Opinion ID: 1764141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Objection to Geographic Separation of District 27.

Text: Certain residents in the eastern portion of house district 27 challenge the contiguity of the Volusia County portions of house district 27 with the remainder of that district in Putnam, Marion, Lake, and Seminole Counties. The contention of the objectors is that there is, in effect, nothing more than a touching of the eastern and western ends of district 27, and, therefore, the district does not comply with the contiguous requirements of section 16(a) of article III. The geography of this area reflects that there is a lake, a river, and an interstate highway connecting two portions of district 27. We agree with the view expressed in Mader v. Crowell, 498 F. Supp. 226, 229 (M.D.Tenn. 1980), that a [d]istrict lacks contiguity only when a part is isolated from the rest by the territory of another district. Webster's defines contiguous as being in actual contact: touching along a boundary or at a point. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 245 (1973). We adopt that definition, except that we agree with the law as expressed in Jaffrey v. McGough, 88 Ala. 648, 7 So. 333 (1890), [7] that lands that mutually touch only at a common corner or right angle cannot be regarded as contiguous within the proper meaning of the word when applying it in establishing house or senate districts. From our examination of the instant record, including detailed maps, we find that, in regard to house district 27, there is more than just a touching of corners and that no part of the district is isolated from another by an intervening district. Hence, it satisfies, but barely, the test of contiguity. The objectors contend that the eastern portion of district 27, which lies within Volusia County, should be included within a house district of more compatible interest. The objectors, residents of Volusia County, assert that they should not be required to share a representative with other counties who they believe do not have the same political interests. We find that the objection is not such that requires disapproval of this apportionment plan.