wv federal court opinion overturning congressional map

8/3/2019 WV Federal Court Opinion Overturning Congressional Map

1/32

Case 2:11-cv-00989 Document 65 Filed 01/03/12 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 1258

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

AT CHARLESTON

TERESA L. DEPPNER, CI_ERKU.S. District Court

Southern District of West

JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSION;PATRICIA NOLAND, as an i n d i v i d u a land on b e h a l f o f a l l o t h e r ss i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d ; and DALEMANUEL, as an i n d i v i d u a l and onb e h a l f o f a l l o t h e r s s i m i l a r l ys i t u a t e d ,

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

I n t e r v e n i n g P l a i n t i f f ,

ENTJAN - 3 2012 D

v.NATALIE E. TENNANT, i n h e rc a p a c i t y as t h e S e c r e t a r y o fS t a t e ; EARL RAY TOMBLIN, i n h i sc a p a c i t y as t h e Chie f Execut iveO f f i c e r o f t h e S t a t e o f WestV i r g i n i a ; JEFFREY KESSLER, i n h i sc a p a c i t y as t h e Acting P r e s i d e n to f t h e Senate o f t h e West V i r g i n i aL e g i s l a t u r e ; and RICHARD THOMPSON,i n h i s c a p a c i t y as t h e Speaker o ft h e House o f Delegates o f t h e WestV i r g i n i a L e g i s l a t u r e ,

Defendants .

C i v i l Action No. 2:l1-CV-0989

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERROBERT BRUCE KING, United S t a t e s C i r c u i t Judge, and

IRENE CORNELIA BERGER, United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Judge:The J e f f e r s o n 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 led th is su i t on November4, 2011, chal lenging th e c on gre ss io na l 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 lcapaci ty. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2284, th i s three-judged i s t r i c t cour t 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 m atter took place a t TheRobert C. Byrd United States Courthouse in Charles ton onDecember 28, 2011, and it i s now r ipe fo r d ec is io n.

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, intu rn , to have the Secre tary of State p ermanently enj oined 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

Rep resen tativ es a re 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 proportions" 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 population , 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 ( id en tify in g th re e c urre nt congressional d i s t r i c t s ,each comprised of contiguous whole count ies) .

3

The " ru le


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 wi th 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 p ro te ctio n v io la ti on s 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 cla im) .

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, P re sid en t Ke ss le rappointed seventeen s t a t e senato rs 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 icmeet ings t hroughou t 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 WestV irg in ia L e gis la tu re , 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 ta te le g is la tiv e 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"Committe e" ), c ompr is ed 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. n ] , Exhibi t M.

On August 3, 2011, the Committee was presented with ani n i t i a l p ropo sa l p rov id ing 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 n 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 res ide 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 two bySenator Roman Prezioso (devised by the Democratic CongressionalCampaign Committee, a/k/a the "DCCC n ) , 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 Senate

propounded byn eighth proposal , Senate Bi l l (" S. B. n)Senator Clark Barnes, which re ta ined

1008,the 2001 d i s t r i c t

bound ar ie s, e xc ep t for t r ans fe r r ing Mason County from the SecondDis 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 en t o f 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 su l t i ng appor t ionment s t a tu t e , appear ing in cod if iedform a t West Virg in ia Code sec t ion 1 -2 -3 , p rov ide s fo r 615,991persons in th e F ir s t D is t r ic 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 rna t i v e s cons idered by th e Legi s l a tu re weredisposed of t hu s ly : (a ) th e t h ree McCabe (Cooper) Plans werepresen ted to and im p l ic it ly re je cte d by th e Committee a t th eTask Force s t age , which adopted th e P e r fec t Plan on Augus t 3,2011, as th e "o r i g i na t i ng b i l l " ; (b) th e tw o 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 da te , 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 re j ec ted 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 th e P er fec t Plan onAugust 4, 2011, and it was then enac ted in to law as S.B. 1008.Consequent ly , th e Barnes Plan i s th e p lan under cha l l enge int h e se proceed ings .

2 As prov ided by sec t ion 1-2-3 , th e coun t ie s o f Barbour ,Brooke, Doddridge, G ilm er, Grant , Hancock, Harr i son , Marion,Marsha l l , Minera l , Monongal ia , Ohio, Pleasan t s , Pres ton ,Ri t ch i e , Taylor , Tucker, Tyler , Wetzel , and Wood cons t i t u t e th eF i r s t Di s t r i c t . The Second Di 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 Di s t r i c t encompasses th eremaining coun t ies , i.e., Boone, Cabel l , F ay ette , G re en brier ,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 con tras t to a sho r t f a l l of 1,674 (0.27%) in thel ea s t populous F irs t D is tr ic t, re su l t ing in a t o t a l variance(a /k / a "Rela t ive Overal l Range" or "ROR") of 4,871 (0. 79%) . Asi l lu s t ra ted below, the ROR of the enacted apportionment was theeighth 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 ta tu te , see W.Va. Code 3-5-7, a candidate fo r Congress in West Virgin ia i srequired to f i le a Cer t i f i ca te of Announcement with theSecretary of State , see id . 3-1A-6(a). The Secretarythereaf 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 ce r t i f i c a t i on t ha t the candida te i s qua l i f i ed toappear on th e ba l lo t . See id . 3-5-9 . The f i l i ng period 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 ng , 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 ac tion in the Northern

Dis t r i c t of West Virgin ia on November 4, 2011, a ga in st S ec re ta ryGovernor Tomblin,ennant,

Thompson (co l l ec t ive ly , thePres ident Kess le r ,"S ta te" or the

and Speaker"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 alsocontravene the West Virgin ia cons 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 rna t i ve be subs t i t u t ed as the S ta 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 in t i f f , and t ha t motion was

8


9/32


gran ted on November 30, 2011. Subsequent ly , on December 15,2011, venue was t r an s f e r r ed to th e Southern Di s t r i c t o f WestV irg in ia . Sho rt ly t h e rea 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 p ro po sa l d iv id ed Taylor County between th e F i r s tand Third Dis t r i c t s , r e su l t i ng 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 ve t h a t members o f th e House ofRep resen ta t i ves be chosen "by th e People of th e Severa l Sta t e s , "U. S. CONST. a r t . I , 2, c l . 1, has been i n t e rp r e t ed to "mean []t h a t as near ly as i s p ra c t i c ab l e one man's vote in acong res s iona l e l ec t i on i s to be worth as much as ano the r ' s . "Wesberry v. Sanders , 376 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1964). Al though " [ 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 S ta te to S ta te and from d i s t r i c t to d i s t r i c t , " th eConst i t u t i on nonethe less " requ i re s t h a t th e Sta te make a good-f a i th e f fo r t to achieve prec i se mathemat ica l equa l i t y . "Kirkpat r i ck v. Pre i s l e r , 394 U. S. 526, 530-31 (1969) ( c i t ingReynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S . 533, 577 (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 t ha t "could have been reduced oreliminated al together by a good-fai th ef for t to draw d i s t r i c t sof equal proport ion ." Karcher v . Daggett , 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 itim a te g oa l." 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 v arian ce, in clu din g, 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 Representa t 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 Karche r Cour t emphasized, the State

10


11/32


must show " t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r obj e c t i ve required the s p e c i f i cdevia t ions i n i t s plan, r a t h e r than simply r e l y i n g on generala s s e r t i o n s . " Id . a t 741.

B.At t r i a l l a s t week, the S ta te h e l p fu ll y conceded t h a t the

p l a i n t i f f s ( h e r e i n a f t e r inc luding the in tervening p l a i n t i f f )have s a t i s f i e d t h e i r threshold burden under Karcher t odemonstrate t h a t the 0.79% var iance enacted through S.B. 1008might have been reduced. See Transcrip t of Proceedings ofDecember 28, 2011 [ h e r e i n a f t e r "Tr ."] a t 43, 84. Indeed, theS t a t e could hardly have argued otherwise, given t h a t no fewerthan seven l e s s d r a s t i c a l t e r n a t i v e s were submitted forc o n s i d e r a t i o n . 3 The S t a t e nonetheless maintains t h a t th e enactedvar iance i s s o l e l y the r e s u l t of i t s e f f o r t s t o accommodate thel e g i t i m a t e goals of respect ing county boundaries , p re se rv in g th ecores of extant d i s t r i c t s , and avoiding a c o n t e s t i n theRepublican primary between two of West V i r g i n i a ' s incumbent

3 Cf. Stone v. Hechler, 782 F. Supp. 1116, 1125 (N.D. W. Va.1992) (per curiam), i n which the three-judge panel , applyingKarcher, reasoned t h a t " i f any plan (other than the one underj u d i c i a l at tack) would reduce or el iminate populat iond i f f e r e n c e s among th e c ongre ss io na l d i 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 seventeeno t h e r plans with a lower o v e r a l l var iance were before theL e g i s l a t u r e . , the Court concludes t h a t Stone has s a t i s f i e dh i s burden." Id . a t 1126.

11


12/32


r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , David McKinley and Shel ley Moore Capito. Weaddress each of t he se con te nti on s i n t u r n .

1 .As i n i t i a l l y s e t f o r t h supra, the Const i tut ion of West

Virginia provides for the d i v i s i o n of the s t a t e i n t ocongressional d i s t r i c t s , which " s h a l l be formed of cont iguouscount ies , and be compact. Each d i s t r i c t s h a l l conta in , asnearly as may be, an equal number of population, t o bedet ermined accordi ng to the r u l e prescribed i n the c o n s t i t u t i o nof the United S t a t e s . " W. Va. Const. a r t . I , 4. 4 Thei n t e g r i t y of county boundaries has been c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a "WestVirginia c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirement ," Stone v. Hechler, 782 F.Supp. 1116, 1123 (N.D. W. Va. 1992) (per curiam), an observat ionprobably emanating from the quoted e x c e r p t ' s reference t o"count ies" and not p a r t s or p o r t i o n s of count ies .

The Stone c o u r t ' s comment i n passing was not p e r t i n e n t t othe decis ion i n t h a t case, and i t s accuracy i s i n any eventc a l l e d i n t o quest ion i f the A r t i c l e 1 excerp t i s i n t e r p r e t e dw ith in the context of the e n t i r e document. In p a r t i c u l a r , thes t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n ' s A r t i c l e 6 provision governing apport ionment

4 The compactness and e q u a l i t y requirements of A rt i c l e I ,Section 4 form the b a s i s of the p l a i n t i f f s ' claims under CountsTwo and Three of the Complaint, and they w i l l be b r i e f l ydiscussed i n f r a i n Part I I I .

12


13/32


fo r 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 prec i sereference to " l ines" in Art ic le 1 cas ts doubt on the intendedmeaning there in of the word "count ies ," with the re su lt th at 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 Perfec t Plan being moved before the Committee,Senator Unger explained the l ega l bas is fo r the plan ' s div is ionof count ies . See Tr. a t 200. Though chal lenging many members'long-held assumptions to the contrary , the concept of county-sp l i t t ing was more or less 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 ob serv e county l ines , owing to the ind i rec te f fec t of a federa l cour t decis ion tha t struck 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 controls . ' "(quoting Reynolds, 377 U.S. a t 584)) . Though the "county l ines"provis ion i s no longer of p ra ct ic al e ffe ct , the const ruct ofArt ic le VI, Sect ion 4 i s nonetheless useful to d iscern thedra f t e r s ' i n t en 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 count ies have ever beendivided between two or more congressional d i s t r i c t s . 6 Inaccordance with Karcher, then, m ainta ining the in tegr i ty ofcounty boundar ies wi th in 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 t es timony conce rn ing 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 app ortionment, 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 C ourt meant i t s reference to "municipal boundaries"to also include "county l i nes , " the nationwide d evaluation o fcounty 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 p r e c i s e p o r t i o n t h e r e o f - was a t t r i b u t a b l e t o theprofessed i n t e r e s t i n keeping counties i n t a c t . As Senator Ungert e s t i f i e d without c o n t r a d i c t i o n , t h er e was "nothing i n therecord as f a r as the l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t would give anyj u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the a c t of the L e g i s l a t u r e i n t h i s r e g a r d . "rd. a t 222. 7

Moreover, of the e i g h t o t h e r proposals under c o n s i d e r a t i o n ,only the P e r f e c t Plan t r a n s g r e s s e d county l i n e s , and onlyPrezioso Plan 1 advocated fo r a g r e a t e r v a r i a n c e . Consequently,the L e g i s l a t u r e had before it seven a l t e r n a t i ve proposals t h a twould have operated c o n s i s t e n t l y with i t s a s s e r t e d i n t e r e s t i np re se rv ing coun ti es i n v i o l a t e , s i x of which would have been morei n keeping with the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l archetype of "one person, onev o t e . " The r e j e c t i o n of more compliant proposals t h a t wouldhave advanced the S t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t a t l e a s t as e f f e c t i v e l y as

7 There was considerable d i s c u s s i o n a t t r i a l concerning theneed f o r the L e g i s l a t u r e t o include i t s f indings with in theenactment, a p r a c t i c e t h a t i s g e n e r a l l y " p r e t t y common," Tr. a t222, but one t h a t e v i d e n t l y has never been followed i n r e l a t i o nt o an apportionment b i l l , see id . a t 255. We t h i n k its u f f i c i e n t t h a t the L e g i s l a t u r e ' s r a t i o n a l e with r e s p e c t t os p e c i f i c populat ion var iances and o th er r e le v a n t c o n s i d e r a ti o n s ,whether denominated " f i n d i n g s " o r not , be p l a i n l y and a c c u r a t e l ydocumented i n the o f f i c i a l l e g i s l a t i v e record. Such could takethe form o f a J o i n t Resolut ion express ing the contemporaneoust h i n ki n g o f the L e g i s l a t u r e as a body, which would c e r t a i n l y bep r e f e r a b l e t o a cour t at tempt ing t o a s c e r t a i n t h a t t h i n k i n g v i athe a f t e r - t h e - f a c t tes t imony of i n d i v i d u a l l e g i s l a t o r s . Buteven t h a t minimum requirement was not s a t i s f i e d here.

15


16/32


th e l e ss compl iant one ac tua l ly adopted mi 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, 462 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 p re se rv in g 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 is fo r a s t a t e to j u s t i f y ap op ula tio n v aria nc e 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 pa r to f something, in pa r t i cu l a r . th e pa r t of something t h a t i scen 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 con tex t o f 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 egu l a r shape def ies fac i le descr ip t ion and where mostof i t s l a rge 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 ea 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 Virginia") .

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 ]o cia l, c ul tu 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 in t ere 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] cu l tu r a l var iab les can be used to look a tcommunities of i n t e r e s t . II 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 o f shared economici n i t i a t i v e s , and even by s imi l a r i t i e s in geologic fea tu res ,watersheds, and environmental pol icy . See ide 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 cu l a r concerns fac tored s ign i f i c an 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 ide a t 180, 241, 243. Senator Unger c i t ed thegenera l res i s t ance to change, not ing t ha t the delega tes from

17


18/32


Mason County were among the few vot ing agains t even the minimaltweak t ha t was eventua l ly approved: "[Y ]ou alw ays have ' no t in

[T]hey d idn ' t want to go to the 3rdy backyard . 'Congressional Dis t r i c t . They d idn ' t want to move. u Id . a t 202-03. Accordingly, Senator Unger termed S. B. 1008 as " the mostpo l i t i ca l ly expedient . I t was one t ha t we could do and move outand get out of town, eas ies t . u Id . a t 204.

In tha t sense, the l eg i s l a t i ve eva lua t ion of d i s t r i c t coresin 2011 was reminiscent of the one twenty years ea r l i e r inStone. The cour t in Stone chose not to at tempt i t s owndef in i t ion of "core,U in s tead de fe rr ing to the Legis la ture ' sdeterminat ion t ha t "preserv ing d i s t r i c t cores means keeping asmany of the current congress ional d i s t r i c t s i n t ac t as poss ib le . u782 F. Supp. a t 1126. The p la in t i f f there in did not takefundamental i s sue with maintaining i n t ac tness , but contendedt ha t the concept had been misappl ied to preserve cur ren td i s t r i c t s ; he unsuccess fu l ly urged the cour t to focus ins tead onsafeguarding t r ad i t i ona l d i s t r i c t s , i.e., to preserve thee s sen t i a l po l i t i c a l character "of those count ies tha t have beentogether in the same d i s t r i c t fo r most of the h i s to ry of theState . u Id .

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

18


19/32


Republican vo te rs ; th e re 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 sha l l , a t l e a s t in West Virg in ia ,inev i tab ly give way to co rn fie ld s and hay wagons. In a s im 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 ep erim e te r p re se rv es 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 fcon cre te preserv es th e 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 Dis t r i c t ,snaking fo r the most par t in s ingle -county narrowness across th ebread th 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 - geographicor 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, re sp ec tiv ely ) 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 ,

Taking note of the SecondMart is ca l led it "anr.

it more prec i se ly has none.Dis t r i c t ' s excess ive e longa t ion ,abominat ion." Tr. a t 127.

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 a ch ie ve n umeric al

19


20/32


equa l i ty in r e d i s t r i c t i ng means t h a t more c i t i z en s w i l l need toaccustom themselves to a d i f f e r en t congressperson. While weimagine t h a t the acc l ima t i za t ion process may give r i s e to amodicum of anx ie ty and inconvenience , avoiding cons t i t u en tdiscomfor t a t th e 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 th e 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 ha t change be minimized fo r th ebene f i t of the d el ic ate c it iz en ry , we t h ink it l ik ely th at th eSta te doth p ro t e s t too much, a t le a s t when we eva lua te i t sposi t ion from the perspec t ive of r e l a t i ve ly recent h i s to ry . Asdemonst ra ted a t t r i a l , the 1991 appor t ionment e f f ec t i ng th ereduct ion of West Virg in ia ' s a l l oca t i on in Congress from foursea t s to th ree , through i t s i n t roduc t ion of a se rpent ine SecondDis t r i c t , s t rayed fa r from th e t r a d i t i ona 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 Tr. a t71, 140; In t e rvenor ' s Exhib i t 3. More spec i f i c a l l y , Dr. Mart i st e s t i f i ed t h a t b eg in nin g w ith th e s t a t e ' s c rea t io n in 1863, " i fyou look a t a l l th e d i s t r i c t s up un t i l 1991, th e EasternPanhandle has been kept i n t a c t . " Id . a t 140. 8 From our vantage

8 The term "Easte rn Panhandle" genera l ly re fe rs to th e e igh tWest V irg in ia coun ties o f the Potomac R iv er w aters he d, ea 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 lo ng -p os tp on ed rec ko nin g ofaccounts . 9

Change i s the essence of the apportionment process. Changei s requi red to redress representa t ional inequ it ies th at occurover time as people move in or move away,experience s ign i f i c an t demographic sh i f t s .

and d i s t r i c t sBy gravi ta t ing

toward apportionment plans with zero var iances , we are as anation express ing our re a l iz a t io n th at res is tance to changemerely fo r the sake of preserv ing 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 confident 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 rem in ded 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 pub lic 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


congress ional d i s t r i c t s in such a way as to give somevoters a grea te r voice in choosing a Congressman thano ther s .

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 Legis la ture as it s t rove to avoidplac ing 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 (test imony of Senator Palumbo). The l eg i s l a to r s 'laudable i n t en 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 boundar ies , we can poin t to nothing in the record l ink inga l l or a spec i f ic pa r t of the variance 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 i ves (excepting the Per fec tPlan) would have achieved the same avoidance goal as S.B. 1008,again ca l l ing in to question th e 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 Sta te , SenatorPalumbo t e s t i f i e d t ha 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 fo r t resu l t ing in a near lyi den 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 the outse t , Professor Bastress 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 p er fe ct e qu ali 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 pe rfec t equ al 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 two overarching pr inc ip les t ha t wecommunicated, a t le a s t to the sena to rs , f i r s t was the oneperson, one vote pr inc ip le out of th e U. S. cons t i tu t ion . Andthe second was the compactness p r i n c i p l e . ~ ) .

There are undeniable pa ra l l e l s between th e 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 cu 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 t h e r s ~ ) . And we have a l ready int imated what wenow s t a t e c lea r ly : we are unpersuaded by S to ne 's d is cu ss io n ofp re se rv in g th e core of congress iona l d i s t r i c t s . 1o

The most obvious and c r i t i c a l d i f fe rence between the twos i t ua t ions , though, i s t ha t the cour t in Stone approved th eS 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 subs t an t i a l i t y of the showing t ha t must

10 Before th e Committee, Professor Bastress offe red h isopinion on Stone t ha t "as the los ing lawyer in t ha t caseof course I t h ink th e dec is ion was wrong. D. B r., Exh ibit 0 ,a t 12.

24


25/32


be made t o j u s t i f y it. See Karcher, 462 u.S. a t 741. The Stonec o u r t commented t h a t the variance i n t h a t case rendered " t h eS t a t e ' s burden correspondingly l i g h t . " 782 F. Supp. a t1128. However inconsequent ia l the burden i n Stone, it i sn e c e s s a r i l y f a r more cumbersome i n a case l i k e t h i s one, whenthe variance t o be j u s t i f i e d i s almost nine t imes g r e a t e r . Cf.D. B r . , Exhibi t 0, a t 23 ( s e t t i n g f o r t h Professor B a s t r e s s ' sopinion t h a t 0.79% i s "a f a i r l y s i g n i f i c a n t d e v i a t i o nI t would take more of a j u s t i f i c a t i o n , s i g n i f i c a n t l y mores u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n , t o suppor t a .79 deviat ion") . 1 1

There undoubtedly i s some s u p e r f i c i a l appeal t o t h eargument, based on Karcher ' s endorsement of the 1972 r e s u l t i nRockefel ler , t h a t a 0.79% var iance i n West V i r g i n i a i s every b i tas accep tab le almost f o r t y years l a t e r . Indeed, Senator Palumboquest ioned P ro fe ss or Ba str es s i n the Committee p ro cee din gs as t owhether the r e d i s t r i c t i n g requirements had changed s i n c e Stonei n 1991 had a p p l i e d the genera l p r i n c i p l e s announced e i g h t yearsbefore t h a t i n Karcher, and Professor Bast ress r e p l i e d t h a t theyhad not . See D. B r . , Exhibi t 0, a t 12.

The bedrock l e g a l p r i n c i p le s may not have changed, but t h ep r e c i s i o n with which they a r e applied undoubtedly has. The

11 Put another way, the O. 79% d e v i a t i o n (4,871 persons) i nt h i s case i s about 877% of the 0.09% d e v i a t i o n (556 persons) i nStone.

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 , z er o- va ri an ce p ro po sa ls 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 su l t s muchea s i e r and much more p rac 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 fP ro fe ss or B a str es s t h a t " there has been a na t iona l t rend towardsalmost pe 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 ed t ha t , a t l e a s tun 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 for th of the congress iona l d i s t r i c t sdone," id . a t 167. Using Maptitude@ softw are, the r ed i s t r i c t i ngoff 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 po 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


11. 12 There i s , t he re fo re , no t echno log ica l ba r r i e r to WestVi rg in i a conduct ing its appor t ionment e f f o r t s as p rec i s e ly asits s i s t e r s t a t e s have.

Moreover, a b i t o f h is to ry helps to p lace the KarcherCour t ' s approval o f th e Rockefe l le r appor t ionment in th e properpe r spec t i ve . In th e 1950s, West Virg in ia was div ided in to s ixcong res s iona l d i s t r i c t s having a var i ance in excess o f e i gh tpe rcen t . See In t e rveno r ' s Exh ib i t 1 . The s ta te lo s t a s ea tfo l lowing th e 1960 census , and th e subsequent appor t ionmentr e su l te d in a var iance t h a t , while subs t an t i a l l y sma l l e r , ye tapproached four percen t . See id .

In l i g h t o f th e r e l a t i v e l y l a rge d i spa r i t i e s confron ted byWest Virg in ia immedia te ly p r io r to th e appor t ionment occas ionedby th e 1970 census ( in which th e s t a t e ' s cong res s iona lrep re sen ta t ion was aga in reduced, to four ) , it i s hard lysu rp r i s i ng t h a t th e Supreme Court r e fe r red to th e 0.788%var i ance in Rockefe l l e r as "m ino r ." See Tr. a t 159 (Cooper ' ss ta tement t h a t "it's impor tan t to understand th e con tex t t h a tth e Federa l Court ru led in 1972 in l i g h t o f what had been th e

cong res s iona l r e d i s t r i c t i ng popula t ion d i spa r i t i e s before

12 Sena torhad, ea r ly on,and he assuredvery qu i ck ly . "

Unger t e s t i f i ed t h a t l eg i s l a t i ve s t a f f membersdevi sed seve ra l d i s t i n c t ze ro -va r i ance models ,us t h a t s im i l a r proposa ls could be "gene ra t edTr. 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 su l t , th e p l a i n t i f f sare en t i t l ed to d ec la ra to ry and in j unc t i ve 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, prem ised on a l leged v io la t ions of s t a t elaw. We surmise only t h a t , with respec t to Count Two, th e s t a t econs t i t u t i ona l requirement of prac t icab le equivalence i s no mores t r i ngen t than t h a t of the fede ra l C ons t i tu t ion , in t ha t th eformer spec i f i c a l l y incorpora tes " th e ru le prescr ibed in th econs t i tu t ion o f 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 o f theCons t i t u 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

28

to th e Leg i s l a t u re ' s


29/32


r e d i s t r i c t i n g of t h e S t a t e Senate , i n c l u d i n g an a l l e g a t i o n t h a tt h e d i s t r i c t s were not compact w it h i n t h e meaning of A r t i c l e I ,Sect ion 4. See Order, S t a t e ex r e I . Cooper v. Tennant, No. 11-1525, s l i p op. pending (W. Va. Nov. 23, 2011).

At t h e t r i a l of t h e case a t b a r , counsel f o r t h e S t a t econfronted Dr. Martis with a map of t h e seventeen s e n a t ed i s t r i c t s t h a t t h e Supreme Court of Appeals had j u s t upheld,c h a l l e n g i n g h i s opinion t h a t two of those d i s t r i c t s ( the 6 th and

were not compact, but i n s t e a d e longa ted .h e 12th)133. The

See Tr. a tp o i n t was argued t h a t t h e s t a t e Supreme C o u r t ' s

conclusion as t o t h e s e n a t e d i s t r i c t s disposed o f t h e

D i s t r i c tc o n t e n t i o n herel a i n t i f f s '

Congress ionalCount Three

as enacted i nt h a tS.B.

t h e1008

Secondwas

i n s u f f i c i e n t l y compact.

We need not and do not decide t h a t i s s u e today. The S t a t eshould nonetheless bear i n mind, f o r purposes of d e v i s i n g an

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ,h e r e i nnactment i d e n t i f i e d as

b e s tsompactnessr o p o s a l ' st h e

t h a tt ol t e r n a t i v e

e v a l u a t e d i n h o l i s t i c terms and not by viewing one o r twod i s t r i c t s i n i s o l a t i o n . See Tr. a t 135-36 (test imony o f Dr .Martis g e n e r a l l y concurr ing i n c o u n s e l ' s suggest ion t h a 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 i nt h e S t a t e C o n s t i t u t i o n [means] t h a t a l l d i s t r i c t s as b e s tp o s s i b l e be compact") . In t h a t regard, t h e i n c l u s i o n of two o r

29


30/32


th ree elongated d i s t r i c t s among seventeen may be cons iderablymore to le rab le than one among th 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 contravention 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 lo a 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 c on du cted un der an in ter im planpromulgated by the Court, sub jec t 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 ior todefendants are encouraged to :

January 17, 2012, the

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 h a ts a t i s f i e s the appl icable c o n s t i t u t i o n a l mandate;or

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

In the absence of success fu l compliance with one of theforegoing cond it ions , the Court w i l l , on or a f t e r January 17,2012, be constrained t o i d e n t i f y an inter im plan for use i n the2012 congressional e l e c t i o n s i n West Virginia from among thosec u r r e n t l y i n the record of t h i s case, l i k e l y e i t h e r the so-c a l l e d " P e r f e c t Plan" or Cooper Plan 4. 15 In any event , anyi n t e r i m plan adopted by the Court may be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r andsuperseded by the L e g i s l a t u r e and the Governor, so long as such

14 Any p lan s p resen ted by the defendants under paragraph(2) (b) should be explained t o the Court, and, i f necessary,f u l l y j u s t i f i e d . Further , the p l a i n t i f f s should be accorded theoppor tuni ty t o assess and o f f e r comment t o the Court withr e s p e c t t o any such plans .

15 Senator Unger t e s t i f i e d t h a t l e g i s l a t i v e s ta f f e r s workedwith Professor Martis to conform the Perfec t Plan i n roughequivalence t o the o r i g i n a l t h r e e congressional d i s t r i c t s drawna t West V i r g i n i a ' s c r e a t i o n i n 1863, see Tr. a t 207, and Dr.Martis confirmed t h a t the Perfec t Plan i s , i n h i s view, compactunder the C o n s t i t u t i o n of West Virgin ia , see i d . a t 149.

31


32/32


subs t i tu t ionmandate.

complies with the appl icable cons t i t u t i ona l

Final ly , the Court w il l re 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 ; ~ G ~ ~ ~United Sta tes Dis t r i c t Judge

wv federal court opinion overturning congressional map

Documents