Filed Date: June 26, 2014
Closed Date: June 3, 2015
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about the constitutionality of an electoral apportionment scheme for the election of members of a school committee.
On June 26, 2014, the City of Lowell filed a complaint against the Greater Lowell Technical High School and the towns of Dracut, Tyngsborough, and Dunstable, alleging that an agreement between the parties regarding the election of candidates for the Greater Lowell Technical High School committee was unconstitutional under the Fourteen Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution, and Massachusetts state law.
Chapter 94 of the 1967 Acts of Massachusetts authorized the municipalities to create a regional vocational school district. The municipalities formed a regional vocational school on May 11, 1967 by executing an agreement as required by law. The agreement provided the number of representatives each municipality was entitled to on the school committee. Under the agreement, each municipality was entitled to at least one member of the school committee if its population was under 15,000 people and an additional member for each additional 15,000 residents, provided that Lowell was not entitled to any more members of the school committee than the total members to which the remaining municipalities were entitled. At the time Lowell filed the complaint, about 80% of the school’s student body came from Lowell. However, based on the school committee apportionment scheme in the agreement, the school committee seats were apportioned as follows: one member each for both Tyngsborough and Dunstable, two members for Dracut, and four members for Lowell.
On July 24, 2012, Lowell passed a motion requesting its city solicitor assess the constitutionality of the school committee apportionment scheme, and the solicitor opined that the scheme was unconstitutional. The solicitor recommended that each of the municipalities adopt one of the five statutorily permitted apportionment schemes under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 71, Section 14E (Section 14E) to resolve the agreement’s constitutionality. The statute authorized regional school committees to be apportioned in one of five ways: (1) based on population; (2) by district-wide elections at biennial state elections; (3) through residency requirements in district-wide elections at biennial state elections; (4) by weighing the votes of committee members according to population; or (5) by allowing local elected officials to appoint the committee members.
The following year, each municipality passed a motion to address the constitutionality of the agreement. On August 13, 2013, Lowell passed a motion to adopt apportion by population, and on July 1, 2013, Tyngsborough did the same. M.G.L. c. 71, Section 14E(3). Dunstable passed a motion on August 19, 2013 to maintain the apportionment scheme but provide Dracut and Lowell each with one additional school committee member. Dracut passed a motion on September 10, 2013, to allow local officials to appoint the committee members. M.G.L. c. 71, Section 14E(5). By June 2014, the municipalities failed to take any further action to establish a new electoral apportionment system.
Lowell filed its June 26, 2014 complaint arguing that, because the agreement restricted Lowell’s representation to the total seats available to other member municipalities instead of based on its population, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment one-person, one-vote principle. Because Lowell’s population was over three times the size of the other municipalities, it determined that the school committee electoral apportionment scheme resulted in a population deviation of 42% for Lowell and 125% in total for the municipalities. Lowell argued that, because the apportionment scheme exceeded a 10% population deviation, it created a discriminatory mechanism favoring particular voting districts or geographic areas.
Lowell’s complaint also argued that the agreement violated Article VII of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution, which guaranteed the right of citizens to elect their representatives to terms of office. Further, Lowell alleged that the apportionment scheme did not comport with the options under M.G.L. c. 71, Section 14E. Lowell sought declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts prohibiting the use of the agreement’s apportionment scheme. Lowell also sought an order that the parties amend the agreement to establish committee membership using residency requirements and district-wide elections under M.G.L. c. 71, Section 14E(3), as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.
The defendant municipalities each responded to Lowell’s complaint denying its allegations: Dracut and Tyngsborough on July 22, 2014, and Dunstable on September 4, 2014. Dracut amended its answer on August 5, 2014, claiming Lowell had breached the apportionment agreement and sought its preferred apportionment scheme by local official appointment. In Dunstable’s answer, it similarly counterclaimed that Lowell’s preferred change to the apportionment scheme might deprive smaller member municipalities of the protection originally envisioned in the agreement.
On October 28, 2014, the judge held a scheduling conference at which the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution before conducting any discovery. A magistrate judge served as the mediator for the case and held two mediations. On March 5, 2015, the mediator filed a report on the resolution process, noting that the municipalities had agreed in principle to settle the case by the end of March 2015 by filing a proposed consent decree with the judge.
On May 11, 2015, the municipalities presented a consent decree to the judge, who signed the decree on June 3, 2015. The consent decree ordered that the agreement be revised to elect the members of the school committee by district-wide election at the biennial state elections and such candidates had to be residents of the member municipality to hold such municipality’s seat. M.G.L. c. 71, Section 14E(3). The revisions also increased terms of the school committee members from three to four years. Additionally, the municipalities inserted a provision requiring that vacancies for each Dunstable and Tyngsborough be filled in the same manner as appointment. Lowell, on the other hand, was allowed to fill vacancies by appointment by the acting school committee members and city council acting jointly, and Dunstable was allowed to fill vacancies by appointment by the local school committee, its local governing body and the remaining member of the school committee. The municipalities agreed to have their local governing bodies ratify the language in the consent decree at their next respective meetings.
The case is closed.
Summary Authors
(11/1/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13133704/parties/lowell-city-of-v-greater-lowell-technical-high-school/
O'Connor, Christine P. (Massachusetts)
Gonzalez, Kelly Trainor (Massachusetts)
Larkin, Richard W. (Massachusetts)
Long, Michael J. (Massachusetts)
Hall, James A. (Massachusetts)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13133704/lowell-city-of-v-greater-lowell-technical-high-school/
Last updated Dec. 21, 2024, 8 a.m.
State / Territory: Massachusetts
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 26, 2014
Closing Date: June 3, 2015
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
City of Lowell, Massachusetts
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Mulicipality (Dracut, Middlesex), City
Municipality (Tyngsborough, Middlesex), City
Municipality (Tyngsborough, Middlesex), City
Municipality (Dunstable, Middlesex), City
School District (Lowell, Middlesex), School District
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Special Case Type(s):
Non-court arbitration/mediation
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Issues
Voting: