Opinion ID: 2515815
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenges Under ORS 188.010(1)

Text: Numerous petitioners allege that the Secretary of State violated ORS 188.010(1) because he allegedly ignored geographic or political boundaries, communities of common interest, or transportation links.
Several petitioners challenge House District 55, which contains Crook and Lake Counties, plus parts of Deschutes, Klamath, and Jackson Counties. [16] Deschutes, Crook, Lake, and Klamath Counties lie east of the crest of the Cascade Mountain range. The part of Jackson County at issue (which includes the communities of Shady Cove, Eagle Point, and Butte Falls) lies west of the crest of the Cascades. Petitioners first contend that the Secretary of State failed to consider adequately the criteria found in ORS 188.010(1)(c), (d), and (e) (geographic or political boundaries, communities of common interest, and transportation links), and the related administrative rules, OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2)(a), (b), and (c). They contend that Jackson County does not have a community of interest with the remainder of House District 55, that House District 55 should not cross either the geographic boundary of the Cascades or the political (county) boundary, and that the transportation links to the rest of House District 55 are inadequate. The Secretary of State's summary regarding House District 55 is as follows: House District 55 contains a large portion of Central Oregon, including Prineville and many other small communities that have a rural resource economy and share agricultural and timber interests. The entirety of Crook County was placed into this district to assure that it remained whole. This district was altered in response to public testimony in three distinct ways: first, it connects the communities south of Bend (now in House District 53) in a House district that unites the needs of Deschutes County residents. Second, this district unites all of White City in its borders. Finally, Crook County was united in one House district. To unite these interests, it is necessary to leave the district in order to drive to all portions of the district. The population deviates from the ideal by.5 percent. One of Platt Petitioners presented comments about House District 55 to the Secretary of State during public hearings. The Secretary of State responded:    There is a clear community of interest along social and commercial lines between Klamath County and Jackson County especially with the Medford area. District 57, now District 55, follows the boundary of Congressional District 2. Klamath Falls and Medford are closely connected by Highways 140 and 62. Sunriver, LaPine and other Deschutes communities were removed and placed in a single district. KOBI/KOTI Television stations share ownership and provide daily news about both areas. One station serves Medford; the other serves Klamath Falls. The combined market of the two stations creates a community of interest. Petitioners point to nothing in the record that demonstrates that the Secretary of State did not consider the relevant criteria, nor do petitioners show that his choice to include part of Jackson County in House District 55 was one that no reasonable Secretary of State would have made. Petitioners' allegations that that part of Jackson County has, for example, more of a community of common interest with other communities west of the Cascades, or better transportation links with that area, do not demonstrate that the Secretary of State inadequately considered the appropriate criteria, or that his conclusions were those that no reasonable Secretary of State would have made. See McCall, 291 Or. at 685, 634 P.2d 223 (This court does not inquire if a more nearly ideal apportionment could be designed, even assuming agreement on what is ideal.). Anderson Petitioners appear to propose a new district that would meet their concerns. However, Anderson Petitioners fail to submit even the most basic information about their proposed district (such as population), nor do they discuss how their proposed change would affect House District 55 or others. [17] Under those circumstances, their proposal is not an alternative that the court will consider. Anderson Petitioners also contend that the Secretary of State violated OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX because he improperly refused to accept their comments, which they allege were submitted electronically within the time allowed. Anderson Petitioners concede, however, that one petitioner read the comments aloud at a public meeting that the Secretary of State held on August 3, 2001. Even assuming that the Secretary of State erred in refusing to accept their written submission, that error was harmless.
The substance of Kane Petitioners' arguments appear to be that the Secretary of State should have paid more attention to county lines, particularly Multnomah County lines. The Secretary of State indicated in his transmittal letter that [c]ounties in the tri-county Portland Metropolitan area play a relatively small role in the lives of residents. For decades, district lines there have routinely cut across county lines to account for more meaningful boundaries such as city lines, geographic boundaries such as the Willamette River, transportation links including highways and railroads, service districts and neighborhood associations. At bottom, Kane Petitioners are seeking to substitute their judgment for that of the Secretary of State, arguing that he should have placed emphasis on the same criterion that Kane Petitioners do. It is clear that the Secretary of State considered the criterion that Kane Petitioners emphasize; he simply concluded that, on the record before him, other criteria were more important. Similarly, we find no merit to Kane Petitioners' argument that the Secretary of State violated ORS 188.010(1) in dividing the City of Beaverton into four House districts. Kane Petitioners point to nothing in the record that demonstrates that the Secretary of State did not consider the relevant criteria. Kane Petitioners have not shown that the Secretary of State made choices that no reasonable Secretary of State would have made.
Lehan Petitioners challenge the placement of the City of Wilsonville in House District 26. [18] Lehan Petitioners note that virtually all of Wilsonville is in Clackamas County, but that House District 26 joins Wilsonville with Washington County. Lehan Petitioners argue that their community of interest is with the area currently in House District 37. They contend, conversely, that the City of Tualatin shares a community of interest with House District 26. Lehan Petitioners argue that the court should direct the Secretary of State to place Wilsonville in House District 37 and to place Tualatin in House District 26. Lehan Petitioners concede that the populations of the two cities do not match, but suggest that the Secretary of State somehow could correct such problems. The Secretary of State explained his reasons for drawing House District 26 as he did as follows: House District 26 contains the cities of Gaston, Sherwood and Wilsonville. It also contains a large area of unincorporated Washington County and a smaller area of Clackamas County. The shape of this district changed in response to public testimony, adding areas near Wilsonville including the Wilsonville Tract, an important regional resource. The portion of Hillsboro previously included in this district was removed in response to testimony to contain that city entirely in two House districts. There are good transportation links between the population centers. The population deviates from the ideal by .8 percent. Regarding House District 37, the Secretary explained: This district complies with the principle of not splitting cities by keeping Tualatin and West Linn whole. These two communities share an excellent transportation link: Interstate 205. Its southern border is the Willamette. The population deviates from the ideal by zero percent. The interrelationship of districts means that the Secretary of State must consider the ORS 188.010(1) criteria not only within each district, but also among districts. Lehan Petitioners point to nothing in the record that demonstrates that the Secretary of State did not consider the relevant criteria, nor have they shown that the Secretary of State's choices as to how to draw the districts were those that no reasonable Secretary of State would have made.
In their arguments regarding Article IV, section 7, Welsh Petitioners suggest that the Secretary of State's reapportionment plan violates county boundaries in violation of OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2)(a). As we have noted, ORS 188.010(1) directs only that the districts comply with political boundaries, among other criteria, as nearly as practicable. ORS 188.010(1)(c). Similarly, OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2) directs the Secretary of State to follow ORS 188.010(1) to the maximum extent practicable. OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2)(a) interprets ORS 188.010(1)(c) and specifies that, [w]hen possible, districts will be drawn to utilize county lines. Welsh Petitioners' arguments presume that the Secretary of State was required to, or at least should, have emphasized county boundaries at the expense of all the criteria except population. There is nothing in ORS 188.010(1)(c) or OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2) that requires the Secretary of State to place such importance on county boundaries. The Secretary of State did not err as a matter of law. [19] Welsh Petitioners further contend that the plan violates ORS 188.010(1)(b) because the districts could have a zero percent deviation from the ideal number, but instead have a plus or minus one percent deviation from the ideal. [20] Again, ORS 188.010(1)(b) is only one of five criteria that each district should strive to reach as nearly as practicable. The Secretary of State has discretion as to how to consider those criteria, both standing alone and with respect to each other. The ability to comply perfectly with one criterion does not mean that the Secretary of State must do so at the expense of all others. Petitioners have failed to show that the Secretary of State's choice to use a plus or minus one percent deviation was a choice that no reasonable Secretary of State would have made.
Gray Petitioners contend that the Secretary of State erred in joining House Districts 1 and 2 to create Senate District 1. [21] They argue that House Districts 1 and 9 should have been joined in a senatorial district, that House Districts 2 and 7 should have been joined in a second senatorial district, and that House Districts 8 and 10 should have been joined in a third. They present evidence regarding the community of interest that connects the coastal areas assigned to House Districts 1 and 9. [22] The Secretary of State must consider numerous criteria in deciding which House districts should be linked into a Senate district. Gray Petitioners point to nothing in the record that demonstrates that the Secretary of State did not consider the relevant criteria. They have failed to show that the Secretary of State's choice to link House Districts 1 and 2 into a Senate district was a choice that no reasonable Secretary of State would have made.
Kropf Petitioners challenge the Secretary of State's reapportionment plan as it applies to Linn County. They contend that the plan: (1) violates ORS 188.010(1)(a) because Senate District 12 and House District 23 contain counties that are not contiguous; (2) violates ORS 188.010(1)(c) because it fails to use existing geographic or political boundaries, specifically Linn County boundaries; (3) violates ORS 188.010(1)(d) because it divides communities of common interest; and (4) violates ORS 188.010(1)(e) because the part of Linn County placed in House District 23 is not connected to Yamhill County by transportation links. ORS 188.010(1)(a) requires only that the district be contiguous; it does not mention counties, much less require that every county within the district touch every other county. Kropf Petitioners' arguments regarding communities of common interest appear to be based on the unsupported assertion that the only communities of common interest that should be considered are those within Linn County. Transportation links are only one of the criteria that the Secretary of State must consider, and he did so. Kropf Petitioners point to nothing in the record that demonstrates that the Secretary of State did not consider the relevant criteria, nor do they show that the Secretary of State made choices that no reasonable Secretary of State would have made in drawing the Linn County districts.
Petitioner McDonnell did not submit a brief. We consider the arguments set out in her petition. [23] Petitioner McDonnell challenges the plan of reapportionment as it applies to Sunriver. She contends that House District 53:(1) violates ORS 188.010(1)(d) because it splits a community of interest between Sunriver and Bend; and (2) violates ORS 188.010(1)(e) because no transportation link within the district connects the northern half with the southern half (all transportation links go through Bend, which is in House District 54). House District 54 consists of the City of Bend and a very small amount of the surrounding area. House District 53, which entirely surrounds House District 54, consists of most of the remainder of Deschutes County, including Sunriver. Petitioner McDonnell argues, in effect, that some (unidentified) part of Bend has a greater community of interest with Sunriver than it does with the remainder of Bend. That allegation, and Petitioner McDonnell's other assertions, merely seek to substitute her judgment for that of the Secretary of State regarding communities of common interest. Transportation links are one criterion that the Secretary must consider, and he did so; but, as we have noted, he is not required to consider that criterion in a vacuum. Petitioner McDonnell points to nothing in the record that demonstrates that the Secretary of State did not consider the relevant criteria, nor does she show that the Secretary of State made choices that no reasonable Secretary of State would have made in drawing House Districts 53 and 54.
Grant Petitioners challenge the plan as it applies to Clackamas County. [24] Specifically, Grant Petitioners contend that the plan does not comply with ORS 188.010(1)(c) and OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2)(a) because it unnecessarily ignores Clackamas County boundaries, and does not comply with ORS 188.010(1)(d) and OAR XXX-XXX-XXXX(2)(b) because it breaks up communities of common interest in Clackamas County. Grant Petitioners appear to argue that the Secretary of State should have treated county boundaries as more important than other criteria. Thus, for example, Grant Petitioners contend that the Secretary of State should not have placed less emphasis on county boundaries in the tri-county Portland metropolitan area. We rejected that argument by Kane Petitioners, and we reject it here. County boundaries are only one of the criteria that the Secretary of State must consider. The remainder of Grant Petitioners' arguments merely seek to substitute their judgment for that of the Secretary of State as to the various criteria. Grant Petitioners point to nothing in the record that demonstrates that the Secretary of State did not consider the relevant criteria, nor have they shown that the Secretary of State made choices that no reasonable Secretary of State would have made in drawing the Clackamas County districts.
Fabiano Petitioners present a problem of a different sort. Fabiano Petitioners contend that the official census data incorrectly attribute the population of one census block to another census block in another district. According to the Fabiano Petitioners, House District 23 includes a federal prison in the City of Sheridan with approximately 1,992 inmates. The official census data, however, indicate that that block contains a population of zero. Those petitioners also assert that House District 24 includes a census block with an actual population of zero, but an official census population of 1,992 persons. Fabiano Petitioners therefore contend that the actual populations of House Districts 23 and 24 differ substantially from the populations reported by the Secretary of State. [25] Fabiano Petitioners contend that, consistent with ORS 188.010(1)(b), the Secretary of State should redraw the district lines to equalize the population between the two districts. The failure to do so could mean that the population of those two districts would violate the plus or minus one percent guideline used by the Secretary of State in every other district. The record demonstrates that two witnesses brought the census data error to the attention of the Secretary of State during public hearings regarding the reapportionment plan. The Secretary of State argues that the official population data provided by the United States Census Bureau support the district lines that he drew for House Districts 23 and 24 and that, to date, the federal government has not altered its official census data. The Secretary of State acknowledges that there is virtual certainty    that the official census blocks have misplaced the Sheridan prison, as the Fabiano Petitioners argue. He asserts, however, that it is less certain whether that error means that the official census has assigned all 1,992 inmates to the census block in House District 24. The Secretary of State argues that he may use only official census data in developing his reapportionment plan and that he lacks authority to correct official census data on his own initiative. To support that claim, the Secretary of State relies on Article IV, section 6(1), of the Oregon Constitution, which provides, in part: 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. According to the Secretary of State, the wording of Article IV, section 6(1), means that the enumeration of the inhabitants by the United States Government, i.e., the official census, is the only measurement of the population on which he is entitled to base his reapportionment plan. The Secretary of State is correct in asserting that, under Article IV, section 6(1), his plan must apportion districts according to population. However, that constitutional provision does not by its own terms require the Secretary of State to determine population solely by reference to the official census published by the United States Census Bureau. Rather, that provision makes it clear that the enumeration of the inhabitants by the United States Government simply is the event that signals the commencement of the constitutional reapportionment process. The Secretary of State cites no other source of law in support of his claim that he cannot rely on reliable population information developed from data other than the census. We hold that the Secretary of State incorrectly has assumed that, in determining the population of a district in the face of an admitted error in the census data, he nonetheless must rely solely on official census data. The pertinent constitutional and statutory criteria that apply to reapportionment speak only of population. See Or. Const., Art. IV, § 6(1) (legislative districts must be apportioned according to population); Or. Const., Art. IV, § 6(3)(a) (requiring reapportionment in accordance with    all law applicable thereto); ORS 188.010(1)(b) (stating equal population criterion). The Secretary of State's reapportionment guidelines authorize no more than a plus or minus one percent deviation from the ideal target population. Due to the error in the official census data of the federal prison census block, the population in House District 23 may deviate significantly from those guidelines. It follows from the foregoing that the Secretary of State's decision not to attempt to obtain additional or different reliable data regarding the population of the prison census block was one that no reasonable Secretary of State would make. On this record, the failure to seek that data, if available, and to use it to assure compliance with the guidelines, means that the Secretary of State's reapportionment plan does not comply with Article IV, section 6(1), and all law applicable to the preparation of a reapportionment plan. The Secretary of State must determine the population of the prison as of April 1, 2000, the census date, 13 U.S.C. § 141(a), from other reliable evidence, including federal prison records, if such are available, and make such changes in legislative district boundaries as the Secretary of State may find appropriate to comply with all pertinent legal requirements, including the Secretary of State's redistricting guidelines. [26]