Arizonans for Fair Representation v. Symington

828 F. Supp. 684, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21227, 1993 WL 277268
CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 5, 1992
DocketCIV 92-0256-PHX-SMM
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 828 F. Supp. 684 (Arizonans for Fair Representation v. Symington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arizonans for Fair Representation v. Symington, 828 F. Supp. 684, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21227, 1993 WL 277268 (D. Ariz. 1992).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

1. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

The total population of Arizona after the 1990 Census was 3,665,228. Decennial Census of Population and Housing, 1990, Pub.L. 94-171 (1991). As a result, Arizona is entitled to an additional congressional representative. 1 The state legislature has the responsibility for redistricting the congressional districts and state legislative districts. Ariz. Const, art. 22, § 12 (representatives to congress shall be elected “at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed by law.”).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (4), and 1357, Plaintiffs, Arizonans for Fair Representation, brought suit in February 1992 when it appeared that the Arizona State Legislature was deadlocked on the issue of redistricting. Named as defendants were the Arizona House of Representatives and the Arizona Senate. Arizona’s Governor and Secretary of State also were named as nominal defendants. 2

*687 A three-judge panel was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2284(a). After the filing of this suit, the House and the Senate adopted their respective plans, but failed to agree on a single plan.

Arizonans for Fair Representation supports the House plan and opposes the Senate plan. The governor also announced his support for the House plan through an affidavit. As a result, the court realigned the House and the Governor, designating them as plaintiffs along with Arizonans for Fair Representation. The court also allowed three groups to intervene: (1) the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the Arizona Hispanic Forum (“Hispanic Intervenors”), (2) several Native American Tribes, and individual Native Americans (the “Indian Intervenors”) and (3) Ed Pastor, Congressman for the existing district two (“Congressman Pastor”). Each intervenor submitted its own plan, as required by the court. Additionally, the court authorized amicus curiae status for Peterson Zah (President of the Navajo Nation), the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. All of the amici support the Senate Plan.

Because of the legislative impasse, the court must adopt or draw a plan which complies with the Constitution, 42 U.S.C. sections 1971 through 1973ff-6 (hereinafter referred to as the “Voting Rights Act”), and the neutral criteria which support the precept of good government. The court heard testimony and received evidence during a five-day trial.

B. Arizona’s Physical and Demographic Characteristics

Arizona is unique. Approximately 27 percent of Arizona’s land is located on Indian reservations, far and away the highest percentage in the United States. Other large portions of the state are devoted to National Parks and Forests. These factors, in part, account for the fact that Arizona is sparsely populated.

Arizona’s urban areas contain the overwhelming bulk of the state’s population. Almost 60 percent of Arizona’s population is located in the metropolitan Phoenix area. When combined with metropolitan Tucson, over three-quarters of Arizona’s population resides within these two urban areas. This is the background against which this court must adopt or draw a plan for Arizona’s new congressional districts.

II. STANDARDS

There are three criteria used to evaluate redistricting plans: the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the neutral principles of redistricting. There is a strict hierarchy among these criteria. The Constitution and the Voting Rights Act must be satisfied before a court considers the neutral criteria.

A. Constitutional Requirements

The “one person, one vote” standard articulated in Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution guarantees the right of each citizen to an equal voice in the selection of a representative. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964). Thus, “one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.” Id at 8, 84 S.Ct. at 530. As a result, the population within each state’s congressional districts must be as nearly equal as practicable. Id. at 7-8, 84 S.Ct. at 530. This requires a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality. Any deviations from precise equality, no matter how small, must be individually justified, unless unavoidable. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 731, 103 S.Ct. 2653, 2658, 77 L.Ed.2d 133 (1983).

Each of the plans submitted fulfilled this criteria. The maximum population deviation in a district under any of the plans submitted is one person. That deviation was unavoidable because Arizona’s total population is not divisible by six.

*688 B. Voting Rights Act

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982, prohibits denying protected minorities an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. 42 U.S.C. § 1973. The purpose of the Voting Rights Act is to prohibit stifling of minority political expression by dilution of the voting strength of recognized minority groups.

In Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986), the Supreme Court articulated three preconditions to a claim of vote dilution under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. First, the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a voting age majority in a single-member district. Second, the minority group must be politically cohesive. Third, the majority must vote sufficiently as a bloc so that, in the absence of special circumstances, it usually defeats the minority’s preferred candidate. Id. at 50-51, 106 S.Ct. at 2766.

Additionally, the Voting Rights Act directs an inquiry under the “totality of the circumstances” test. The Senate Report accompanying the 1982 amendments explained that the amendments were intended to codify the “totality-of-eireumstances” standards outlined by the Supreme Court in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Maestas v. Hall
2012 NMSC 006 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2012)
Larios v. Cox
306 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (N.D. Georgia, 2004)
Peterson v. Borst
786 N.E.2d 668 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2003)
Beauprez v. Avalos
42 P.3d 642 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2002)
Smith v. Clark
189 F. Supp. 2d 529 (S.D. Mississippi, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
828 F. Supp. 684, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21227, 1993 WL 277268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arizonans-for-fair-representation-v-symington-azd-1992.