Filed Date: March 28, 2011
Closed Date: March 21, 2012
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case alleging malapportioned districts in Maine.
Plaintiffs, two individual residents of Congressional District 1 in Maine, filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Maine on March 28, 2011 alleging that their right to vote was unlawfully diluted in violation of Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendants included Maine, its Governor, the President of the Maine Senate and the presiding officer of the Maine Senate, the Speaker of the Maine Assembly and the presiding officer of the Maine House of Representatives, the Secretary of State of Maine and the Chief Election Official of Maine; and the Bureau of Corporations, Elections & Commissions, which supervises and administers all elections of federal, state and county officers and referenda in Maine. Plaintiffs sued the individual Defendants in their official capacities only. The Complaint sought appointment of a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284 so that a court with authority to establish any necessary redistricting plan(s) was established in a timely manner; a declaratory judgment that the Congressional Districts violated Plaintiffs' rights under federal law; an injunction preventing Defendants from using the Congressional Districts in any future primary or general election(s); that the Congressional Districts be redrawn; and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 8, 2011, Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit assigned the case to a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya, District Judge George Z. Singal, and District Judge D. Brock Hornby. Plaintiffs were represented by private counsel.
At the time Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, congressional districts in Maine were determined based on census data obtained every ten years. In 2000, the population of Maine was 1,274,923. By 2010, the population had increased to 1,328,361. In 2010, the population of Congressional District 1 was 668,515 and the population of Congressional District 2 was 659,846, a difference of 8,669 residents. Plaintiffs, residents of Congressional District 1, alleged that as a result of population growth, their right to vote had been improperly diluted, and the dilution could only be remedied by redrawing congressional districts. The Maine Legislature had the authority to redraw the Congressional Districts, but the Legislature was not required to pass, and there was no plan for it to pass, a redistricting plan before the regular session ended on June 15, 2011. The next time the Legislature was scheduled to review the existing Congressional Districts was in 2013. As a result, the Congressional Districts would not be redrawn in time for the 2012 election cycle. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and other Maine citizens would suffer dilution of their votes in congressional elections held in 2012.
Defendants, represented by the Maine Attorney General, filed their Answer to the Complaint on April 26, 2011. They asserted the affirmative defense of sovereign immunity as to the State of Maine and alleged that the Court had no jurisdiction over Maine. The Maine Democratic Party also moved to intervene in the case on April 26, 2011. The Maine Democratic Party argued that in every instance of redistricting, both major political parties were key participants in redistricting. All of the public officials named as defendants were Republicans; no members of the Democratic Party were parties to the suit. The Motion to Intervene also asserted that the Complaint sought remedies that would conceivably shorten the redistricting process, potentially undermining the need for a thoughtful, methodical, and fully bipartisan process, with full opportunity for input. The Motion also argued that the Maine Democratic Party and the approximately 300,000 Maine citizens in represents, including the two individuals who then represented Maine in the United States Congress, had a significant interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit. The Court orally granted the Motion to Intervene on April 27, 2011. Thereafter, the Court entered a scheduling order for the filing of briefs and reply briefs on the substance of the case.
After the briefs were filed, the Court heard oral arguments on the substance of the case on June 9, 2011. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ruled from the bench that Maine's current congressional apportionment was unconstitutional and that the 2012 congressional election could not go forward under that apportionment. Also on June 9, 2011, Plaintiffs made an oral motion to dismiss Maine and its Bureau of Corporations, Elections, and Commissions as Defendants on the grounds that Plaintiffs' claims against those entities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants did not oppose the motion, and the Court granted it at the hearing on June 9, 2011. A written order granting the Motion to Dismiss was entered on June 24, 2011.
On June 21, 2011, the Court issued a detailed Memorandum and Order explaining its June 9, 2011 oral ruling on Plaintiffs' constitutional claims. The Court began by noting that for many years, Maine redrew congressional districts in the interlude between the release of the official census data and the next congressional election. In 1975, Maine changed course by amending its state constitution to require that state legislative reapportionment be completed in 1983 and at ten-year intervals thereafter. Thus, following the 2010 census, the next time Maine would withdraw its congressional districts was 2013, which would be too late for the 2012 election. In the meantime, the results of the 2010 census revealed a difference of 8,669 residents in the populations of Congressional District 1 and Congressional District 2. Article I, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment, section 2 of the Constitution require that each congressional district within a state should be equal in population. While absolute equality is not required, the goal is to make congressional districts within the state as nearly equal as practicable under all the circumstances.
To demonstrate that a state's apportionment does not achieve this goal, the plaintiff must first show a significant population difference. Plaintiffs easily satisfied this requirement as the population difference between the two districts (8,669 residents) amounted to a deviation of 0.6526 percent, which the Court deemed significant. The intervenor, the Maine Democratic Party, argued that the Supreme Court has previously approved larger variances. The Court rejected this argument and pointed out that the cases upon which the intervenor relied dealt with reapportionment of state legislative districts, not congressional districts. The intervenor also sought to contrast the size of Maine's congressional districts with the size of congressional districts in other states. The Court found interstate comparisons irrelevant.
Showing a numerical disparity in population was not enough to prevail; plaintiffs must also show that the current apportionment was not the product of a good faith effort to achieve population equality. Plaintiffs readily satisfied this requirement as Maine did nothing after receiving the results of the 2010 census in March 2011 to address the inequality of its two Congressional Districts in time for the 2012 election.
The burden thus shifted to the state to demonstrate that the population deviations were necessary to achieve some legitimate state objective. The state defendants conceded there was no constitutionally adequate justification for the disparity between the two districts. The intervenor attempted to justify the disparity, but the Court rejected each one of the intervenor's arguments. Since no party advanced a compelling reason for permitting the 2012 congressional election to proceed despite a significant, unjustified, and easily correctable population variance between the two Congressional Districts, the Court ordered the state to redraw the districts in time for the 2012 election. The Court concluded by noting it would retain jurisdiction to approve a plan and timetable for redrawing the districts. Throughout the summer and fall of 2011, the Court received status reports from the state defendants regarding the progress made toward redrawing the districts. In a July 7, 2011 Procedural Order, the Court ordered the Defendants to provide certain details in their status reports, and reminded the parties that it may enter further orders on or before November 15, 2011 in order to put in place a schedule that allows the Court to complete the redistricting by the end of 2011. The last status report was filed on October 17, 2011, announcing that the redistricting plan was complete and requesting that the Court proceed to enter judgment.
The Court entered a Final Judgment on November 1, 2011. The Final Judgment summarized what happened after the Court issued its June 2011 ruling. At a special session on September 27, 2011, both houses of the Maine Legislature approved legislation adopting new Congressional Districts based in the 2010 federal decennial census. The Governor signed the bill on September 28, 2011, and as emergency legislation, it became effective immediately. P.L. 2011, c. 466 (eff. Sept. 28, 2011). Under the redrawn districts, the population of Congressional District 1 was 664,180, and the population of Congressional District 2 was 664,181. The Court found that these redrawn districts complied with the "one-person, one- vote" mandate of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. On October 4, 2011, the Maine Law Court ordered that any challenges to the redrawn districts must be filed by October 12, 2011. No challenges were filed by the deadline, so the redrawn districts became final on October 12, 2011.
The Court's final action in this case occurred on March 21, 2012, when it granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs. While the Court did not award Plaintiffs all the relief they sought, the Court ordered the state defendants to pay fees of $67,685.85 and additional costs totaling $2,713.22 within thirty days. The case was then closed.
Summary Authors
LFAA (1/3/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4288510/parties/desena-v-state-of-maine/
Hornby, David Brock (Maine)
Hornby, David Brock (Maine)
GARDINER, PHYLLIS (Maine)
MILLS, JANET T. (Maine)
Selya, Bruce Marshall
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4288510/desena-v-state-of-maine/
State / Territory: Maine
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 28, 2011
Closing Date: March 21, 2012
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two individual residents of Congressional District 1 in the State of Maine who alleged that their right to vote was improperly diluted as a result of population growth.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Constitutional Clause(s):
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $67,685.85 in attorneys' fees and $2,713.22 in costs
Issues
Voting: