Court Opinion

ID: 9749315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:33:13.596258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:46.390249
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VanSICKLE, District Judge.
This action represents another chapter in the continuing case of legislative reapportionment in the State of North Dakota.
By order and opinion dated June 30, 1972, a majority of this Court adopted the Dobson Plan as an interim reapportionment plan for the North Dakota Legislature, effective for the 1972 elections only. 372 F.Supp. 363. By order and opinion dated January 30, 1974, a majority of this Court adopted the Dob-son Plan as the permanent reapportionment plan for the North Dakota Legislature. 372 F.Supp. 371.
By decision dated January 27, 1975, the United States Supreme Court struck *650down the Dobson Plan on the basis that population variances among legislative districts offended the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 95 S.Ct. 751, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975).
Thereafter, the Forty-fourth Legislative Assembly of the State of North Dakota adopted the Dobson Plan (with subdistricting for multi-senator districts), hereafter referred to as Dobson II, as the apportionment plan for the North Dakota Legislature. Senate Bill 2497. The Governor of North Dakota allowed Senate Bill 2497 to become law without his signature, and it took effect as of July 1, 1975.
In a supplemental complaint to their amended complaint of May 8, 1972, Plaintiffs contend that Dobson II offends the Equal Protection Clause in that population variances among legislative districts are too large. Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare Dobson II in-, valid, permanently enjoin its implementation by Defendant, and establish a constitutionally valid apportionment plan for the North Dakota Legislature.
Under the original Dobson Plan, the State was divided into 38 districts, with all but five of the districts having one senator and two representatives. The five multi-senator districts were the 5th, 18th, 21st, 29th, and 32nd, having 4, 4, 5, 2, and 3 senators, and 8, 8, 10, 4, and 6 representatives, respectively. Thus, under the original Dobson Plan, there was a total of 51 senators and 102 representatives.
The population of the State according to the 1970 census was 617,761. Ideally, each district should have had 12,-112 persons per senator under the original Dobson Plan. In fact, however, District 11 had a population of 10,728 and so was overrepresented by 11.43%, while District 4 had a population of 13,176 and so was underrepresented by 8.78%. Thus, the total variance under the original Dobson Plan was 20.21%.
Under Dobson II, the North Dakota Legislature merely modified the Dobson Plan by subdividing the multi-senator districts into single-senator subdistricts— with one exception. District 5, though having four senators under the original Dobson Plan, was divided into only three subdistricts — 5A, 5B, and 5C — with 5A having two senators. Thus, Dobson II split the State into 50 districts/subdistricts with District 5A being a two-senator subdistrict.
In formulating Dobson II, the Legislature took into account new population data which was available concerning certain urban areas of the State. The population of the State was calculated at 619,037. Since the number of senators was still set at 51, ideally, each district/subdistrict should have had 12,138 persons per senator under Dobson II. In fact, however, District 11 still had a population of 10,728 and so was overrepresented by 11.62%, while District 4 still had a population of 13,176 and so was underrepresented by 8.55%. Thus, the total variance under Dobson II was 20.17%.1 Indeed, there existed relatively minor differences between the deviations found in districts/subdistricts under Dobson II and deviations found in the same units under Dobson. Consequently, the net result of the Legislature’s passage of Dobson II was the enactment of an apportionment plan with substantially the same deviations and total population variance found in Dobson, but with only one multi-senator subdistrict.
Plaintiffs present no challenge to the establishment of District 5A as a multisenator subdistrict (or to the establishment of all the districts/subdistricts as multi-representative districts/subdistricts). Their sole contention is that the population variances found in Dobson II are constitutionally impermissible under the “one man-one vote” principle established by Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), and its progeny.
*651Of course, the United States Supreme Court has already validated Plaintiffs’ contention in its analysis of the court-ordered Dobson Plan; and Dobson II suffers from substantially the same variances as Dobson itself. However, it is also true that a court-ordered plan “must be held to^higher standards than a State’s own plan.” Chapman v. Meier, supra, 95 S.Ct. at 765. On the other hand, after examining purported justifications by the Court for the court-ordered Dobson Plan, the Supreme Court made the following observation:
“Examination of the asserted justifications of the court-ordered plan thus plainly demonstrates that it fails to meet the standards established for evaluating variances in plans formulated by state legislatures or other state bodies. (Emphasis added.) The plan, hence, would fail even under the criteria enunciated in Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 [93 S.Ct. 979, 35 L.Ed.2d 320] and Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440 [87 S.Ct. 569, 17 L.Ed.2d 501].” Id., 95 S.Ct. at 765.
We are thus faced with two questions: (1) Is the State compelled to come forward with justifications for the population variances found in Dobson II; i. e., do the variances found in Dobson II present a “prima facie” case of constitutional violations?2 (2) If so, do the justifications which the State offers differ significantly from, or are they more persuasive than, justifications already presented to and rejected by the Supreme Court?
If the former question is answered “no,” Dobson II must be sustained. If both questions are answered “yes”, we must examine the justifications presented by the State to see if they are sufficient to sustain the variances found in the plan. If the former question is answered “yes” and the latter “no,” Dob-son II must be struck down.
1.
DO THE VARIANCES FOUND IN DOBSON II PRESENT A “PRIMA FACIE” CASE OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS?
As recognized by the Supreme Court in Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 37 L.Ed.2d 298 (1973), in reviewing a state apportionment plan, “minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment so as to require justification by the State.” Id., 412 U.S. at 745, 93 S.Ct. at 2327. However, in commenting on Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 93 S.Ct. 979, 35 L.Ed.2d 320 (1973), which involved a state plan with a total variance of 16.4%, the Gaffney Court said that “as Mahan v. Howell demonstrates, population deviations among districts may be sufficiently large to require justification . ..” Id., 412 U.S. at 745, 93 S.Ct. at 2327. Again, in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973), in evaluating a state plan in which the total variance among districts was 9.9%, the Supreme Court said that “we cannot glean an equal protection violation from the single fact that two legislative districts . . . differ from one another by as much as 9.9%, when compared to the ideal district. Very likely, larger differences between districts would not be tolerable without justification ‘based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy,’ Reynolds v. Sims . . ..” Id., 412 U.S. at 764, 93 S.Ct. at 2338.
Consequently, since the total variance found in Dobson II is in excess of 20%, *652we find that a prima facie case has been made out, and the State is required to justify its plan.
2.
DO THE JUSTIFICATIONS WHICH THE STATE OFFERS DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM, OR ARE THEY MORE PERSUASIVE THAN, JUSTIFICATIONS ALREADY PRESENTED TO AND REJECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT?
We need not look far to find the justifications offered by the State to sustain the population variances found in Dobson II. Section 1 of Senate Bill 2497 contains a series of findings and declarations by the North Dakota Legislature.3 The Legislature therein puts forward three major justifications for the the population variances found in Dobson II; namely, (1) the sparse population of rural areas of the State; (2) recognition of the natural boundary created by the Missouri River; and (3) the State policy of preserving county lines.
An analysis of the Supreme Court opinion striking down the court-ordered Dobson Plan, however, reveals that all three of these justifications were presented to and rejected by the Supreme Court.
“The basis for the District Court’s allowance of the 20% variance is claimed to lie in the absence of ‘electorally victimized minorities,’ in the fact that North Dakota is sparsely populated, in the division of the State caused by the Missouri River, and in the goal of observing geographical boundaries and existing political subdivisions. We find none of these factors persuasive here, and none of them has been explicitly shown to necessitate the substantial population deviation embraced by the plan. .
“ . . . [Sjparse population is not a legitimate basis for a departure from the goal of equality. . . . Indeed, in a State with a small population, each individual vote may be more important to the result of an election than in a highly populated State.
. [T]he suggestion that the division of the State caused by the Missouri River and the asserted state policy of observing existing geographical and political subdivision boundaries warrant departure from population equality is also not persuasive. It is far from apparent that North Dakota policy currently requires or favors strict adherence to political lines. As the dissenting judge in this case noted, appellee’s counsel acknowledged that reapportionment proposed by the Legislative Assembly broke county lines, 372 F.Supp. [371], at 393 n. 22, and the District Court indicated as long as a *653decade ago that the legislature had abandoned the strict policy. Paulson v. Meier, supra, 246 F.Supp. [36] at 42-43.” Chapman v. Meier, supra, 95 S.Ct. at 764-765.
We might stop here and conclude that the State has presented no justification for the population variances in Dobson II which have not already been rejected by the Supreme Court in the context of Dobson itself. However, the words of the Supreme Court that “[i]t is far from apparent that North Dakota policy currently requires or favors strict adherence to political lines” urge us to examine anew the policy justification of preserving county lines, especially since the Legislature has made a declaration that it embraces such policy.
3.
IS THE POLICY JUSTIFICATION OF PRESERVING COUNTY LINES SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE POPULATION VARIANCES FOUND IN DOBSON II?
“A State may legitimately desire to maintain the integrity of various political subdivisions, insofar as possible, and provide for compact districts of contiguous territory in designing a legislative apportionment scheme.
“ . . .So long as the divergences from a strict population standard are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy, some deviations from the equal-protection principle are constitutionally permissible. . . . ” Reynolds v. Sims, supra, 377 U.S. at 578-79, 84 S.Ct. at 1390-1391.
It is rational for the North Dakota Legislature to desire to encourage voter participation (Senate Bill 2497, Section 1, Subsection 5), to prevent the disruption of existing district party organizations (Subsection 12), and to prevent voter disenchantment with the legislative process (Subsection 13); and pursuing a policy of preserving county lines may be a rational means of implementing such goals. But are “the divergences from a strict population standard [found in Dobson II] . based on . considerations incident to the effectuation of [the policy of preserving county lines] . ”?
There are 50 legislative districts/sub-districts provided for in Dobson II. The average percentile deviation from population equality among the 50 districts/subdistricts is ± 4.65%. Thirteen of the 50 districts/subdistricts actually break county lines; namely, Districts 2, 3, 6, 7, 17, 20, 23, 27, 31, 33, 35, 38 and 39. The average deviation among these 13 districts is ± 5.03%, while the average deviation among the 37 other districts/subdistricts is ± 4.51%. In short, the districts which in fact break county lines contribute more to the magnitude of the average deviation among the 50 districts/subdistricts than the districts/subdistricts which respect county lines.
Furthermore, 3 of the 8 districts/sub-districts 4 which have the largest population deviations — Districts 17, 23, and 33 —themselves cut through county lines. The 17th District, which is overrepresented by 11.59%, cuts through Walsh County; the 23rd District, which is overrepresented by 9.32%, cuts through Barnes County; and the 33rd District, which is underrepresented by 7.72%, cuts through Morton County. In short, there exists a variance of 19.31% between the 17th and the 33rd 'Districts, both of which districts break county lines.
Since districts which actually break county lines are more responsible for the magnitude of the average deviation than districts/subdistricts which respect county lines, and since there exists a variance of 19.31% between two districts which break county lines, we find that the population variances in Dobson II are not “incident to the effectuation of” the State’s asserted policy of preserving the integrity of county lines.
*654Accordingly, we hold that the asserted justification of preserving county lines is insufficient to sustain the population variances among the legislative districts/subdistricts found in Dobson II. We declare Dobson II (Senate Bill 2497) to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and permanently enjoin its implementation by the Defendant.
It is therefore ordered, that:
1. Thomas K. Ostenson, as special master of this court, is directed to submit a revised Ostenson Plan for Legislative redistricting of the State of North Dakota.
2. Mr. Ostenson is directed to consider the following criteria in formulating a plan:
a. The natural boundary imposed by the Missouri River should be recognized and any proposed legislative district should not cross the river.
b. Magnitude of the deviation of the district population, above or below the state average, should be kept at a minimum.
c. Legislative district/subdistrict boundaries should coincide with political subdivision boundaries (county, township or precinct) to facilitate the work of election officials at election times.
d. District compactness should be considered.
3. The Senate shall be maintained at 48 to 52 members.5
4. Each city entitled to more than one senator shall be divided into subdistricts, each subdistrict within the city containing an approximately equal number -of persons. In subdistricting, Master-Ostenson shall take into account the latest census data available for the population of these cities; but in allocating the total number of senate and house seats for each city, the 1970 census data shall be used.
5. The Legislature shall consist of single-member senate districts or subdistricts and two-member house districts or subdistricts. Multimember senate districts or subdistricts shall be used only where unique circumstances require them.6
6. Legislative districts or subdistricts shall be drawn so as to recognize communities of interest arising out of natural barriers, political entities and common economic, social, ethnic, religious and other interests.
7. In formulating his proposed plan, the Special Master is authorized to confer with Special Master-Dobson, with Gail Hernett of Ashley, who chaired the special committee considering legislative redistricting in the 1973 North Dakota Legislative Session, and with other interested persons who may inform him of any special problems which may exist in connection with redistricting of any particular area of the state.
8. Special Master-Ostenson shall file his proposed plan and a detailed report describing the plan, explaining its operation, and the reasons for redistricting in the manner suggested with the court on or before the 1st day of September, 1975. This plan, detailed report, and readable maps shall be filed in not less than 20 copies and the Clerk is directed to immediately forward a copy of these documents to each judge and to counsel for the respective parties, and to make copies of the plan available for public inspection.
9. The Defendant shall be given 25 days, after September 1, 1975, to serve and file any comments or ob*655jections or requested modifications to the proposed plan.
10. Plaintiffs shall be given 15 days thereafter to file any comments or objections or requested modifications to the proposed plan and to respond to defendant’s filing pursuant to paragraph 9, herein.
11. The parties shall file all documents in quadruplicate.
12. Upon the filing of the plan and any comments or suggestions to the plan by the parties to this litigation, the Clerk is directed to issue an order for hearing on whether or not the plan should be adopted or rejected by the Court. Said hearing shall be held on the 22nd day of October, 1975, at the Federal Courthouse in Fargo, at 10:00 o’clock, a. m. At that time, the Court will hear oral testimony from Mr. Ostenson regarding said plan. Should the parties desire to produce testimony in support of or in opposition to the plan, such testimony shall be taken by deposition and transcribed and filed for submission to the Court at or prior to the hearing thereon.
13. The Court directs all expenses and fees incurred by the Special Master shall be taxed as costs against the defendant.
14. The Special Master shall attempt to regionalize the state, the better to delineate areas of mutual economic, political, and geographical interests.
APPENDIX
North Dakota population: 619,037
Ideal population per senator for 51 senators: 12,138
District No. of Number Senators Pop. Deviation Pop. per % Deviation from from Equality Senator Absolute Equality per Senator
1 12.250 - .92 112
2 11,615 +4.31 523
3 12,481 -2.83 343
4 13,176 -8.55 1038
5A 12,440 -2.49 302
5B 12,367 -1.89 229
5C 12,502 -3.00 364
6 11,840 +2.46 298
7 12,956 -6.74 818
8 11.251 +7.31 887
9 11,549 +4.85 589
10 12,858 -5.93 720
11 10,728 +11.62 1410
12 12,349 -1.74 211
14 12,679 -4.46 541
15 12,915 -6.40 777
16 11,296 +6.94 842
17 10,731 +11.59 1407 '
18A 12,639 -4.13 501
18B 12,664 —4.33 526
18C 12,580 -3.64 442
18D 12,756 -5.09 618
*656District Number No. of Senators Pop. per Senator % Deviation from Absolute Equality Pop. Deviation from Equality per Senator
19 1 10,859 +10.54 1279
20 1 11,534 + 4.98 604
21A 1 12,121 + .14 17
21B 1 12.215 - .63 77
21C 1 12,210 - .59 72
21D 1 12,210 - .59 72
21E 1 12,274 -1.12 136
22 1 11,448 + 5.68 690
23 1 11,007 + 9.32 1131
24 1 11,598 + 4.45 540
25 1 12,799 -5.45 661
26 1 12,913 -6.38 775
27 1 12,392 -2.09 254
28 1 11,362 + 6.39 776
29A 1 11,026 + 9.16 1112
29B 1 12,524 -3.18 386
30 1 12,745 -5.00 607
31 1 12,712 -4.73 574
32A 1 12,024 + .94 114
32B 1 11,223 + 7.54 915
32C 1 12,596 -3.77 458
33 1 13,075 -7.72 937
34 1 12.215 - .63 77
35 1 12,158 - .16 20
36 1 11,021 + 9.20 1117
37 1 12,405 -2.20 267
38 1 12,566 -3.53 428
39 1 12,743 -4.98 605
Total population (adding 5A twice) 619,037 _Total deviations 232.31 (disregarding signs) + 4.65% = Average % deviation per district

. A chart detailing the statistics relative to opinion. Dobson II can be found as an appendix to this

. The Supreme Court may have answered this question “yes” when it said that “[examination of the asserted justifications of the court-ordered plan thus plainly demonstrates that it fails to meet the standards established for evaluating variances in plans formulated by state legislatures . . ." Chapman v. Meier, supra, 95 S.Ct. at 765. However, the total variance which may exist in a court-ordered plan before justifications must be presented is much smaller than the total variance which may exist in a legislative plan before justifications must be presented.

. We evaluate these justifications relying on the principle that “actions speak louder than words.” We are concerned that legislatures should not “ab initio” feel compelled to justify their actions to any court, anywhere. We feel that the language of the Supreme Court that
“[v]ery likely, larger differences [than 9.9%] between districts would not be tolerable without justification ‘based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy,’ ” White v. Regester, supra, 412 U.S. at 764, 93 S.Ct. at 2338,
refers to the proof to be offered when a legislative act is attacked, and is different from “justification” or reasoning which a trial court is required to recite in its findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
As to the usefulness and general value of a declaration of policy in a statute, see Nutting, Elliott, and Dickerson, Cases and Materials on Legislation, at 580 (4th ed. 1969).
“In practice, unfortunately, the statement of purpose or policy has not been an unmitigated blessing. Too heavy reliance on such a clause leads to sloppy drafting elsewhere in the bill. The feeling that the court or administrator will somehow work out the tedious details and uncertainties tends to laziness and fuzzy thinking. Such a statement, therefore, should be relied on only insofar as its objectives cannot otherwise be achieved as a clear by-product of the concrete, working sections of the bill. In strict logic, it should be among the last sections drafted. If the rest of the bill is properly drafted, the need for a statement of purpose or policy usually disappears.”

. The 8 districts/subdistricts are Districts 4, 11, 17, 19, 23, 29A, 33, and 36.

. The standard in the 1975 reapportionment statute.

. A possible example is Minot Air Force Base.