HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Redistricting in 2012 at the City LevelDistrict 5 Pocket Item
January 26, 2012 Planning & Zoning Meeting
1. Discussion on redistricting in 2012 at the City level.
SL)I3MITTE'Dl CC)
PUBLIC RECORP
_.
TEM Nfi TEM_ NAA ON f I
1
12-00110- Subrn ffal- istrictir3 in 2012 ar the City Level
Honorable Richard P. Dunn, Commissioner
June 14, 2011
Page 6 of 17
Re: Legal Opinion No. 11-001
On the other hand, Reynolds v. Sims'7 was the benchmark case for the judiciary's
development of population variance standards for redistricting on the state legislative level.
Ultimately, resting on the foundation of the 14t1i Amendment, Courts determined that legislative
districts in state and municipal governments must be apportioned on a "substantial equality of
population...s18 basis. The Warren court opinion further clarified the distinctions between the
congressional and state legislative standards and stated:
[S]ome distinctions may well be made between congressional and state
legislative representation. Since, almost invariably, there is a significantly
larger number of seats in state legislative bodies to be distributed within a
state than congressional seats, it may be feasible to use political
subdivision lines to a greater extent in establishing state legislative
districts than in congressional districting while still affording adequate
representations to all parts of the State.19
In Gaffney v. Cunnnings20 and White v. Regester21 in the 1970s the Court developed a
standard of population equality that required legislative districts to differ by no more than ten
percent (10%) from the smallest to the largest, unless justified by some "rational state policy".
In other words, a legislative Plan will not violate the Equal Protection Clause if the difference
between the smallest and largest district in the jurisdiction is less than ten percent (10%).
Conversely, any plan with disparities in population over the ten percent (10%) threshold "creates
a prima facie case of discrimination, and therefore must be justified by the State".22
The range between the largest and smallest populated district is referred to as the
maximum population deviation, or overall deviation. In the event any district within the City has
an overall deviation larger than ten percent (1 0%), the City's plan would be considered to be
"malapportioned". In turn, the City would be constitutionally mandated to rebalance the
population of districts unless, as stated above, the discrepancy can be justified by some "rational
state policyi23 and it does not dilute or take away the voting strength of any particular group.
Although the Supreme Court had previously acknowledged a distinction between
congressional and legislative districting (strict equality24 versus substantial equality25
respectively), it was not until Mahan v. Howell26 and Quilter v. Voinovich27 that the Supreme
Court upheld state legislative redistricting plans with a deviation larger than the ten percent
17 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
18 Id, At 579; see also generally Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968)
19Id. at 578
20 Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973)
21White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973)
22 Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, at 161 (1993)
23 Reynolds v Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 579 (1964)
24 Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)
25 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
26 Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973)
27 Quilter v. Voinovich, 857 F. Supp 579 (N.D. Ohio 1994)
Submitted Into the publkil
record in connection with
item (1 n . 4i on 0//26/4
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk