Opinion ID: 2515815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: legal standards governing secretary of state's reapportionment and this court's standard of review

Text: Before turning to petitioners' particular challenges, we set out the legal standards governing a plan of reapportionment and this court's standard of review as it applies to those challenges. As noted, this court's original jurisdiction is to determine whether a plan of reapportionment complies with subsection (1) of this section and all law applicable thereto. Or. Const., Art. IV, § 6(3)(c). Article IV, section 6(1), provides: At the regular session of the Legislative Assembly next following an enumeration of the inhabitants by the United States Government, the number of Senators and Representatives shall be fixed by law and apportioned among legislative districts according to population. A senatorial district shall consist of two representative districts. Any Senator whose term continues through the next regular legislative session after the effective date of the reapportionment shall be specifically assigned to a senatorial district. The ratio of Senators and Representatives, respectively, to population shall be determined by dividing the total population of the state by the number of Senators and by the number of Representatives. A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly shall become operative no sooner than September 1 of the year of reapportionment. The legislature has enacted laws respecting Article IV, section 6(1). Specifically, ORS 188.010 provides: The Legislative Assembly or the Secretary of State, whichever is applicable, shall consider the following criteria when apportioning the state into congressional and legislative districts: (1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall: (a) Be contiguous; (b) Be of equal population; (c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries; (d) Not divide communities of common interest; and (e) Be connected by transportation links. (2) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person. (3) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of diluting the voting strength of any language or ethnic minority group. (4) Two state House of Representative districts shall be wholly included within a single state senatorial district. (Emphasis added.) By its terms, ORS 188.010 applies the mandate in its first paragraph to all subsections in that statute, not just to subsection (1). The Legislative Assembly also has directed the Secretary of State to promulgate rules regarding reapportionment. ORS 188.015. [15] He has done so. Of particular relevance is OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX, which provides: (1) In developing a reapportionment plan, the Secretary of State will comply with Section 6, Article IV of the Oregon Constitution, ORS 188.010 and any federal law which imposes requirements in addition to those imposed by the Oregon constitution and statutes. (2) Compliance with the criteria of ORS 188.010(1) shall be to the maximum extent practicable. The following interpretations will be made of specific criteria: (a) `Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries.' When possible, districts will be drawn to utilize county lines and to maintain cities within a single district; (b) `Not divide communities of common interest.' Where urban neighborhoods, rural communities or other communities can be identified, an effort will be made to retain that community within a single district. Consideration will be given to market areas covered by local media; (c) `Be connected by transportation links.' Road connections of at least a county road should be available within the district from one area of the district to another. This does not apply to unpopulated areas of the district. In reviewing a plan of reapportionment, this court is not privileged to substitute its judgment about the wisdom of the plan. Ater v. Keisling, 312 Or. 207, 213, 819 P.2d 296 (1991). Rather, our task is to determine whether the Secretary of State has complied with Article IV, section 6(1), and all law applicable thereto. Or. Const., Art. IV, § 6(3)(c), (d). However, the constitution and ORS 188.010(1) vest the Secretary of State with discretion in preparing a plan of reapportionment so long as the plan is rational and consistent with the fundamental constitutional requirement that apportionment be made according to population. See Ater, 312 Or. at 213, 819 P.2d 296 (noting broad discretion vested in the legislature in applying the constitutional formula for apportionment (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Consequently, this court will void a reapportionment plan only if we can say from the record that the Secretary of State either did not consider one or more criteria or, having considered them all, made a choice or choices that no reasonable Secretary of State would have made. A party challenging a reapportionment plan has the burden to show that one of those circumstances is present. That standard of review is dictatedat least in partby the flexibility that is built into the statutes and rules that govern a reapportionment. ORS 188.010(1) provides that [e]ach district, as nearly as practicable, shall comply with five sub-criteria. (Emphasis added.) The consideration to be accorded to each criterion in specific districts, then, is in general granted to the reapportioning body, which in this case is the Secretary of State.