Home/N.D. Georgia/Smith v. COBB COUNTY BD. OF ELECT. AND REGISTRAT.

Smith v. COBB COUNTY BD. OF ELECT. AND REGISTRAT.

230 F. Supp. 2d 1313
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia
DecidedMay 31, 2002
DocketCIV.A. 102CV1093JEC. No. CIV.A. 102CV1206JEC
StatusPublished

This text of 230 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (Smith v. COBB COUNTY BD. OF ELECT. AND REGISTRAT.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. COBB COUNTY BD. OF ELECT. AND REGISTRAT., 230 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (N.D. Ga. 2002).

Opinion

230 F.Supp.2d 1313 (2002)

Earle SMITH, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
COBB COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATIONS, et al. Defendants.
Andy Perry, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
Cobb County Board of Elections and Registrations, et al. Defendants,
v.
Mark A. Bell and David L. Wilkerson Defendants Intervenors.

No. CIV.A. 102CV1093JEC. No. CIV.A. 102CV1206JEC.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

May 31, 2002.

D. Glen Brock, Ernest Linwood Gunn, IV, Carlton LaTain Kell, Brock Clay Calhoun Wilson & Rogers, Joseph Blackshear Atkins, Dorothy Hemmer Bishop, Deborah L. Dance, Office of Cobb County Attorney, Law Department, Marietta, for Plaintiff.

Gregg Earl Litchfield, Herbert Scott Gregory, Jr., Haynie Litchfield & Crane, Marietta, for Defendant.

Allan Leroy Parks, Jr., David F. Walbert, Parks Chesin Walbert & Miller, Atlanta, for Defendant Intervenors.

ORDER

CARNES, District Judge.

In the above-captioned actions, the plaintiffs allege a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, arising out of the failure of the Georgia General Assembly (hereinafter "the Legislature") to pass legislation reapportioning the electoral districts for the Cobb County Board of Education (hereinafter, "the Board") and the electoral districts for the Cobb County Commission (hereinafter, "the Commission"), respectively. The plaintiffs, Cobb County voters and members of the Board and the Commission, have filed these two related actions against the Cobb County Board of Elections and Registration to enjoin all future elections of the Board and Commission under the current electoral districts.

The current districts for the Board and the Commission reflect the distribution of the county population as of the 1990 Census, *1314 but, according to the plaintiffs, the 2000 Census revealed significant changes in the distribution of the county population. The plaintiffs argue that the legislature's failure to draw new districts following completion of the 2000 Census has thus created substantial population deviations among the existing districts for both the Board and the Commission. These deviations, according to the plaintiffs, severely dilute the voting strength of individual voters in some districts and disproportionately increase the strength of votes in other districts, thereby resulting in a violation of the well-established one-person, one-vote principle established by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The plaintiffs request that this Court declare the existing districts to be unconstitutional and enjoin defendants from certifying or approving any election held in the districts as presently configured. The plaintiffs further request that this Court establish a remedial plan to be used for the upcoming election. Plaintiffs have also presented the Court with a copy of the redistricting plan approved by the Board and the Commission, respectively. These plans were approved by the Cobb County delegation to the State House and, accordingly, were approved by the Georgia House of Representatives. These plans also received the requisite number of signatures by the Cobb County delegation to the State Senate to allow them to be approved by the State Senate. Because the Senate committee to which the plans were initially sent refused to allow the plans out of committee to be voted on by the Senate, however, the State Senate was never in a position to review or approve these plans. Accordingly, the 2002 Session of the Georgia General Assembly expired with the above plans still languishing in a committee of the State Senate. Plaintiffs argue that this Court should give deference to the plans that were approved by the Board and Commission and approved by the local delegation.

David L. Wilkerson and Mark A. Bell have moved to intervene as defendants in both the Board and Commission litigation.[1] The Commission did not object to intervention and the Court agrees that intervention is appropriate in the Commission case. The Board, however, has objected to intervention by these parties. The Court has not yet ruled on the motions to intervene, as both the Board and the putative intervenors present colorable arguments in support of their position. Nevertheless, the Court allowed these putative intervenors to participate fully in the hearing and oral argument held on May 24, 2002, just as if they had been granted intervenor status. Further, the Court allowed these individuals to present proposed redistricting plans for both the Board and the Commission, which proposed plans[2] the Court has considered fully in arriving at the remedial redistricting plan established through this Order.

The putative intervenors[3] and intervenors argue that the respective redistricting plans proposed by the Board and the Commission are not entitled to any deference from this Court, and have insisted that, to avoid running afoul of the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the *1315 Voting Rights Act, this Court must devise its own remedial plan. For the purposes of this Order and for purposes of drafting a remedial plan, this Court has accepted as meritorious the intervenors' argument. Accordingly, while there may be strong similarities to different components of the four proposed plans, the ultimate remedial plan set out herein by the Court is the Court's own plan, arrived at after several days of painstaking work by the undersigned herself, with the assistance of the Court's expert, Ms. Linda Meggers, Director of Legislative Reapportionment Services for the Georgia General Assembly.[4]

The Court has concluded that the existing districting plans for the Board and the Commission are unconstitutional under the one-person, one-vote principle. Therefore, it enjoins the defendant Board of Elections from conducting elections in accordance with these existing districts. Further, as it is undisputed that the Georgia Legislature will not be reconvening prior to the upcoming election, the parties and intervenors agree that an impasse has occurred that warrants the imposition of a remedial plan to be used only for the upcoming election. Thereafter, this Court will ask the legislature to complete the work it should have done in the last session and to reapportion the electoral districts for the Cobb Board and County Commission. If it fails to do so, this Court will be required to hold a full trial and thereafter to impose a permanent remedial districting plan.

Attached hereto as Exhibits 1-A, B, and C are the Court redistricting map for the Cobb Board of Education, entitled FEDCTCOBBSB, statistical data relevant to the plan, and a technical description of the districting changes. Attached hereto as Exhibits 2-A, B, and C are the Court's plan for the Cobb County Commission, entitled FEDCTCOBBCC, along with its statistical data and description. In fashioning these plans, the Court has been mindful of the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, traditional redistricting principles applicable to the drafting of a remedial plan, and the need to arrive at the lowest deviation from the ideal population for each district. The Court has attempted to balance all of these considerations. To the extent that there are small deviations in each plan from the ideal population figure, these deviations have been necessary to comply with other principles applicable to the drafting of a remedial plan. The Court concludes that any deviations are de minimis and justified by the need to comply with the other dictates applicable to this endeavor.

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

Related

Smith v. Cobb County Board of Elections & Registrations
230 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (N.D. Georgia, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 F. Supp. 2d 1313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-cobb-county-bd-of-elect-and-registrat-gand-2002.