Opinion ID: 1884792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the senate reapportionment

Text: [¶ 5] The Court has considered the various suggestions and submissions and has accepted or rejected them as set out below. The changes that have been made to the Court's proposed Senate plan do not result in any further division of individual municipalities or counties, nor do they increase the relative overall population range of 3.57%. [¶ 6] The suggestions fell roughly into five separate geographic areas. To the extent that any suggestions were made that have not been addressed within this decision, the Court has declined to accept those suggestions.

[¶ 7] Aroostook County comprises only two Districts. A concern was raised regarding the Court's proposed configuration of those districts because of the size of District 35 and the substantial distance involved in representing that district, in contrast with the much more compact area of proposed District 34. The Court concluded that the concerns raised at the public hearing directly addressed the Constitutional requirement of compactness. After careful consideration, the Court has reconfigured the two districts for Aroostook County, roughly along an east-west line. This configuration was adopted because: (a) It better meets the constitutional requirement of compactness; (b) The population ratio of the two districts is better balanced with the new lines; (c) The change has no effect on bordering districts; and (d) At the public hearing, no one objected to the proposal of the east-west line, including the representatives of the Democratic and Republican parties, each of whom were specifically asked to comment on the recommendation.
[¶ 8] The Court's proposed plan split a community of interest by placing Norway and Paris in different districts, Districts 13 and 14. A suggestion was presented that would place both towns in the same district, District 13, while maintaining population parity in Districts 13 and 14. The Court has accepted that suggestion with minor modifications to maintain population parity. The suggestion was accepted because: (a) It returned a significant community of interest to a single district; (b) The changes have no effect on other districts; (c) The population distribution for Districts 13 and 14 as reconfigured fell well within the mean; and (d) At the public hearing, no one objected to the reconfiguration.
[¶ 9] Portland is the only municipality that is larger in population than a single district. [2] It must by necessity be split into two districts, one of which must be wholly contained within Portland. ME. CONST. art. IV, pt. 1, § 2; art. IV, pt. 2, § 2. The Court established a roughly north-south line to accomplish that goal, taking into account requests from the public filed earlier with the Court, including a request that the City of South Portland not be placed into a district with the City of Portland. [¶ 10] The City of Portland, while not objecting to the external boundaries of the two Portland districts, has represented that their precinct lines would be more easily administered if the court adopted an east-west line. The Mayor of the City of Portland also represented that a change from the tradition of an east-west line would be cumbersome and expensive for the city. A proposal was presented at the public hearing on June 23 that would maintain the external boundaries of the two Portland districts established by the Court's proposal, but would divide the city along an east-west axis. The proposal has a slightly better population variance than the Court's proposal and creates a compact and contiguous configuration. The suggestion to divide Portland along an east-west axis was accepted because: (a) It brings the populations of Districts 8 and 9 into nearly total parity; (b) It creates compact and contiguous districts; (c) It does not change the external boundaries of the districts and does not affect any districts other than Districts 8 and 9; and (d) It reduces the prospects of additional costs and administrative difficulties for the City of Portland.

[¶ 11] Similar to the issues raised regarding Aroostook County, concerns were raised regarding the size of District 27, which spans Piscataquis and Penobscot Counties. [¶ 12] The Court seriously considered those concerns, recognizing that the proposed configuration of District 27 will require the senator representing the district to travel from Palmyra to Patten and Mount Chase. We therefore considered carefully, and at length, the several different proposals submitted at the public hearing designed to reduce the geographic size of District 27. As is demonstrated by the variety of suggestions for addressing the problem, it is not possible to change the configuration of District 27 without substantially affecting Districts 30, 31, 33, and possibly 32 and 25. In each instance, the changes would have a negative effect on population parity, compactness, contiguity, or communities of interest in other districts. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the problems created by changing the configuration of District 27 outweigh the legitimate concerns raised regarding the size of that district. Therefore the Court declines to accept the suggestions regarding District 27.
[¶ 13] The Court heard from a number of people, including current legislators, regarding a request to include the Town of Lebanon in the same district as the Town of Sanford. [3] In order to achieve population parity, however, the suggested revision changed the configuration of more than just Districts 2 and 3. Ultimately, it affected Districts 2, 3, 4, and 5 creating substantial changes in those districts. [¶ 14] The Court therefore attempted to address the request without causing a ripple effect into other districts. Notwithstanding the Court's efforts, we were not able to accommodate the Lebanon/Sanford request without substantially affecting several other districts in ways that the court determined were not acceptable. Therefore, the Court has declined to accept the suggested changes to the York County districts.