High Court issues rationale for reapportionment, redistricting

In a lengthy opinion issued Friday, the NMI Supreme Court explained its decision to adopt the argument put forth by the NMI House of Representatives and the Saipan mayor to give Saipan two additional representatives based on the total number of Commonwealth residents, including noncitizens. The vourt’s opinion also explained its decision to redraw Saipan’s election districts.

On May 14, 2007, Sen. Maria Frica Pangelinan and Tina Sablan, at that time a private citizen but now a House representative, petitioned the NMI Supreme Court to reapportion and redistrict the NMI House of Representatives. Petitioners argued the votes of Rota and Tinian residents were diluted in relation to Saipan votes because the House of Representatives was previously apportioned based on the Commonwealth’s total population. Petitioners argued only U.S. citizens should have been considered. By also considering noncitizens, which are present in higher numbers on Saipan, petitioners argued Saipan was given more representatives than it was entitled to.

Based on the number of citizens reported by the 2000 U.S. census, petitioners asked the court to reduce Saipan’s representatives from 16 to 12. They also asked the court to adopt their proposed redistricting plan, which divided Saipan into 12 election districts, each district electing a single representative.

The House of Representatives disagreed with petitioners. The House argued that all Commonwealth residents, including both citizens and noncitizens, should be considered for apportionment. Based on the Commonwealth’s total population, the House argued that, instead of decreasing the number of Saipan representatives, the number should be increased to prevent vote dilution. The House also disagreed with petitioners’ proposed election districts. It argued the then-current election districts should be maintained.

The Saipan mayor, who, like the House of Representatives, was invited by the court to comment on the proposals, agreed with the House that the number of Saipan representatives should be increased to 18. However, the mayor agreed with petitioners’ proposed election districts, although he suggested creating six additional super districts.

On Aug. 7, 2007, the court adopted the House of Representatives’ and mayor’s suggestion that Saipan be apportioned two additional representatives. On the issue of election districts, the court devised its own redistricting plan. It determined that because it was “without population information other than that provided by the census…Saipan must be redistricted along census boundaries to ensure sufficient representational equality.” However, the court noted that because the upcoming 2007 election left insufficient time to adequately address the numerous and important issues, including “the historical, political, and legal relationship between the Commonwealth and the United States,” it would do so in a supplemental opinion to be issued later.

The court’s supplemental opinion, issued Friday, begins by tracing the history of the United States Supreme Court’s one person, one vote cases, which require that elected officials represent approximately the same number of people. It then discussed the history and legal issues that shaped Covenant language balancing NMI self-government with U.S. sovereignty. Next, the court explained its conclusion that, although the NMI House of Representatives must be apportioned in large part based on population, the U.S. Supreme Court’s one person, one vote rule does not apply as if the NMI was a state. Instead, the court based its decision on the Covenant and the NMI Constitution’s language addressing the House of Representatives.

The NMI Constitution requires the Legislature to regularly reapportion the House of Representatives. Only when it fails to do, and only after the governor neglects to remedy the Legislature’s failure, may the court be called on to reapportion the House. The court noted that reapportioning the House of Representatives “is quintessentially a legislative function. And being within the province of the political process, numerous and varied policy preferences will vie for attention as apportionment compromises are made.” However, the court stated that when it is left to reapportion the House, it will abstain from political decision making. Instead, the court “will seek to divide the NMI population into substantially equal election districts, considering only those factors required by our Constitution or long recognized policy goals such as maintaining historically distinct subdivisions.” Further, the court’s “decision to reapportion the House by total population rather than United States citizens [is] similarly rooted in NMI Constitutional language and policy.”

The court explained that the NMI Legislature may revisit its reapportionment and redistricting plan. However, when the Legislature engages in reapportionment or redistricting, its authority is not unlimited. “[B]ecause population distribution remains the benchmark against which reapportionment or redistricting plans are measured, legislative decisions creating substantial population deviations across election districts must be justified. And if apportionment is based on a population figure excluding certain classes of residents, the decision to exclude those individuals must likewise be based on legitimate legislative concerns.”

Although joining with Justices Alexandro C. Castro and John A. Manglona in most of the court’s decision, Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan wrote separately to express his disagreement with the majority’s decision to increase Saipan’s representatives and redistrict the island. The Chief Justice reiterated the majority’s view that appointment is a legislative function. However, in contrast to the majority’s approach, he maintained the most apolitical course of action would have been to redistrict Saipan into a single district, permitting “an at large representative election.” He further disagreed with the majority’s decision to add two Saipan representatives. He found that population deviations between election districts were “tolerable” at their previous levels. (PR)