Bid for new hearing in redistricting case denied

By Daniel Kittredge
Posted 10/26/16

By DANIEL KITTREDGE The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island's request for a rehearing in a dispute over the counting of prisoners in the city's 2012 redistricting plan has been denied. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit last week

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Bid for new hearing in redistricting case denied

Posted

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island’s request for a rehearing in a dispute over the counting of prisoners in the city’s 2012 redistricting plan has been denied.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit last week issued a brief order stating it would not reconsider a panel’s recent ruling in the case, Davidson et al. vs. City of Cranston.

The ACLU has sought a new hearing before the three-judge panel that heard the city’s appeal of an earlier ruling in the case, and also requested an “en banc” hearing in which all First Circuit judges would review the case.

“The petition for rehearing having been denied by the panel of judges who decided the case, and the petition for rehearing en banc having been submitted to the active judges of this court and a majority of the judges having not voted that the case can be heard en banc, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc be denied,” reads the order entered Oct. 20.

A statement from Mayor Allan Fung’s office said the order “affirms the city’s stance that the redistricting process was constitutionally valid,” and “ensures the city is not responsible for any legal fees incurred by the ACLU as they pursued their unsuccessful lawsuit.”

“This legal victory shows that the city was right and justified to defend itself from the ACLU’s lawsuit. I am pleased that the court agreed once again with the city’s legal team and denied the request for rehearing,” the mayor said through the statement.

He added: “Some members of the Cranston City Council wanted to concede the appeal, which would have cost taxpayers unnecessary legal fees. I am pleased that my willingness to fight for what’s right has saved taxpayers from paying additional fees needlessly.”

Steven Brown, executive director of the state’s ACLU chapter, has said the group is mulling a further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

At the heart of the dispute has been Cranston’s counting of inmates at the Adult Correctional Institutions in the city’s overall population figure when creating ward maps for School Committee and City Council seats, including in the most recent plan adopted in 2012.

The plaintiffs in the case – including the ACLU and four Cranston residents – have argued the practice constitutes “prison gerrymandering” and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, and that it unfairly inflates the power of voters of Ward 6, to which the ACI’s population has been added. The plaintiffs argued the inmates are not “true constituents” of the ward or the city.

In May, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux sided with the plaintiffs. In his opinion, he called the city’s existing practice “constitutionally untenable” and ordered the development of new ward maps within 30 days.

The council’s Redistricting Committee subsequently held several meetings, which at times became politically charged. An alternative map was ultimately recommended to the full council on a split vote, although further action was indefinitely postponed when the Fung administration’s request for a stay pending appellate proceedings was granted.

In an opinion issued Sept. 21, the First Circuit panel of Chief Judge Jeffrey Howard and Circuit Judges Sandra Lynch and William Kayatta Jr. found the city’s 2012 redistricting plan “easily passes constitutional muster.”

Several city council members, as well as Democratic mayoral candidate Michael Sepe, have criticized the Fung administration’s decision to appeal in the case, citing the costs involved. Some, including Ward 1 Councilman Steven Stycos, said they agreed with the ACLU’s view of the current redistricting practice.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here