Opinion · United States District Court
SMITH v. COBB COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS (N.D.Ga. 2002)
230 F. Supp.2d 1313
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2002-05-31
- Topic
- general
SMITH v. COBB COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS (N.D.Ga. 2002) 230 F. Supp.2d 1313 EARLE SMITH, et al. Plaintiffs, v. COBB COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS andREGISTRATIONS, et al.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed SMITH v. COBB COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS (N.D.Ga. 2002). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
SMITH v. COBB COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS (N.D.Ga. 2002)
230 F. Supp.2d 1313
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.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:02-CV-1093-JEC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:02-CV-1206-JEC
United States District Court, N.D. Georgia,
Atlanta Division
May 31, 2002
Gregg Earl Litchfield, Herbert Scott Gregory, Jr., Haynie Litchfield Crane, Marietta, GA, attorneys for defendant.
Allan Leroy Parks, Jr., David F. Walbert, Parks Chesin Walbert Miller, Atlanta, GA, attorneys for defendant intervenors.
ORDER
The current districts for the Board and the Commission reflect the distribution of the county population as of the 1990West Page 1314Census, 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 theFourteenthAmendment.
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.1The 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 plans2the Court has considered fully in arriving at the remedial redistricting plan established through this Order.
The putative intervenors3and intervenors argue that the respective redisricting 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 pre-clearance requirements of Section 5 of theWest Page 1315Voting 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.
Because of the extreme time exigencies in this case,5the Court has issued this summary order establishing the interim plans so that the Board of Elections may begin the time-consuming work that will be required to prepare itself for theWest Page 1316upcoming qualifying period in mid-June. The Court will endeavor to issue a more detailed Order explaining the rationale behind these plans by June 17, 2002.
CONCLUSION
The Court hereby declares unconstitutional the existing electoral districts for the Cobb County Board of Education and the Cobb County Board of Commissioners and enjoins their use in the upcoming election. The Court establishes, as its own remedial, interim plans, the attached district maps for each body.SO ORDERED,
EXHIBIT 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, 2-A, 2-B, 2-C
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS EXHIBIT IS ELECTRONICALLY NON-TRANSFERRABLE.]
- The Democratic Party of Georgia has also moved to appear as an amicus curiae, which motion the Court orally granted. The Democratic Party echoes the arguments made by the intervenors in both actions and is represented by the same counsel. ↩
- The Court also considered, and ultimately adopted, to a large extent, an alternate suggestion made at the hearing by counsel for the intervenors with regard to the redistricting of Commission District 4. ↩
- The Court hereinafter uses the term "intervenors" throughout the rest of this Order to refer to the intervenors and putative intervenors. The Court will rule on the latter's Motion to Intervene in its forthcoming order. ↩
- All parties agreed to the Court's appointment of Ms. Meggers as its technical expert in assisting with the drafting of the Court's plan. ↩
- The defendant Board of Elections initially insisted that this Court must release any interim plan by May 31, 2002 in order for the Board of Elections to make the necessary adjustments to districts prior to the beginning of the qualifying period. When this Court expressed a concern at the May 24th hearing that it might not be able to make such a deadline, the defendant indicated that the last conceivable date for the order to be issued in time for qualifying would be June 7, 2002, but that, for obvious reasons, an earlier release of the order was desirable. Accordingly, the Court has endeavored to release its interim plan by the requested date.
Moreover, the Court is sympathetic to the time constraints facing the defendant Board of Elections. Indeed, the parties and intervenors agree that Cobb County finds itself in this extremely difficult position not out of any failing on its part — after all, Cobb County and its local delegations completed their redistricting plans, as they were supposed to do. Instead, the Court, the parties, and the taxpayers of Cobb County have been placed in this untenable situation because the State Senate decided to shirk its responsibilities. ↩