Opinion ID: 2062677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: District descriptions

Text: Petitioners Skinner and Weiner contest the Special Master's finding that the Governor's redistricting plan describes the districts it creates in a manner comprehensible to the ordinary citizen. They contend that the plan's reference to precincts and census tracts and blocks to specify districts requires voters to assimilate too much information to determine district boundaries. Skinner and Weiner claim that the plan should refer to visible geographical features, and that if words cannot be used to describe boundaries, the simple solution ... would be for the Court of Appeals to ... publish the 47 maps setting forth the redistricting plan. Skinner and Weiner cite no law specifying how districts are to be described, for indeed there is none. Article III, § 5 merely specifies that the Governor shall prepare a plan setting forth the boundaries of the districts, which the plan at issue here does. The Governor might reasonably prefer precinct and census references to actual geographical features in describing districts, for as legal creations those entities will not change before the next census, whereas natural or artificial landmarks may erode or succumb to development. We agree with the Special Master that the Governor's plan adequately describes the districts it creates.