J. FRANK DEEM, ELIAS DON YOAK, and KENNETH YUFER, Plaintiffs, RICK HANDLEY, PHYLLIS ARTHUR, and BOB BAIRD, individually and in their official capacity as the County Commissioners of Mason County, West Virginia, Intervening Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH MANCHIN, III, Secretary of State of West Virginia, BOB WISE, Governor of the State of West Virginia, EARL RAY TOMBLIN, President of the Senate of West Virginia, and ROBERT S. KISS, Speaker of the House of Delegates of the State of West Virginia, in their official capacities, Defendants. JOHN UNGER, II, JOHN OVERINGTON, ELIZABETH BLAKE, GREGORY CORLISS, JERRY M. MAYS, KENNETH MAYS, BILL MOORE, SHIRLEY MOORE, CLARENCE PENNINGTON, WILLIAM C. RITCHIE, and PHILIP SPRIGGS, Plaintiffs, RICK HANDLEY, PHYLLIS ARTHUR, and BOB BAIRD, individually and in their official capacity as the County Commissioners of Mason County, West Virginia, Intervening Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH MANCHIN, III, Secretary of State of West Virginia, BOB WISE, Governor of the State of West Virginia, EARL RAY TOMBLIN, President of the Senate of West Virginia, and ROBERT S. KISS, Speaker of the House of Delegates of the State of West Virginia, in their official capacities, Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01cv75, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01cv78
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
188 F. Supp. 2d 651; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3501
February 21, 2002, Decided
Actions brought by groups of plaintiffs including two senators and a delegate against defendant state officials challenged the state senate redistricting plan, arguing there were impermissible population variances under H.B. 511 (W. Va. 2001). Intervening plaintiff county commissioners argued the redistricting of the state house violated the three-fifths rule of W. Va. Const. art. VI, § 6. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.
The court found the senate redistricting division directly contravened W. Va. Const. art. VI, § 4, which required senate districts to be "bounded by county lines." But the maximum deviation above 10 percent was slight, only 0.92 percent. The bill identified five policy interests, including recognizing established political subdivision lines, making districts compact, consistent with equality of population, forming each district of contiguous territory, maintaining community of interests involved, and crossing county lines only when necessary to preserve the other goals. The plan served the goals while creating only a slight deviation. The policy decisions were not irrational. In two or three instances the plan violated an objective of crossing county lines only when necessary. But, the court's quest was to assess plan's constitutionality. As to the redistricting of the state house, the intervenors' case did not have sufficiently similar underlying facts. The only common relevant facts were the populations and boundaries of the counties, none of which were disputed.
The court found the redistricting of the senate was constitutional. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the intervenors' petition regarding the redistricting of the state house and declined to consider the merits of the intervenors' complaint.