188 F. Supp. 3d 146
D.R.I.2016Background
- Cranston adopted a 2012 warding plan using 2010 Census totals that counted 3,433 ACI (state prison) inmates as residents of Ward Six.
- Cranston has six wards (~13,500 residents each with prison counts); including the inmates keeps overall ward deviation under 10%; excluding them increases deviation (Plaintiffs estimate ~35% between largest ward and Ward Six).
- Most ACI inmates cannot vote from their ACI address; Rhode Island law bars felons from voting while incarcerated and many inmates are pretrial or short-term. Only ~153–155 inmates were from Cranston and ~18 had pre-incarceration addresses in Ward Six.
- Inmates have negligible civic contact with Cranston officials, receive minimal city services, and are effectively excluded from local constituent representation or municipal benefits tied to residence.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing the plan dilutes voting power of other wards by “packing” nonvoting inmates into Ward Six; the City defended use of total Census population.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether including ACI inmates in Ward Six violates the Equal Protection principle of equal representation | Inclusion packs a large number of nonvoters who lack a representational nexus into one ward, diluting votes elsewhere | Using total Census population to draw wards is constitutionally permissible and keeps population deviation <10% | Court held inclusion unconstitutional: inmates are nonvoters lacking a representational nexus and their inclusion dilutes voting power of other wards |
| Whether Evenwel v. Abbott requires using total population for muni wards in this context | Plaintiffs: Evenwel’s representational-equality rationale does not extend to incarcerated people who lack ties to local government | City: Evenwel allows drawing districts using total Census population and supports Cranston’s plan | Court distinguished Evenwel: representatives serve residents generally, but ACI inmates lack the practical representational nexus Evenwel relies on, so Evenwel does not control here |
| Whether the population deviation standard (sub-10%) saves the plan | Plaintiffs: deviation is acceptable only if population counts reflect meaningful representational constituencies; inflated Ward Six distorts voter equality | City: overall deviation under 10% is presumptively constitutional | Court found the numerical parity misleading because Ward Six’s count includes a large bloc of nonvoters who are not represented by city officials; constitutional problem remains despite <10% rule when nonvoters are packed |
| Appropriate remedy and remedy scope | Plaintiffs: subtract ACI inmates from Ward Six population and redraw wards with substantially equal populations | City: contended current plan lawful and should stand | Court ordered declaratory relief for Plaintiffs, enjoined elections under current plan, and required Council to submit a compliant plan within 30 days, treating ACI inmates as 3,433 persons to be excluded for warding purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016) (upholding use of total population for apportionment and explaining representational-equality rationale)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (One person, one vote principle for legislative districting)
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (right to have one’s vote counted is fundamental)
- California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) (right to petition and representative accountability)
- Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969) (discussing apportionment choices and representational considerations)
- Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983) (under-10% population deviation is presumptively constitutional)