In re Reapportionment of Town of Montgomery

ENTRY_ORDER.92-136; 162 Vt. 617; 647 A.2d 1013


[Filed:  25-Jul-1994]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 92-136

                               JUNE TERM, 1994


 In re Reapportionment of          }          Original Jurisdiction
    Town of Montgomery             }
                                   }
                                   }
                                   }
                                   }


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      On January 27, 1993, this Court remanded the petition regarding the
 reapportionment of the Town of Montgomery for the legislature to revise its
 redistricting plan or to inform this Court why it is not possible to create
 an alternate plan that better conforms to constitutional and statutory
 criteria.  In re Reapportionment of Town of Hartland, 160 Vt. ___, ___, 624 A.2d 323, 346 (1993).  In response, the legislature set up a special House
 committee on redistricting, which, following public hearings, advised that
 no alternate plan would comply with constitutional and statutory criteria
 more fully than the original plan.  The legislature agreed, and adopted the
 committee's position in a joint resolution.

      Petitioners contend that the resolution does not comply with this
 Court's mandate, and that this Court failed to provide clear guidance to the
 legislature on whether moving the Town of Montgomery into the Franklin
 County district, without doing more, would violate the federal constitu-
 tion's one-person, one-vote requirement.  Upon review of the record,
 including the joint resolution and the transcripts of the committee
 hearings, we conclude that the legislature satisfied the Court's mandate by
 finding, following public hearings before the special House committee, that
 the original house redistricting plan more fully complied with constitu-
 tional and statutory criteria than other potential alternate plans.

      Regarding petitioners' latter contention, in Hartland, we declined to
 address whether an overall statewide deviation of 28.8% is per se unconsti-
 tutional; instead, we concluded that the legislature's decision to place the
 Town of Montgomery with towns in Orleans County rather than Franklin County,
 based on its concerns that the overall 28.8% deviation that would result
 from the latter option would be constitutionally unacceptable, was not
 irrational or illegitimate.  160 Vt. at ___, 624 A.2d  at 333.  Our review of
 the transcripts of the committee hearings indicates that the members of the
 committee were aware that, although we had expressed some doubts about the
 constitutionality of petitioners' proposal, we had not ruled on that ques-
 tion.  Nevertheless, after weighing the various concerns, the legislature
 determined that the constitutional and statutory criteria would not be
 better served by moving the Town of Montgomery to the Franklin County
 district.  We defer to this judgment, which is neither irrational nor
 illegitimate.  See Hartland, 160 Vt. at ___, 624 A.2d  at 326-27 (in first

 

 instance, legislature, not this Court, must resolve tensions between
 constitutional and statutory criteria).

      The petition of the Town of Montgomery is dismissed.




                                    BY THE COURT:


                                    _______________________________________
                                    Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice

                                    _______________________________________
                                    Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice

                                    _______________________________________
                                    John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

                                    _______________________________________
                                    James L. Morse, Associate Justice
 [ ]  Publish
                                    _______________________________________
 [ ]  Do Not Publish                Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice