Logan v. O'NEILL
1982 Conn. LEXIS 573, 448 A.2d 1306, 187 Conn. 721 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The mere existence of a hypothetical reapportionment plan that achieves fewer town divisions, while maintaining federal equal population standards, does not, by itself, establish a prima facie case that an adopted legislative reapportionment plan violates the state constitution's town integrity principle.
Facts:
- The Connecticut Constitution (Article Third, § 6) requires decennial reapportionment of General Assembly districts after the United States Census.
- The Connecticut Constitution (Article Third, § 4) contains a 'town integrity principle,' stating that 'no town shall be divided except for the purpose of forming assembly districts wholly within the town.'
- The Connecticut Constitution (Article Third, § 5) also requires legislative districts to adhere to federal equal population standards, specifically the 'one-person, one-vote' principle, which often necessitates dividing towns.
- In July 1981, the Connecticut General Assembly adopted a reapportionment plan for the house of representatives by a two-thirds vote of each house.
- The adopted plan for 151 house districts had a total maximum population deviation of 8.36 percent from the ideal district population of 20,580 (based on the 1980 census population of 3,107,576).
- The adopted plan divided the boundary lines of fifty-four towns, creating ninety-three segments of towns in the formation of the 151 assembly districts.
- Plaintiffs, citizens and electors of the state, challenged the adopted plan, alleging it violated the town integrity principle by excessively and unnecessarily dividing towns.
- The plaintiffs presented an expert witness and several alternative 'plans' (schematic representations, not implementable plans) designed by their expert, including one designated 'CT 151,' which also had 151 seats, a lower maximum population deviation (7.3%), and cut only forty towns, resulting in sixty-four segments overall.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (citizens and electors) filed two consolidated cases in the trial court challenging the General Assembly's reapportionment plan on various constitutional grounds, including a violation of the town integrity principle.
- After the plaintiffs presented their case, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Practice Book § 302, concluding the plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing that the plan did not consider the state constitution's town integrity provisions.
- The plaintiffs appealed this judgment to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the mere existence of a hypothetical reapportionment plan that achieves fewer town divisions, while maintaining federal equal population standards, establish a prima facie case that an adopted legislative reapportionment plan violates the state constitution's town integrity principle?
Opinions:
Majority - Speziale, C. J.
No, the mere existence of a hypothetical reapportionment plan that achieves fewer town divisions does not, by itself, establish a prima facie case that an adopted legislative reapportionment plan violates the state constitution's town integrity principle. The court first clarified that the appeal concerned only whether the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for their challenge, not whether the adopted plan was ultimately unconstitutional. The court reiterated that legislative enactments carry a presumption of constitutionality, requiring challengers to prove invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt. The court addressed three contentions by the plaintiffs: 1. Number of House Districts: Plaintiffs argued the General Assembly should have adopted a different number of house districts (e.g., 125 instead of 151) to minimize town cuts. The court rejected this, stating that the town integrity principle does not mandate a particular number of districts. The necessity of cutting town lines arises primarily from the federal one-person, one-vote principle, and the choice of district numbers is a constitutional judgment entrusted to the General Assembly. 2. Population Deviation: Plaintiffs contended that the General Assembly should have utilized a higher maximum population deviation to reduce town segmentation, citing Mahan v. Howell's approval of a 16.4% deviation. The court countered that the federal one-person, one-vote principle aims for the nearest practicable equality, not the greatest inequality that can survive a court challenge. Plans exceeding 10% deviation are generally presumed unconstitutional unless strong justifications exist, making the plaintiffs' proposals with over 60% deviation unrealistic. 3. Existence of a 'Better Plan': The plaintiffs' most significant argument was that their 'plan' CT 151, which cut fewer towns and had a lower population deviation than the adopted plan, demonstrated the adopted plan's unconstitutionality. The court, citing Gaffney v. Cummings, firmly rejected the premise that a reapportionment plan is unconstitutional simply because a 'marginally better' alternative could be devised. Such an approach would lead to endless litigation. The court explained that a 'better plan' merely shows that fewer towns could have been cut; it does not, by itself, prove that the adopted plan's cuts were for improper reasons (other than federal compliance) or that the General Assembly failed to exercise its best judgment in harmonizing conflicting constitutional requirements. The plaintiffs failed to present such additional evidence. The court concluded by emphasizing that the town integrity principle remains a significant constitutional constraint, but challenging a plan requires more than just demonstrating a hypothetical superior alternative.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the high evidentiary bar for challenging legislative reapportionment plans, particularly when state constitutional principles, such as town integrity, must be balanced against federal equal population mandates. By rejecting the 'better plan' argument, the Connecticut Supreme Court reinforced judicial deference to legislative judgment in complex political matters, preventing courts from becoming 'super-legislatures' in endlessly refining district lines. The ruling effectively requires plaintiffs to demonstrate direct legislative misconduct, bad faith, or a clear failure to attempt harmonization, rather than merely presenting theoretically optimized alternatives. This precedent curtails the scope of reapportionment challenges based solely on mathematical or expert-driven 'improvements,' compelling future litigants to present more substantive constitutional violations.
