SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
)
JOHN MILEM,
Petitioner, )
) No. _____________________
in re 2012
Washington State Redistricting )
Plan ) PETITION FOR
) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
______________________________________ )
I. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1.
The 2012 Redistricting Plan approved and submitted by the Washington
State Redistricting Commission (the “Commission”) pursuant to RCW 44.05.100(1)
as amended by the Legislature pursuant to RCW 44.05.100(2) (the “Plan”; see
Appendix 1) fails to comply with the provision of the Washington State
Redistricting Act (the “Act”; see Appendix 3) which states:
“The number of
counties . . . divided among more than one district shall be as small as
possible.” RCW 44.05.090(2)(a). For congressional districts, the Plan divides
nine counties. On July 29, 2011,
Petitioner filed with the Commission two plans (“Petitioner's Congressional
Plans”; see Appendices 4 and 5), using two different interpretations of the
population standard, one of which divided only three counties and the other,
only four counties in forming congressional districts. For legislative districts, the Plan divides
17 counties. On August 15, 2011,
Petitioner filed with the Commission two plans (“Petitioner's Legislative
Plans”; see Appendices 6 and 7), using two different interpretations of the
population standard, one of which divided only 11 counties and the other, only
14 counties in forming legislative districts.
The number of counties divided in the Plan is not in compliance with the
provisions of the Act.
2.
The remaining claims of Petitioner are made more difficult to express
with clarity because of three failures of the Commission:
to define terms in the
State Constitution (see Appendix 2) and the Act which limit the discretion of
the Commission (Petitioner, speaking extemporaneously to the Commission at its
public forum in Olympia on May 18, 2011, requested that the Commission make a
statement to the public about the extent of its discretion under the Act. The Commission did not respond to this
request.);
to conduct its
discussions regarding the plans in public meetings, which would have allowed
the public to understand the criteria the Commission used in making its
decisions; and to prepare a report
(see Appendix 11) containing “an explanation of the criteria used in developing
the plan . . . .” RCW 44.05.080(7)(b).
3.
The Plan fails to comply with the provision of the Act which
states: “The number of . . .
municipalities divided among more than one district shall be as small as
possible.” RCW 44.05.090(2)(a). For congressional districts, the Plan divides
the populations of four municipalities.
In Petitioner's Congressional Plans, the population of no municipality
was divided. For legislative districts, the
Plan divides the populations of 28 municipalities. In Petitioner's Legislative Plans, the
populations of only nine and 10 municipalities, respectively, were so
divided. The number of municipalities
divided in the Plan is not in compliance with the provisions of the Act.
4.
The Plan fails to comply with the provision of the Constitution which
states that “Each district shall contain a population . . . as nearly equal as
practicable to the population of any other district.” Const., Art. II, Sec. 43(5); RCW
44.05.090(1). In the absence of a
statement by the Commission as to the meaning of the expression “as nearly
equal as practicable”, Petitioner
asserts that the words in the statute mean what the U S Supreme Court says they
mean and that the words in the Act are there to assure that redistricting plans
compliant with the Act will be in compliance with federal constitutional
law. In informal discussions with a
commissioner, Petitioner has been told that the legislature, although using the
exact words of U S Supreme Court opinions, intended a different meaning. Petitioner has been unable to find any
legislative history to support this bizarre notion. At the Commission's public forum in Walla
Walla on July 13, 2011, Petitioner specifically addressed this matter in
writing (see Appendix 9) with the Commission and requested that the Commission
place the issue of the population standard on the agenda for a future meeting
and receive public comment regarding it.
The Commission did not respond to this request and has not made any
official, public statement about the meaning of the expression. Petitioner, as aforesaid, believes that the
words in the Act have the same meaning as in U S Supreme Court jurisprudence
and that, by that standard, the population deviations among districts must be
justified on the basis of “legitimate state purposes”. The Commission has not justified the
deviations. Therefore, the zero
deviation standard must be applied, and the Plan does not meet the zero
deviation standard. In Petitioner's
Exact Congressional Plan, every district had a population of 672.454. In Petitioner's Exact Legislative Plan, 24
districts had 137,235 people, and 25 districts had 137,236 people. Thus, the Plan is not in compliance with the
provisions of the Act in respect of population deviations.
5.
The Plan fails to comply with the provision of the Act which
states: “District lines should be drawn
so as to coincide with the boundaries of local political subdivisions . . .
.” RCW 44.05.090(2)(a), restating Const,
Art II, Sec 43(5). The Commission has
not defined what is a local political subdivision. In any case, the fact that
counties and municipalities have been unnecessarily divided as demonstrated
above supports a conclusion that boundaries which run through counties and
municipalities could have run along their boundaries instead of through them, thus increasing
the coincidence of district boundaries with political subdivision
boundaries. Thus, the Plan is not in
compliance with the provisions of the Act with regard to the coincidence of
district boundaries with the boundaries of local political subdivisions.
6.
The Plan fails to comply with the provision of the Constitution which
states: “each district . . . shall be .
. . convenient” Const, Art II, Sec
43(5); RCW 44.05.090(2)(b) The Commission has failed to define the
expression “convenient.” Petitioner
asserts that convenience is largely a matter of travel time from place to place
within a district. Congressional
districts 2, 6, 7 and 8 and legislative districts 13, 14, 19, 20 and 24 are
examples of districts which are much less convenient than comparable districts
in the plans offered by Petitioner. The
Plan is not in compliance with the requirement of the Act that districts be
convenient.
7.
The Plan fails to comply with the provision of the Constitution which
states: “Each district . . . shall be
compact . . . .” Const, Art II, Sec 43(5); RCW
44.05.090(2)(b). The Commission
has not defined the term “compact.”
Congressional districts 1, 2, 4, 7 and 9 and legislative districts 11,
14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 32, 35, 37, and 46 in the Plan appear to be much less
compact than comparable districts in Petitioner's Plans. The Plan is not in compliance with the
requirement of the Act that districts be compact.
8.
The Plan fails to comply with the provision of the Act which reads: “The commission shall exercise its
powers to provide fair and effective representation . . . .” RCW
44.05.090(5). The Commission has
not defined “fair and effective representation.” Petitioner asserts that when the five
metropolitan Puget Sound counties (King, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, Kitsap)
have slightly less than 60% of the population of the state and the Commission
has created seven congressional districts out of ten with a majority of their
populations in the five metropolitan counties, fair representation is not being
provided by the plan to the more than 40% of the population living in the other
34 counties. For 60% of the population,
six districts should be created, and for 40% of the population, four districts
should be created. Petitioner addressed this issue with the Commission at its
public forum in Wenatchee on June 9, 2011 (see Exhibit 8). Petitioner's Congressional Plans created six
districts with a majority of their populations within the five counties and
four districts with a majority of their populations in the 34 counties. The Commission did not exercise its powers to
provide fair representation for the people of the 34 counties outside
metropolitan Puget Sound.
9.
The Plan fails to comply with the provision of the Act which reads: “The commission shall exercise its powers . .
. to encourage electoral competition.”
RCW 44.05.090(5). The Commission has not defined electoral
competition or what it means to encourage it.
Petitioner made a presentation to the Commission on July 14, 2011, at
Moses Lake at which he discussed the difficulty in drawing boundaries which
were fair between the parties due to the differences in the concentration of
the voters of the two parties in the state and concluded that the best solution
to this disparity is to maximize the number of competitive districts (See
Appendix 10). Petitioner asserts that the
Commission has reduced electoral competition rather than encouraged it. The case of congressional districts 8 and 9
is an obvious example of this. These
have been among the most competitive in the state. And they've been relatively close in partisan
leaning. Petitioner's descriptors
(described in Petitioner's Preferred Congressional Plan statement, pages 9-14;
Exhibit 4) for these districts were 3R for district 8 and 0 for district 9,
meaning that district 9 generally votes the same as the state and that district
8 generally votes about three percentage points more Republican than the
state. In the Plan, the Commission has
significantly reduced the potential for electoral competition in these two
districts. Petitioner's descriptors for
the two districts in the Plan are 7R for district 8 and 8D for district 9. These districts share a fairly long common
boundary and the choice of a different boundary between the two could have
easily retained or improved the potential for electoral competition in these
districts. The Plan fails to comply with
the requirement of the Act that the Commission encourage electoral competition.
II. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Petitioner asks the
Court to:
issue a Declaratory Judgment that
the the failure of the Plan to comply with the requirements of the Constitution
of the State of Washington and the Washington State Redistricting Act
constitutes the failure of the Commission to approve a plan within the meaning
of the Washington State Constitution and the Washington State Redistricting
Act;
adopt a redistricting plan pursuant
to RCW 44.05.100(4); and
afford Petitioner such other relief
as may be appropriate.
DATED: February 8, 2012, in Olympia, Washington
Respectfully
submitted,
_____________________________
Signature
John
Milem
Petitioner
Pro Se
1600
NE 125th Ave
Vancouver,
WA 98684
360.909.7592
No comments:
Post a Comment