Court Opinion

ID: 9850108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:52:11.443593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:31.821753
License: Public Domain

HUNTLEY, Justice,
responding to the dissents.
The dissents have grossly misstated the record and are totally in error in suggesting that any litigants before this Court were not given full due process.
I briefly document here several of the more salient of numerous examples of misstatement, but first I invite the attention of any lawyer or legislator worth his salt to one missing element in either dissent — citation to one single decision of the United States Supreme Court which would permit us to declare the population deviation of H.B. 746 of 32.9% as being constitutional. The dissents cite none because there are none. Thus they most carefully avoid addressing the merits of the only issue before us — the constitutionality of H.B. 746.
The public is entitled to know the truth about the charges leveled in the dissents.
I.
OPPORTUNITY FOR FULL TRIAL AND PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

The Charge:

The dissents assert that this Court has refused to provide the defendants with a trial and opportunity to put on evidence.

The True Facts:

(1) On March 30th this Court conducted a pre-hearing conference at which the various defendants were represented by four attorneys. The main purpose was to inquire of the attorneys whether they desired to (a) submit the case on the record, or (b) present evidence either directly to this Court or to a special master — all four opted to submit the case on the record.
(2) At the final hearing in Lewiston, the supporters of H.B. 746 were represented by five attorneys. Not one attorney requested an extension of time or requested opportunity to present either live testimony or further affidavits or exhibits. *616(3) To this day not one attorney for either side (eight attorneys appeared in Lewiston) has urged that his clients were not afforded due process — such suggestion comes only from the dissenters.
For members of this Court, who have not interviewed a single potential witness, to suggest that defense counsel misrepresented their clients by not asking leave to present live testimony, is to step outside the realm of either our knowledge, our expertise, or our proper function.
II.
THE USE OF EX PARTE AFFIDAVITS

The Charge:

The dissents assert this case was decided on ex parte affidavits.

The True Facts:

For openers, there were no ex parte affidavits. “Ex parte” refers to a communication by one party to the Court without the knowledge of the other parties. Every affidavit was submitted to the opposing counsel and most of them were referred to in oral argument on April 6th. The suggestion that counsel actually representing the parties did not have the affidavits before the hearing is simply not correct.
Secondly, the determinative issue of the case, i.e., the constitutionality of the population deviation of 32.9% in H.B. 746, did not depend on any of the affidavits, (except for the fact stipulated to by both sides, that the deviation was indeed 32.9%.) The fact of a 32.9% deviation, in light of the presence in the record of ten plans with less than 10% deviation, required and compelled a ruling of unconstitutionality under the controlling United States Supreme Court decisions.
III.
DUE PROCESS AND NOTICE OF HEARING

The Charge:

The dissenters state: “In this case, it is not even clear from this record if all parties received notice of the hearing, much less notice calculated to give them an opportunity to logically and coherently present their views.”

The True Fact:

All parties had attorneys present at the hearing — one questions how they happened to appear in court if they had no notice.
As to the matter of having opportunity to logically and coherently present their views — no attorney requested more time; only the dissenters in this case assert, of their own volition that there was inadequate notice.
IV.
DUE PROCESS AND A TRIAL

The Charge:

“By our opinion in Hellar I, this Court recognized that due process requires that a litigant be given a trial.”

The True Fact:

Would any legislator, party, or other citizen who may be enticed by that one please ask his personal attorney to explain Rule 56 of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure?
Every state and federal trial court in the nation has a procedure whereby the parties may elect to submit a case on pleadings, affidavits, and the record of prior proceedings. The dissent is seeking to second guess defense trial counsel — this court did not refuse a single request for hearing, further discovery, or trial.
V.
THE PRIOR IDAHO FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS AND LEGISLATIVE RELIANCE

The Charge:

The dissent of Justice Shepard asserts that:
*617“Upon review of the trial court’s decision, this Court in Hellar v. Cenarrusa II held that H.B. 830 was unconstitutional {which holding was in direct conflict with the previous federal court decision). (Emphasis supplied).

The True Fact:

In the two previous federal court cases, no party presented a plan to the court which met the mandates of both constitutions — in fact they represented to the Court that such was impossible. The early federal court decisions stood only for the proposition that if honoring county lines is impossible or unfeasible, then in that event the equal representation clause of the federal constitution prevails.

The Charge:

That the legislature clearly relied on the 41.5% language of Hellar II.

The True Fact:

(1) The language is taken out of context and misapplied as explained at page 6 of the Majority Opinion herein.
(2) Newspaper accounts of reapportionment work throughout the session demonstrate the legislators received warnings of problems which might be presented by plans with large deviations.
(3) At the March 30 prehearing conference before this Court (at which numerous legislators and their attorneys were present) and which date was pri- or to final passage of H.B. 746 and adjournment, warning issued publicly from the bench that the Court knew of no federal court decisions which would countenance the 32.9% deviation under the circumstance of plans under 10% being available.
(4) The Governor, upon signing H.B. 746, expressed that he and his counselors had grave doubts about its constitutionality.
VI.
SUE THE MAJORITY
The suggestion by the dissent that the defendants should bring a civil rights action against the majority of this Court is certainly novel, a disingenuous attempt at intimidation, and might be thought by some to indicate a lack of even a modicum of judicial approach and detachment. ******
Did anyone ever believe that either legislators or jurists could maintain decorum and a sense of humor while undergoing reapportionment proceedings?