Opinion ID: 1453457
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the ater and bugas petitions

Text: The Ater petition was filed by six residents of northwestern Multnomah County, three of whom are also residents of the City of Portland. The petitioners contend that the reapportionment plan is not in compliance with Article IV, section 6(1), and ORS 188.010(1), because its assignment of their neighborhood to House District 7 rather than House District 11 fails to recognize (a) the community of common interest between the voters in the petitioners' neighborhood and the voters in adjacent District 11, an urban and suburban Portland district, and (b) their lack of common interest with the other voters in District 7, a rural and suburban district to which their neighborhood was assigned. Additionally, the petitioners contend that the reapportionment arbitrarily and unnecessarily ignores the existing geographic and political boundaries of Multnomah County and the City of Portland. The petitioners claim that the Secretary's decision to adhere to the goal of strict population equality caused him to ignore or devalue the other statutory criteria, the appropriate application of which, the petitioners argue, would have resulted in their neighborhood's being assigned to House District 11. The petitioners in Bugas are 20 individuals who reside in Columbia or Clatsop Counties. They argue that the Secretary's plan ignores the statutory criteria set forth in ORS 188.010(1) by failing to preserve existing geographic and political boundaries and by inappropriately and unnecessarily dividing communities of common interest within Clatsop and Columbia Counties. In particular, the petitioners challenge the Secretary's decision to create a district along the Columbia River that includes Astoria and separates Astoria from the remainder of the north coast. Petitioners seek to have the plan redrawn to place all of Clatsop County within one district extending south into the northern portion of Tillamook County and east into the western portion of Columbia County. The propositions underlying both the Ater and Bugas petitions are (1) that the Secretary was not required by statute or by either the state or federal constitution to adopt as strict a population deviation standard as he did and (2) that his decision to adopt the plus-or-minus one percent standard foreclosed adequate consideration of the other criteria set forth in ORS 188.010(1). Article IV, section 6(1), provides that the number of Senators and Representatives shall be fixed by law and apportioned among legislative districts according to population. Article IV, section 6(1) further provides that [t]he ratio of Senators and Representatives, respectively, to population shall be determined by dividing the total population of the state by the number of Senators and by the number of Representatives. The Oregon Constitution speaks only of population as the basis for reapportionment. While absolute equality of population may be difficult or impossible to achieve, adoption of the plus-or-minus one percent standard certainly furthers the constitutional mandate, at least in the sense that it prevents deviations of more than one percent. The Secretary's decision to adopt the plus-or-minus one percent deviation standard was not irrational or contrary to the constitution. The petitioners' argument that the federal constitution does not require strict population equality is beside the point. The question raised by the petitioners is whether the legislative districts as drawn by the Secretary are too equal, not whether they are equal enough. Additionally, because the constitutional mandate pursuant to which the Secretary acted speaks only of population as the basis for an apportionment, the Secretary reasonably could have believed that this court might interpret the Oregon Constitution to require a greater degree of equality than the standards under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As this court noted in Hovet v. Myers, supra, 260 Or. at 164, 489 P.2d 684, with regard to the possibility that multi-member districts would be held unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, [t]he Secretary could legitimately consider this possibility and devise a plan with single-member districts and thus avoid the constitutional vulnerability of a multi-member district plan. Likewise, the Secretary has the authority to interpret his mandate in a manner that minimizes the possibility of a successful state constitutional challenge to his reapportionment plan. [9] The petitioners assert that ORS 188.010(1), as incorporated into the constitution by the phrase and all law applicable thereto, requires that appropriate consideration be given to each of the five criteria listed in the statute without giving one criterion priority over the others. They contend that the Secretary's adoption of a criterion that no district would vary from the ideal district size of 47,372 by more than plus-or-minus one percent made it impossible to give enough consideration to the other four statutory criteria. ORS 188.010(1) requires the Secretary to consider the five criteria listed and that, as nearly as practicable, the districts conform to the five criteria. We view the statute as giving the Secretary  and the Legislative Assembly  latitude in applying the five criteria. Thus, where the statutory goals collide  e.g., strict adherence to a geographical boundary might result in an apportionment that skews population equality  the reapportionment process necessarily requires some flexibility in application. In essence, the petitioners ask us to second-guess the Secretary's decisions regarding the configuration of their legislative districts. That we will not do. We have reviewed the record and the reapportionment plan in light of the constitutional and statutory provisions. The record is replete with evidence that the Secretary did consider all five statutory criteria in arriving at the reapportionment decisions challenged in the Ater and Bugas petitions. [10] The choices that the Secretary made in drawing the district boundaries at issue in Ater and Bugas were consistent with Article IV, section 6(1), of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 188.010.