Johnson v. State
366 S.W.3d 11
Mo.2012Background
- Missouri 163 House districts must be equal in population as near as possible, contiguous, and as compact as may be under art. III, sec. 2.
- A bipartisan commission failed to file by the September 18, 2011 deadline; a nonpartisan six-judge commission filed a plan on Nov 30, 2011.
- Plaintiffs sued in Cole County seeking declaratory judgment that the plan violated constitutional requirements; three House members sought intervention.
- Stipulated facts: no bad faith or improper motive by the commission; three meetings lacked public notice/minutes but one public meeting occurred.
- Plaintiffs offered expert affidavits criticizing population deviation and contiguity; defendants offered expert affidavits defending compactness and population equality within federal standards.
- Trial court denied all challenges; the court allowed intervention and found no Sunshine Law violation; Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contiguity requirement met? | Johnson argues some districts are noncontiguous due to rivers splitting areas. | State contends contiguity is satisfied; rivers do not break contiguity under Missouri precedent. | Contiguity satisfied; map complies with contiguity requirement. |
| Population equality and compactness standards interpretation? | Asserts 'as nearly as possible' and 'as compact as may be' require near-zero deviation and strict compactness. | Argues broader, allowed deviations, incorporating federal law and other recognized factors. | Standards permit interrelated factors; deviations allowed if consistent with constitutional and federal requirements. |
| Sunshine law applicability to the nonpartisan commission? | Closed sessions violated Sunshine Law open-meetings requirements. | Commission is a judicial entity acting in a legislative function; Sunshine Law not applicable. | Sunshine Law not violated; commissions acting in a legislative function are exempt. |
| Intervention of House members was proper? | Intervention was inappropriate, duplicative of defendants' defenses. | Intervenors had unique personal/economic interests and potential impact on reelection; intervention appropriate. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; permissive intervention affirmed. |
| Plan violates Missouri or federal law governing voting rights or equal protection? | Plan likely infringes on equal population and voting-rights protections. | Plan complies with Missouri constitutional standards and federal law; no proof of violation. | Plaintiffs failed to prove the plan violates constitutional or federal rights; plan affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Koster, 359 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. banc 2012) (standard: contiguity absolute; population equality and compactness interrelated)
- State ex rel. Barrett v. Hitchcock, 146 S.W.2d 40 (Mo. banc 1912) (compactness may yield to equality to near extent; equal protection context)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1964) (some deviations permissible if legitimate state-policy considerations exist)
- Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1969) (limits on using political subdivision boundaries to justify deviations)
- Preisler v. Doherty, 284 S.W.2d 427 (Mo. banc 1955) (early articulation of constitutional limits on districting and official discretion)
- Teichman v. Carnahan, 357 S.W.3d 601 (Mo. banc 2012) (recognizes judicial review of redistricting under Missouri constitution)