Wilson v. Fallin
2011 OK 76
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the State Senate Redistricting Act of 2011 (Senate Bill 821, §§2–6).
- Threshold questions: which parts of Article V §9A remain in effect and the scope of §11C review (and §11D limits).
- Senator Wilson filed a §11C petition challenging conformity to Article V and proposed an alternate apportionment plan.
- Wilson argued the Act fails §9A’s population-based requirements; he compared district sizes and compactness to his plan.
- Respondents argued §9A’s county-based formula is severable and that §11C–§11D limit review to population conformity.
- Court held: population-based §9A remains in effect; county-based portion severed; §11C review is limited to §9A population compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of §9A population standard | Wilson argues Act violates population parity. | Fallin/Ziriax contend Act conforms to population formula. | Population-based §9A remains in effect. |
| Validity of county-based portion of §9A | Wilson claims county-based factors distort equality. | State argues county-based part is severable. | County-based portion severed; remaining population formula intact. |
| Scope of review under §11C and §11D | Wilson requests broad evidentiary review of motives and factors. | Respondents urge strict population-compliance review with limited fact-finding. | Review limited to population apportionment compliance under §9A. |
| Role of §11D remand authority | Proposed alternative plan could guide remand considerations. | Court remands only if not conforming to §9A population formula. | Remand for population-conformity if not compliant; otherwise finalization. |
| Compliance of SB 821 with §9A population formula | Wilson asserts several districts diverge from population equality and compactness. | State argues population-based plan largely consistent with §9A and Reynolds principles. | SB 821 complies with the §9A population formula. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1964) (population as controlling criterion; equal-population principle)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962) (justiciability of apportionment under Equal Protection)
- Ferrell v. State ex rel. Hall, 339 F. Supp. 73 (W.D. Okla. 1972) (reconsidered §9A viability; compactness factors permitted)
- Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1993) (federal review of state apportionment; deference to state action)
- Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1971) (deviations from population with legitimate state interests)