837 F.3d 135
1st Cir.2016Background
- Cranston used 2010 Census total-population data in its 2012 ward plan, which counted 3,433 inmates at the state-run Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) in Ward Six, where the prison is located.
- Counting ACI inmates produced six wards with population deviations under 10%; excluding them would make Ward Six much smaller and raise maximum deviation to ~35%.
- Plaintiffs (four Cranston residents and ACLU-RI) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging inclusion of inmates in Ward Six dilutes non-Ward Six voters’ equal-protection “one person, one vote” rights.
- District court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, finding inmates lack a representational nexus with Ward Six and that Evenwel did not compel inclusion of prisoners in population counts.
- First Circuit stayed the district court order for upcoming elections, then reversed, holding Evenwel and Supreme Court precedent permit jurisdictions to use Census total-population counts (including prisoners) absent a showing of invidious discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cranston’s inclusion of ACI inmates in Ward Six violates Equal Protection by diluting other wards’ votes | Including nonvoting inmates in Ward Six inflates Ward Six voting power and dilutes plaintiffs’ votes; inmates lack meaningful representational nexus | Counting inmates pursuant to Census total-population is constitutionally permissible; plan’s deviation <10% and no invidious discrimination | Inclusion of ACI inmates is constitutionally permissible; reverse district court and enter summary judgment for City |
| Whether Evenwel controls and permits total-population apportionment including prisoners | Evenwel’s endorsement of total-population does not require counting prisoners who have no local ties | Evenwel affirms historical practice and permits use of Census total-population; deviations under 10% are presumptively valid | Evenwel’s methodology and logic compel deference to jurisdictions using Census total-population; plaintiffs’ theory mirrors rejected voter-population claim |
| Standard of review and jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: appeal is interlocutory under §1292 and should be reviewed for abuse of discretion | City: appeal involves summary-judgment merits and should be reviewed de novo under §1291 | Court exercised interlocutory jurisdiction under §1292 but applied de novo review because injunction rested on Rule 56 summary judgment on legal issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016) (approved use of total-population census data for districting and rejected voter-population requirement)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (one person, one vote principle for state legislative apportionment)
- Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968) (one person, one vote applied to local governments)
- Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966) (apportionment claims require a showing of invidious discrimination where Reynolds’s requirements are met)
- Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973) (multimember district vulnerability where groups are fenced out)
- Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983) (established that total-population deviations under 10% are presumptively permissible)
- Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970) (addressed improper exclusion from voting rolls on federal enclave)
- Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973) (reapportionment required where census assignment produced discriminatory dilution)