Heimbach v. Board of Supervisors, 83 N.Y.2d 18 (1994)
The definition of ‘population’ in Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 (1) (ii) (a) (13) (c) as ‘residents, citizens, or registered voters’ does not necessarily exclude transients such as military personnel, incarcerated felons, and occupants of group homes for local legislative apportionment purposes.
Summary
This case addresses whether the term “population,” as defined in New York’s Municipal Home Rule Law for local legislative apportionment, necessarily excludes transients like military personnel, incarcerated felons, and group home residents. The Jefferson County Board of Supervisors used gross census figures, including these groups, for reapportionment. Plaintiffs argued this violated equal protection. The Court of Appeals held that the statutory definition does not mandate the exclusion of these transient populations, emphasizing the flexibility granted to local governments in devising apportionment plans. The decision underscores that including these groups is permissible and often reflects their impact on the community’s social and economic landscape.
Facts
The Jefferson County Board of Supervisors (the Board) used total population figures from the 1970, 1980, and 1990 censuses, including military personnel, group home residents, and incarcerated felons, to determine the weighted voting system of representation. Following the 1990 census, some Board members objected to including these ‘nonresidents’ in the apportionment base, arguing they were not domiciliaries of the county. They sought to reapportion the Board based on the ‘resident population,’ excluding those deemed transients.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs, members of the Board and a county resident, filed a class action in the Federal District Court, alleging the Board’s voting composition violated equal protection and due process. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question of whether the Municipal Home Rule Law necessarily excludes transients from the definition of ‘population’ to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether, for purposes of local legislative apportionment, ‘population,’ defined as ‘residents, citizens, or registered voters,’ in N.Y. Mun. Home Rule Law § 10 (1) (ii) (a) (13) (c), necessarily excludes transients, such as military personnel, incarcerated felons, and occupants of group homes.
Holding
No, because the Municipal Home Rule Law definition does not “necessarily exclude” the stated classes of persons, emphasizing flexibility for local governments in fashioning apportionment plans.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized the intent of the Municipal Home Rule Law to provide maximum flexibility to local governments in devising apportionment plans, consistent with the “one man, one vote” principle established in Reynolds v. Sims. The Court cited Avery v. Midland County, noting that the Constitution doesn’t require a uniform approach, allowing for mechanisms suitable for local needs. The Court quoted Burns v. Richardson, stating, “Neither in Reynolds v. Sims nor in any other decision has this Court suggested that the States are required to include aliens, transients, short-term or temporary residents, or persons denied the vote for conviction of crime, in the apportionment base…” The Court reasoned that transients are integral parts of their communities, impacting the social and economic environment, using municipal services, and contributing to the tax base. Excluding them would require reapportionment across the state without clear legislative intent. The Court distinguished Greenwald v. Board of Supervisors, which involved voting rights, by pointing out that apportionment involves different standards than individual voting rights, where mathematical exactness is impossible. The court noted, “That residence in the apportionment sense be construed more broadly than in terms of voting rights is appropriate. The goals and objectives of the concepts differ significantly.”