three-judge panel rules west virginia congressional redistricting plan unconstitutional

8/3/2019 Three-judge panel rules West Virginia congressional redistricting plan unconstitutional

1/32

JEFFERSONPATRICIAand on

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

AT CHARLESTON

COUNTY COMMISSION;NOLAND, as an i nd iv idua l ENTb eh a l f o f a l l othe rs Ds imi l a r l y s i t u a t ed ; and DALE JAN- 3 2012MANUEL, as an i nd iv idua l and on

b eh a l f o f a l l othe rs s imi l a r l ys i t u a t ed ,

P l a i n t i f f s , andTHORNTON COOPER,

In te rven ing P l a i n t i f f ,

TERESA L. DEPPNER, CI_ERKU.S. District Court

Southern District of West

v. C i v i l Action No. 2:11-CV-0989NATALIE E. TENNANT, in hercap ac i t y as the Secre ta ry o fSta te ; EARL RAY TOMBLIN, i n h i scap ac i t y as th e Chie f Execut iveOff ice r o f th e Sta te o f WestVirg in ia ; JEFFREY KESSLER, in h iscapac i ty as th e Acting Pres iden tof th e Senate of th e West Virg in iaLegi s l a tu re ; and RICHARD THOMPSON,in h is capac i ty as the Speaker o fth e House o f Delegates o f th e WestVirg in ia Legi s l a tu re ,

Defendants .

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERROBERT BRUCE KING, United Sta tes C i rc u i t Judge, and

IRENE CORNELIA BERGER, United Sta te s D i s t r i c t Judge:The Je f fe r son County Commission and two o f i t s

commissioners, P a t r i c i a Noland and Dale Manuel, both o f whom


2/32

res ide in Jefferson County, West Virginia , and each proceedingin h is or her indiv idual capaci ty , f i l ed th i s su i t on November4, 2011, chal lenging the congressional apportionment enacted bythe State of West Virg in ia fol lowing the 2010 census. In t he i rComplaint, the p la in t i f f s name as defendants Secretary of StateNatal ie E. Tennant, Governor Ear l Ray Tomblin, State SenatePres ident Jeff rey Kessler , and Speaker Richard Thompson of theWest Virginia House of Delegates , each in h is or her o f f i c i a lcapac i ty . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2284, th i s three- judged i s t r i c t court was duly appointed by the Chief Judge of theCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circu i t to consider thep l a i n t i f f s ' cla ims. The t r i a l of the matter took place a t TheRobert C. Byrd United States Courthouse in Charles ton onDecember 28, 2011, and it i s now r ipe for dec is ion .

Upon care fu l considerat ion of the par t i e s ' wri t tensubmissions and the test imony, evidence, and arguments ofcounsel, we conclude tha t West Virgin ia ' s congressionalapportionment was not accomplished in conformance with theConst i tut ion of the United Sta tes . The p la in t i f f s are thereforeen t i t l ed to have the enactment declared nul l and void, and, inturn , to have the Secre tary of State permanently enjoined fromconducting West Virgin ia ' s e lec t ions for Congress in accordancetherewi th .

2


3/32

I.

A.The 435 voting members of the United States House of

Representat ives are dis t r ibu ted among the severa l s t a t e s innumbers propor t ionate to each s t a t e ' s percentage of the nat ion ' spopulat ion, based upon an "actual Enumeration" f i r s t conductedin 1790 and repeated "every subsequent Term of ten Years ." U.S.CoNST. a r t . I , 2, c l . 3; see 2 U.S.C. 2a (requir ing tha tPres ident employ algebra ic "method of equal proport ions" tocalcula te and t ransmit to 82nd Congress within one week ofconvening on January 3, 1951, and each f i f th Congressthereaf t e r , resu l t s of most recent decennial census and numberof representa t ives to which each State thereby en t i t l ed ) . Uponsuch ce r t i f i ca t ion by the Executive of the re su l tan t number ofrepresenta t ives , each s ta te es tabl ishes i t s own methodology forapport ioning the corresponding di s t r i c t s within i t s borders .

In West Virgin ia ' s case, the s t a t e cons t i tu t ion commandstha t congressional d i s t r i c t s "sha l l be formed of contiguouscount ies , and be compact. Each d i s t r i c t sha l l conta in , asnear ly as may be, an equal number of populat ion, to bedetermined according to the ru le prescr ibed in the cons t i tu t ionof the United Sta tes . " W. Va. Const. a r t . I , 4; see W. Va.Code 1-2-3 ( ident i fy ing three current congressional d i s t r i c t s ,each comprised of contiguous whole count ies) . The " ru le

3


4/32

prescr ibed in the cons t i tu t ion of the United Sta tes"incorpora tes the requirements of Art i c l e I , Sect ion 2, toge therwith the Fourteenth Amendment, the l a t t e r of which, among o therth ings , proh ib i t s a s t a t e from denying "any person with in i t sju r i sd ic t ion the equal protec t ion of the laws ." U.S. CONST.amend. XIV, 1; see Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ( c i v i lr igh ts act ion al leg ing equal protec t ion v io la t ions stemming froml eg i s l a tu re ' s r ed i s t r i c t i ng asse r t s jus t i c i ab le FourteenthAmendment claim) .

In response to the federa l government 's ce r t i f i ca t ion ofthe 2010 census and confirmat ion t ha t West Virginia would remainen t i t l ed to th ree representa t ives in Congress, Pres ident Kess lerappointed seventeen s t a t e senators to a "Red i s t r i c t ing TaskForce" (the "Task Force") , chaired by Senator (and Majori tyLeader) John Unger, which conducted a se r ie s of twelve publ icmeetings throughout the s t a t e during the spring and ear ly summerof 2011 to gather c i t i zen input . On August 1, 2011, the WestVirgin ia Legis la ture , a t the proclamat ion of Governor Tomblinth ree days ea r l i e r , convened i t s Fi r s t Extraordinary Session todetermine s t a t e l eg i s l a t i ve and federa l congressional d i s t r i c t s .Senate Resolut ion No. 103, adopted a t the ou tse t of the spec ia lsess ion , es tabl i shed the Select Committee on Redis t r ic t ing ( the"Committee"), comprised of the seventeen Task Force senators .

4


5/32

See Jo in t Opening Brief of Defendants Jeffrey Kessler andRichard Thompson [here inaf ter "D. Br."] , Exhibi t M.

On August 3, 2011, the Committee was presented with ani n i t i a l proposal providing fo r a vi r tua l ly equal div is ion of theSta t e ' s of f ic ia l 2010 populat ion of 1,852,994. Under t ha tproposa l , formally cal led the "or ig inat ing b i l l " but informal lydubbed the "Perfec t Plan," the Fi r s t and Second Congress ionalDis t r i c t s would each contain 617,665 persons , with the remaining617,664 to reside in the Third. The Perfect Plan genera l lyobserved po l i t i c a l boundaries a t the county leve l , although itdivided two counties - Kanawha and Harrison - between d i s t r i c t s .See Pla in t i f f s ' Exhibi t 8.

The following day, August 4, 2011, Committee membersproposed a l t e rna t ives to the Perfect Plan. The Committeeul t imate ly re jec ted s ix such a l t e rna t ives , inc luding tw o bySenator Roman Prezioso (devised by the Democratic CongressionalCampaign Committee, a/k/a the "DCCC"), th ree by Senator BrooksMcCabe (suggested by at torney Thornton Cooper), and one bySenator Douglas Facemire (suggested by non-Committee memberSenator Herb Snyder) . The Committee reported to the fu l l Senatean eighth proposal , Senate Bi l l ("S.B.") 1008, propounded bySenator Clark Barnes, which re ta ined the 2001 d i s t r i c tboundaries, except fo r t r ans fe r r ing Mason County from the SecondDi s t r i c t to the Third. On the Senate f loor , Senator Snyder

5


6/32

moved to amend th e b i l l with a nin th proposa l , bu t t h a t motionwas defea ted . The Senate ul t ima te ly passed S. B. 1008 over th elone d i s s e n t of Sena tor Unger. 1 The House o f Delega tes , underth e s t ewardsh ip o f Speaker Thompson, approved th e b i l l wi thoutdebate , and it was s igned in to law by Governor Tomblin on August18, 2011.

The r e s u l t i n g appor t ionment s t a tu t e , appear ing i n cod i f i edform a t West Virg in ia Code sec t ion 1-2-3 , p rov ides fo r 615,991persons in th e F i r s t D i s t r i c t ; 620,862 in th e Second; and616,141 in th e Thi rd . 2 The most populous o f the t h ree , th e

1 The nine a l t e rn a t i v e s cons idered by th e Legi s l a tu re weredisposed of t h u s l y : (a ) th e t h ree McCabe (Cooper) Plans werepresen ted to and imp l i c i t l y r e j ec t ed by th e Committee a t th eTask Force s t ag e , which adopted t h e Pe r f ec t Plan on Augus t 3,2011, as th e " o r i g i n a t i n g b i l l " ; (b) th e two Prez ioso (DCCC)Plans were cons idered and r e jec ted by th e Committee on August 4,2011; (c) on t h a t same date , the Committee a lso cons idered andr e j ec t ed th e Facemire (Snyder) Plan; (d ) th e Snyder FloorAmendment was cons idered and r e j ec t ed by th e f u l l Senate onAugust 5, 2011; and (e) th e Barnes Plan was cons idered andapproved by th e Committee as an amendment to t h e Pe r f ec t Plan onAugust 4, 2011, and it was t hen enac ted in to law as S.B. 1008.Consequent ly , th e Barnes Plan i s the p lan under ch a l l en g e int h e se proceed ings .

2 As prov ided by sec t ion 1-2-3 , the coun t ies o f Barbour ,Brooke, Doddridge, Gilmer, Grant , Hancock, Harr i son , Marion,Marsha l l , Minera l , Monongal ia , Ohio, Pl easan t s , Pres ton ,Ri t ch i e , Taylor , Tucker, Tyler , Wetzel , and Wood co n s t i t u t e th eF i r s t D i s t r i c t . The Second D i s t r i c t i s comprised o f Berkeley,Braxton, Calhoun, Clay , Hampshire, Hardy, Jackson, Je f fe r son ,Kanawha, Lewis, Morgan, Pendle ton, Putnam, Randolph, Roane,Upshur, and Wirt Count ie s . The Third D i s t r i c t encompasses th eremaining coun t ies , i.e., Boone, Cabel l , Fayet te , Greenbr ier ,Linco ln , Logan, Mason, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Monroe,(Continued)

6


7/32

Second Dis t r i c t , exceeds the mean (617, 665) by 3, 197 persons(0.52%), in cont ras t to a shor t f a l l of 1, 674 (0.27%) in thel ea s t populous Fi rs t Dis t r i c t , re su l t ing in a t o t a l var iance(a /k / a "Rela t ive Overal l Range" or "ROR") of 4, 8 71 (0. 79%) . Asi l l u s t r a t ed below, the ROR of the enacted apportionment was thee ighth most severe of the nine proposals considered:

Rank Proposal ROR1 . Per f ec t Plan 0.00%2. McCabe (Cooper) Plan 3 0.04%3. McCabe (Cooper) Plan 2 0.06%4. McCabe (Cooper) Plan 1 0.09%5. Snyder Floor Amendment 0.39%6. Facemire (Snyder) Plan 0.42%7. Prezioso (DCCC) Plan 2 0.44%8. S.B. 1008 (Barnes Plan) 0.79%9. Prezioso (DCCC) Plan 1 1 . 22%

In accordance with a t imetable imposed by s t a t u t e , see W.Va. Code 3-5-7, a candidate fo r Congress in West Virgin ia i srequi red to f i l e a Cer t i f i ca te of Announcement with theSecre ta ry of Sta te , see id . 3-1A-6(a). The Secretaryt he r e a f t e r t ransmits to the clerks of the f i f t y - f ive county

Nicholas ,Wyoming. Pocahontas, Raleigh, Summers, Wayne, Webster, and

7


8/32

commissions a c e r t i f i c a t i o n t ha t the candida te i s qua l i f i e d toappear on th e ba l lo t . See id . 3-5-9 . The f i l i ng per iod fo rthe upcoming s ta tewide e lec t ions i s scheduled to begin onJanuary 9, 2012, and to conclude on January 28, 2012.Candidates fo r Congress are obl iged , a t th e t ime of f i l i n g , toinform the publ ic of the d i s t r i c t in which they in tend to run .See id . 3-5-7 (d ) (2).

B.The p l a i n t i f f s commenced t h i s act ion in the Northern

D i s t r i c t of West Virgin ia on November 4, 2011, aga ins t Secre t a ryTennant,Thompson

Governor Tomblin,(co l l ec t ive ly , the

Pres ident Kess le r , and Speaker"S ta te" or the "defendants" ) ,

seeking a dec la ra to ry judgment t ha t West Virgin ia Code sec t ion1-2-3 f a i l s to comport with th e Cons t i tu t ion of the UnitedSta tes (Count One), and t ha t the d i s t r i c t s as drawn a l socontravene the West Virgin ia c ons t i t u t i ona l requirements ofnumerical equivalence and of compactness (Counts Two and Three,r espec t ive ly ) . The Complaint reques t s t ha t the Sta t e bepermanent ly enjo ined from conducting i t s congress iona l e lec t ionsin conformance with sec t ion 1-2-3 , and it urges t ha t a moresu i t ab le a l t e r na t i ve be subs t i t u t ed as the S t a t e ' s of f i c i a lappor t ionment scheme.

On November 22, 2011, Thornton Cooper moved fo r leave toin tervene as an add i t iona l p l a i n t i f f , and t ha t motion was

8


9/32

gran ted on November 30, 2 011. Subsequent ly , on December 15,2011, venue was t r an s f e r r ed to th e Southern D i s t r i c t o f WestVirg in ia . Shor t ly t h e re a f t e r , on December 17, 2011, Coopersubmi t t ed fo r our considera t ion a t en th proposa l , i.e., CooperPlan 4. That proposa l d iv ided Taylor County between th e F i r s tand Third D i s t r i c t s , r e s u l t i n g in a t o t a l var iance o f fourpersons (0.00% ROR), with 617,663 being placed in th e F i r s tD i s t r i c t ; 617,667 in th e Second; and 617,664 in th e Thi rd .

I I .A.

The Cons t i tu t iona l d i r ec t i v e t h a t members o f th e House ofRep resen ta t i v es be chosen "by th e People of the Severa l St a t e s , "U.S. CaNST. a r t . I , 2, c l . 1, has been i n t e r p r e t ed to "mean []t h a t as near ly as i s p ra c t i c a b l e one man's vote in aco n g res s io n a l e l ec t i o n i s to be worth as much as a n o t h e r ' s . "Wesberry v. Sanders , 376 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1964). Although " [ t ] heex t en t to which equa l i ty may prac t i cab ly be achieved may d i f f e rfrom Sta te to S ta t e and from d i s t r i c t to d i s t r i c t , " th eCo n s t i t u t i o n nonethe less " requ i re s t h a t th e Sta te make a good-f a i t h e f f o r t to achieve prec i se mathemat ica l eq u a l i t y . "Kirkpat r i ck v. P r e i s l e r , 3 94 U.S. 52 6, 530-31 (1969) ( c i t ingReynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 57 7 (1964)) . The Kirkpat r i ckCourt emphat ica l ly re j ec t ed th e argument t h a t smal l , unexpla ined

9


10/32

d i spa r i t i e s might be considered de minimis, ins t ruc t ing t ha t" [u ]n less populat ion var iances among congressional d i s t r i c t s areshown to have resul ted despi te such ef for t , the State mustj u s t i fy each var iance, no matter how smal l ." Id . a t 531.

The Supreme Court has prescr ibed a procedural mechanism toimplement the Sanders prac t icab i l i ty standard. At the outse t , aparty chal lenging apportionment must demonstrate the exis tenceof a populat ion dispar i ty tha t "could have been reduced oreliminated al together by a good-fai th e f fo r t to draw d i s t r i c t sof equal proport ion ." Karcher v. Dagge tt, 462 U.S. 725, 730(1983). Upon such a showing, the burden sh i f t s to the s t a t e toprove " tha t each s ign i f i can t var iance between d i s t r i c t s wasnecessary to achieve some l eg i t imate goal . " Id . a t 731.

The Karcher Court iden t i f i ed severa l pol ic ie s or object ivestha t might support a conclusion of legi t imacy. See Karcher, 462U.S. a t 740 ("Any number of consis tent ly applied l eg i s l a t ivepol ic ie s might j u s t i fy some var iance, including, for ins tance ,making di s t r i c t s compact, respect ing municipal boundaries ,preserving the cores of pr io r di s t r i c t s , and avoiding contes tsbetween incumbent Representat ives .") . Important ly , the onus i son the proponent of the chal lenged apportionment - here , theState of West Virgin ia to aff i rmat ively demonstrate aplausib le connection between the asser ted object ives and howthey are manifes ted. As the Karcher Court emphasized, the State

10


11/32

must show " tha t a par t i cu lar object ive required the spec i f i cdevia t ions in i t s plan, ra ther than simply re ly ing on generalasser t ions . " Id . a t 741.

B.At t r i a l l a s t week, the State he lpfu l ly conceded t ha t the

p la in t i f f s (here inaf ter including the in tervening p la in t i f f )have sa t i s f i ed the i r threshold burden under Karcher todemonstrate tha t the 0. 79% var iance enacted through S.B. 1008might have been reduced. See Transcr ip t of Proceedings ofDecember 28, 2011 [here inaf ter "Tr ."] a t 43, 84. Indeed, theSta te could hardly have argued otherwise, given tha t no fewerthan seven less dras t i c a l te rna t ives were submitted forcons idera t ion . 3 The State nonetheless maintains tha t the enactedvar iance i s so le ly the resu l t of i t s e f fo r t s to accommodate thel eg i t imate goals of respect ing county boundaries , preserving thecores of extant d i s t r i c t s , and avoiding a contes t in theRepublican primary between two of West Virgin ia ' s incumbent

3 Cf. Stone v. Hechler, 782 F. Supp. 1116, 1125 (N.D. W. Va.1992) (per curiam), in which the three-judge panel , applyingKarcher, reasoned tha t " i f any plan (other than the one underj ud i c i a l at tack) would reduce or el iminate populat iondi fferences among the congressional di s t r i c t s , the p l a i n t i f f hasmet i t s burden." The cour t continued, "[b]ecause seventeenother plans with a lower overa l l var iance were before theLegis la ture . , the Court concludes tha t Stone has sa t i s f i edh is burden." Id. a t 1126.

11


12/32

representa t ives , David McKinley and Shel ley Moore Capito. Weaddress each of these contentions in turn.

1.As i n i t i a l l y se t for th supra, the Const i tut ion of West

Virginia provides for the div is ion of the s ta te in tocongressional di s t r i c t s , which "sha l l be formed of cont iguouscount ies , and be compact. Each d i s t r i c t sha l l conta in , asnearly as may be, an equal number of populat ion, to bedetermined according to the ru le prescribed in the cons t i tu t ionof the United Sta tes . " W. Va. Const. ar t . I , 4. 4 Thein tegr i ty of county boundaries has been character ized as a "WestVirginia cons t i tu t iona l requirement ," Stone v. Hechler, 7 82 F.Supp. 1116, 1123 (N.D. W.Va. 1992) (per curiam), an observat ionprobably emanating from the quoted excerp t ' s reference to"count ies" and not par t s or por t ions of count ies .

The Stone cour t ' s comment in passing was not per t inent tothe decision in tha t case, and i t s accuracy i s in any eventcal led in to quest ion i f the Art ic le 1 excerp t i s in te rpre tedwithin the context of the ent i re document. In par t i cu lar , thes t a t e cons t i tu t ion ' s Art ic le 6 provision governing apport ionment

4 The compactness and equal i ty requirements of Art ic le I ,Section 4 form the basis of the p l a i n t i f f s ' claims under CountsTwo and Three of the Complaint, and they wi l l be br i e f lydiscussed in f ra in Part I I I .

12


13/32

for the purpose of elec t ing the West Virgin ia Senate spec i f ie stha t those di s t r i c t s be "bounded by county l i nes . " W. Va.Const. a r t . VI, 4. The absence of a s imilar ly precisereference to " l ines" in Art ic le 1 cas ts doubt on the intendedmeaning there in of the word "count ies ," with the r e su l t t ha t theprovis ion should reasonably be construed to contemplate tha tcount ies may be subdivided, so long as the d i s t r i c t ' s cont igui tyremains in tac t . 5

Upon the Perfect Plan being moved before the Committee,Senator Unger explained the l egal bas is fo r the plan ' s div is ionof count ies . See Tr. a t 200. Though cha l lenging many members'long-held assumptions to the contrary, the concept of county-sp l i t t ing was more or l e s s embraced by the Committee as a whole,engendering a t l eas t some prel iminary discussion of conforminga l t e rna t ives . See id . a t 80-81, 173-74, 200-02.

5 The par t i es indicated a t t r i a l tha t West Virginia Senated i s t r i c t s no longer observe county l ines , owing to the ind i rec te f fec t of a federa l cour t decis ion t ha t s t ruck down as vio la t iveof the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protect ion Clause theSta t e ' s apportionment of the House of Delegates. See Goines v.Rockefel ler , 338 F. Supp. 1189, 1195 (S.D. W. Va. 1972) ('"Whenthere i s an unavoidable conf l i c t between the Federal and a StateCons t i tu t ion , the Supremacy Clause of course con t ro l s . ' "(quoting Reynolds, 377 U.S. a t 584)) . Though the "county l ines"provis ion i s no longer of prac t i ca l e f fec t , the const ruct ofArt ic le VI, Sect ion 4 i s nonetheless useful to discern thedra f t e r s ' in ten t as to the s l igh t ly diss imilar provis ions ofSect ion 4 of Art ic le I .

13


14/32

Whether mandated by the s ta te cons t i tu t ion or not , it i sundisputed tha t , since West Virginia was admitted to the Unionnear ly 150 years ago, none of i t s counties have ever beendivided between two or more congressional d i s t r i c t s . 6 Inaccordance with Karcher, then, maintaining the in tegr i ty ofcounty boundar ies within congressional d i s t r i c t s could, in WestVirgin ia ' s case, qual i fy as one of those "cons i s t en t ly appl ied"i n t e r e s t s tha t the Legis la ture might choose to invoke to j u s t i f ya populat ion var iance .

To tha t end, Senator Corey Palumbo, Chair of the SenateJudic iary Committee, t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l tha t " i t was importantto , to a lo t of people , whether it was a spec i f ic requirement ornot , to t ry to avoid sp l i t t i ng up count ies , the countyboundar ies ." Tr. a t 248-49. Though we give due c red i t toSenator Palumbo's testimony concerning h is general unders tandingof the decisionmaking process, the Legis la ture neglected toc rea te a contemporaneous record su f f i c i en t to show t ha t S. B.1008 's ent i re 4,871-person var iance or even a disc re te ,

6 The nat ion having l a rge ly adopted zero-var iancecongressional apportionment, see in f ra Par t I I . C, West Virgin iaand Iowa are the only remaining s t a t e s t ha t have never s p l i tcount ies between d i s t r i c t s . See Tr. a t 201. I f we assume t ha tthe Karcher Court meant i t s reference to "municipal boundaries"to also include "county l i nes , " the nationwide devaluat ion ofcounty l ine in tegr i ty may portend the eventual dele t ion ofmunicipal or county boundar ies from the l i s t of poten t i a l lyl eg i t imate j u s t i f i ca t ions . See D. Br . , Exhibi t 0, a t 24.

14


15/32

numerical ly prec i se por t ion thereof - was a t t r ibu tab le to theprofessed i n t e r e s t in keeping counties i n t ac t . As Senator Ungert e s t i f i e d without contradic t ion , there was "nothing in therecord as fa r as the l eg i s l a t ion t ha t would give anyj u s t i f i ca t ion fo r the ac t of the Legis la ture in th i s r egard ."Id . a t 222. 7

Moreover, of the e igh t o ther proposals under cons idera t ion ,only the Perfect Plan t ransgressed county l ines , and onlyPrezioso Plan 1 advocated fo r a grea te r var iance . Consequently,the Legis la ture had before it seven a l te rna t ive proposals t ha twould have operated consis ten t ly with i t s asser ted i n t e r e s t inpreserving count ies i nv io la t e , s ix of which would have been morein keeping with the cons t i tu t iona l archetype of "one person, onevote ." The re jec t ion of more compliant proposals t ha t wouldhave advanced the Sta t e ' s i n t e re s t a t l ea s t as e f f e c t ive ly as

7 There was considerable discuss ion a t t r i a l concerning theneed fo r the Legis la ture to include i t s f indings within theenactment, a prac t i ce t ha t i s general ly "pre t ty common," Tr. a t222, but one t ha t evident ly has never been followed in re la t ionto an apportionment b i l l , see id . a t 255. We th ink itsu f f i c i en t tha t the Legis la ture ' s ra t iona le with respect tospec i f ic populat ion var iances and other re levant cons idera t ions ,whether denominated " f indings" or not , be pla in ly and accura te lydocumented in the of f i c i a l l eg i s l a t i ve record. Such could takethe form of a Jo in t Resolut ion express ing the contemporaneousth inking of the Legis la ture as a body, which would c e r t a in ly bepreferable to a cour t at tempt ing to asce r t a in t ha t th inking v iathe a f t e r - t he - fac t tes t imony of indiv idual l eg i s l a t o r s . Buteven t ha t minimum requirement was not sa t i s f i ed here.

15


16/32

th e l e ss compl iant one ac tua l ly adopted m i l i t a t e s s t rong lyaga ins t a conclusion t h a t the Legi s l a tu re put fo r th th eob jec t ive ly good-fa i th e f fo r t t h a t Karcher r equ i res . SeeKarcher, 4 62 u.s. a t 739-40 (approving d i s t r i c t cour t ' sconclusion t h a t p l a i n t i f f s had sa t i s f i ed i n i t i a l burden bydemonstra t ing ava i l ab i l i t y of p lans with l e ss extreme popula t iondev ia t ions ) .

2.Karcher acknowledged t h a t preserv ing the core of ex i s t ing

d i s t r i c t s may afford a l eg i t imate bas i s fo r a s t a t e to j u s t i f y apopulat ion var iance among congress iona l d i s t r i c t s . The word"core" has been defined as " the cen t ra l or most impor tan t p a r to f something, in pa r t i c u l a r . th e p a r t of something t h a t i sc e n t r a l to i t s exis tence or charac te r . " The New Oxford AmericanDict ionary , 378 (2d ed. 2005) . In th e context of congress iona lapportionment, the core of a d i s t r i c t might be most comfortablyconceived in geographic terms as being more or l e ss the cen t e rpor t ion o f a d i s t r i c t map. In West Virginia , however, a s t a t ewhose i r r e g u l a r shape def ies fac i le descr ip t ion and where mostof i t s l a rg e s t munic ipa l i t i e s l i e near i t s borders , a d i s t r i c t ' score might as r ead i l y be def ined by more out ly ing geographicf ea tu res , such as the panhandles in th e north and the e a s t , orthe coa l f i e lds in the south. See Tr. a t 230 (Senator Unger 'stes t imony t h a t "we ' re a l l connected , bu t some of us are

16


17/32

connected more than others I th ink tha t the EasternPanhandle has a very unique s i tua t ion , as wel l as the NorthernPanhandle, as well as Southern West Virg in ia" ) .

Beyond the disc re te bounds of geography, however, ad i s t r i c t ' s core can also impl ica te i t s " [ s ]oc i a l , cu l t u ra l ,r ac i a l , e thn ic , and economic i n t e re s t s common to the popula t ionof the area , which are probable subjects of l eg i s l a t i on(genera l ly termed 'communities of i n t e r e s t ' ) . " Graham v.Thornburgh, 207 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1286 (D. Kan. 2002). Thep la in t i f f s ' t r i a l exper t , Professor Ken Martis of West Virgin iaUnivers i ty , explained t ha t "po l i t i ca l , geographic, soc ia l ,economic, [and] c u l tu r a l var iab les can be used to look a tcommunit i e s of i n t e r e s t . " Tr. a t 114. Dr. Martis elaboratedt ha t communities of i n t e re s t can be circumscr ibed, fo r example,by metropoli tan areas , by "vernacular" zones of shared economici n i t i a t i v e s , and even by s i mi l a r i t i e s in geologic fea tu res ,watersheds, and environmental pol icy . See id . a t 114-25;P l a i n t i f f s ' Exhibi t s 3-7.

None of these pa r t i c u l a r concerns fac tored s ign i f i c a n t lyin to the Legis la ture ' s decisionmaking, however. See Tr. a t 129,220. To the cont ra ry , the emphasis was on preserving the s ta tusquo and making only t angen t i a l changes to the exis t ingd i s t r i c t s . See id . a t 180, 241, 243. Senator Unger c i t ed thegenera l res i s t ance to change, not ing tha t the delega tes from

17


18/32

Mason County were among the few vot ing aga ins t even the minimaltweak tha t was eventual ly approved: "[Y]ou always have 'not inmy backyard. 'Congressional Dis t r i c t .

[T]hey d i dn ' t want to go to the 3rdThey d i dn ' t want to move.n Id . a t 202-

03. Accordingly, Senator Unger termed S. B. 1008 as " the mostpo l i t i c a l ly expedient . I t was one tha t we could do and move outand get out of town, eas ies t .n Id . a t 204.

In tha t sense, the l eg is la t ive evaluat ion of d i s t r i c t coresin 2011 was reminiscent of the one twenty years e a r l i e r inStone. The court in Stone chose not to at tempt i t s owndef in i t ion of "core ,n ins tead deferr ing to the Legis la ture ' sdeterminat ion tha t "preserving d i s t r i c t cores means keeping asmany of the current congressional di s t r i c t s i n t ac t as poss ib le .n782 F. Supp. a t 1126. The pla in t i f f there in did not takefundamental i ssue with maintaining in tac tness , but contendedtha t the concept had been misappl ied to preserve currentd i s t r i c t s ; he unsuccessful ly urged the court to focus ins tead onsafeguarding t rad i t iona l d i s t r i c t s , i . e . , to preserve theessent i a l po l i t i c a l character "of those counties tha t have beentogether in the same d i s t r i c t for most of the his tory of theSta te .n Id .

Regardless of how one perceives the "coren of acongressional d i s t r i c t , it must be, by def in i t ion , merely par tof the whole. A core-Democrat ic d i s t r i c t i s bound to have

18


19/32

Republican voters ; there wi l l be churchgoers who at tend Massthough they l ive in a predominantly Pro tes tan t d i s t r i c t ;shopping mal l s and spor ts cars s ha l l , a t l e a s t in West Virg in ia ,inev i tab ly give way to co rn f ie lds and hay wagons. In a s i m i l a rfashion, erec t ing a f igu ra t ive fence around a d i s t r i c t ' s en t i r eper imeter p reserves i t s geographic core only in the grosses t ,most ham-handed sense t h a t encasing a nuclear r eac to r in tons o fconcre te p reserves the r ad ioac t ive core of t ha t s t ruc tu re .

Indeed, with respec t to the cur ren t Second Di s t r i c t ,snaking for the most par t in s ingle -county narrowness across th ebreadth of the s t a t e , hundreds of miles southwester ly from th eShenandoah River to the Ohio, iden t i fy ing i t s core - g e o g r a p h i cor otherwise would prove v i r t ua l l y impossible . KanawhaCounty, the most populated in the s t a t e , i s in t ha t d i s t r i c tt oge the r with Berkeley County, which has r ecen t ly become th esecond most populous, notwi ths tanding t ha t the county sea t s(Charles ton and Mart insburg, respec t ive ly) are about 300 milesapar t by highway. The anomaly br ings to mind the old foo tba l ladage t ha t when a team decides it has two s t a r t i ng quar te rbacks ,it more prec i se ly has none.D i s t r i c t ' s excess ive e longa t ion ,abominat ion." Tr. a t 127.

Taking note of the SecondDr. Mart is ca l led it "an

We ce r ta in ly unders tand t ha t , as a genera l propos i t ion ,rea rranging a grea te r number of count ies to achieve numerical

19


20/32

equa l i ty in r e d i s t r i c t i n g means t h a t more c i t i z e n s w i l l need toaccustom themselves to a d i f f e r e n t congressperson. While weimagine t h a t th e acc l ima t i za t ion process may give r i s e to amodicum of anx ie ty and inconvenience , avoiding co n s t i t u en tdiscomfor t a t the margins i s not among those po l i c i es recognizedin Karcher as capable of l eg i t imiz ing a var iance . That S. B.1008 was the most ef fec t ive proposa l in main ta in ing th e s t a t u squo, see Tr. a t 181, i s t he re fo re bes ide the poin t .

By i t s dogged in s i s tence t h a t change be minimized fo r th eb en e f i t of the de l i ca te c i t i zen ry , we th ink it l i ke ly t ha t th eSta te doth p ro t e s t too much, a t l e a s t when we eva lua te i t spos i t ion from th e perspec t ive of r e l a t i ve ly recent h i s to r y . Asdemonst ra ted a t t r i a l , th e 1991 appor t ionment e f f ec t i n g th ereduct ion o f West Virg in ia ' s a l l o ca t i o n in Congress from foursea t s to th ree , through i t s i n t roduc t ion of a se rpent ine SecondD is t r i c t , s t rayed fa r from th e t r a d i t i o n a l not ions of what th es t a t e ' s congress iona l d i s t r i c t s ought to look l i k e . See T r. a t71, 14 0; In te rvenor ' s Exhib i t 3. More sp e c i f i c a l l y , Dr. Mart i st e s t i f i e d t h a t beginning wi th th e s t a t e ' s crea t ion in 1863, " i fyou look a t a l l th e d i s t r i c t s up u n t i l 1991, the Eas te rnPanhandle has been kept i n t a c t . " Id . a t 140. 8 From our vantage

8 The term "Easte rn Panhandle" gene ra l ly re fe rs to th e e igh tWest Virg in ia coun t ies o f the Potomac River watershed, e a s t ofthe Eas tern Cont inental Divide, i.e., Je f fe r son , Berkeley,(Continued)

20


21/32

poin t , what the State now decr ies as a devia t ion from the normcould ins tead be descr ibed as a long-postponed reckoning ofaccounts . 9

Change i s the essence of the apportionment process. Changei s requi red to redress representa t ional inequi t i e s tha t occurover t ime as people move in or move away, and d i s t r i c t sexperience s ign i f i c a n t demographic sh i f t s . By gravi ta t ingtoward apportionment plans with zero var iances , we are as anation express ing our rea l iza t ion tha t res i s tance to changemerely fo r the sake of preserving the s ta tus quo i s not a vi r tueto be celebrated and promoted as an end to i t s e l f . Conversely,change for the sake of observing the bedrock cons t i tu t iona lpr inc ip le of "one person, one vote" i s an honorable andpa t r io t i c endeavor, one t ha t we are conf ident the Legis la tu reand c i t i zens of West Virginia wi l l see f i t to embrace. AsJus t ice Black reminded us in Wesberry v. Sanders:

I t would defeat the pr inc ip le solemnly embodied in theGreat Compromise - equal representa t ion in the Housefo r equal numbers of people - fo r us to hold t ha t ,within the Sta tes , l eg i s l a tures may draw the l ines of

Morgan, Mineral, Hampshire, Grant, Hardy, and Pendleton. SeeTr. a t 143-45.9 Asked whether he was "aware t ha t the publ ic par t i cu lar ly

in the Eastern Panhandle i s not happy with the cur ren tcongressional p lan , " Senator Palumbo responded, " I have beenmade aware of tha t , yes ." Tr. a t 257.

21


22/32

congressional di s t r i c t s in such a way as to give somevoters a grea ter voice in choosing a Congressman thanothers .

376 U.S. a t 14.3.

Much was made a t t r i a l of the bipar t i sanship evidenced bythe Democratic-dominated Legislature as it s trove to avoidplacing Republican incumbents McKinley and Capito in the samed i s t r i c t . See Tr. a t 183-84 ( testimony of Senator Snyder); id .a t 243-48, 259 ( testimony of Senator Palumbo). The l eg i s l a to r s 'laudable i n t e n t appears to have been consis ten t with thel a t i tude afforded by Karcher, but , as with the desi re to respectcounty boundaries , we can point to nothing in the record l ink inga l l or a spec i f ic pa r t of the var iance with the par t i cu l a ri n t e r e s t in avoiding conf l i c t between incumbents. Moreover, s ixof the seven more compliant a l t e rna t ives (excepting the Perfec tPlan) would have achieved the same avoidance goal as S.B. 1008,again ca l l ing into quest ion the extent to which the Legis la tureconducted i t s apportionment in object ive good fa i th .

c.In defense of the process employed by the State , Senator

Palumbo t e s t i f i ed tha t the Committee re l i ed extens ively onStone, which upheld the 1991 apportionment. See Tr. a t 250,253-54. In addi t ion , Senator Palumbo's confidence in thecons t i tu t iona l i ty of S.B. 1008 was buoyed by Karcher i t s e l f

22


23/32

i n so fa r as Jus t i ce Brennan's major i ty opinion had charac te r izeda pr io r West Virginia apportionment e f f o r t resu l t ing in a near lyi de n t i c a l variance as having cour t-approved "minor popula t iondev ia t ions . " See Karcher, 462 U.S. a t 740-41 (c i t ing W. Va.Civ i l Liber t i e s Union v. Rockefe l le r , 336 F. Supp. 395, 398-400(S.D. W. Va. 1972)) ; Tr. a t 256 ("[W]e knew fo r a fac tt ha t a variance of .788 . was already found [ in Rockefel ler]to be a var iance t ha t could be j u s t i f i e d . " ) .

The Committee was not l e f t to depend on i t s own l ega lanalys is . During i t s second meeting of the specia l sess ion , onAugust 4, 2011, the Committee heard from cons t i tu t iona l lawexper t Robert Bastress , the John W. Fisher I I Professor of Lawa t West Virgin ia Universi ty, concerning the appl icableprecedents . At th e outse t , Professor Bas t r e s s ca re fu l lyexplained t ha t " [ t ]he overr id ing pr inc ip le , of course, withcongress ional r ed i s t r i c t i ng i s the requirement t ha t theLegis la ture make every e f fo r t to achieve perfec t equal i ty ; t ha ti s , [] per fec t one person, one vote d i s t r i c t s . " D. Br. , Exhibi t0 , a t 8. Later on, in response to quest ioning, ProfessorBast ress r e i t e ra t ed t ha t , fol lowing Karcher,

[y]ou cannot devia te a t a l l from per fec t equa l i tyunless you've made a good fa i th e f fo r t to avoid anydevia t ion and t ha t the Legis la ture has found tha t anydevia t ion whatsoever i s necessary to achieve somel eg i t imate i n t e r e s t . And the [C] our t has sa id even ade minimis devia t ion has to be j u s t i f i ed .

23


24/32

Id . a t 17 (emphasis added) ; see Tr. a t 198 (Senator Unger ' stes t imony t h a t " [ t ]he tw o overarching pr inc ip les t ha t wecommunicated, a t l e a s t to the sena to rs , f i r s t was the oneperson, one vote pr inc ip le out of the U.S. cons t i tu t ion . Andthe second was the compactness pr inc ip l e . " ) .

There are undeniable pa ra l l e l s between the presen t disputeand t ha t in the 1991 Stone case , the l a s t t ime t ha t WestVirg in ia ' s apport ionment was chal lenged in fede ra l cour t .Stone, however, does not compel us to a pa r t i c u l a r r e su l t . SeeGasper in i v. Center fo r Humanit ies, Inc . , 518 U.S. 415, 430 n.10(1996) ( re la t ing pro l i f e r a t i on of judges in New York f edera ld i s t r i c t , "each of whom s i t s alone and renders dec is ions notb inding on the o thers" ) . And we have a l ready in t imated what wenow s t a t e c lea r ly : we are unpersuaded by Stone ' s d i scuss ion ofpreserving the core of congress iona l d i s t r i c t s . 10

The most obvious and c r i t i c a l dif ference between the twos i t ua t ions , though, i s t ha t the cour t in Stone approved theS t a t e ' s reapport ionment resu l t ing in a 0.09% var iance , while theplan before us enac t s a variance of 0.79%. The s ize of adevia t ion bears on the s ubs t a n t i a l i t y of the showing t ha t must

10 Before the Committee, Professor Bastress offered h isopinion on Stone t ha t "as the los ing lawyer in t ha t caseof course I th ink the dec is ion was wrong." D. Br. , Exhibi t 0 ,a t 12.

24


25/32

be made to j u s t i fy it. See Karcher, 46 2 U.S. a t 741. The Stonecour t commented t ha t the var iance in tha t case rendered " theSta t e ' s burden correspondingly l igh t . " 782 F. Supp. a t1128. However inconsequent ia l the burden in Stone, it i snecessar i ly fa r more cumbersome in a case l ike th i s one, whenthe variance to be j u s t i f i ed i s almost nine t imes grea te r . Cf.D. Br. , Exhibi t 0, a t 23 (se t t ing for th Professor Bas t ress ' sopinion tha t 0. 79% i s "a f a i r ly s igni f icant devia t ionI t would take more of a j u s t i f i ca t ion , s ign i f i c a n t ly moresubs tan t ia l j u s t i f i ca t ion , to suppor t a .79 deviat ion") . 11

There undoubtedly i s some super f ic ia l appeal to theargument, based on Karcher ' s endorsement of the 1972 r e s u l t inRockefel ler , t ha t a 0.79% var iance in West Virgin ia i s every b i tas accep tab le almost for ty years l a t e r . Indeed, Senator Palumboquest ioned Professor Bastress in the Committee proceedings as towhether the r ed i s t r i c t i ng requirements had changed s ince Stonein 1991 had appl ied the genera l pr inc ip les announced e igh t yearsbefore t ha t in Karcher, and Professor Bast ress rep l ied t ha t theyhad not . See D. Br. , Exhibi t 0, a t 12.

The bedrock l ega l p r inc ip les may not have changed, but theprec i s ion with which they are applied undoubtedly has. The

11 Put another way, the 0. 7 9% devia t ion (4, 871 persons) inth i s case i s about 877% of the 0. 09% devia t ion (556 persons) inStone.

25


26/32

p l a i n t i f f s submit ted a list a t t r i a l documenting the cu r r en tapport ionment e f fo r t s of twenty s t a t e s fo l lowing the 2010census . See P l a i n t i f f s ' Exhib i t 10. Of the l i s t ed s t a t e s , onlyWest Virg in ia and Arkansas have approved var iances in excess of0.03%. Fif teen of the s t a t e s have enac ted , o r a re in th eprocess of enac t ing, zero -var iance proposals l i ke th e Per fec tPlan. Advances assoc ia ted with th e advent of computertechnology have made ach iev ing these so r t s of r e s u l t s muche a s i e r and much more p r ac t i c ab l e than when Karcher and Stonewere decided. See D. Br . , Exhibi t 0, a t 13 (s ta tement o fProfessor Bas t ress t h a t " there has been a na t iona l t rend towardsalmost p e r f ec t equa l i ty . That has been enabled by th edevelopment o f some very soph is t i ca ted sof tware") .

The Legi s l a tu re has i t s own permanent r ed i s t r i c t i ng of f i c e ,see Tr. a t 166, though Senato r Snyder t e s t i f i e d t ha t , a t l e a s tu n t i l th e spec ia l sess ion , "few [ l eg i s l a to rs ] had r e a l des i reto , to have maps and so fo r th of the congress iona l d i s t r i c t sdone," id . a t 167. Using Maptitude sof tware, the r e d i s t r i c t i n goff i ce can e f f i c i en t l y generate apport ionment scena r ios ,observing any number of parameters such as p o l i t i c a l boundariesand compactness. See id . a t 187, 213-16; P l a i n t i f f s ' Exhib i t

26


27/32

1 1 . 1 2 There i s , therefore , no technological bar r i e r to WestVirgin ia conducting i t s apportionment e f fo r t s as prec ise ly asi t s s i s t e r s t a t e s have.

Moreover, a b i t of his tory helps to place the KarcherCour t ' s approval of the Rockefel ler apportionment in the properperspect ive . In the 1950s, West Virginia was divided in to s ixcongressional di s t r i c t s having a var iance in excess of eightpercent . See In te rvenor ' s Exhibi t 1. The s t a t e l o s t a sea tfollowing the 1960 census, and the subsequent apportionmentresul ted in a var iance tha t , while subs tan t ia l ly smal ler , yetapproached four percent . See id .

In l i gh t of the re la t ive ly large d i spa r i t i e s confronted byWest Virgin ia immediately pr io r to the apportionment occasionedby the 1970 census (in which the s t a t e ' s congress iona lrepresenta t ion was again reduced, to four) , it i s hardlysurpr i s ing tha t the Supreme Court refer red to the 0.788%var iance in Rockefel ler as "minor." See Tr. a t 15 9 (Cooper'ssta tement tha t " i t ' s important to understand the context t ha tthe Federal Court ru led in 1972 in l i gh t of what had been the

congressional r ed i s t r i c t i ng populat ion d i spa r i t i e s before

12 Senator Unger t e s t i f i ed tha t l eg is la t ive s t a f f membershad, ear ly on, devised severa l d i s t inc t zero-var iance models,and he assured us tha t s imi la r proposals could be "generatedvery quickly. , Tr. a t 235.

27


28/32

t h a t t ime") . The t imes , as Bob Dylan once procla imed, they area-changing, and what once was cha rac te r i zed as "minor" may nowbe cons idered "major ." Put s imply , S.B. 1008 was not enacted inconformance with the Cons t i tu t ion . As a r e s u l t , th e p l a i n t i f f sare e n t i t l e d t o dec la ra to ry and in junc t ive r e l i e f as to CountOne of t h e i r Complaint .

III.

The p l a i n t i f f s having preva i l ed on th e fede ra l chal lengeunder ly ing Count One, we need not reach or address th e mer i t s ofCounts Two and Three, premised on a l leged v io la t ions of s t a t elaw. We surmise only t h a t , with re spec t to Count Two, th e s t a t ec o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirement of prac t icab le equivalence i s no mores t r i n g e n t than t h a t of th e federa l Co ns t i tu t ion , in t ha t theformer sp e c i f i c a l l y incorpora tes " the ru l e prescr ibed in th econs t i tu t ion of the United Sta t e s . " See W. Va. Const. a r t . I , 4. By v i r tue o f the incorpora t ion , it would appear t ha t th epro tec t ions aga ins t disenfranch isement af fo rded by e i t h e r i sconterminous with the othe r .

The apport ionment t h a t i s u l t imate ly emplaced must , o fcourse , comport with th e compactness requirement of theCons t i tu t ion of West Virg in ia . The ul t imate a r b i t e r o f t h a tdocument i s the s t a t e ' s Supreme Court of Appeals , which r ecen t lyrebuf fed a number of cha l l enges to th e Le g i s l a t u re ' s

28


29/32

r ed i s t r i c t i ng of the State Senate , inc lud ing an a l l ega t ion tha tthe d i s t r i c t s were not compact within the meaning of A r t i c l e I ,Sect ion 4. See Order, Sta te ex r e l . Cooper v. Tennant, No. 11-1525, s l ip op. pending (W. Va . Nov. 23, 2011).

At the t r i a l of the case a t bar , counsel for the Sta teconfronted Dr. Martis with a map of the seventeen sena ted i s t r i c t s t ha t the Supreme Court of Appeals had j u s t upheld,cha l l eng ing h is opinion t h a t tw o of those d i s t r i c t s ( the 6th andthe 12th) were not compact, but in s tead e longa ted . See Tr. a t133. The poin t was argued t ha t the s t a t e Supreme Cour t ' sconclusion as to th ep la in t i f f s ' Count ThreeCongress ional D is t r i c ti n s u f f i c i e n t ly compact.

sena te d i s t r i c t scontent ion here

as enacted in

disposed o f thet ha tS.B.

the1008

Secondwas

We need not and do not decide t ha t i s sue today. The Sta teshould nonetheless bear in mind, fo r purposes of devis ing ana l t e rna t ive touncons t i tu t iona l ,

th et ha t

enactment i de n t i f i e d here in asa proposa l ' s compactness i s bes t

evaluated in ho l i s t i c terms and not by viewing one o r tw od i s t r i c t s in i s o l a t i on . See Tr. a t 135-36 (test imony o f Dr.Martis genera l ly concurr ing in counsel ' s sugges t ion t ha t "youc a n ' t j u s t look a t one d i s t r i c t " and opining t h a t "compact inthe Sta te Cons t i tu t ion [means] t h a t a l l d i s t r i c t s as bes tposs ib le be compact") . In t h a t regard, the inc lus ion of tw o or

29


30/32

th ree e longa ted d i s t r i c t s among seventeen may be cons iderablymore to le rab le than one among t h ree .

IV.Pursuant to the foregoing, the Court i s compelled to

declare S.B. 1008, as codif ied a t West Virgin ia Code sect ion 1-2-3, in contravent ion of the Cons t i tu t ion of the United Sta tes .The enforcement of sect ion 1-2-3 by the defendants i s t he re fo repermanently enjoined. 13

Although we are loa th to devise on our own a r ed i s t r i c t i ngplan fo r the Sta te of West Virgin ia , the 2012 congress iona le lec t ions wi l l never theless be conducted under an in ter im planpromulgated by the Court, subject to the fol lowing condi t ions :

(1) The Court wi l l defer fu r the r act ion with respect to aremedy fo r the cons t i tu t iona l defec t iden t i f i ed hereinun t i l January 17, 2012; and

( 2) In the period pr io r to January 17, 2012, thedefendants are encouraged to :

13 Our good f r iend Judge Bai ley dissents from t h i sdeclara t ion and would deny r e l i e f to the p l a i n t i f f s on a l lcounts . He thus rese rves the r i gh t to f i l e a dissent ing opinionexpla in ing the reasons in support of h is view, to which werese rve the r igh t to respond a t a l a t e r date .

30


31/32

(a ) Seek the enactment of an apportionment plan t ha tsa t i s f i e s the appl icable cons t i tu t iona l mandate;or

(b) Present the Court with one or more a l t e rna t iveplans approved by the defendants for the Court ' scons idera t ion as an inter im plan. 14

In the absence of success fu l compliance with one of theforegoing condi t ions , the Court wil l , on or a f t e r January 17,2012, be constrained to ident i fy an inter im plan for use in the2012 congressional e lec t ions in West Virginia from among thosecurrent ly in the record of t h i s case, l ike ly e i ther the so-cal led "Perfec t Plan" or Cooper Plan 4. 15 In any event , anyinterim plan adopted by the Court may be subs t i tu ted for andsuperseded by the Legis la ture and the Governor, so long as such

14 Any plans presented by the defendants under paragraph( 2) (b) should be explained to the Court, and, i f necessary,ful ly ju s t i f i ed . Further , the p la in t i f f s should be accorded theoppor tuni ty to assess and of f e r comment to the Court withrespect to any such plans .

15 Senator Unger t e s t i f i ed tha t l eg is la t ive s ta f fe rs workedwith Professor Martis to conform the Perfect Plan in roughequivalence to the or ig ina l th ree congressional d i s t r i c t s drawna t West Virgin ia ' s creat ion in 1863, see Tr. a t 207, and Dr.Mart is confirmed tha t the Perfect Plan i s , in h is view, compactunder the Const i tut ion of West Virgin ia , see id . a t 149.

31


32/32

subs t i tu t ion complies with the appl icable c ons t i t u t i ona lmandate.

Final ly , the Court wil l r e ta in ju r i sd ic t ion in t h i s casefo r such other and fu r the r proceedings as may be appropr ia te ,pending fu r the r order .

DATED: January 3, 2012.

United Sta tes Circu i t Judge

c ; t ~ G ~ ~ ~ United Sta tes Di s t r i c t Judge

three-judge panel rules west virginia congressional redistricting plan unconstitutional

Documents