Soto Palmer v. Hobbs

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 13, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-05035
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 SUSAN SOTO PALMER, et al., Cause No. C22-5035RSL 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS AND DENYING 10 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY STEVEN HOBBS, et al., INJUNCTION 11

Defendants. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on the “Motion to Dismiss Defendants Laurie Jinkins 14 15 and Andrew Billig” (Dkt. # 37) and “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction” (Dkt. # 38). 16 Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to challenge the redistricting plan for Washington’s state legislative 17 districts, alleging that the Washington State Redistricting Commission (“the Commission”) 18 19 intentionally configured District 15 in a way that cracks apart politically cohesive 20 Latino/Hispanic1 populations and placed the district on a non-presidential election year cycle in 21 order to dilute Latino voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice. Plaintiffs assert a claim 22 23 under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 10301(a), and request that the 24 Court enjoin defendants from utilizing the existing legislative map and order the implementation 25 26 1 The Complaint and this Order use the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” interchangeably to refer 27 to individuals who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino and to persons of Hispanic Origin as defined by 28 the United States Census Bureau and United States Office of Management and Budget. 1 and use of a valid state legislative plan that does not dilute, cancel out, or minimize the voting 2 strength of Latino voters in the Yakima Valley. 3 Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on January 19, 2022, after the Commission completed its 4 5 redistricting tasks but before the legislature approved amendments to the plan under RCW 6 44.05.100(2). The redistricting plan became final on February 8, 2022. The motion for 7 preliminary injunctive relief was filed on February 25, 2022, and was noted on the Court’s 8 9 calendar for consideration on March 25th pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3). In their motion, plaintiffs 10 request that the Court enjoin defendants from using the existing legislative plan and require 11 them to adopt a state legislative plan that complies with Section 2 of the VRA. Plaintiffs assert 12 13 that it is possible to draw a lawful legislative district in the Yakima area, but they did not 14 provide a replacement legislative district map with their motion. 15 Defendants are Steven Hobbs, Washington’s Secretary of State, Laurie Jinkins, the 16 17 Speaker of the Washington State House of Representatives, and Andy Billig, the Majority 18 Leader of the Washington State Senate. All three defendants argue that they had nothing to do 19 with the adoption of the challenged plan, that they lack the power to redraw or change the final 20 21 plan that was approved by the Commission and amended by the legislature pursuant to RCW 22 44.05.100, and that they have been improperly named as defendants. Secretary Hobbs argues 23 that the Commission, the members of the Commission in their official capacities, and/or the 24 25 State of Washington should be joined as defendants to ensure that a proper and adverse party 26 27 28 1 can mount a meaningful defense to plaintiffs’ claims.2 Representative Jinkins and Senator Billig 2 seek dismissal of the claims against them on the ground that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege 3 an entitlement to relief from either of them. They suggest that the House of Representatives and 4 5 Senate as legislative bodies might be the appropriate defendants if plaintiffs are seeking to 6 compel a vote to reconvene the Commission under RCW 44.05.120. The named defendants take 7 no position on whether plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of 8 9 their VRA claim. Mr. Hobbs argues, however, that if preliminary relief is warranted, he and the 10 local elections officers (typically the county auditors) would need to have the revised plan in 11 hand at least five weeks before the May 2nd deadline for revising precinct boundaries – which 12 13 was Monday, March 28. In reply, plaintiffs provide a proposed remedial plan and argue that, 14 even if the Court were to order use of their plan after March 28th, “the state has ample time to 15 administer the 2022 elections according to current deadlines,” citing Wisconsin Legislature v. 16 17 Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 21A471, 2022 WL 851720, at *1 (U.S. Mar. 23, 2022). 18 A. Motion to Dismiss Defendants Laurie Jinkins and Andrew Billig (Dkt. # 37) 19 All parties agree that, under Washington law, the Legislature and its leaders play some 20 21 role in the redistricting process. The leaders of the four legislative caucuses (i.e., the House and 22 Senate majorities and minorities) appoint the four voting members to the Commission. RCW 23 44.05.030(1). This task was completed by January 2021 and does not appear to be at issue in 24 25 this lawsuit. The Commission then prepares the redistricting plans, which it transmits to the 26 27

28 2 Secretary Hobbs has filed a separate motion to join additional defendants. Dkt. # 53. 1 Legislature. The Legislature has a limited power to amend the plans by a two-thirds majority 2 vote during the first thirty days of the legislative session. Wash. Const. art II, § 43(7); RCW 3 44.05.100(2). The Legislature exercised that power this year, and the legislative amendments to 4 5 the Commission’s district maps became final on February 8, 2022. By statute, the Commission 6 remains in existence until July 1, 2022, after which the Secretary of State takes custody of the 7 Commission’s official records. RCW 44.05.110(1) and (2). If changes to the legislative plans are 8 9 necessary after the Commission ceases to exist, “the legislature may, upon an affirmative vote in 10 each house of two-thirds of the members elected or appointed thereto, adopt legislation 11 reconvening the [C]omission for the purpose of modifying the redistricting plan.” RCW 12 13 44.05.120(1). 14 Plaintiffs assert that Representative Jinkins and Senator Billig have the “power to call for 15 a vote to reconvene the Commission” for the purpose of correcting/redrawing the legislative 16 17 plan. Dkt. # 44 at 4. But at this point in the process, neither the Legislature nor the caucus 18 leaders have the power to provide the relief plaintiffs request. Even if Representative Jinkins and 19 Senator Billig were able to control the Legislature, that body’s power to reconvene the 20 21 Commission will arise only after the Commission has ceased to exist on July 1st. To the extent 22 plaintiffs seek an order directing that the redistricting plans be redrawn, it appears that the 23 Commission would be the appropriate recipient of such an order at this stage of the process.3 To 24 25 the extent plaintiffs seek an order directing that their proposed plan be utilized for the next 26

27 3 The Court notes, without deciding, that the Legislature might be the appropriate recipient of 28 such an order after July 1st. 1 election cycle, Representative Jinkins, Senator Billig, and/or the Legislature play no role in the 2 use or enforcement of the plan. Because plaintiffs have not alleged “sufficient factual matter, 3 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face’” against these defendants, 4 5 the claims against Representative Jinkins and Senator Billig are hereby DISMISSED. Ashcroft 6 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, at 570 7 (2007)). 8 9 B. Defendant Steven Hobbs 10 Secretary Hobbs was not involved in the creation of the district maps to which plaintiffs 11 object and has no authority to recraft or alter the maps that were approved by the Commission 12 13 and amended by the Legislature. He is, however, the Secretary of State, with the responsibility 14 for overseeing elections in the State of Washington. RCW 29A04.216 and 29A.04.230. To the 15 extent plaintiffs seek an order enjoining enforcement of the existing maps or the Court orders 16 17 that a remedial districting plan be utilized in future election cycles, Secretary Hobbs (and 18 possibly the county auditors impacted by the order) would be the appropriate recipients of that 19 order. 20 21 C. The Purcell Principle 22 Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction that would affect the 2022 election cycle is 23 subject to the so-called Purcell principle “that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the 24 25 election rules on the eve of an election.” Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 26 27 28 1 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020) (citing Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)).4 When faced with 2 an application to enjoin election machinery that is already in progress, the Court must not only 3 weigh “the harms attendant upon issuance or nonissuance of an injunction,” but also 4 5 “considerations specific to election cases,” such as election chaos and voter confusion, and “its 6 own institutional procedures” that might cause further delay, such as appellate or en banc 7 review. Purcell, 549 U.S. at *4-5. “How close to an election is too close may depend in part on 8 9 the nature of the election law at issue[] and how easily the State could make the change without 10 undue collateral effects. Changes that require complex or disruptive implementation must be 11 ordered earlier than changes that are easy to implement.” Merrill v. Milligan, 142 S. Ct. 879, 12 13 881 n.1 (2022). The United States Supreme Court recently countenanced a redrawing of district 14 maps with approximately twenty weeks between the summary correction of errors and the 15 upcoming primary election. Wis. Legislature, 2022 WL 851720, at *1. 16 17 In this case, plaintiffs seek to alter the state legislative district plan, a fundamental and 18 foundational aspect of the electoral process. Redistricting moves voters – and potentially 19 candidates -- from one district to another and alters everything from precinct boundaries to voter 20 21 records to ballot layouts. The evidence in the record shows that implementation of a new 22 electoral map takes time and expertise. The Yakima County Auditor’s Office, with the help of 23 the Director of Elections in the Office of the Secretary of State, began creating precinct 24 25 boundaries almost immediately after the redistricting map became final on February 8, 2022, 26

27 4 For purposes of this analysis, the Court assumes that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of 28 success on the merits of their VRA claim and irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. 1 and it took three weeks to ensure that the new precincts met statutory requirements. Dkt. # 51 at 2 ¶¶ 4-11. It then took another two weeks to get the revised precinct boundaries approved by the 3 Yakima County Commission. Dkt. # 51 at ¶¶ 13-14. The statutory deadline for legislative 4 5 entities to revise the precinct boundaries is May 2, 2022. In order to redo the work that has 6 already been done by that deadline, defendants assert that they would have needed the revised 7 district plans in hand by March 28th. Plaintiffs do not challenge this evidence, instead arguing 8 9 that “the Court can and should order the use of a remedial plan by March 28.” Dkt. # 54 at 8-9. 10 March 28th was the first business day on which plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive 11 relief was ripe for consideration. Even if an order could have issued immediately (which was 12 13 unlikely in the best of circumstances and even more unlikely given the complicating factors 14 regarding the identity of the proper parties), plaintiffs proposed a remedial legislative plan for 15 the first time in their reply submission, depriving defendants of an opportunity to respond in 16 17 writing. Oral argument was therefore necessary, making the issuance of an order on March 28th 18 an impossibility. 19 Plaintiffs rely on Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 20 21 21A471, 2022 WL 851720, at *1 (U.S. Mar. 23, 2022), to argue that “[e]ven if the Court were to 22 order use of Plaintiffs’ Proposed Plan shortly after March 28, the state has ample time to 23 administer the 2022 elections according to current deadlines.” Dkt. # 54 at 9. In Washington, the 24 25 primary election is scheduled for August 2, 2022, with the voting period opening eighteen days 26 earlier. RCW 29A.04.311; RCW 29A.40.070(1). Primary ballots must be mailed to overseas 27 residents and military personnel by June 18th. RCW 29A.40.070(2); 52 U.S.C. § 20302(a)(8). 28 1 The deadlines for candidates to announce themselves, be certified by the Secretary of State, and 2 provide statements and photographs for the voters’ pamphlets all occur within an eleven-day 3 window in May. RCW 29A.24.050; RCW 29A.36.010; WAC 434-381-120. Before any of that 4 5 can happen, the county legislative authorities must establish the boundaries of election precincts, 6 a task that must be completed by May 2nd. RCW 29A.16.040. As described above, establishing 7 precinct boundaries generally takes five weeks, making March 28th the practical deadline for 8 9 finalizing the redistricting plan in an election year. Counsel for Secretary Hobbs indicated at oral 10 argument that, even considering the targeted changes proposed by plaintiffs in reply, the 11 window for adjusting to the changes impacting Klickitat County has closed and the window for 12 13 accommodating Kittitas County alterations expires in two days. In response, plaintiffs offered to 14 rework their proposed map to further reduce the number of precincts affected and continue to 15 assert that Wisconsin Legislature shows that election officials in Washington can accommodate 16 17 alterations at this point in time. The record before the Court does not support plaintiffs’ factual 18 assertion, however, and Wisconsin Legislature is distinguishable. Even if the Court assumes that 19 the election schedule in Wisconsin is similar to that which applies in Washington, the Supreme 20 21 Court remanded the maps for correction on March 23rd, and the Wisconsin primary is scheduled 22 for August 9th. Thus, the election officials in Wisconsin had four more weeks in which to 23 complete all necessary tasks than is available in this case. Even if Wisconsin Legislature were 24 25 considered a benchmark, it does not compel the conclusion that legislative map amendments 26 ordered in mid-April are timely under Purcell. 27 28 1 Finally, plaintiffs argue that the candidate filing deadline for Legislative District 15 and 2 any other district that may be reconfigured in this litigation could be delayed without impacting 3 the election officials’ ability to hold a primary on August 2nd. There is no evidence to support 4 5 this assertion. The candidate filing period is May 16-20 and is immediately followed by 6 deadlines for withdrawal, certification, and the provision of voters’ pamphlet information. 7 Election officials have less than four weeks from the date on which candidates are certified to 8 9 the date on which overseas ballots must be mailed. During that period, they must design, 10 translate, and print the various versions of the ballot that account for every combination of 11 positions for which a precinct or portion of a precinct could vote. Defendants have provided 12 13 unrebutted evidence that, in Yakima County, this process takes a full month to complete. Dkt. 14 # 51 at ¶ 20. The date on which ballots must be mailed to military and overseas voters is fixed 15 by both state and federal law: plaintiffs’ suggestion that the Court can alter deadlines in a 16 17 schedule that are daisy-chained to later, fixed events without impacting the election is 18 unsupported and unpersuasive. 19 The nature of the election challenge at issue and the difficulties facing the Secretary of 20 21 State and local election officials if a change in the legislative district maps is made at this late 22 date suggest that we are too close to the 2022 election to enjoin the use of the existing plan for 23 this election cycle. The Court further finds that any delay in the establishment of precinct 24 25 boundaries will likely lead to confusion for both candidates and voters in the affected area. In 26 addition, there would likely be an appeal of any preliminary injunction entered by the District 27 Court (as evidenced by the pending motion to intervene at Dkt. # 57) which would give rise to 28 1 additional delay and uncertainty that cannot be accommodated with an August 2nd primary date. 2 Consideration of the factors enumerated in Purcell and Merrill therefore compel the conclusion 3 that the Court should refrain from interfering in the current election cycle. 4 5 6 For all of the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss filed by Representative Jinkins and 7 Senator Billig (Dkt. # 37) is GRANTED, and plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 8 9 # 38) is DENIED. 10

11 Dated this 13th day of April, 2022.

13 Robert S. Lasnik 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28