Court Opinion

ID: 9705497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:09:16.262118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:01.092290
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL DISSENTING OPINION
DOWD, District Judge,
dissenting.
On May 26, 1995, my colleagues vacated the majority opinion dated April 28, 1995 (Docket No. 322) and replaced it with a new majority opinion (Docket No. 327). In April, I had dissented (Docket No. 323). In May, I chose not to modify my original dissent, filing nothing in response to the “new” majority opinion which essentially added only comments on my dissent.
Now my colleagues have once again vacated their majority opinion and replaced it with an opinion that substantially changes the May 26, 1995 opinion, particularly by their deletion of the discussion relating to the “trigger” for strict scrutiny (i.e., the progeny of Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993)), and their insertion of a discussion of the recently decided Miller v. Johnson, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995).1
At this juncture, I remain steadfast in my decision not to vacate my dissent of April 28, 1995, notwithstanding the fact that, given all the tinkering with the majority opinion, the dissent is no longer a very good “fit” for the majority opinion. One major reason for my decision not to vacate is that the dissent has already been submitted for review before the Supreme Court of the United States, as is evidenced by its placement in the Appendix to the Jurisdictional Statement filed with that Court.2 What I said, I said. For the most part, as I did in May, I now feel no real compulsion to “correct” my dissent in light of the subsequent majority opinion which commented on it or in light of the latest majority opinion. Astute readers will accord my dissent whatever value it has and interpret it in light of the subsequent procedural (and sub*1032stantive) posture of this case and developments in case law. I do, however, wish to set forth my view of the application of Miller v. Johnson to this case.3
APPLICATION OF MILLER V. JOHNSON
In my April 28, 1995 dissent, I took the threshold position that the plaintiffs’ Shaw v. Reno claim had no merit because the districts in question in this lawsuit, are not bizarrely shaped. Miller v. Johnson, however, has now made clear that “a threshold showing of bizarreness” is not required. — U.S.-,-, 115 S.Ct. 2475 at 2487, 182 L.Ed.2d 762. To that extent, I must retract those portions of my dissent which discussed what I then thought was the threshold showing required for a Shaw v. Reno claim.
As noted by the majority, Miller v. Johnson clarified the burden of proof necessary to trigger strict scrutiny:
The plaintiffs burden is to show, either through circumstantial evidence of a district’s shape and demographies or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose, that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature’s decision to place a significant number of voters within *1033or without a particular district. To make this showing, a plaintiff must prove that the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles, including but not limited to compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared interests, to racial considerations. Where these or other race-neutral considerations are the basis for redistricting legislation and are not subordinated to race, a state can “defeat a claim that a district has been gerrymandered on racial lines.”
at-, 115 S.Ct. at 2487 (citations omitted and emphases added).
Despite the clarity of this expression, the majority concludes that “there remains some ambiguity regarding the Miller ‘predominant factor’ test.” The specific ambiguity relates to the meaning of the word “subordinated” in the test. The majority opines that “subordinated” could mean that, as compared to racial considerations, the legislature “disregarded or abandoned” traditional districting principles or that it merely “accorded [them] less emphasis or less weight[J” The majority concludes that both interpretations are correct.
I do not disagree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that proof of either disregard and/or abandonment of traditional districting principles in favor of racial considerations or proof of diminished emphasis on traditional districting principles in favor of racial considerations is sufficient to establish a plaintiffs claim that race was the predominant factor upon which a given redistricting was based. I would only quarrel with the characterization of “the predominant factor test” as ambiguous. “Subordination” has a clear meaning: something is subordinated when it is placed in a lower order or class, or considered as having less value or importance. This, however, is only a minor point of divergence between my view and the majority’s.
I find that the defendants adhered to traditional districting principles, which happen to be also contained in the Ohio Constitution, in drawing the legislative districts in question and that they did not subordinate these principles to racial considerations. I would so hold notwithstanding the fact that, as I recognized in my dissent of April 28, 1995 at footnote 9, James R. Tilling’s notes suggest that he purposefully considered race when drawing the districts. One can purposefully consider something without automatically subordinating all other factors also under consideration.4 I find that the defendants considered race as they considered other factors, such as the districting principles set forth in the Ohio Constitution. Therefore, I would conclude that strict scrutiny is not required, a conclusion which would virtually end the analysis in my view.5
Even if strict scrutiny were required, I find for the reasons previously set forth in my April 28,1995 dissent that the defendants had a compelling state interest. I will not repeat my analysis on this point. Suffice to say that, in my view, the defendants respected traditional districting principles while also giving race the consideration it was due in light of the Voting Rights Act and Armour v. State of Ohio, 775 F.Supp. 1044 (N.D.Ohio 1991). Balancing all of these considerations led to a redistricting plan narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest, thus withstanding strict scrutiny.
*1034The redistricting plan that is the subject of this lawsuit involves a legislature with 99 House Districts which must be configured in compliance with the Ohio Constitution. Of these 99, only eight have been challenged here. These eight discrete districts take in counties which are entitled to more than one legislator each, a fact which required the Apportionment Board to make decisions as to how to split the counties. Given the several constraints placed on the Apportionment Board, i.e., the Voting Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, Armour v. State of Ohio, in addition to the Ohio Constitution, this Court must take to heart the admonition of the Miller Court that:
[t]he distinction between being aware of racial considerations and being motivated by them may be difficult to make. This evidentiary difficulty, together with the sensitive nature of redistricting and the presumption of good faith that must be accorded legislative enactments, requires courts to exercise extraordinary caution in adjudicating claims that a state has drawn district lines on the basis of race.
Miller v. Johnson, — U.S.-at-, 115 S.Ct. at 2487 (emphasis added). In my view, the majority has failed to exercise the requisite caution.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed in my April 28, 1995 dissent, as supplemented and modified' herein, I respectfully dissent.

. Miller v. Johnson is also found on the WEST-LAW electronic database at 1995 WL 382020. The majority opinion cites to this database. For consistency, this supplementary dissent will hereafter do the same.

. Both majority opinions have also been submitted as part of the jurisdictional statement.

. I also believe it is necessary to comment regarding the majority opinion's assessment of my prior discussion of the application of the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. I do so because of the importance of the latter issue to this District Court and its potential impact as this case is reviewed by the Supreme Court. Until very recently, I was the longtime Chairman of this District Court's Rules Committee. Therefore, admittedly I am in a better position than my two colleagues to know, appreciate and apply the Local Rules of this District Court. Accordingly, I make this clarifying comment.
I have always opposed the majority's decision to grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint after remand to add an Equal Protection claim under Shaw v. Reno. In my dissent of April 28, 1995, I articulated my reasons, one of which was rooted in certain of the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The majority, in both its May 26, 1995 opinion and the latest opinion, asserted that the Local Rules I cited have no application. This is not so.
The majority undoubtedly recognizes that, under 28 U.S.C. § 2284, this panel sits as a district court. Therefore, the Local Rules of the Northern District of Ohio apply, despite the fact that two of the panel judges are circuit court judges.
Prior to January 1, 1992, this District Court's Local Rules provided that a subsequently-filed civil case would be deemed related to a previously-filed civil case which "involve[d] the same issue or issues of fact or grows out of the same transaction or subject matter as a pending civil suit[.]” See Former Local Rule 7.09(4)(c). In such circumstances that local rule required that the láter-filed case be assigned to the judge presiding over the earlier case so long as the earlier case was still pending.
The Judges of this District Court, acting under the authority of Fed.R.Civ.P. 83, determined over time that this "related case” rule was being used by litigants and attorneys to "judge shop.” Therefore, the related case rule was abolished and replaced with the present local rule pursuant to which, even if a new case appears related to an existing case on another judge's docket, it cannot be shifted to the docket of the judge who drew the first case absent the consent of both judges. See Local Rules 1:2.4(2) and 6:2.5(c). Moreover, one judge cannot transfer an unrelated case on his or her docket to another judge without the approval of the Chief Judge of the District Court. See Local Rule 6:2.4. I first cited these local rules as part of the basis for my opposition to a post-remand amendment of the complaint.
The circuit judges making up the majority of this panel have stated in a footnote to their opinion that the rules do not apply in this instance because the plaintiffs did not file a new lawsuit alleging a Shaw v. Reno claim. The majority has missed the point. If the plaintiffs had, as they should have, filed a new lawsuit to assert their post-remand claim, the cited Local Rules of this District (presuming, of course, that the new case was filed in this district, as it could also have properly been filed in the Southern District of Ohio), would have operated to prevent them from placing their claim before this three-judge panel, a panel which they already knew was, in the majority, favorable to their viewpoint. Therefore, under the Local Rules of this District Court, the only way that the plaintiffs could assure a sympathetic ear was to obtain leave to amend the complaint.
The majority asserts that, while it may not have authority to "consider on remand the issues that the Supreme Court decided,” it may "consider issues that have not been decided.” There is a world of difference between considering issues that have not been previously decided and issues that have not been previously raised. The entire point is that, once a case has gone on appeal and back, if the plaintiffs have new claims against the defendants, they must file a new lawsuit. Failure to do so stretches Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, the remand rule, and the local rules of this District Court so far beyond their meanings as to completely destroy them. This is the ultimate in judge-shopping, the very abuse sought to be avoided by this District Court’s Local Rules.

. In my April 28 dissent, I declined addressing at length the majority’s discussion of the "trigger” for strict scrutiny, a discussion which has been deleted in the latest majority opinion in favor of the Miller v. Johnson discussion. On April 28, I simply presumed, because of (1) the references to race in Tilling’s notes, (2) the importance of the rights at stake, and (3) the ambiguity regarding the appropriate “trigger,” that strict scrutiny should apply. Now that the Supreme Court has clarified that the "trigger” is "race-the-predominant-factor,” I want to clearly state that I would not find Tilling's notes sufficient to prove that race was the predominant factor considered. My present position is not inconsistent with my April 28 dissent because there I simply took the view for the sake of discussion "that caution requires strict scrutiny.” (April 28, 1995 Dissent, at 17). Following Miller, the test is clear and the need for caution on this matter is gone.

. If strict scrutiny is not the standard of review, then rational basis applies. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to conclude that the defendants had no rational basis for the district lines they drew.