Opinion ID: 1457074
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: RemedyPlan C

Text: Martin also argues on appeal that the district court erred in imposing Plan C because it lacked the authority to impose a remedial plan. Martin contends all plans proposed to the court were either unworkable, ineffective, or in violation of South Dakota law. We review the district court's remedial order for an abuse of discretion. Bone Shirt, 461 F.3d at 1017. The abuse of discretion standard means that a court has a range of choice, and that its decision will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range and is not influenced by any mistake of law. An abuse of discretion occurs if a relevant factor that should have been given significant weight is not considered, if an irrelevant or improper factor is considered and given significant weight, or if a court commits a clear error of judgment in the course of weighing proper factors. Aaron v. Target Corp., 357 F.3d 768, 774 (8th Cir.2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Upon finding a Section 2 violation, the district court must develop a constitutional remedy and give the defendant the first opportunity to submit a remedial plan. Bone Shirt, 461 F.3d at 1022; Cottier I, 445 F.3d at 1123. If the defendant refuses to submit a remedial plan, it is then up to the district court to fashion its own remedy or adopt a remedial plan proposed by the plaintiff. Bone Shirt, 461 F.3d at 1022. In formulating a remedial plan, the first and foremost obligation of the district court is to correct the Section 2 violation. Id. Second, the court's remedy should achieve population equality while avoiding, when possible, the use of multi-member districts and it should be narrowly tailored. Id. at 1022-23. Third, the remedial plan must not violate Sections 2 or 5 of the VRA. Id. at 1023. Finally, the plan should not `intrude on state policy any more than is necessary' to uphold the requirements of the Constitution. Id. (quoting Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 41-42, 102 S.Ct. 1518, 71 L.Ed.2d 725 (1982) (per curiam)). In Cottier I, this court reviewed the district court's denial of relief to plaintiffs. Cottier I, 445 F.3d at 1116-22. Before that appeal, the district court had denied relief to plaintiffs on the basis that they had not established the third Gingles factor. Specifically, the district court ruled that plaintiffs had not established that the white majority usually voted in a way to defeat the Native American-preferred candidate. [8] The Cottier I panel reversed that decision in part, concluding that plaintiffs had established the third, and therefore all, Gingles factors. The prior panel affirmed the district court's finding that plaintiffs had met their burden under the first Gingles factor in establishing that the Native American community in Martin was sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district. Id. at 1118. In discussing the first Gingles factor the prior panel stated: The ultimate viability and effectiveness of a remedy is considered at the remedial stage of litigation and not during analysis of the Gingles preconditions. At the initial stage, the plaintiff must only show that minority voters possess the potential to elect representatives in the absence of the challenged structure or practices. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50 n. 17, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25; see also Dickinson v. Indiana State Election Bd., 933 F.2d 497, 503 (7th Cir. 1991); Houston v. Lafayette County, 56 F.3d 606, 611(5th Cir.1995). Although Martin argues the plans are not viable or stable, the ultimate end of the first Gingles precondition is to prove that a solution is possible, and not necessarily to present the final solution to the problem. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50 n. 17, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25. Id. at 1117 (emphasis in the original). After holding that plaintiffs had established all three Gingles preconditions, the prior panel stated that it would remand the case to the district court to determine if plaintiffs were entitled to relief under the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 1122. The prior panel then stated: In the event the district court finds that under the totality of the circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to relief, the district court shall devise and implement a remedy that will give Native-Americans in Martin a reasonable opportunity to elect Indian-preferred candidates to alderman. In so doing, the defendant shall be given an opportunity to propose a remedy within a specified amount of time. See Cane v. Worcester County, Md., 35 F.3d 921, 927 (4th Cir.1994). The court should then review the proposed order to determine whether it is legally unacceptable. Id. If the defendant fails to propose a legally acceptable remedy, the district court shall devise a plan that ensures that Indian-preferred candidates have a reasonable chance of prevailing in Martin municipal elections for alderman. Among its options, the district court has the discretion to implement any of the three plans presented by the plaintiffs. Id. at 1123. (emphasis added). At the end of the above paragraph, in a footnote, the prior panel stated: We disagree with the district court's finding that it is unable to apply an at-large voting system in Martin. In Cane, the court considered the amount of deference due to a legislative policy decision underlying proposed electoral schemes. Cane, 35 F.3d at 927-28. Even where the legislative body fails to propose a plan or where the plan proposed is legally unacceptable, the court, in exercising its discretion to fashion a remedy that complies with § 2, must to the greatest extent possible give effect to the legislative policy judgments underlying the current electoral scheme or legally unacceptable remedy offered by the legislative body. Id. at 928. If, at the remedy stage, a redistricting of Martin's wards appears unworkable, it appears that plaintiffs' third plan would be a viable option. Whereas the plan in Cane completely eliminated elected positions, plaintiffs' at-large plan continues Martin's practice of staggering its aldermanic elections and maintains the current number of aldermen. Moreover, its current form of aldermanic government is by choice, not by legislative mandate. See S.D. Codified Laws §§ 9-11-5; 9-11-6. In essence, an at-large election would change Martin into a single ward rather than three wards. More importantly, an at-large system would conform Martin to the requirements of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Id. at n. 7. (emphasis added). In the remedial order at issue the district court explicitly stated that it was following our panel's decision as law of the case: Defendants argue that South Dakota law prohibits the court from adopting Plan C. Specifically, defendants argue that Martin uses the common council form of municipal government, and that state law permits neither at-large districts nor cumulative voting in the common council structure. See SDCL 9-8-4. Defendants also argue that only the voters of Martin, not the court, can change Martin's form of government. The court disagrees that South Dakota law prevents the court from adopting Plan C. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit explicitly held that the court had the power to adopt Plan C: If, at the remedy stage, a redistricting of Martin's wards appears unworkable, it appears that [Plan C] would be a viable option. Cottier, 445 F.3d at 1123 n. 7. The Eighth Circuit's decision on this matter is the law of the case, and this court is bound to follow it. See Mosley v. City of Northwoods, Mo., 415 F.3d 908, 911 (8th Cir. 2005). The court thus concludes that it has the power to adopt Plan C. Cottier v. City of Martin, 475 F.Supp.2d at 937. Although the prior panel acknowledged that the Gingles analysis dealt only with possible solutions instead of ultimate, viable or stable solutions, the panel also concluded that the district court had the authority to implement Plan C, and the district court stated that it was bound by that holding as law of the case. We realize that the third Gingles factor was at issue in our prior panel decision, and so the statements about Plan C were dicta. However, the prior panel did instruct the district court that on remand, in determining a remedy, [a]mong its options, the district court has the discretion to implement any of the three plans presented by the plaintiffs. Cottier I, 445 F.3d at 1123. We conclude, given the prior panel's instruction, that the district court reasonably believed that it had the discretion to adopt Plan C. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in adopting Plan C.