Cosner v. Dalton

522 F. Supp. 350, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15991
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia
DecidedAugust 25, 1981
DocketCiv. A. 81-0492-R, 81-0516-R, 81-0530-R, 81-0552-R, 81-591-A, 81-0636-A and 81-0145-Roanoke
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 522 F. Supp. 350 (Cosner v. Dalton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cosner v. Dalton, 522 F. Supp. 350, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15991 (E.D. Va. 1981).

Opinion

BUTZNER, Circuit Judge:

In these consolidated cases, several counties, organizations, and individuals challenge Virginia Acts of Assembly, 1981 Special Session, Chapter 12, August 11, 1981 (hereafter referred to as the Act of August 11), which reapportioned the electoral districts for the House of Delegates. 1

The defendants are a number of Virginia officials, including those who have responsibility for conducting the State’s elections. Various intervenors join the defendants in supporting the entire Act or specific provisions pertaining to their counties and cities.

The plaintiffs and their supporting intervenors attack the Act on one or more of the following grounds:

It violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not provide for substantial population equality in electoral districts;
It violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments because it invidiously discriminates against Virginia’s black citizens;
It violates Article IV, § 4 of the United States Constitution by denying Virginians their right to a republican form of government;
It violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because neither the Census Bureau nor the General Assembly counted as residents of Norfolk, the home port of their fleet, approximately 9,000 naval personnel deployed at sea.
*354 It violates Article II, § 6 of the Virginia Constitution which provides: “Every electoral district shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory and shall be so constituted as to give, as nearly as is practicable, representation in proportion to the population of the district.”

One or more of the plaintiffs and intervenors seek the following relief:

A declaration that the Act of August 11, 1981, is unconstitutional;
An injunction prohibiting the State Board of Elections from conducting an election in 1981 for members of the House of Delegates on the basis of the August 11 Act;
An order requiring the 1981 elections to be conducted on the basis of the 1971 apportionment Act;
An order reapportioning the State into single-member districts;
An injunction requiring the State to include in the population of Norfolk approximately 9,000 naval personnel deployed at sea.

Several parties have recommended alternative redistrieting plans. Several intervenors request redistrieting of specific counties, leaving the remainder of the August 11 Act intact.

Because we conclude that the Act violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and we have afforded appropriate relief, we find it unnecessary to discuss in detail each specific complaint.

I

Article II, § 6 of the Virginia Constitution requires the boundaries of its Senate and House of Delegates electoral districts to be redrawn every ten years. The House Privileges and Elections Committee had primary responsibility for the development of a redistrieting plan. After receipt of the 1980 census figures in February, 1981, the Committee scheduled a series of public hearings on redistrieting throughout the state. Starting on March 20, the Committee considered at least a dozen redistrieting plans, including some that proposed a more even distribution of population in each district than the plan eventually enacted.

On April 7, 1981, the Committee reported a plan to the House of Delegates. During the floor debate on April 8, objections were raised charging departures from the one-person, one-vote ideal and dilution of minority voting strength. Nonetheless, the bill was passed by the House. Following Senate approval, the Governor signed the bill on April 10, 1981.I 2

The Act then was submitted to the Attorney General of the United States on April 30 for the preclearance required by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 3 On August 1, the Attorney General notified the State that the Act could not be given clearance because some districts in Southside Virginia, 4 “appear[ed] to dilute and fragment black voting strength unnecessarily.” 5

The leadership of the House of Delegates and representatives of various interested parties promptly held a series of meetings with Justice Department officials. Eventually, the State and the Department reached an informal understanding of the changes necessary for approval, and the Department agreed to review expeditiously any new enactment of the General Assembly.

On August 11, the Committee held another public hearing at which plans likely to increase the black membership of the House of Delegates through the use of single-member districts were presented. The Committee rejected these plans and approved one incorporating the changes discussed with the Department of Justice. La *355 ter the same day, the House also rejected a single-member plan and adopted the Committee plan. The Senate promptly approved the House bill and the Governor signed it. 6

The Act of August 11,1981, was reviewed by the Department of Justice on August 12. Late that afternoon, the Department notified the State that “the Attorney General does not interpose any objections to the changes [made on August 11].” The Attorney General, however, reserved the right to object within 60 days if new evidence cast matters in a different light.

The August 11 Act provides for 49 electoral districts embracing Virginia’s 95 counties and 41 incorporated cities with an aggregate population of 5,346,279. With a 100-delegate House, the ideal population for each single-member district is therefore 53,-463 citizens. The amount of deviation from the ideal in any one district is typically measured in percentage terms. 7 The maximum statewide deviation is the sum of the deviations of the two districts with the greatest deviations above and below the ideal. '

When the ratio of citizens to delegates in two or more adjacent districts varies greatly from the ideal, the deviation can be corrected either by redrawing the district lines or by establishing an additional “floater” district encompassing the two or more underlying districts. Floater districts provide for one or more at-large delegates to represent all of the underlying districts.

By reducing the number of floater districts, the August 11 Act virtually moots earlier disputes concerning the proper method for calculating deviations from the ideal in floater districts. 8 By the tradition *356

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

Related

Thomas v. Beals
E.D. Virginia, 2022
Goldman v. Brink
E.D. Virginia, 2021
Wright v. Sumter Cnty. Bd. of Elections
361 F. Supp. 3d 1296 (M.D. Georgia, 2018)
Covington v. North Carolina
270 F. Supp. 3d 881 (M.D. North Carolina, 2017)
Raleigh Wake Citizens Ass'n v. Wake County Board of Elections
166 F. Supp. 3d 553 (E.D. North Carolina, 2016)
Harris v. McCrory
159 F. Supp. 3d 600 (M.D. North Carolina, 2016)
Page v. Virginia State Board of Elections
58 F. Supp. 3d 533 (E.D. Virginia, 2014)
Rodriguez v. Pataki
308 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D. New York, 2004)
Smith v. Beasley
946 F. Supp. 1174 (D. South Carolina, 1996)
Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer
849 F. Supp. 1022 (D. Maryland, 1994)
Holloway v. Hechler
817 F. Supp. 617 (S.D. West Virginia, 1992)
Harvey v. Clinton
826 S.W.2d 236 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1992)
Terrazas v. Ramirez
829 S.W.2d 712 (Texas Supreme Court, 1991)
Gorin v. Karpan
775 F. Supp. 1430 (D. Wyoming, 1991)
Republican Party of Virginia v. Wilder
774 F. Supp. 400 (W.D. Virginia, 1991)
Collins v. City of Norfolk, Virginia
883 F.2d 1232 (Fourth Circuit, 1989)
Collins v. City of Norfolk
883 F.2d 1232 (Fourth Circuit, 1989)
McGHEE v. GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
860 F.2d 110 (Fourth Circuit, 1988)
McGhee v. Granville County
860 F.2d 110 (Fourth Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
522 F. Supp. 350, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosner-v-dalton-vaed-1981.