Opinion ID: 1933405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Shrewsbury Petition

Text: Petitioners challenge the placement of the town of Shrewsbury, which is in Rutland County, in a representative district with the towns of Plymouth and Ludlow, which are in Windsor County. Petitioners argue that placing Shrewsbury in the same district with Ludlow and Plymouth violates constitutional and statutory criteria that require the Legislature to join towns with common interests. See Vt. Const. ch. II, § 13 (General Assembly shall seek to maintain geographical compactness and contiguity and to adhere to boundaries of counties and other existing political subdivisions.); 17 V.S.A. § 1903(b) (insofar as practicable, representative districts should preserve existing political lines, maintain patterns of geography, social interaction, trade, political ties, and common interests, and consist of compact and contiguous territory). Because petitioners have failed to show that there was no rational basis for the creation of the challenged district, we dismiss the petition. For the most part, the master's findings are undisputed. From 1982 to 1992, Shrewsbury had been placed in a district with the town of Sherburne. Both towns made it known that the district was unworkable because of inaccessibility between the two towns and because of conflicting positions regarding ski development. Following the 1990 census, the Legislative Apportionment Board placed Shrewsbury in a district with the towns of Tinmouth and Wallingford, and the town of Mount Holly with Plymouth and Ludlow. Rejecting that proposal, the House Government Operations Committee created a plan, eventually adopted by the Legislature, that contained districts in which Shrewsbury and Mount Holly were switched from the Board's plan. Shrewsbury was joined with Ludlow and Plymouth to form Windsor-Rutland 1 district, while Mount Holly was realigned with Tinmouth, Wallingford, and Mt. Tabor to form Rutland 4 district. The resulting Windsor-Rutland 1 district is shaped like an inverted L, with Shrewsbury and Plymouth across the top from west to east, and Ludlow south of Plymouth. A graded gravel road, which is passable only six months of the year, provides access over the mountain from Shrewsbury to Plymouth. Shrewsbury and Plymouth are largely undeveloped, rural towns that share the Calvin Coolidge State Forest and the Plymouth Wildlife Management Area, which residents of both towns use for recreational purposes. Access from Shrewsbury to Ludlow is via State Route 103, a major east-west artery that passes through Mount Holly. Route 100 runs north from Ludlow to Plymouth. Other than the fact that the three towns are in the same transportation district, there was no evidence presented concerning common interests between Shrewsbury and Ludlow. Upon review of the record, we conclude that petitioners have failed to show that the Legislature violated any constitutional or statutory criteria in creating the Windsor-Rutland 1 district. As noted, the Legislature's redistricting plans are presumed to be valid, In re Senate Bill 177, 130 Vt. at 361, 294 A.2d at 654; therefore, there is a heavy burden of proof on those challenging them to show that the plans do not meet constitutional or statutory criteria. Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. at 185, 106 S.Ct. at 2838 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Petitioners here have not shown the absence of social, economic, or political ties among the towns in the challenged district. Rather, their evidence is aimed at showing that Mount Holly has more in common with Ludlow and Plymouth than does Shrewsbury. Petitioners focus their attack on the recommendation of the House Government Operations Committee to place Mount Holly, instead of Shrewsbury, with Wallingford, Tinmouth, and Mt. Tabor. Indeed, petitioners argue that placing Mt. Holly rather than Shrewsbury with Wallingford shows that there is no rational basis for the creation of the challenged district. Petitioners' arguments are misdirected. The Legislature is not required to accept the Apportionment Board's plan. See 17 V.S.A. § 1906 (proposal of Board is referred to appropriate committee, after which General Assembly may enact the Board's plan into law or substitute its own plan). The final plan adopted by the Legislature need only be in conformity with constitutional and statutory criteria; it need not be the best possible plan. See Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. at 750-51, 93 S.Ct. at 2330. By the same token, petitioners cannot succeed merely by presenting an alternative plan that appears to meet constitutional and statutory criteria to a greater degree than the plan chosen by the Legislature. Rather, the burden is on them to show the absence of any rational or legitimate basis for the Legislature's plan. Petitioners have failed to meet that burden. The three towns form a geographically compact and contiguous district and are in the same transportation district. Shrewsbury is separated by mountains from Plymouth but has ready access by highway to Ludlow and through Ludlow to Plymouth. Further, there is a seasonal road directly to Plymouth, and the two communities share a common recreational area. Shrewsbury is not in the same county or school district as Ludlow and Plymouth, but that alone does not indicate there was no rational basis for creation of the district. See In re Senate Bills 177 & 83, 132 Vt. at 289, 318 A.2d at 162 (crossing of county lines does not disqualify plan, given difficulties of reaching an acceptable result statewide); In re Reapportionment Plan for Pennsylvania General Assembly, 442 A.2d at 668 (crossing county lines is unavoidable). Petitioners, of course, may cast doubt on the validity of a legislative plan by demonstrating that the Legislature failed to adopt an alternative that substantially improves on that plan, see In re Legislative Districting of General Assembly, 193 N.W.2d at 790, but they have also failed to do that. The thrust of petitioners' argument is that the failure of the House Government Operations Committee to adopt the Board's proposal aligning Mt. Holly with Ludlow and Plymouth demonstrates the lack of a rational basis for placing Shrewsbury with those towns. We cannot agree. Because both Mt. Holly and Shrewsbury are in Rutland County, both alternatives involve crossing a county line. The degree of compactness is similar with respect to each alternative. As for community of interests, there were various factors for the Committee to consider. Both Shrewsbury and Mt. Holly are connected to Ludlow by the same highway, although Mt. Holly is closer to Ludlow and consequently has more trade with it. Unlike Shrewsbury, Mt. Holly is in the same school district as Ludlow; however, disproportionate tax burdens in the two towns have led to conflicts over attempts to finance a union district school. Further, there is an ongoing dispute between Mt. Holly and Ludlow over the location of their common border, and the towns have conflicting views on the development of Mt. Okemo ski area. Finally, there was testimony that Mt. Holly wanted to remain in the district in which it had spent the last eighteen years and conflicting testimony that some residents of that town preferred the Board's plan. Although petitioners have challenged the significance of the conflicts between Mt. Holly and Ludlow, we cannot conclude that there was no rational basis for the Legislature's decision to keep Mt. Holly with Wallingford and Tinmouth rather than adopt the Board's plan. See Ater v. Keisling, 819 P.2d at 301 (redistricting plan upheld where facts would permit more than one rational conclusion). Petitioners argue that the master erred by not allowing a potential candidate to testify that the Speaker of the House admitted to him that Shrewsbury was switched with Mt. Holly to protect an incumbent representative. The State had objected that the testimony was hearsay, and we agree. The testimony was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and nothing more. See V.R.E. 801(c), 802. Further, the proffered testimony was not significant. Petitioners themselves concede that the emphasis in redistricting challenges is not whether there was a discriminatory intent, but rather whether there was a violation of constitutional or statutory criteria. See Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. at 752, 93 S.Ct. at 2331 (It would be idle, we think, to contend that any political consideration taken into account in fashioning a reapportionment plan is sufficient to invalidate it.); see also Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-68, 97 S.Ct. 555, 564-65, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977) (discussing ways to determine motive of legislators without placing decisionmaker on the stand). As indicated in our prior discussion, petitioners have failed to show a violation of constitutional or statutory criteria. Consequently, the issue of motive is irrelevant. In re 1991 Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission, 609 A.2d at 147 (because court had already ruled that redistricting plan did not violate federal or state constitution, any evidence of motives of legislative commission was irrelevant). Indeed, we would be naive if we did not acknowledge that political considerations underlie many redistricting decisions. A search for impermissible political motives would embroil this Court in evaluating the wisdom of redistricting decisions, a function that is inconsistent with our limited role. Petitioners also allege that creation of the challenged district violates Articles 7 and 8 of Chapter I of the Vermont Constitution. See Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 7 (government is instituted for the common benefit of the community and not for any particular group within that community); id. ch. I, art. 8 (all freemen, having a common interest with the community, have a right to elect officers). These arguments appear to be an attempt to bootstrap petitioners' claims into a stricter level of scrutiny than would normally be available in a redistricting petition. The constitutional provisions governing reapportionment are self-contained; there is no indication that additional limits on legislative prerogatives were intended to be applied from other parts of the constitution. Petitioners' arguments are a restatement of, and are completely dependent on, the claims regarding Chapter II, § 13 and 17 V.S.A. § 1903(b). Petitioners argue that Article 7 applies because the Legislature failed to match Shrewsbury with towns of similar interests, and that Article 8 applies because denying a citizen the right to vote in a district with citizens that share common interests effectively denies that citizen the right to elect a representative. Because these arguments are premised on the lack of common interests within Windsor-Rutland 1, a claim that we have rejected, they must also fail. Finally, petitioners' argument that the creation of the Windsor-Rutland 1 district denied a certain would-be candidate a fair chance at being elected is without merit. Potential candidates are not guaranteed a favorable district to run in, and citizens of a district do not have a right to vote for a specific candidate. In re 1991 Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment Commission, 609 A.2d at 142 (aspirant's right to run for political office does not rise to a constitutionally protected level requiring the Legislative Reapportionment Commission to tailor its plan around the residences of political aspirants who seek to challenge a specific incumbent).