7/31/2019 Ritchie Redistricting Letter FINAL

1/2

2323 E. Franklin Ave

Minneapolis, MN 55406

May 23, 2012

Honorable Mark Ritchie

Minnesota Secretary of State

180 State Office Building

100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

Saint Paul, MN 55155

Dear Secretary of State Ritchie:

Common Cause Minnesota urges you, as the lead defendant in the redistricting litigation (Hippert v.

Ritchie), to protect Minnesota taxpayers from paying the excessive attorney fees requested in theredistricting case. In past Minnesota redistricting cases, the state has awarded attorney fees for

Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. 1988). However, the state of Minnesota in 2002

did challenge the amount of the fees awarded. This year the facts are different and require a more

vigorous defense of taxpayer money.

It is important to note that the court does have considerable discretion in awarding such fees. With the

state budget facing a likely deficit during the next biennium, the state needs to be mindful of every

expense that it makes and vigorously oppose expenses that it should not have to award. Common Cause

Minnesota requests that your office oppose the attorney fees requested by both the Hippert and Martin

plaintiffs for the reasons stated below.

First, the primary purpose of the redistricting case was not to determine if the plaintiffs rights were

violated under the law but to develop the legislative and congressional districts that reflect the population

changes unveiled in the 2010 census. The state of Minnesota was a truly a nominal defendant in the

matter and played no active role in the proceedings. As a result, there was no prevailing party in the

matter because the argument was between the three plaintiffs over how the map should be drawn and not

over whether the plaintiffs rights had been violated.

In fact, the reason that Minnesotas legislative and congressional districts were malapportioned onFebruary 21, 2011, was a direct result of the actions of the Hippert and Martin plaintiffs. Those plaintiff

essentially represented the interests of the Democratic Farmer Labor Party and the Republican Party of

Minnesota in the legislative and executive branches. This is demonstrated by the fact of the Hippert map

is almost exactly the same as the map proposed by Republicans in the Minnesota legislature and the

named plaintiff for the Martin party is the chair of the Democratic Famer Labor Party. It is because thes

groups could not agree on new congressional and legislative maps during the legislative session that the

7/31/2019 Ritchie Redistricting Letter FINAL

2/2

court had to intervene in this matter. Not only that, but the legislature had an opportunity to reform the

redistricting process and thus prevent the redistricting dispute from landing before the state court. The

court should not reward the parties for failing to do their job as required under the Minnesota

Constitution.

Second, the attorney fees requested are significantly higher than the value that the attorneys provided to

the court. Traditionally, the court has significantly reduced the attorney fees awarded based on the

number of hours that could be reasonably expended on litigation and by examining the results. In 2002,

the court awarded a flat rate of $100,000 per party. If that number were adjusted for inflation than each

party should only receive $127,896.05 in attorney fees this year. That amount should be reduced because

the final plan adopted by the court was not significantly similar to the three parties plans. In fact, the

court said that its map was based on a least change map from the previous legislative and congressiona

boundaries.

In addition, most of the work provided by the Hippert plaintiff was actually the work of the legislative

caucus staff that drew the legislative and congressional maps submitted by the Republican Party. Incomparing the map drawn by the House Republican caucus and the Hippert map, they are almost

identical. For that reason it is hard to justify what value the lawyers for the Hippert plaintiff provided to

the court. Less is known about the origin of the Martin plaintiff map because the DFL legislative caucus

never introduced a plan during the legislative session. However, based on examination of the billing

records of the Martin plaintiff there is evidence of coordination and collaboration with the DFL

legislative staff. This raises significant questions about the real value that the Martin attorneys provided

the plaintiff in submitting a legislative and congressional map.

For these reasons, the Minnesota Secretary of State should oppose any fees awarded to the Hippert and

Martin plaintiffs. It is clear that the parties intended to use the courts as the venue to handle thislegislative dispute. For that reason, there should be no expectation that the citizens of Minnesota should

be expected to pay for their failure to get the job done. In fact, the citizens of Minnesota already allocated

significant amounts of money to the legislative caucuses to accomplish this task. To now make them pay

for the attorneys in this matter is duplicative and unnecessary. Please stand up for Minnesota taxpayers.

Sincerely,

Mike Dean

Common Cause Minnesota