Court Opinion

ID: 9697880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:35:38.223622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:36.124848
License: Public Domain

Dooley, J.,
concurring and dissenting. I concur in parts I, 111(B) (Springfield), III(C) (Berlin), 111(D) (Hartland), III(E) (Shrewsbury), and III(F) (Richford). I do not concur in part 111(A) (Montgomery) and the standard of review analysis in part II on which that result is based. I would deny the Montgomery petition along with the others. In my view the disposition of the Montgomery petition is an unwarranted interference with the legislative function that will in future years mire this Court in reapportionment petitions for no legitimate purpose.
The entire case put forward by the Town of Montgomery consisted of a short stipulation of the essential facts, five witnesses whose entire examination and cross-examination consists of thirty transcript pages, a few exhibits (most of which are maps) and an affidavit of Professor Frank Bryan of the University of Vermont. The thrust of the town’s ease was that the mountains surrounding Montgomery meant that its economic and social interactions were with Franklin County towns to the east. From that evidence, it built its case that Montgomery should be shifted to the adjoining district containing the Franklin County towns, despite the population disparities such a shift would create. There was absolutely no evidence of the feasibility of reopening the whole districting scheme to satisfy Montgomery. The only mention of an alternative solution was a statement by Professor Bryan that, although he had not “run the data” himself, he would “bet the house and the car” that an alternative could be found that met Montgomery’s demands “and even come closer to the one-person, one-vote criterion.” There was, of course, no specification of such an alternative.
The State’s response was also sparse. In addition to entering into the stipulation of facts, it offered the testimony of Representative Westman, a member of the House Government Opera*50tions Committee, who testified to receiving Montgomery’s arguments and discussing them in committee. He stated that the districts were left undisturbed because of the need to afford equality of representation and because of Montgomery’s ties to the Jay Mountain ski area. From the testimony and the maps, it appears that the ski area is in the Town of Jay and that the southern and eastern access to the ski area is through the Town of Montgomery. Further, it also appears that some Montgomery residents work at the ski area and that Montgomery businesses, primarily restaurants, have customers who come to the area to ski.
Like the Town of Shrewsbury, the petition of which is also addressed today, Montgomery presented one alternative — moving the town to the adjoining Franklin County district. The Court correctly rejects this alternative as inconsistent with Equal Protection requirements. That should end the matter, and the petition should be denied. Without a request, however, and with no understanding of the ripple effects of its action, this Court requires the Legislature to reconsider the whole reapportionment plan in an attempt to satisfy Montgomery, with the Legislature’s only solution being to convince this Court that it is impossible to meet Montgomery’s demand. I cannot agree with this distortion of the proper process and thus dissent.
In my opinion, three major errors in analysis underlie the approach taken by the Court. The first error deals with the standard of review in general, the second with the standard on the Montgomery issues, and the third with the factual analysis. On the first, the Court recognizes that redistricting is primarily a legislative function and that challengers have a heavy burden of proof in showing that a redistricting plan is invalid. It omits, however, that the establishment of districts is done by statute, which is “entitled to the presumptions of justification and regularity accorded regular statutory enactment.” In re Senate Bill 177, 130 Vt. 358, 361, 294 A.2d 653, 654 (1972); see also In re 1983 Legislative Apportionment of House, Senate, & Congressional Districts, 469 A.2d 819, 827 (Me. 1983) (apportionment law entitled to the same presumption of validity as any other legislative enactment).
Attacks on the validity of a statute must be based on “clear and irrefragable evidence that it infringes the paramount law.” *51In re Neglected Child, 129 Vt. 234, 241, 276 A.2d 14, 18 (1971). In equal protection challenges, which are analogous to the challenge the Court considers here, we normally uphold a statute as long as the classification “is not arbitrary and has a reasonable connection with a permissible legislative or administrative purpose.” Veilleux v. Springer, 131 Vt. 33, 39, 300 A.2d 620, 624 (1973). Thus, a reapportionment challenge should prevail only if the redistricting “‘cannot possibly be justified by the exercise of any judgment or discretion.’” Preisler v. Doherty, 284 S.W.2d 427, 431 (Mo. 1955) (quoting State ex rel. Lamb v. Cunningham, 53 N.W. 35, 55 (Wis. 1894)); see also Merriam v. Secretary of Commonwealth, 376 N.E.2d 838, 848 (Mass. 1978) (petitioners must show beyond a reasonable doubt that it is impossible to interpret the reapportionment statute as in harmony with the constitution). Under these standards of review, it is irrelevant whether the Legislature considered all relevant constitutional and statutory criteria with respect to its action. A legislature is judged by its acts, not its processes. See Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U.S. 578, 592 (1980) (in construing a statute, Court does not “in the manner of Sherlock Holmes, pursue the theory of the dog that did not bark”); Townsend v. Yeomans, 301 U.S. 441, 451 (1937) (legislature is presumed to know the needs of the people; whether special inquiries should be made is entirely a matter of legislative discretion); Wall Distributors, Inc. v. City of Newport News, 782 F.2d 1165, 1169 (4th Cir. 1986) (legislature not required to “create an evidentiary record that would pass muster on plenary judicial review of legislation’s necessity and fitness to achieve desired results”); see also Book Review, 66 Yale L.J. 973, 975 (1957) (legislator’s factual assumptions “need be based on no evidence of record”).
In hindsight, part of the problem in this case is that the State offered the evidence of a legislator to defend against the Montgomery challenge. The majority has now treated him, and the House Government Operations Committee on which he sits, like a trial court which must explain and defend its actions. Compare Andreson v. Andreson, 145 Vt. 634, 636, 497 A.2d 371, 373 (1985) (findings must be adequate to explain court’s action and if evidence is inadequate, “the trial court must inquire”). Thus, the legislator was faulted because he “was unable to provide details or support for any connection between the two com*52munities” and because “he never indicated that the Committee considered nonnumerical criteria but was unable to come up with a plan.” It sets a dangerous precedent to determine the validity of a legislative statute based on what evidence its committee heard or considered.
The second error underpinning the Court’s analysis lies in its evaluation of the standards applicable to the Montgomery claim. The relevant constitutional and statutory provisions set forth three types of standards the reapportionment plan must meet. Placed in hierarchical order, these are:
1. Equality of Representation — According to Chapter II, § 73 of the Vermont Constitution, the plan must provide “equality of representation among the respective districts as nearly as it is practicable.” Because of the importance of this criterion, the statute goes further and requires that districts be formed “with minimum percentages of deviation from the apportionment standard.” 17 V.S.A § 1903(b).
2. Nonnumerical Constitutional Standards — According to Chapter II, § 13 of the Constitution, the Legislature “shall seek to maintain geographical compactness and contiguity and to adhere to boundaries of counties and other existing political subdivisions.” These standards are also recognized in the statute with the requirement that districts be formed “consistent with [these] policies insofar as practicable.” 17 V.S.A. § 1903(b)(1), (3).
3. Statutory Standards — Under the requirement that the Legislature form districts “consistent with the following policies insofar as practicable,” the statute includes “recognition and maintenance of patterns of geography, social interaction, trade, political ties and common interests.” 17 V.S.A. § 1903(b)(2).
That these requirements should be viewed in hierarchical fashion is clearly shown by their placement. Cf. In re Senate Bill 177, 130 Vt. 365, 371, 294 A.2d 657, 660 (1972) (preeminence of constitutional requirements). Further, the provisos attached to these standards recognize that it may be impossible to meet all of them in any given case, and that a balancing of factors is inevitable. I am not sure I have any disagreement with the majority on these general points. I have differences in the specifics.
*53The majority concludes that “petitioners have shown that none of the nonnumerical statutory or constitutional criteria were adhered to with regard to the Town of Montgomery.” It reaches that conclusion, I infer, by reasoning that the “compactness and contiguity” requirement really means community of interest or creation of “effective representation,” that as a result there are two nonnumerical requirements — community of interest/effective representation and adherence to political boundaries — and that the placement of Montgomery with the Orleans county towns meets neither of these standards.* The reasoning is clearly flawed.
I can agree that one of the purposes of the compactness and contiguity requirements is to create a commonality of interests in legislative districts. See, e:g., Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 756 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring) (“To some extent, geographical compactness serves independent values; it facilitates political organization, electoral campaigning, and constituent representation.”). The majority has, however, confused a purpose with the requirement. Compactness and contiguity are clearly geographic requirements. See Carpenter v. Hammond, 667 P.2d 1204, 1218-19 (Alaska 1983) (Matthews, J., concurring); Acker v. Love, 496 P.2d 75, 76 (Colo. 1972); Schrage v. State Board of Elections, 430 N.E.2d 483, 486 (Ill. 1981). That is clearly so in Vermont because the constitution requires “geographical compactness and contiguity” (emphasis supplied). Vermont Const, ch. II, § 13. There is nothing in the requirement that suggests a district is not compact or contiguous because it has a mountain in it.
If we are to examine the purposes of the compactness and contiguity requirement, it is important to recognize that the dominant purpose is to prevent gerrymandering. See, e.g., Holmes v. Farmer, 475 A.2d 976, 986 (R.I. 1984); see generally J. Schwartzberg, Reapporbionment, Gerrymanders, and the Notion of “Compactness,” 50 Minn. L. Rev. 443 (1966). To the extent compactness has a nongeographic component, it lies in the prevention of “districts solely for political considerations, *54without reference to other policies.” Holmes, 475 A.2d at 986. The Legislature recognized that compactness and contiguity is different from community of interest because it set them out separately. See 17 V.S.A. § 1903(b)(2), (3).
The California case on which the majority relies to equate compactness and contiguity to community of interest, Wilson v. Eu, 823 P.2d 545, 553, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 379, 387 (1992), demonstrates the danger in relying on legislative apportionment cases from other states without careful examination. California has no constitutional requirement that legislative districts be compact. See Cal. Const, art. 21, § 1. Further, the reapportionment process in California had broken down to the point where redistricting had to be done by the courts. Thus, the phrases quoted by the majority refer to judicial standards created for judicial reapportionment and not to constitutional standards to judge the validity of a legislatively-created districting scheme. Any legislature would be wise to consider communities of interest in drawing districts. It is quite a different thing to say that the failure to do so in a particular case makes a district unconstitutional.
Each town in the challenged Orleans-Franklin District is contiguous with at least one other town. Montgomery is contiguous with the towns of Westfield and Lowell. The district is as compact as any other multi-town district in the state. No one has challenged the district as lacking in compactness or contiguity. There is no serious claim that it violates either requirement.
Also significant, in view of the majority’s reliance on the purpose of contiguity and compactness requirements, is the lack of any evidence even hinting that this district was gerrymandered for political purposes, and the Town of Montgomery does not so claim. Thus, the district meets both the letter of the compactness and contiguity requirements and their primary purpose.
The district does cross the county boundary, and in that sense is inconsistent with the “goal” of chapter II, § 13. It shares that characteristic with twenty other multi-county districts in the state. Except as a passing note, little is made of the breach of the county line by either the majority or the petitioners. County lines are of limited significance to house districts because of the very limited county government in Vermont. Where the county line follows a geographical boundary, the breach of the county *55line is significant because of the geographical boundary, not necessarily because of the county line.
More significant are town lines, and this district crosses none of these. It is impossible in a rural state with a large number of towns to follow town lines without crossing county lines. Thus, the district here is consistent with the important boundary requirement of § 13.
Instead of the total violation of nonnumerical requirements claimed by the majority, the reality is that the district in question complies fully with the significant, nonnumerical constitutional requirements. Thus, the real complaint is that the Legislature failed to abide by a statutory requirement. As discussed below, I find the evidence of that failure shallow and incomplete. For purposes of our approach to review, it is important to state how vague and tentative this statutory requirement is. It requires that districts be formed “consistent with the following policies insofar as practicable” and details one of those policies as “recognition and maintenance of patterns of geography, social interaction, trade, political ties and common interests.” 17 V.S.A. § 1903(b)(2). Given the breadth and imprecision of the requirement, and its placement at the bottom of the hierarchy of requirements, we should be saying that only the clearest and most extreme breaches of the mandate are cognizable by this Court in reviewing a reapportionment plan. See Fonfara v. Reapportionment Commission, 610 A.2d 153, 163 (Conn. 1992). Our failure to do so means that this Court will make the choices that determine district boundaries rather than leaving those choices to the appropriate body, the Legislature.
The majority has avoided confronting the most difficult problem caused by its analysis. If the only real deviation from applicable standards is in compliance with 17 V.S.A. § 1903(b)(2), as I believe it to be, then why cannot the Legislature react by simply repealing the statute? We should be very careful to adopt a mandate subject to that kind of evasion. We have not been careful here.
Finally, I think the majority has accepted a shallow and incomplete notion of community of interest that ignores the reality of the tasks facing the legislators who represent these districts. This opinion is issued at the start of a legislative ses*56sion in which the major concerns are the level of state taxation and the nature of those taxes, the level of state- spending and the areas in which the spending occurs, creating jobs and income growth to counteract the effect of the recession, and regulatory reform. There is absolutely nothing in the sparse evidence produced by Montgomery to show that the residents of that town have a common interest in how these issues are resolved with the residents of the Franklin County towns in the adjoining district.
One does not have to consider the legislative issues in depth to realize that a significant possibility exists that the real common interests here are between the “mountain” towns. -That is, if a significant portion of jobs in Montgomery are dependent on tourists who come to ski at Jay Peak, its citizens may see economic development as promotion of tourism, through state spending and tax policy, as well as regulatory reform to make such development easier. This interest is shared with residents of towns like Jay but not necessarily with the towns of Franklin County, which depend on an agricultural economy.
Although this evaluation might be considered speculative, it is useful to note a significant similarity in the facts of the Shrewsbury appeal. Shrewsbury had been joined in a district with the Town of Sherburne, with which it shared the kind of social and economic interaction demonstrated in the evidence put forward by Montgomery. That joinder failed, however, because the towns disagreed on ski area development and related environmental issues. Social, political and educational ties are important, but they do not mean that citizens with these ties have a common perspective and interest in the policy issues a legislature must resolve. For example, the difficulty of transportation and communication over the mountain raises a common legislative issue for Montgomery and its abutting Orleans County towns. The Montgomery evidence showed little about commonality of interests in the legislative issues of the day. It is at best incomplete.
I find it particularly ironic that the majority ignores the evidence that represents the most significant community of interest factor. Although the majority recognizes that Representative Westman’s testimony indicated a reliance, in part, on the Jay Peak connection, it goes on to say that the only reason for *57the district formation was avoidance of “an equal protection problem.” That is a misstatement of the evidence. Significantly, the Jay Peak connection may be the most important element in the “patterns of geography, social interaction, trade, political ties and common interests” present. See 17 V.S.A. § 1903(b)(2). Certainly, the Legislature is entitled to draw that conclusion without being second-guessed by the judiciary.
These three major points of disagreement with the reasoning of the Court lead to my disagreement with its conclusion both on process and result. Ultimately, the Court derives from its analysis a burden-shifting rule under which the showing of lack of community of interest by petitioner shifts to the Legislature the burden of showing “that an alternative plan satisfying the various constitutional and statutory criteria could not be produced.” Failing this burden, the Legislature is directed to place the Town of Montgomery in a new district “that conforms with statutory and constitutional requirements and make any other necessary changes” or to show that such a change is “not possible.” In this process, petitioners are not required to demonstrate that there exists at least one alternative districting plan that meets the constitutional and statutory mandates and places Montgomery in a district with Franklin County towns.
I find the burden-shifting rule totally inconsistent with our limited standard of review. I would follow the recent and thoroughly-reasoned opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court in Fonfara v. Reapportionment Commission, 610 A.2d at 159, that a mere showing of a violation of a nonnumerical requirement — in that case, a state constitutional prohibition on crossing town lines — does not shift the burden of proof to the apportionment body to prove the plan is valid. If anything, this case is easier than Fonfara because the requirement here is statutory rather than constitutional, less specific, and petitioners have presented no alternative plans.
I find no parallels in any of our standards of judicial review of legislative action to the burden-shifting and “remand” procedure created by the majority. The “heavy burden of proof” imposed by the majority on petitioners miraculously disappears. Nor are there any precedents for such a “remand” to the Legislature in the opinions from other states. Whenever a “remand” has been used, it has been to a redistricting commission, *58a type of administrative agency over which the court has a form of judicial review. See In re Colorado General Assembly, 828 P.2d 185, 195-96 (Colo. 1992) (under a specific constitutional mandate that “communities of interest. . . shall be preserved” and a specific constitutional procedure that requires a reapportionment commission to submit a plan to the Colorado Supreme Court “for review,” failure of commission to explain why it combined parts of one county with other counties across the continental divide required a remand for a factual showing that less drastic alternatives were unavailable); Davenport v. Apportionment Commission, 304 A.2d 736, 746-47 (N. J. Super. 1973) (redistricting plan remanded to reapportionment commission because recent decision of United States Supreme Court suggested reapportionment could be done while respecting county lines as required by New Jersey Constitution; commission directed to report on whether compliance with state constitution “is possible”). The court’s relationship to an administrative agency is far different from its relationship with a legislature.
Nor have any other courts relieved petitioners from the burden of showing that at least one alternative valid plan exists. The cases cited by the majority hold that such a showing does not mean the petitioner will automatically prevail. The one court to analyze the issue has held that a showing of a valid alternative is required in a situation similar to that present here. In In re 1988 Legislative Apportionment of House, Senate, & Congressional Districts, 469 A.2d at 831, petitioners attacked a house district as not meeting the compact and contiguous requirement of the Maine Constitution. The court ruled the attack unsuccessful because changes in the district would produce a “ripple effect” elsewhere and “a challenger at the very least must show that . . . [the] district . . . could be substantially improved without creating constitutional violations elsewhere in the state.” Id. This is exactly the burden the petitioners failed to meet here.
The burden allocation is directly contrary to the rules under which we normally allocate burdens of proof. As discussed above, the statutory mandate of community of interest must be met “insofar as practicable.” 17 V.S.A. § 1903(b). The majority has stated that the burden of proof of noncompliance with constitutional or statutory mandates lies on petitioners and that it *59is a heavy burden. See majority opinion at 14, 624 A.2d at 326. Despite this stated allocation, it relieves petitioners of the only important burden of proof involved in this case — the burden of showing what is practicable. The fact is that petitioners have never demonstrated a noncompliance with § 1903(b)(2) and are not being required to do so.
The only rationale given for the burden-shifting rule is that “basic notions of fairness” require the burden be placed on the State because the Legislature can better devise alternative plans and because other towns will be affected. The effect on other towns is exactly the point. They should have an opportunity in this Court to respond to any proposed change in their circumstances rather than being blind-sided by an unpredictable direction to the Legislature. Nor do I believe that the burden to develop an alternative plan is heavy in this small state. Indeed, alternatives have routinely been presented by petitioners in other cases. See, e.g., Hellar v. Cenarrusa, 664 P.2d 765, 768 (Idaho 1983); In re Legislative Districting of General Assembly, 193 N.W.2d 784, 790 (Iowa 1972); Clements v. Valles, 620 S.W.2d 112, 115 (Tex. 1981). In Davenport v. Apportionment Commission, the New Jersey Superior Court was struck that “one of the parties, on very short notice and without the aid of computer services, produced a plan which, at least on its face, represents a far greater compliance with the requirement of compactness while still complying substantially with the equal population imperative.” 304 A.2d at 743-44. I cannot believe what can be done “on very short notice” in New Jersey is an unacceptable burden here.
Finally, I can find no precedent in which a legislative apportionment scheme was upset under the type of broad, statutory standard involved here and where such weak evidence of noncompliance with a determinative standard was presented. It is inescapable that, when we begin to judge legislative action by whether it respects a proper community of interest or creates effective representation, we have taken on ourselves the reapportionment policy decisions even while representing that we are leaving the legislative role intact. I think we will come to regret the day we took on this superlegislative responsibility.
The towns of Vermont who are not presently before this Court will be surprised to learn that the redistricting plan that *60they have just accepted has now been reopened to cope with the ripple effect resulting from the “repair” of the placement of the Town of Montgomery. As with the Senate District placement of Richford, it may well turn out that the possible alternatives are far less desirable than the original plan. Unfortunately, the Court’s mandate overrides legislative judgments of desirability. The analysis and ruling that reaches that result is unwise, inadequately supported and inappropriately intrudes on a legislative function. I dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice Morse joins in this dissent.

 Although the majority, in response to this dissent, now denies that it relies on this logic, it is the only way to reach the conclusion that the Legislature adhered to none oí the nonnumerical statutory or constitutional criteria.