Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A federal judge has denied a motion to dismiss an electoral redistricting lawsuit that alleges Anderson’s city council districts violate constitutional and statutory rights.
Judge James Sweeney of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued the order Wednesday.
“The City’s laches argument is premature; the City has failed to show that the candidates for city council are indispensable to this action; and the alleged defects in certain of Plaintiffs’ legal theories do not affect the sufficiency of the Complaint,” Sweeney wrote in denying the motion to dismiss.
Common Cause Indiana, the Anderson Madison County NAACP Branch 3058, League of Women Voters of Indiana and two citizens are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed against the City of Anderson Common Council for its failure to draw new maps for the city’s six single-member districts before the Dec. 31, 2022, redistricting deadline.
The Madison County Board of Elections is also listed as a defendant in the lawsuit.
According to court records, Anderson has a nine-member city council, with six members elected from single-member districts.
The 2020 census revealed population changes in the city, but the districts were not redrawn.
The plaintiffs alleged the districts are now malapportioned in violation of their constitutional and statutory rights.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that with the December 2022 deadline for the council to redistrict having passed, Indiana Code § 3-510-7(a)(6) prohibits the council from redistricting absent a court order finding the current plan unconstitutional or unlawful.
The lawsuit alleges a violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
It seeks “appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief to protect their statutory and constitutional rights and those of the residents and voters of Anderson and ensure that the Council fulfills its duty under law to redistrict fairly and in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”
The lawsuit also seeks a preliminary injunction, later to be made permanent, enjoining the Board of Elections from holding of any further elections in the council’s malapportioned districts beginning in 2024 and beyond.
Further, it seeks to shorten the terms of the council members in single-member districts and order special primary and general elections for the council to be held coterminous with the primary and general elections scheduled in May and November 2024.
Finally, the lawsuit seeks to alter any pre-election deadlines or residency requirements, if necessary, in order to conduct special and primary elections in 2024 for the council’s six single-member districts under a districting plan approved by the court that complies with the equal population principles of the 14th Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The city argued for dismissal of the motion with prejudice on the grounds that the plaintiffs waited too long to file suit, triggering the doctrine of laches.
It also argued that candidates for city council seats are required parties, without whom the lawsuit cannot proceed.
Sweeney wrote the district court could find no electoral redistricting case in which candidates for office have been deemed required or indispensable parties.
“The City cites to none, and the City bears the burden to show the absent parties are required,” Sweeney wrote.
Sweeney also rejected the city’s argument that the plaintiffs sought relief under the Voting Rights Act with alleging race discrimination.
The judge wrote that the city also seemed to argue that the district court had no power to order special elections if the plaintiffs prevail.
“Under federal notice pleading, a complaint need only set out some plausible allegations that, if true, allow for legal relief; the Complaint need not correctly identify a legal theory,” Sweeney wrote.
According to Sweeney, the plaintiffs had, at a minimum, plausibly alleged a malapportionment claim under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
The case is Common Cause Indiana, Anderson-Madison County NAACP Branch 3058, League of Women Voters of Indiana, Cassandra Riggs, Jeffrey J. Cottrell v. City of Anderson Common Council, Madison County Board of Elections, 1:23-cv-01022.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.