recognizing that providing efficient and economic city services is a rational state policy and that the apportionment plan advanced that policy, but holding that a 66.85% maximum population deviation exceeded constitutional limits
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that providing efficient and economic city services is a rational state policy and that the apportionment plan advanced that policy, but holding that a 66.85% maximum population deviation exceeded constitutional limits
- finding that a case was not analogous to school desegregation or prison reform cases, and that the district court therefore abused its discretion in retaining jurisdiction
- “It is well-established that a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of dilution by demonstrating a population deviation in excess of 10%.”
- rejecting reapportionment plan with a maximum population deviation of 66.85% as beyond the constitutional limit
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment, but dissenting as to the reasoning employed in Part III.F. JOHN R. GIBSON, J., joins in J. BATCHELDER’s separate writing as to Part III.F. which becomes the opinion of the court.
The lead opinion would rule that the district court abused its discretion by failing to sufficiently justify its retention of jurisdiction with a proper analysis of case law. This is clearly a questionable proposition. See McDowell v. Krawchison, 125 F.3d 954, 957 (6th Cir.1997) (“We will affirm the decision of the district court if it is correct for any reason, including a reason not considered by that court.”). We reverse the district court’s decision to retain jurisdiction on a different basis.
We find that the district court abused its discretion because, under traditional equitable principles, its retention of jurisdiction was not necessary. The areas of the law most explicitly standing for the proposition that a district court may retain jurisdiction to ensure the cessation of a continuing constitutional violation include school desegregation and prison reform. We do not believe these two areas are analogous to the situation presented by this case. Retention of jurisdiction in school desegregation cases was necessitated by the continued refusal of school districts to rectify their unconstitutional segregation. The courts there faced entrenched cultural opposition to their orders. In the prison context, the courts faced states unwilling to recognize the mandates of the Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the Eighth and other amendments. Citing state recalcitrance, district courts imposed structural injunctions on prison administrations to ensure compliance with the decrees of the Supreme Court. Bowling Green’s dis-tricting policy, on the other hand, is rationally based and rationally furthered by the challenged plan. There is no hint of invidious discrimination and no suggestion that the City will not readily comply with the district court’s order. Thus, while broad structural mandates may be necessary in the contexts of school desegregation and prison administration, they most certainly are not needed here.
We reverse the district court’s decision to retain jurisdiction. We will allow the city council, which has shown no propensity whatsoever to flout constitutional mandates, to enact a voting plan in accord with its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. See White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 794-95 , 93 S.Ct. 2348 , 37 L.Ed.2d 335 (1973) (reiterating that states have primary and initial jurisdiction over redistricting). If the resulting plan is unconstitutional, suit may be brought to enjoin its operation. This *599 solution relegates the federal judiciary to its proper limited position, allows the legislative branch full sway within constitutional boundaries, and prevents continuing friction between the federal judiciary and a state entity. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 , 88 S.Ct. 1942 , 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968) (discussing the separation of powers limits on the federal judiciary in relation to the legislative power).