Opinion ID: 874060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does Plan L 87 Violate Article III, Section 5, of the Idaho Constitution?

Text: When the Constitution of the State of Idaho was ratified in 1890, Article III, section 5, prohibited a county from being divided in order to create a senatorial or representative district. [1] As originally ratified, the Constitution also provided in Article III, section 4, that each county shall be entitled to one representative. In 1911, the electors ratified an amendment to Article III, section 2, so that it provided, The senate shall consist of one (1) member from each county. In 1962, a lawsuit was filed in federal court challenging sections 2, 4, and 5 of Article III. Hearne v. Smylie, 225 F.Supp. 645 (D.Idaho 1964). The three-judge court that was convened to hear that case dismissed it without addressing the merits. Id. at 656. While that case was on appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided that it wanted both houses of bicameral state legislatures apportioned by population. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). It reversed the judgment in Hearne and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with Reynolds. Hearne v. Smylie, 378 U.S. 563, 84 S.Ct. 1917, 12 L.Ed.2d 1036 (1964). The Supreme Court also has held that an apportionment plan that deviates more than ten percent among the various districts is prima facie unconstitutional. Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842-43, 103 S.Ct. 2690, 2695-95, 77 L.Ed.2d 214, 221-22 (1983). In response to the Reynolds decision, the Idaho legislature proposed, and on November 4, 1986, the electors ratified, amendments to sections 2, 4, and 5 of Article III, of the Idaho Constitution. The 1986 amendment to section 5 included a provision stating that a county may be divided in creating districts only to the extent it is reasonably determined by statute that counties must be divided to create senatorial and representative districts which comply with the constitution of the United States. [2] After the ratification of the 1986 amendment, the legislature enacted Idaho Code section 72-1506, which is now the statute referenced in that amendment. Bonneville County v. Ysursa, 142 Idaho 464, 473, 129 P.3d 1213, 1222 (2005). There is a hierarchy of applicable law governing the development of a plan for apportioning the legislature: The United States Constitution is the paramount authority; the requirements of the Idaho Constitution rank second; and, if the requirements of both the State and Federal Constitutions are satisfied, statutory provisions are to be considered. A lower ranking source of law in this hierarchy is ineffective to the extent that it conflicts with a superior source of law. Bingham County v. Idaho Comm'n for Reapportionment, 137 Idaho 870, 874, 55 P.3d 863, 867 (2002). Thus, the hierarchy of requirements governing a plan for apportioning the legislature is as follows: First, the plan must comply with what the United States Supreme Court has stated to be the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. A redistricting plan that deviates more than 10% in population among the districts is prima facie unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Bingham County, 137 Idaho at 872, 55 P.3d at 865 (2002). A plan with larger disparities in population, however, creates a prima facie case of discrimination and therefore must be justified by the State. Brown, 462 U.S. at 842-43, 103 S.Ct. at 2696, 77 L.Ed.2d at 222. If a deviation of more than ten percent is not justified by the State, the plan is unconstitutional. Smith v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, 136 Idaho 542, 544, 38 P.3d 121, 123 (2001). The commission is not required to draw legislative districts that all have precisely the same population numbers. Some discretion is inherent in the percentage of deviation that presumptively complies with the Supreme Court's requirements. Second, the plan must comply with the requirements of the Idaho Constitution. Article III, section 5, states that a county may be divided in creating districts only to the extent it is reasonably determined by statute that counties must be divided to create senatorial and representative districts which comply with the constitution of the United States. We have interpreted this provision to mean that the constitution `prohibits the division of counties, except to meet the constitutional standards of equal protection.' Bonneville County v. Ysursa, 142 Idaho 464, 471, 129 P.3d 1213, 1220 (2005) (quoting Bingham County v. Comm'n for Reapportionment, 137 Idaho 870, 878, 55 P.3d 863, 871 (2002)). This provision places a limitation on the total number of counties that can be divided by a legislative redistricting plan. The word only means solely. Carstens Packing Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Div. of Indus. Accident Bd., 65 Idaho 370, 376, 144 P.2d 203, 206 (1943). A county can be divided solely for one reasonto the extent it is reasonably determined by statute that counties must be divided to ... comply with the constitution of the United States. Idaho Const. Art. III, § 5 (emphasis added). Dividing a county for other reasons is not permitted. Compliance with this provision in Article III, section 5, cannot be determined by looking at each county division in isolation. The provision does not state that a county may be divided ... only to the extent that it is reasonably determined ... that the county must be divided to ... comply with the constitution of the United States. Rather, it states that  a county [singular] may be divided ... only to the extent it is reasonably determined by statute that counties [plural] must be divided to ... comply with the constitution of the United States. Idaho Const. Art. III, § 5 (emphases added). Likewise, the provision does not say only if it is reasonably determined ... that counties must be divided. In other words, it does not state that the prohibition on dividing counties disappears once it is determined that at least one county must be divided to comply with the Constitution. It says only to the extent it is reasonably determined ... that counties must be divided. (Emphasis added.) The only to the extent language would be meaningless unless it is a limitation on the total number of counties that can be divided. When district lines are drawn, a particular county is either divided or it is not. There is no middle ground. A county cannot be almost divided. Looking at the division of one county in isolation would not show the extent to which counties (plural) must be divided in order to comply with the Supreme Court's requirements. The extent to which counties (plural) must be divided to comply with the Federal Constitution can be determined only by counting the total number of counties divided under the plan. If one plan that complies with the Federal Constitution divides eight counties and another that also complies divides nine counties, then the extent that counties must be divided in order to comply with the Federal Constitution is only eight counties. It could not be said that dividing one more county was necessary to comply with the Constitution. Third, the requirements of Idaho Code section 72-1506 are subordinate to the Constitutional standard of voter equality and the restrictions in the Idaho Constitution upon splitting counties except to achieve that voter equality. Bingham County, 137 Idaho at 874, 55 P.3d at 867. That statute contains mandatory provisions and advisory provisions. The words must and shall are mandatory, Rife v. Long, 127 Idaho 841, 848, 908 P.2d 143, 150 (1995), and the word should is not, Neighbors for a Healthy Gold Fork v. Valley County, 145 Idaho 121, 134, 176 P.3d 126, 139 (2007). The mandatory provisions are as follows: (1) The total state population as reported by the U.S. census bureau, and the population of subunits determined therefrom, shall be exclusive permissible data. (2) To the maximum extent possible, districts shall preserve traditional neighborhoods and local communities of interest. (3) Districts shall be substantially equal in population and should seek to comply with all applicable federal standards and statutes.[ [3] ] .... (5) Division of counties shall be avoided whenever possible.... (6) To the extent that counties must be divided to create districts, such districts shall be composed of contiguous counties. (7) District boundaries shall retain the local voting precinct boundary lines to the extent those lines comply with the provisions of section 34-306, Idaho Code. When the commission determines, by an affirmative vote of at least five (5) members recorded in its minutes, that it cannot complete its duties for a legislative district by fully complying with the provisions of this subsection, this subsection shall not apply to the commission or legislative redistricting plan it shall adopt. (8) Counties shall not be divided to protect a particular political party or a particular incumbent. (9) When a legislative district contains more than one (1) county or a portion of a county, the counties or portion of a county in the district shall be directly connected by roads and highways which are designated as part of the interstate highway system, the United States highway system or the state highway system. When the commission determines, by an affirmative vote of at least five (5) members recorded in its minutes, that it cannot complete its duties for a legislative district by fully complying with the provisions of this subsection, this subsection shall not apply to the commission or legislative redistricting plan it shall adopt.