterion, applicable here, is that the court is asked to formulate a policy "for which judicially manageable standards are lacking." Id. at 226, 82 S.Ct. at 715.
It is highly impractical to ask a court to determine whether or not a given congressional district plan favors any particular political party. Voting statistics for past elections, relied upon by plaintiffs, can be grossly unreliable when used for prognostication. More disturbing is the request that the district court then redraw the boundaries to the equally political advantage of the complaining party. This might subject the court to "charges of judicial political gerrymandering." Wells v. Rockefeller, 311 F.Supp. 48, 51 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd per curiam, 398 U.S. 901, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 60 (1970). The task of drawing congressional district lines, within the confines of Baker v. Carr, supra., Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964), and their progeny, is appropriately left for state legislatures.
One three-judge court, without referring to justiciability, has held that allegations of political gerrymandering do not state a claim under the United States Constitution upon which relief could be granted. WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 238 F.Supp. 916, 925-926 (S.D.N.Y. 1965), aff'd per curiam, 382 U.S. 4, 86 S.Ct. 24, 15 L.Ed.2d 2 (1968). The late Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring, wrote the only opinion in the Supreme Court. He did so to reaffirm expressly that principle which the Court implicitly approved in its per curiam affirmance, i.e., that partisan gerrymandering may not be subject to constitutional attack under the Fourteenth Amendment. We agree with that determination.
Plaintiffs in Wendler v. Stone present, however, a second argument. The gravamen of their complaint is a challenge to the division of economic, political, ethnic, and social groups within the affected cities, such as the senior citizens on Miami Beach. It is argued that such alleged division reduces the influence of the vote of such interests, as a group, in the political process.
This claim is likewise nonjusticiable. It carries its own refutation. An endless list of groups with such a community of interest, covering an infinite number of geographic combinations, could be prepared. Those persons sharing an interest on one question would be unlikely to concur in their views on all questions. A court asked to accommodate those sometimes convergent, sometimes divergent, interests certainly cannot look to any judicially discoverable and manageable standards for guidance.
Counsel admitted to the Court that many redistricting plans, all satisfying the one man, one vote requirements, were possible. In such hypothetical plans, boundary lines could undoubtedly be drawn so as to encompass certain allegedly identifiable interest groups. Each plan would, however, exclude or divide certain other interest groups. The futility of the standard championed by the plaintiffs is readily apparent.
More importantly, however, in our view, the equalization of representation demanded is not constitutionally required. The decision of the Supreme Court in Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 91 S.Ct. 1858, 29 L.Ed.2d 363 (1971), clearly establishes the principle that interest groups have no constitutional guarantee of representation in legislative halls. The court indicated that, in cases such as these, where the only alleged constitutional defect is an envisioned weakening of an interest group's political strength, rather than any alleged deprivation of an individu al's right to vote, no equal protection claim can be sustained. Indeed the court explicitly refused to approve the principle that "any group with distinctive interests must be represented in legislative halls if it is numerous enough to command at least one seat and represents a majority living in an area sufficiently compact to constitute a single-member district." Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 156, 91 S.Ct. 1858, 1875, 29 L.Ed.2d 363 (1971).
As we view Whitcomb, only where we are presented with allegations of a dilution of the voting strength of a recognizable minority because of race or country of origin does the broad panoply of protections of the Civil War Amendments, referred to by Mr. Justice White, operate to secure a very limited right to representation. Cf. Wright v. Rockefeller, 376 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 603, 11 L.Ed.2d 512 (1964). The distinguishing feature in such cases, we conclude, is the specific concern of the Fifteenth Amendment for the voting rights of black citizens. As stated by Mr. Justice Douglas:
It is said that if we prevent racial gerrymandering today, we must prevent gerrymandering of any special interest group tomorrow, whether it be social, economic, or ideological. I do not agree. Our Constitution has a special thrust when it comes to voting; the Fifteenth Amendment says the right of citizens to vote shall not be 'abridged' on account of 'race, col- or, or previous condition of servitude.'
Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 180, 91 S.Ct. 1858, 1888, 29 L.Ed.2d 363 (1971) (concurring in part and dissenting in part). This special thrust does not compel the courts to intervene for the protection and perpetuation of recognizable partisan interests.
Accordingly it is ordered and adjudged that defendants' motions to dismiss are granted. The complaints in these causes are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state justiciable claims upon which relief can be granted.