670 F.3d 1133
10th Cir.2012Background
- Appellees allege Fremont County's at-large Commissioner elections diluted Native American voters under Section 2.
- District court found the at-large scheme violated Section 2 and ordered a remedial plan.
- Board proposed a hybrid plan: one single-seat Native American district and one four-seat at-large predominately white district.
- Wyoming law at the time allowed only all-at-large or five single-member districts; hybrid was not authorized.
- District court rejected the Board's plan as inconsistent with state law and adopted five single-member districts.
- The district court concluded single-member districts better comply with Supreme Court guidance and reduce dilution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board's remedial plan is a legislative plan entitled to deference | Large contends the plan is a legislative remedy and deserves deference. | Fremont County argues the Board legislatively crafted the plan and should be deferentially reviewed. | No; plan not legislative due to state-law conflict, so no deference. |
| Whether state law conflicts void the Board's remedy | Wyoming law permits the remedy with state-law displacement if necessary. | State law should constrain the remedy; plan must adhere to state law. | State-law conflict defeats deference; district court proper to reject hybrid plan. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in adopting single-member districts | Court-ordered plan should follow Supreme Court preference for single-member districts. | Any plan consistent with federal law is permissible even if deviating from some state-law norms. | District court did not abuse discretion; adopted single-member plan per Supreme Court guidance. |
| Role of Supremacy Clause in remedying Section 2 violations where state law is displaced | Federal remedy may override state law to cure Section 2 violation. | State-law policy decisions should constrain federal court remedies. | Supremacy Clause permits necessary displacement, but not gratuitous disregard of non-necessary state law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535 (1978) (deference to local legislative judgments in redistricting; plurality discusses state-law authority)
- Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1 (1975) (court-ordered plans favor single-member districts absent persuasive justification)
- Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (multimember districts may dilute minority voting strength)
- Sanchez v. Colorado, 97 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 1996) (context of §5 preclearance; legislature vs court-performed remedy)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (determines controlling rationale in fragmented Supreme Court decisions)
- Tall. Branch of NAACP v. Leon County, 827 F.2d 1436 (11th Cir. 1987) (prioritizes single-member districts absent compelling justification)