Summary
The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed challenges to the constitutional validity of Missouri’s congressional redistricting map under article III, section 45 of the Missouri Constitution. The Court held that plaintiffs retained the burden of proving unconstitutionality at all times and that whether districts are “as compact ... as may be” presents a mixed question of law and fact. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgments for the defendants, concluding that the trial court did not misinterpret the compactness requirement or improperly weigh the evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs challenging the constitutional validity of a congressional redistricting map bear the burden of proof throughout the case or whether the burden shifts to the state after an initial showing.
- Whether the constitutional phrase "as compact ... as may be" presents a pure question of law, a question of fact, or a mixed question of law and fact.
- Whether article III, section 45 requires a two-part compactness test or instead a single totality-of-the-evidence inquiry.
- Whether recognized factors, including population equality, contiguity, federal law, population density, natural boundaries, political-subdivision boundaries, and historical district boundaries, may justify minimal and practical deviations from compactness.
- Whether the trial court's determination that districts 3, 5, and 6 satisfied the compactness requirement was against the weight of the evidence.
Holdings
- Plaintiffs challenging the map bear both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion throughout the case; neither burden shifts to the defendants.
- Whether a district is "as compact ... as may be" is a mixed question of law and fact: the meaning of the constitutional language is reviewed de novo, while whether a particular map satisfies that meaning depends on factual determinations reviewed deferentially.
- The compactness requirement is a single inquiry under the totality of the evidence: whether the challenged district is "as compact ... as may be" under the circumstances. Absolute geometric precision is not required.
- A district that has minimal and practical deviations from compactness may nevertheless satisfy article III, section 45 when the deviations result from mandatory or permissible recognized factors, including population equality, contiguity, federal law, population density, natural boundaries, political-subdivision boundaries, and historical district boundaries.
- Plaintiffs failed to prove that districts 3, 5, or 6 clearly and undoubtedly violated the compactness requirement, and the trial court's judgments for defendants were not against the weight of the evidence.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, contrary to the urging of Plaintiffs, the test for whether a district is “as compact ... as may be” is not a two-part test. Instead, the test is a single inquiry as to whether, under the totality of the evidence, the challenged district is “as compact ... as may be.”” (367 S.W.3d at 48)
“Plaintiffs at all times have the burden of proving the Map is unconstitutional. The burden of. persuasion and the burden of production never shift to the defendants.” (367 S.W.3d at 46)
“If a district seems not to be composed of closely united territory because of minimal and practical deviations, the district is still “as compact ... as may be” if those deviations are due to mandatory and permissive factors.” (367 S.W.3d at 51)
Factual background
The Missouri General Assembly enacted H.B. 193 in 2011 to redistrict the state's congressional districts after the decennial census. Plaintiffs challenged districts 3, 5, and 6, asserting that they were not composed of territory "as compact ... as may be" under article III, section 45 of the Missouri Constitution. At trial, the parties presented stipulated map and statistical evidence, expert testimony, and evidence concerning population equality, the Voting Rights Act, political-subdivision boundaries, population density, natural boundaries, and historical district boundaries.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs filed declaratory judgment actions challenging H.B. 193's congressional redistricting map on compactness grounds. The trial court initially dismissed the claims, but the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed dismissal of all claims except the compactness claims in Pearson v. Koster, 359 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. banc 2012), and remanded for factual determination. After trial, the trial court entered judgments for the defendants, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the map unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed.