Opinion ID: 2639372
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Case was Ripe for Adjudication

Text: Beauprez asserts that there was no case or controversy when this action was filed in May 2001, because the general assembly still had ample time and opportunity to enact a redistricting plan. We disagree. Ripeness requires that there be an actual case or controversy between the parties that is sufficiently immediate and real so as to warrant adjudication. Carstens, 543 F.Supp. at 76 (citing Lake Carriers' Ass'n v. MacMullan, 406 U.S. 498, 506, 92 S.Ct. 1749, 32 L.Ed.2d 257 (1972)). Thus, courts generally do not consider cases involving uncertain or contingent future matters. Id. (citing Charles Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 3532, at 238 (1975)). In the context of court-ordered redistricting, it has been recognized that, although redistricting is primarily the task of the legislature, a controversy is ripe for judicial action when `a legislature fails to reapportion according to federal constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so.' Weiser, 412 U.S. at 794-95, 93 S.Ct. 2348 (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 586, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964)); see also O'Sullivan v. Brier, 540 F.Supp. 1200, 1202 (D.Kan. 1982). It has also been articulated that a redistricting controversy is ripe when a court lack[s] assurance that reapportionment plans [will] be validly enacted in time for the upcoming election. Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal.4th 707, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 379, 823 P.2d 545, 547 (1992). Finally, an argument similar to the one presented by the petitioners here was presented to the Carstens court, which rejected the ripeness argument: In the instant case, the Governor and the State Legislature have had ample opportunity to redistrict Colorado and to provide for an additional representative. . . . Despite months of deliberate study and negotiation, the people of Colorado still do not have an acceptable congressional redistricting plan. We are persuaded that the fate of redistricting in Colorado has reached an impasse which the parties are not capable of resolving. . . . Thus, this Court is presented with a controversy of immediate concern. There is no indication that absent judicial intervention, a viable solution will be forthcoming. Carstens, 543 F.Supp. at 76. Given these principles of ripeness in the context of a redistricting dispute, we conclude that the district court properly determined that the present action was ripe for adjudication. Our review of the record reveals that the district court abstained from ruling on this matter until it was convinced that no legislatively crafted plan would be forthcoming. That court deferred ruling on the initial motions filed in this case until November 2001, after the general assembly adjourned without adopting a plan. Even after conducting the trial in this case in December 2001, the district court abstained from issuing its decision until January 25, 2002, in order to give the general assembly another chance to promulgate a redistricting plan. [5] In its eventual ruling, the district court explicitly states that it has waited until this date to announce this decision with the hope that the General Assembly in the general legislative session of January 2002 would have adopted a plan for redistricting and have that plan approved by Governor Owens. Avalos, No. 01CV2897, slip op. at 2. The record also indicates that the general assembly had an adequate opportunity to enact a redistricting plan, but failed to do so. Accordingly, we find that the case was ripe for adjudication on its merits. Carstens, 543 F.Supp. at 76.