Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Dover-Meredith Amicus Brief

Dover-Meredith Amicus Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4|Likes:
Published by James Pindell

More info:

Published by: James Pindell on May 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/23/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
State of New HampshireSupreme Court
___________________
No. 2012-0338______________________
City of Manchester & a. v. Secretary of StateCity of Concord v. Secretary of StateMary Jane Wallner & a. v. Secretary of StateTown of Gilford & a. v. Secretary of StateMarshall Quandt & a. v. Secretary of State
_________________________
On Interlocutory Transfer
BRIEF OF
 AMICUS CURIAE
City of DoverTown of Meredith
For City of Dover:
Christopher C. Buck, Esq. #18912J. Miller & Associates, PLLC91-A N. State StreetConcord, NH 03301(603) 223-6613Allan B. Krans, Sr., #1394General Legal Counsel, City of Dover288 Central AvenueDover, NH 03820(603) 516-6520
For Town of Meredith:
Philip T. Mclaughlin, #1710Counsel, Town of Meredith501 Union AvenueLaconia, NH 03246
 
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
...................................................................................................................... 1Summary of Argument .................................................................................................................................. 5Argument ...................................................................................................................................................... 6I. Standard of Review ........................................................................................................................... 6A. De Novo Review ............................................................................................................................ 6B. Final Arbiter of a Constitutional Dispute ...................................................................................... 7C. State Constitutional Provisions are at Least as Protective as the Federal Constitution ............... 7D. Fundamental Right ........................................................................................................................ 7E. Strict Scrutiny ................................................................................................................................ 8F. Compelling State Interest ............................................................................................................. 8II. Application of One Person, One Vote ............................................................................................... 9III. RSA 662:5 is Unconstitutional Because it Violates the Fundamental Principle of One-Person,One-Vote, Without Demonstrating a Compelling State Interest. ........................................................... 10A. The Redistricting Statute is Unconstitutional Because It Relies on Flawed Methods to CalculatePopulation Deviations from the Ideal. ................................................................................................ 10B. The Redistricting Statute Impermissibly Uses the Aggregate Method to Calculate the Deviationin Each Floterial District. The New Hampshire Supreme Court Has Already Found this CalculationMethod Wanting with Respect to Floterial Districts. ......................................................................... 12C. Floterial Districts are Unconstitutional in All but the Rarest Situations, Because they WillForeseeably Conflict with the Fundamental Principle of "One-Person, One-Vote" and Part II, Article9's Requirement that "Representation be as Equal as Circumstances Will Admit." .......................... 17D. The Redistricting Statute is Unconstitutional, Because it Places Greater Value on the PetitionSignatures of Different Communities. This is a Violation of the One Person, One Vote Principle. .... 22IV. The Redistricting Statute is Unconstitutional, Because it Arbitrarily Allows Floterial Districts toExceed a Reasonable Deviation, and Creates the Possibility of "Super-Districts." ................................. 23A. Somersworth Ward 2 is an Unconstitutional "Super-District," Because it is Arbitrarily Awardeda Disproportionately Greater Number of Representatives than Are Justified by Its Population. ...... 24B. The One Person, One Vote Requirement as an Egalitarian Principle (versus a Limiting Principle).28V. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 30

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->