Pearson v. Koster
2012 Mo. LEXIS 100
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Missouri Constitution art. III, sec. 45 requires state congressional districts to be contiguous, compact as may be, and as nearly equal in population as may be; HB 193 enacted a map for U.S. House elections.
- Two groups—Pearson Plaintiffs and McClatchey Plaintiffs—challenged HB 193 as not being as compact as may be; trial court dismissed, then remanded after Pearson I.
- Pearson I held the compactness issue is a question of fact to be tried, and remanded for factual determination of whether the districts are as compact as may be.
- On remand, the trial court held the standard allows minimal, practical deviations due to recognized factors, and entered judgments for the defendants.
- On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the standard and factual findings; the Missouri Supreme Court affirms, upholding the trial court and reaffirming that the burden remains on plaintiffs and that absolute precision is not required.
- The opinion emphasizes de novo review of questions of law, deferential treatment of trial court factual findings, and that “as may be” permits consideration of other recognized factors such as population density, natural/historic boundaries, and subdivision boundaries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper standard to review compactness under art. III, sec. 45? | Pearson/McClatchey argue improper standard | State argues de novo legal review with mixed factual inquiry | Test is totality of evidence; de novo for legal meaning; not a two-part test; no shift of burden. |
| Should the trial court's interpretation of “as compact ... as may be” be upheld? | Plaintiffs contend court erred in adopting a non-absolute-precision standard | State supports flexible, factor-based approach | Trial court did not err; approach aligns with Pearson I and Missouri law. |
| Did Plaintiffs prove HB 193 clearly contravenes the compactness clause? | Districts 3, 5, 6 not compact; teardrop in 5 and related deviations | Deviations are minimal/practical given recognized factors and population equality | No; the map does not clearly and undoubtedly contravene the constitution. |
| Who bears the burden of proof in redistricting challenges under Missouri law? | Burden should shift to Defendants after initial showing | Burden remains with Plaintiffs | Plaintiffs retain the burden; defendants do not bear it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Koster, 359 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. banc 2012) (establishes that compactness review is a fact-specific inquiry under art. III, §45 and that absolute precision is impossible)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (establishes weight/standard of review for civil judgments)
- White v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (discusses deference to trial court on contested facts; de novo review for legal questions)
- Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) (federal standard for population deviations; good-faith debates distinct from Missouri standard)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (recognizes permissible nonuniformities in districting for population equality)
- Barrett v. Hitchcock, 241 Mo. 433, 146 S.W.40 (1912) (historical noncompact districtings; limits on strict geometric compactness)
- Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 528 S.W.2d 422 (Mo. banc 1975) (recognizes noncompactness issues in prior maps; context for equity in population.)