Case Information
*1 Bеfore RICHARD S. ARNOLD and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit
Judges, and PANNER, District Judge. [1]
___________
RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
“Area West,” an unincorporated area of St. Louis County, Missouri, was annexed into the City of Florissant, Missouri, following an election. Area West residents and voters who opposed the annexation brought suit against the City оf Florissant and its Mayor, seeking a declaration that Mo. Ann. Stat. § 72.407.1(2) (West 1998), a state law providing for annexation elections, is unconstitutional. The District Court dismissed the claim. We affirm.
I.
The City of Florissant is a municipal corporation located in St. Louis County, Missouri. In April, 1996, the City submitted a proposal to the Boundary Commission of St. Louis County for annexation of an unincоrporated portion of the county referred to as Area West, along with two other unincorporated аreas. The Boundary Commission approved the annexation proposal, and pursuant to Mo. Ann. Stat. § 72.407.1(2), orderеd an election putting the question of the proposed annexation to the voters of the City, Area West, and thе two other unincorporated areas. Mo. Ann. Stat. § 72.407.1(2) provides in pertinent part:
[I]f the [boundary] commission approves a proposed boundary change containing one or more municipalities and at least onе unincorporated area which is classified as an unincorporated pocket, such proposаl shall be adopted if a separate majority of the votes cast on the question in each municipality аnd a majority of votes cast in the whole municipality which would result from the boundary change are in favor of the boundary change . . .. As used in this subdivision, the term “unincorporated pocket” means an unincorporated territory with an аverage residential density in excess of one dwelling per three acres, and which has a population оf less than five thousand and which is accessible by public or *3 private roadway only from incorporated jurisdictiоns and/or another county.
Area West and one of the other unincorporated areas were classified as unincorporated pockets. An election was held in April, 1997, and the annexation was approved by а majority of the voters in the city, defeated by a majority of voters in Area West and the other two unincorporаted areas, but approved by a majority of the voters in the entire municipality which would result from the proposed boundary change. Thus, annexation of the two unincorporated pockets was approved pursuant to the statute, while annexation of the unincorporated area that was not a pocket was defeated.
Registered voters residing in Area West brought suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the District Court, contending that Mo. Ann. Stat. § 72.407.1(2) violates their [2]
Fourteenth Amendmеnt equal protection rights because the voting procedure permitting annexation, even if a majority in an uninсorporated area opposes it, impermissibly dilutes and diminishes the effect of their votes. The City moved to dismiss the complaint, and the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted the City’s motion to dismiss, determining that the statute is constitutiоnally sound because it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
II.
The plaintiff residents contend that the District Court erred in applying a rational-
basis standard of review in determining the constitutionality of the statute, аnd assert
that it should have been examined under a strict-scrutiny standard. In advancing this
argument, the plaintiffs rely on voting casеs involving the diminution of representative
government through impermissible legislative apportionment schemes or а complete
*4
denial of the vote through imposition of improper voting criteria. See, e.g., Wesberry
v. Sanders,
In contrast to the cases relied on by the plaintiffs, the law governing thе
annexation at issue is correctly reviewed for a rational relationship to a legitimate
governmental interest. There is a noteworthy difference in voting jurisprudence
between election laws providing for the drawing and redrawing of state political
subdivisions, and laws involving the choice of legislative representatives or imposing
restrictions on voters based on characteristics such as wealth or race. The former
subset of cases warrants review for a rational basis, while the latter affects more
significant rights and constitutional concerns, meriting strict-scrutiny review. See
Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907) (states have great latitude in
structuring political subdivisions); St. Louis County, Mo. v. City of Town and Country,
Affirmed.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Notes
[1] The Hon. Owen M. Panner, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
[2] The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.