Chavis v. Whitcomb

S.D. Indiana

Chavis v. Whitcomb

307 F. Supp. 1362

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana

DecidedFebruary 2, 1970

DocketIP 69-C-23

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 307 F. Supp. 1362 (Chavis v. Whitcomb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chavis v. Whitcomb, 307 F. Supp. 1362 (S.D. Ind. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT’S PLAN AND ORDER FOR REAPPORTIONMENT ' OF THE LEGISLATIVE SEATS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF INDIANA

PER CURIAM.

This suit was tried by the three-judge court on June 17 and 18, 1969. After consideration of the legal and factual issues, the Court entered its opinion and a separate order on July 28, 1969. 1 The Court found that the multimember districting provisions of the present legislative apportionment statutes of Indiana, Indiana Acts of 1965 (2d Spec.Sess.), ch. 5, sec. 3, and ch. 4, sec. 3 (Ind.Ann.Stat. §§ 34-102, 34-104 (Burns’ Supp.1968)), as they relate to Marion County, operate to minimize and cancel out the voting strength of a cognizable racial minority group, which was defined and delinated in the opinion, to the extent that the *1364 members of such minority group are deprived of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. We therefore declared those portions of the legislative apportionment statutes to be unconstitutional and void.

Upon the evidence adduced, it was further determined that: (1) to redistrict Marion County alone, so as to provide districts meeting constitutional standards, would leave constitutionally impermissible population variations between the newly created districts in Marion County and other districts in the state, and (2) independent of the new districts in Marion County, constitutionally impermissible population variations would remain between presently existing districts in the state when compared among themselves. Thus the portions of the statutes relating to Marion County were found to be not severable from the full body of the statutes. We therefore found a redistricting of the entire state as to both houses of the General Assembly to be necessary.

While recognizing the right of the injured plaintiffs to have their constitutional rights vindicated at the earliest practicable time, we also recognized that the federal judiciary functions within a system of federalism which entrusts the responsibility of legislative apportionment and districting primarily to the state legislature. We therefore granted the State until October 1, 1969, to enact statutes redistricting the State and reapportioning the legislative seats in the General Assembly to remedy the constitutionally impermissible districting and apportionment, retaining jurisdiction should the State fail to comply.

On August 20, 1969, defendant Edgar D. Whitcomb, Governor of the State of Indiana, moved this Court to stay proceedings in the action. On August 27, 1969, the intervening defendants, joined by Governor Whitcomb, separately moved to stay proceedings. These motions were denied on September 4, 1969.

On October 15, 1969, judicial notice was taken of the fact that a special session of the Indiana General Assembly had not been called for the purpose of redistricting and reapportioning the General Assembly. Accordingly, the Court concluded that it would proceed to redistriet the State pursuant to its opinion and order of July 28, 1969.

At an informal conference in chambers held on October 15, 1969, counsel for the parties were informed that the Court wished to invite not only the parties to the action but also the State Committees of the majority and minority parties in the Indiana General Assembly, the legislative leaders of said parties, and the members of the Indiana State Election Board, to submit proposed plans for the Court’s consideration.

Pursuant to notice a further conference on October 17, 1969, was held in open court for the purpose of announcing minimal guidelines for submission of proposed plans. The date of November 3, 1969, was fixed as the date by which such plans were to be submitted. Persons desiring to submit plans were ordered to file notice of their intent to do so on or before October 24, 1969. The Court announced that 1960 census data would be used as a basis for redistricting; that single-member districts would be preferred to multi-member districts; and and that county and township boundary lines would be crossed in drawing district lines wherever necessary to achieve equality of population in the districts but that the Court would strive to preserve the integrity of county and township lines.

On October 30, 1969, the Court granted persons submitting proposed plans until November 10, 1969, to file objections, if any, to plans proposed by other persons. Defendant Governor Whitcomb on November 3, 1969, moved the Court to modify the order of October 30th by providing that any party to the action might file objections to any of the proposed plans filed by any party or non-party with the Court within ten (10) days after any party received actual notice of the filing of any proposed plan submitted by any party or non-party. The motion was denied on November 4, 1969.

The intervening defendants on November 5, 1969, moved for an extension of *1365 time within which to file notice of intent and a proposed plan until November 10, 1969. The motion was granted by an entry of November 6, 1969, and the Court further extended until November 13, 1969, the time within which persons having filed proposed plans could file objections to other plans filed with the Court.

The Court has received the following proposed plans, each preceded by a satisfactory notice of intent:

(1) Plaintiffs’ plan for Marion County only;

(2) Plan of Leslie Duvall as Chairman, Senate Legislative Apportionment Committee, for the Indiana Senate only;

(3) Plan of Leslie Duvall as Majority Caucus Chairman, Indiana Senate, for the Indiana Senate only;

(4) Plan of State Senator Robert E. Mahowald, for the Indiana Senate only;

(5) Plan of Frederick T. Bauer, Indiana General Assembly House Minority Leader, and David Rogers, Indiana General Assembly Senate Minority Leader, for both the Indiana House and Senate;

(6) Plan of Richard A. Boehning, Indiana General Assembly House Majority Leader, for the Indiana House only;

(7) Plan of Representative Richard J. Lesniak, for Lake County only; and

(8) Plan of Senator Albert J. La-Mere, for Lake County only.

As invited by the Court, several persons filed objections to districting plans submitted by other persons. These objections have been considered and the Court appreciates the diligence of the persons submitting them. The Court having prepared its own plan and the objections having been considered, these objections are considered moot. We reached this conclusion after examination of all plans submitted. With the exception of the plaintiffs’ plan and the intervening defendants’ plan, all other plans contain such a large deviation between the most populous and least populous districts that they were eliminated from further consideration.

Although the Court has previously indicated that 1960 census statistics should be utilized, several of the objections argue that these statistics are so outdated as to be not credible.

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