Wilson v. Fallin

AND WATT, J., KAUGER whom

GURICH, join, concurring part JJ. Pro- follow the part. I would

dissenting recom- Responsibility Tribunal's

fessional suspension. an 18 month

mendation OK 76 WILSON, Petitioner, Jim

Senator FALLIN,

Mary of the State of Governor

Oklahoma, Steele, Speaker Kris Representatives, House of

Oklahoma Tempore Bingman, President Pro

Brian Senate, Paul Zi

of the Oklahoma State Secretary

riax, Board, Respondents.

Election 109,652.

No. of Oklahoma.

Sept. 8, 2011.

Rehearing Denied Oct. Hammons, City,

Mark Oklahoma Okla homa, petitioner for Senator Jim Wilson. Leader, Zerr, Nancy Neal Assistant Attor- General, neys respondents for Governor Mary Secretary Fallin and Paul Ziriax. McCambell, Slater, Robert Lee Oklahoma Oklahoma, City, respondent for President Tempore Bingman. Pro Brian Lester, Edmond, Oklahoma, Andrew respondent Speaker Kris Steele. TAYLOR,C.J.

1 1 This is a proceeding to review the State (the Redistricting Senate Act of 2011 Redis Act), tricting Enrolled Senate Bill see- 2 through signed by tions the Governor on May 2011. Two impres threshold first 1) legal questions presented: sion What part, any, if of the formula in 9A, section Article V of the Oklahoma Constit effect, 2) ution1 remains in and What is the extent proceeding of a review authorized in section Article V of the Oklahoma Con stitution? Our answer question to the first population-based aspect ap of the portionment formula in section 9A remains in effect, while aspect of the formula is invalid. Our an question swer to the second is that the extent proceeding of a review authorized section 11C is limited 11D section to a review for compliance with section ap 9A's portionment Having formula. reviewed the contentions, filings, arguments herein, we determine and hold that the Senate Re districting complies Act of 2011 with the population apportionment formula 9A, Article V of the Oklahoma Constitution. 1. All section references are to Article V of the Oklahoma Constitution unless otherwise stated. largest plan in his district persons and Wilson, ¶ 2 Jim Senator 78,929 of fourteen persons-a difference Oklahoma, County, of Cherokee resident that the smallest district persons-5and 11C to section pursuant petition filed 77,850persons. Based on a plans has both Redistricting Senator Act.2 review bound compares a district's method that Fallin, Mary respondents as named Wilson circle, posits that Wilson aries to a Senator Steele, Oklahoma;3 the Kris of the Governor com average district Redistricting Act's the Repre of House the Oklahoma of Speaker plan's aver and that his is 58.9% pactness Pro President sentatives; Bingman, Brian compactness is 65.5%. Senator age district Senate; and Paul Tempore of the Oklahoma Redistricting Act that the points out Wilson Election Ziriax, Oklahoma Secretary of the that his eighty times but splits counties 110, Senator by section required Board. As only sixty-two times. plans split counties plan proposed filed a Wilson Ziriax, Secretary Paul closely complies Respondent with T5 more that he contends Board, Redistricting Act. a the Election filed than does State Article V the Oklahoma statement, contending that the preliminary Redis alleges that the 13 Senator Wilson apportionment provided review of 9A comply with section Act not tricting does 11D to a 11C is limited section in section Senate districts "fails to create it because as "compliancewith the formula review for com provide for nearly possible as as which Secretary Ziriax Article." forth in this set units, prece historical pactness, manageable is a questions whether there political interests." dents, economic adjudication challenges standard for identify explicitly does not Wilson Senator large a 11C because brought under section he Redistricting Act that every district unconstitu declared part of section 9A was 9A compliance with section not in contends is Bd., 283 Reynolds v. Election tional in State dis has identified such that he but claims (W.D.Okla.1964), and then F.Supp. appendix.4 provided his by maps the tricts in Ferrell in an form emasculated reinstated this petition prays Wilson's Senator Hall, 78, 74 F.Supp. ex rel. v. State Apportionment Commission Court direct (W.D.Okla.1972). Secretary Ziriax asks this "to achieve Redistricting Act modify the to proceeding this is address whether Court to conformity Constitution. with" Legisla superficial contest between a he points out what redistricting map Wilson and Senator Wilson's T4 Senator ture's Secretary Zi- redistricting map.6 in the Re primary proposed differences considers quickly re apportion, this matter be proposed urges riax districting Act and his largest adequately that the dis plan. He states might ment that his office solved so cycle. 78,948 the 2012 election prepare for Redistricting Act has trict (last vis- http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ proceeding this as Wilson initiated 2. Senator elector, 2, 2011). Dividing capacity Aug. total official the state's qualified not in his ited 11C, districts, Article V of the Okla- by Section ideal state senator. total senate any qualified authorizes homa Constitution 78,153 would contain senate district persons. petition Court for a re- elector to legislation. view of to ad- Secretary also asks this Court Ziriax proper boundary are a tribal lines dress whether Fallin, Mary Governor 3. The Honorable consideration, particularly Cherokee since the Oklahoma, moved to be dismissed. State quilt country patchwork col- is a Nation's Indian is rendered moot to dismiss Governor's motion and restricted allotments of trust land lection proceeding. this resolution of our throughout Be- counties. fourteen scattered explicitly identifies his senate Wilson 4. Senator special proceeding before this review cause in in the Redistrict- a redrawn district district 3 as Okla. 11C, V, art. Court, this pursuant comply with section 9A. ing not Act that does the constitutional Const., we conclude ap- Redistricting alleges Act that the Wilson Senator popula- on portionment must be based formula drawing unnecessarily counties in divided three Redistricting complies with Act and that the Cherokee the heart of the 3 and removed district formula, not ad- population-based we need Nation from district precedents or historic tribal areas dress whether apportionment. considered in should be census, Okla- United States on the 2010 5. Based 3,751,351 persons. population of has a homa Data, 2010 Census Census United States Bingman, resolution, Brian Respondent President Legislature T6 resolved that Senate, Tempore Pro of the Oklahoma apportionment, with consider- Court, his recommendations this also given ation analogy, history, "the federal prop- issues: what economics, custom, advances threshold territory, and similar and determining er or test whether factors," standard related a proper was method of legislation complies Arti- providing adequate representation and fair 11D; required cle V as whether groups social, political, with like and econom- and to what extent section 9A is viable after ic interests avoiding divesting seg- being Reynolds unconstitutional declared ments of the representa- of their Bd. and par- State Election then declared tion. tially constitutional Ferrell v. State ex rel. provides T9 Section 9A forty-eight for Hall; only whether is the manda- state senate districts to be based on the most 9A; tory criterion which issues recent federal provides decennial It census. presented justiciable; herein are and what is that each of the nineteen populous most proceeding. the Court's role this review counties a constitutes senate district and the Tempore The suggests President Pro also a fifty-eight populous joined less counties be procedure taking pro- evidence in this twenty-nine into two-county districts. It fur- Steele, if ceeding, Respondent needed. Kris provides ther population, that Speaker of the Repre- Oklahoma House of area, political units, precedents, historical sentatives, report adopting proce- filed the political interests, economic and contiguous suggested by dure the President Pro Tem- territory, and other factors are to be consid- pore. ered to the extent feasible in apportioning Responding respondents' to the sug- the state senate. Section 9A fixes the term gestions, Senator Wilson admits that he is years the senate office as four with one- asserting not Voting claim under the half of the senators elected at general each Act, 1973, Rights §§ seq.; U.S.C. ef states election. briefing there is no need for a schedule in proceeding; opposes this any order is- 110 Section any 11C qualified authorizes by sued this Court that would allow the voter petition Supreme the Court for re prepare Election Board to for the 2012 elec- view apportionment Legisla the Redistricting under the Act. The Presi- ture or Apportionment the Commission7 Tempore dent Pro asks to file a brief on sixty within days filing from the thereof. It issues relevant to the reply 2012 election in provides petition the must set forth a to Senator Wilson. proposed apportionment nearly more in ac agree 1 8 respondents We with the that we cordance with requires Article V and that the address, must time, applica- the first the petition given precedence review over oth 9A, 11C, tion of sections 11D pending er cases Supreme before the Court. apportionment provisions in Article V of the Section 11D directs that this Court "shall 9A, 10A, Oklahoma Constitution. Sections determine whether or not the through 11E were added to Article order of the Commission legisla or act of the 11A Question 416, V State Referendum Peti- compliance ture is in with the formula as set 142, forth in this Article...." tion No. adopted special at a Section 11D fur election 26, May held Legislature 1964. The 19638 ther directs the to remand proposed Question 416 in Senate Joint the Apportionment matter to the Commis Laws, Resolution No. p. 1963 Okla. Sess. sion if the Court appor determines that the 736, to reapportion- establish constitutional tionment order or act is in compliance not ment formulas for both joint houses. In the with the formula as set forth in Article V. 7. Apportionment Section 11A establishes the Amended a seven member Bipartisan provides Commission and for it to act whenever Legislative Apportionment Commission on re- Legislature the apportion- refuses to make the placed Apportionment Commission. State ninety legislative ment days within after conven- Question Legislative Referendum ing regular Legislature first session of the November adopted following Federal Decennial Census. Act, Rights U.S.C. the Civil apportion- {11 When 9A was submitted funda right in section to vote is Recognizing ment formula society, many democratic people, states' in our free and mental a vote of govern- imper units of local on on the Reynolds opinion were based focused districts distinctions. Several ment and constitutionally rural/urban impairment of missible Oklahoma, had failed to Reynolds opin states, including right to vote. The protected for decades. and redistrict reapportion loca population, and not ion determined litigation chal- involved Many were states controlling criterion for tion, must be legislative apportionment. lenging the con legislative apportionment judgment appor- to resolve had declined courts state troversies, at at 84 S.Ct. 377 U.S. considering to be them complaints, stan a basic constitutional held that "as matters, many nonjusticiable dard, requires Equal Protection Clause chal- were schemes state of a bicameral both houses the seats in Then United in federal court. lenged apportioned on a legislature must be state opin- its handed down Supreme Court States Reynolds opin Id. The population basis." Carr, 186, 82 S.Ct. 369 U.S. ion Baker plan that an ion concluded (1962), abandoning the LEd.2d 663 of the state is political subdivisions based on apportion- legislative that rule established Equal Protection under the impermissible purely districts are congressional ment and 576, at 1389. U.S. at 84 S.Ct. Clause. 877 Baker v. matters. political or legislative objective overriding Emphasizing that the voters the Tennessee that determined Carr equality must be substantial apportionment Equal claim under the justiciable a presented equal in each vote is population so that Amend- Fourteenth of the Protection Clause vote, Reynolds every the weight other later, the United Three decades ment. in recognized that some deviation opinion made it clear Supreme Court States may permissible, but factors be jurisdiction over may exercise courts state inter history group or as and economic such that federal legislative apportionment justify population may not be used to ests ques- action over defer to state courts should stray equal-popula the or to from disparities legisla- by state apportionment tions of state principle. 877 U.S. one-man-one-vote tion or Emison, v. courts. Growe tures and state 579-580, Rejecting 84 S.Ct. at 1891. at 1075, 25, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 118 507 S.Ct. U.S. by popu not controlled apportionment scheme (1998). lation,8 explained that Reynolds opinion the Carr, the years after Baker v. 112 Two Equal Pro under the it makes no difference 588, Sims, 84 Reynolds v. 377 U.S. opinion in the whether tection Clause (1964), 1862, deter 506 12 LEd.2d by statute or state established scheme is Baker implementing for the standard mined 584, at at 84 S.CT. 377 U.S. constitution. Sims, resi Reynolds v. Alabama In v. Carr. alleged that the state taxpayers dents and appor- in involved 1 13 Oklahoma had been reapportion the failed to since legislature had panel three-judge litigation before century, that the beginning of the twentieth years for several federal district court un counties among the was Supreme Court States the United when even, were victims and that the voters opinion Reynolds in v. Sims. downits handed Equal Pro under the serious discrimination Sims, three-judge the light Reynolds v. Amendment In of the Fourteenth tection Clause Also, the teenth Amendment. 1964, Reynolds opinion the addition Supreme In Reynolds, challenging instituted that suits had been legislative noted the Court struck down states, thirty-four 84 S.Ct. apportionments in Ma- states, other such of several Maryland Tawes, Representation v. ryland Fair 30, and that it had remanded Comm. for 1378-1379, n. at for reconsidera- to the courts below several cases 12 LEd.2d 595 656, 1429, $4 S.Ct 377 U.S. Carr, listing Scholle v. light v. of Baker (1964); Virginia 678, U.S. Mann, v. 377 in Davis (1964); 910, 8 L.Ed.2d 1 429, U.S. 82 S.Ct. Hare, 369 and Colo- 1441, 12 LEd.2d 609 84 S.Ct. (1962) Michigan apportionment), (challenging v. General Assembly, rado in Lucas Forty-Fourth 82 S.Ct. Simon, 190, v. 370 U.S. WMCA, Inc. 632 $4 S.Ct 12 LEd.2d 377 U.S. (1962) (challenging a New (1964), 8 LEd.2d 430 failing population-based con- be apportionment). the Four- York trary Equal Clause of to the Protection 746

panel legislative apportion- ruled 9A, 115 As to section it is clear that county-based apportionment formula is provisions ment in section 9A are null and Bd., Reynolds v. void. State Election 288 nullity by rendered a the basic constitutional (1964). F.Supp. three-judge The panel standard that state districts must specifically standing only provision left equality be based on the total forty-eight section 9A that established the Equal under Protection Clause of the four-year senatorial offices with the terms Fourteenth Reynolds Amendment provision that and the one-half of the senato- Sims, at U.S. 84 S.Ct. at every years. rial offices will. be elected two progeny. its There is no doubt F.Supp. at 829. three-judge panel area, voters "compactness, intended political provisions further ruled that the in sections units, precedents, historical economic and 11E, through establishing Apportion- 11A political interests, contiguous territory" providing ment Commission and require section 9A to local interests original juris- Court review and exercise of pairing considered in lesser-populated diction, do not conflict with the federal con- However, counties. Reynolds v. Sims teach stitution valid. Id. another "divergences es that if from a popula strict three-judge panel in Ferrell v. State Okla- tion standard are legitimate based on con homa, (1972), F.Supp. reconsid- siderations incident to the effectuation of a validity provisions ered the in section rational policy, state some deviation from 9A permissible, and ruled that it is but not constitutionally the equal-population principle are mandatory, Legislature for the to consider permis 377 U.S. at sible...."9 area, factors of 84 S.Ct. at 1891. language While the defin units, precedents, historical po- economicand ing aspect of appor interests, contiguous litical territory set severed, tionment formula must be the other out in apportioning section 9A in legislative provisions in section 9A can be left standing. discussed, districts. As will be we reach a conclusionthat in is similar several respects 116 presumption The legisla that to the conclusions in Reynolds reached v. tion is constitutional and should be sustained State Election Bd. and Ferrell v. State of against challenge possible where it is to do so Oklahoma. applies to provisions. constitutional Local Transport Workers Union T14 America v. Although we 514 have discussed the of ¶ Keating, 110, 15, 835, 2008 OK 83 P.3d 839. apportionment provisions of Article V in de Where, here, as ciding state constitutional challenge congressional language to redistrict contrary to ing, Equal the 59, Alexander v. Protection Clause Taylor, 2002 of OK 51 1204, the time, P.3d Fourteenth this is the Amendment to the first United since its Constitution, States adoption, language we have the invalid validity addressed the meaning nullify should not 9A, provisions, the language 11C, City in valid sections of Spencer Rayburn, 38, and 11D v. 16, of Article V. We construe 1971 OK the 488 785, 787, relevant P.2d provisions they constitutional if mindful are of severable. Elk general City Johnson, 97, the 12, rules that a provi constitutional 1975 OK 537 P.2d sion must be applied construed and 1217. according Unless we determine that the to the people intent of the adopting provisions valid pro dependent the are upon in vision, and ambiguity, absent separably the intent must connected to provision the invalid be determined from language. the or that provisions Okla. valid standing alone Coop., Elec. Co., Inc. v. Okla. Gas and incomplete Elec. are incapable being of execut ¶ 35, 7, 1999 OK 982P.2d ed, they 0.8.2001, 112; severable. 75 9. We note that the United States legislative ment of state districts The Court recognized flexibility some drawing recognized state population "deviations from equality districts based on equality justified by legitimate total must be state in- terests" and Abate v. Mundt, 403 justify that "'state offered interests population. U.S. (1971). so, doing L.Ed.2d 399 In population equality" deviations from must be rejected application the Court carefully of local interests to scrutinized. 403 U.S. at 91 S.Ct. justify population deviations apportion- from at 1906-1907. Transp., if court Dept. proceedings; and said cases and Okla. er Application re In ¶ session, promptly convene 74, 27, it shall 64 P.3d be not 2002 OK disposal of the same. for the defining the language 1 17 The invalid 11Dreads: Section pre formula is apportionment review, Supreme Court shall Upon severable, Application re to be sumed apportion- not the whether or determine party no at 1 Transp., Dept. Okla. or act of the of the Commission ment order find the Accordingly, we otherwise. argues compliance with the formu- legislature is in county-based appor defining the language so, and, if it in this Article la forth as set severa- 9A be formula in section refiled to be filed or require the same shall severability necessity aof without ble Secretary of may be with the as the case analysis. forthwith, and such ] in section 9A remaining language writ. final on the date of said shall become formula appropriation population provides Supreme Court shall de- In the event the popula- A districts. apportioning senate apportionment order of termine that necessarily re- formula legislative act is not Commission or said total equality in the state's quires the formula for either compliance with have forty-eight districts senate so as Representatives House of Senate or the from the ideal district minimal deviation only Article, it will remand set forth this by the most recent determined with directions matter to the Commission However, we Census. Decennial Federal conformity to achieve modify its order factors such local interest recognize this Article. provisions units, and economic conjunc Reading section 11C under are considered political interests 11D,"10 proceed the review tion with section principle in cireumstances totality of the in section 110 is ing in this Court authorized and minori- racially-motivated gerrymander a claim that limited to the federal Vot- claimsunder ty-vote dilution population formula comply with the does not Act, seq., §§ et 42 U.S.C. ing Rights contemplates 9A. Section 11C presented herein. are not which voter will demon petitioning qualified Reynolds v. Sims opinions 1) 19 The apportionment proposed in the strate 11C not affect sections progeny do and its not challenged apportionment does where see- Notwithstanding, we consider 11D. apportionment for 9A's comply with section they control this 11D because 2) tions 11C proposed apportion where the mula and reads: Section 11C proceeding. see nearly in accordance with ment is more formula. Section apportionment 9A's a review may seek Any qualified elector consid that this Court will contemplates 11D of the Com- order any apportionment of apportionment, proposed legis- petition, er the mission, law of the apportionment or legislation challenged apportionment and the filing lature, days from the sixty within a matter of with Article V as compliance thereof, Supreme Court of by filing in the and 11D reading of sections 11C Our forth a law. petition which must set Oklahoma challenges legisla the fact-intensive nearly leaves apportionment more proposed congressional dis Any apportionment tive appor- this Article. accordance with gerryman tricts, racially-motivated such or the House of either the Senate claims, claims, minority-vote dilution by der as ordered Representatives, under the claims voter discrimination Commission, of the other law or of the Fourteenth Clause Equal not Protection review is from which legislature, Act, 42 Voting Rights time, Amendment or the fi- shall become sought within such involy- juris plenary seq., §§ et to the 1978 U.S.C. give all cases The court shall nal. courts. of the district diction all oth- precedence over ing Piper together. Cowart construed statutory are construction rules of 10. General Aircraft 315, 317. construing Corp., 665 P.2d constitution such as OK 1983 used in pari materia should be provisions in rule 748 filings,

121 In his initial (78,943) Senator Wil trict population with the most challenged act evidentiary only. briefing includes son fourteen more asked sched ules, asserting may that no deference people than populous his most district with given 78,929. to the senate districts the Redis He also admits that popu- the least tricting respondents Act and that must lous district both the challenged act and bring evidentiary support forth for the dis proposed 77,850 plan his people. Sena- tricts. Every This assertion is incorrect. tor Wilson showing makes no the chal- presumed statute is constitutional. Local lenged act does comply not with popula- Transport Workers Union America v. tion formula in section 9A. 110, 15, Keating, 2008 OK 11 83 P.3d 123 We conclude ap- treat the State Senate Redistricting We Act portionment formula 9A, set out in section of 2011 in Enrolled Senate Bill 821 at see- V, Constitution, Article Oklahoma remains in through tions 2 to be codified as sections effect. We also pro- conclude that a review through 80.935 80.85.4 of Title 14 of the Okla ceeding by V, authorized section Article Statutes, homa as valid statutes until their Constitution, Oklahoma is limited section nonconformity to clearly the constitution is 11D, V, Constitution, Article Oklahoma to a Corp. shown. TXO Production v. Oklahoma compliance réview for Comm., Corp. 89, 7, 1992OK € 829 P.2d 9A, formula set out in section Further, the cases Senator Wilson re V, Constitution, Article as a mat- on, lied Village United States v. Port ter of law. petitioner We find the has failed Chester, F.Supp.2d (S.D.N.Y.2010), clearly presumed demonstrate Cromartie, and Hunt v. 526 U.S. constitutional State Senate Redistricting Act (1999), 148 LEd.2d 731 inap- of 2011 comply 9A, does not with section posite. Village Port Chester awas vote Article V of the Oklahoma Constitution. We challenge dilution to local districts determine and hold that the State Senate brought on Hispanic behalf of the vote under Redistricting Act of complies with the Voting the federal Rights case, Act. In that population apportionment formula set out in the federal district court considered the list 9A, Article V of the Oklahoma Consti- ' factors set out Judiciary Senate tution. guideposts Committee as in the broad-based STATE SENATE - - REDISTRICTING inquiry totality of the circumstances ACT OF 2011 COMPLIES WITH SEC- Voting Rights under the Act. Hunt was a 9A, V, TION ARTICLE OKLAHOMA challenge racially-motivated gerrymander CONSTITUTION. in drawing a North congressional Carolina Hunt, district. the United States Su TAYLOR,C.J., COLBERT, V.C.J., (by preme recognized that assessing mo separate writing), KAUGER, WATT, requires tive the court inquire to into all WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, REIF, available circumstances and evidence. This COMBS, GURICH, JJ., and concur. present, case does not in and section 11C proceedings review consider, we do not mi COLBERT, V.C.J., WATT, with whom nority-vote dilution racially-moti claims or COMBS, GURICH, and join, JJ. concurring. gerrymander claims, vated nor do we assess {1 By 26, 1964, an May election held legislativemotive.11 people of Oklahoma added a formula for re- $22 Turning to the challenge to districting in Section 9A of Article V of the Act, Redistricting Senator Wilson effectively Oklahoma Constitution. provid- The formula agrees therein is ed for nineteen Senate districts with one population, based on complains but he that it Senator from each of populous the most was drawn with little regard or no for com along twenty-nine counties two-county pactness political and local and economic in districts from fifty-eight populous less terests. Senator Wilson admits that the dis- social, counties. It also listed several geo- hereby deny We motion, though Senator Wilson's filing motion for after he admitted there briefing evidentiary hearing, schedule and briefing even was no need schedule.

749 remaining "population The considered factors to be political and graphic, factors of 9A includes the Section formula" the State apportioning "[iJn by providing units, area, historical political "compactness, popu- given to Senate, shall be consideration interests, units, political area, his- and political economic precedents, lation, compactness, major fac- in- other political territory, and and contiguous economic precedents, torical major territory, and other terests, contiguous tors." Okla. Const. factors, feasible." the extent to that factors recognizes Today's decision T 4 V, § Art. 9A. the tool for can be population than other that elec- month after one Less than 12 as the tool as well achieving equality voter hand- Supreme Court tion, States the United cireumyvention. not in problem The is for its Sims, 377 U.S. v. Reynolds down ed That application. in its Rather it is the tool. (1964), es- which L.Ed.2d 506 to utilized continue be why those factors is pass to constitutional in order tablished statutory constitutional their states must than location muster, rather population and fed state redistricting schemes1 ap- consideration predominate be a redistrict evaluating whether eral courts Reynolds districts. electoral portionment unconstitutionally invidious furthers ing plan approach in which rejected an specifically Quil See, v. eg., Voinovich discrimination. factor, noting that only is the population 122 L.Ed.2d ter, 118S.Ct. 507 U.S. is precision or exactness (1993) the factors (applying several of require- constitutional hardly a workable a claim of racial 9A to in Section listed The 84 S.Ct. 1862. at 877 U.S. ment." proper focus of redis The gerrymandering). legitimate acknowledged the Reynolds Court redistricting judicial tricting and review area, as factors of such function mathemat rather than equality voter plans is and eco- units, precedents, historical political among dis uniformity ical it when stated: interests political nomic ef achieving of fair and "the tricts because to desire may legitimately A State ... all citizens is representation for fective political integrity of various maintain apportionment." aim of the basic pro- subdivisions, possible, insofar 565-566, at 84 S.Ct. Reynolds, 377 U.S. contiguous compact districts vide for legislative appor- designing a territory in matter, gerryman- no claim of In this T5 considerations Valid scheme. - has or economic status dering on race based Indisceriminate aims. may underlie such political - The claim is been asserted. any regard for districting, without in the redis- involved was gerrymandering bound- or historical or natural subdivision Su- States the United tricting. open an lines, little more than ary may be Jubelirer, 541 U.S. Court Vieth preme ... gerrymandering. partisan invitation (2004), L.Ed.2d 124 S.Ct. accomplishment, means of Whatever political gerrymandering claims of held all objective must be substan- overriding no court because nonjusticiable federal among the vari- equality tial manageable stan- judicially discernable any citi- districts, the vote of so that ous exist. adjudicating such claims dards weight equal approximately zen if a is that implication of Vieth clear citizen the State. that of other judicially discernable court state 578-579,84 Id. at standards, adju- justified in it is manageable gerrymandering. dicating political of claims decision, strikes today's this Court By T3 however, standards, are derived from Those aspect of the Section only the statutory constitutional a states and/or requirement of to meet 9A formula contrast, claims redistricting. By for controlling scheme population be Reynolds that gerrymandering economic racial or redistricting plan. evaluating a in criterion of a set of districting the use standards mandate special example, commis- Jersey, has a 1. New population, include redistricting. Congressional factors sion to establish II, very specific interests, and con- § units, Iowa Const. Art. area, NJ. political political territory. § 42.4. tiguous Code Iowa gerrymandering. Iowa's re- against protections subject scrutiny to strict under the 14th alternative an extraordinary writ of manda mus, purpose Amendment. controlling the dis cretion of the Court of Appeals Criminal in claim, T6 In gerrymandering this interpretation its § of Article 5 22 of the problem that the fact specific factors Oklahoma Constitution in an order of that listed in 9A are Section not sufficient to 9, 2011, court filed June in v. Al Leftwich provide manageable discernable and stan- corn, PR-2011-819. may adjudicate dards which this Court claim political gerrymandering in an Arti- Court heard oral argu V, cle proceeding. Section 11C review How- Petitioner, ment from the Party Real in In ever, guide the factors are sufficient terest, and Amicus Curiae. Counsel for Peti making District in the fact determina- tioner, Party Interest, counsel for the Real in necessary tions to determine politi- whether and counsel for Amicus agreed Curiae all gerrymandering cal has occurred or whether during oral argument that certain issues some form of voter discrimination has been raised, raised herein were not or were not perpetrated in contravention of the 14th raised, adequately before the Court of Crimi Voting Rights Amendment or the Act. Appeals PR-2011-319, nal in and that interpretation 5, $ of Art. 22 by the Court of

Criminal Appeals was both truncated and in respects some erroneous. All agreed counsel portion that a of the order issued Court of Appeals, Criminal specifically; Speech [tlhe and Debate Clause the Okla homa Constitution express includes an excep tion for V, 22, felonies. Okla. § Const. Art. 2011 OK 80 1 should not be parties enforced as the per LEFTWICH, Petitioner, Deborah Ann portion ceive that of the order to be a mis take of law in underlying criminal pro ceeding in the District Court of Oklahoma The COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS County. Oklahoma, OF the STATE of Respondent, Upon 1 3 agreement consideration of the counsel for parties during argument oral and this Court's review of the order of the Oklahoma, State of Real Court of Appeals, Criminal PR-2011-319, Party Interest, we original jurisdiction decline to assume order parties to allow the opportunity appropriate seek the relief the Court of Oklahoma State Senate and Brian Appeals. Criminal This Court thus need not Bingman, Senate President Pro address scope § of Article 22 of the Tempore, Amicus Curiae. Constitution or juris- issues diction relating to the effect of the Court of 109,609. No. Appeals Criminal order PR-2011-319 or Supreme Court of Oklahoma. this supervisory jurisdiction Court's writ over the Court Appeals. of Criminal Sept.19,2011. 1 4 We decline to original jurisdic- assume

ORDER Okla, tion. Const. Art. 7 July 4. On T1 Petitioner seeks from this Court an stay this Court issued of the trial extraordinary proceedings CF-2010-8067, prohibition, court writ of or in the District Speech The full text of the Legislature, Debate Clause going returning and in to and provides shall, Representatives same, and, 'Senators and ex- any speech from the or debate in treason, cept felony, House, peace, or breach of the either questioned shall not be privileged during V, from arrest place. session of other Okla. Const. Art. 22.'

Case Details

Case Name: Wilson v. Fallin

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Sep 1, 2011

Citation: 262 P.3d 741

Docket Number: 109,652

Court Abbreviation: Okla.