Goddard v. Babbitt

536 F. Supp. 538, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11735
CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 2, 1982
DocketCIV-81-1497-PHX-CAM
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 536 F. Supp. 538 (Goddard v. Babbitt) 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
Goddard v. Babbitt, 536 F. Supp. 538, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11735 (D. Ariz. 1982).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

I. ACTION

A. Description of Action

Plaintiffs, by this action, seek a declaration that the reapportionment of the Arizona Legislature (House Bill 2001) and redistricting of the congressional districts of Arizona (House Bill 2002), by the Arizona Legislature, are unconstitutional under Article I, Section 2, and Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Intervenor-plaintiffs seek to have the legislation declared unconstitutional under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Intervenor Pappas seeks to have House Bill 2001 declared unlawful on the basis of the violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as determined by the Department of Justice and seeks to have House Bill 2002 declared unlawful on the basis of the violation of the one man, one vote rule.

B. Parties

Plaintiffs are Samuel P. Goddard, Representative Art Hamilton, and Senator Jones Osborn. Plaintiff Hamilton is the minority leader in the Arizona House of Representatives. Plaintiff Osborn is the minority leader in the Arizona Senate. Plaintiff Goddard is the Chairman of the Democratic Party of the State of Arizona.

Intervenor-plaintiff San Carlos Apache Tribe is a dependent sovereign Indian nation, and a federally recognized Indian tribe with over 8,000 members, all of whom have an interest in political representation through legislative districts and congressional districts in elections held in the State of Arizona.

Intervenors-plaintiffs Ned Anderson, Herbert Edwards, Leo Natsyn, and Phillip Cassadore are American Indians, enrolled members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, are over 18 years of age, and maintain their permanent legal residence within the San Carlos Apache Reservation. Ned Anderson is the Chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe elected by popular vote of the tribe and, as such, is the chief executive officer of the San Carlos Apache tribe. Herbert Edwards and Leo Natsyn are members of the San Carlos Apache Tribal Council.

*540 Defendants are Bruce E. Babbitt and Rose Mofford. Defendant Babbitt is the Governor of the State of Arizona. Defendant Mofford is the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona.

Intervenor-defendant Thomas J. Pappas is the Chairman of the Republican Party of the State of Arizona.

II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The allegations in plaintiffs’ and intervenor-plaintiffs’ complaint raise claims under Article I, Section 2, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3) and (4), 1357, and 1362; and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.

III. FACTS

A. Background Information About Arizona

1. Arizona is a state containing 14 counties, whose total land area is 113,909 square miles.

2. There are 19 Indian tribes in Arizona.

3. At the time of the 1980 elections, there were 30 legislative districts in Arizona, each of which elected one State Senator and two State Representatives.

4. At the time of the 1980 elections, there were four congressional districts in Arizona.

B. Facts About The San Carlos Apache Tribe

1. The San Carlos Apache Reservation population has historically been within a single legislative district and a single congressional district. It is the strong desire of the Tribe to remain in one legislative district and one congressional district in the future.

2. The San Carlos Apache Tribe is a dependent-sovereign Indian nation which has several executed treaties with the United States, including those of 1852 and 1853. The San Carlos Apache Reservation was established in 1871 by Executive Order as a permanent Tribal homeland for the San Carlos Apache. The boundaries of the San Carlos Apache Reservation pre-date the establishment of the State of Arizona.

3. The San Carlos Apaches are a distinct minority group and have extensive social, historical and cultural bonds which contribute to the strong community of interest among the Tribal members. The San Carlos Apaches speak their own language, enjoy a unique Indian culture and history and constitute a separate political subdivision in Arizona. The Tribe has its own constitution and government, its own police authority, health department, utility services and the Tribe exercises governmental taxing authority.

4. The San Carlos Apache Reservation comprises less than 2*/2% of the total land area within the boundaries of Arizona. The Reservation is a unified minority community of interests of approximately 8,000 residents, constituting 1.47% of an ideal congressional district.

C. Results of 1980 Census

1. Under the 1980 census, Arizona had grown from a total 1970 state population of 1,772,482 to a total state population of 2,717,866. ,

2. Under the 1980 census, Arizona is entitled to five United States congressmen. Accordingly, dividing Arizona’s total population by the number of congressmen to which it is entitled, the ideal congressional district would contain 543,573 persons.

3. Dividing the State’s 1980 population by the number of legislative districts, 30, the ideal legislative district would consist of 90,596 persons.

4. According to the 1980 census, Arizona’s Hispanic population comprises 16.2% of the total population of Arizona; American Indians comprise 5.6% of the total population; and Blacks comprise 2.8% of the total population of Arizona.

5. 1982 is an election year for all members of the Arizona Legislature.

*541 6. Each candidate for legislative office must file a nominating petition containing a set number of signatures in order to qualify to run in the primary election. The number of signatures required is based on election results in prior elections from precincts constituting the district in which the candidate proposes to run.

7. Nominating petitions may be filed as early as May 25, 1982, and no later than June 26, 1982.

8.

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

Related

Hinton v. United States
D. Arizona, 2021
Dnc v. Katie Hobbs
Ninth Circuit, 2020
Nash v. Blunt
140 F.R.D. 400 (W.D. Missouri, 1992)
Untitled California Attorney General Opinion
California Attorney General Reports, 1991
Goddard v. Babbitt
547 F. Supp. 373 (D. Arizona, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
536 F. Supp. 538, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goddard-v-babbitt-azd-1982.