The Plaintiffs, for their cause of action against the Defendant and each
of them, complain and allege as follows:
1. Plaintiff Natalie Johnson Lee is an adult citizen of the City of
Minneapolis, State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s Fifth
Ward, and is a registered voter. Plaintiff Natalie Johnson Lee is a
sitting Council member serving as representative of the 5th Ward as
constituted at the time of the 2001 city election, having been duly
elected in such election
1. Plaintiff Dean Zimmermann is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s Sixth Ward, and
is a registered voter. Plaintiff Dean Zimmerman is a sitting Council
member serving as representative of
the 6th Ward as constituted at the time of the 2001 city election, having
been duly elected in such election.
1. Plaintiff Eric Makela is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s 1st Ward, as constituted
at the time of the 2001 City election and is a registered voter.
2. Plaintiff Cam Gordon is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s 2nd Ward, as constituted
at the time of the 2001 City election and is a registered voter.
3. Plaintiff Lani Hogan is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s 2nd Ward, as constituted
at the time of the 2001 City election and is a registered voter.
4. Plaintiff Shane Price is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s 3rd Ward, as constituted
at the time of the 2001 City election and is a registered voter.
5. Plaintiff Tom Taylor is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s 3rd Ward, as constituted
at the time of the 2001 City election and is a registered voter.
6. Plaintiff Brady Baker is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s 5th Ward, as constituted
at the time of the 2001 City election and is a registered voter.
7. Plaintiff Lisa Crockett is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s 5th Ward, as constituted
at the time of the 2001 City election and is a registered voter.
8. Plaintiff Travis Lee is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s 5th Ward, as constituted
at the time of the 2001 City election and is a registered voter.
9. Plaintiff Lowell Nelson is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s 6th Ward, as constituted
at the time of the 2001 City election and is a registered voter.
10. Plaintiff Bruce Shoemaker is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s 6th Ward, as constituted
at the time of the 2001 City election and is a registered voter.
11. Plaintiff Pauline Thomas is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s 8th Ward, as constituted
at the time of the 2001 City election and is a registered voter.
12. Plaintiff Stephen Wash is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s 8th Ward, as constituted
at the time of the 2001 City election and is a registered voter.
13. Plaintiff Ken Bradley is an adult citizen of the City of Minneapolis,
State of Minnesota, residing within the City’s 8th Ward, as constituted
at the time of the 2001 City election and is a registered voter.
14. Each of the Plaintiffs herein is a voter residing within the City
of Minneapolis.
B. DEFENDANT
1. Defendant City of Minneapolis is a duly chartered municipal corporation
situated within Hennepin County, Minnesota. The governing body of said
municipality is its City Council.
II.
IMPROPER ACTIONS BY DEFENDANT
A. REDISTRICTING COMMISSION WAS IMPROPERLY CONSTITUTED
2. On February 12, 2001, the City of Minneapolis Charter Commission,
chaired by Karen ("Kari") Dziedzic, pursuant to the Minneapolis
City Charter appointed a Redistricting Commission (hereinafter "RC")
to formulate a redistricting plan for the City of Minneapolis to reflect
the 2000 census.
3. Karen ("Kari") Dziedzic, as Chair for the Charter Commission,
participated in the selection of members for the Minneapolis Redistricting
Commission. She did not recuse herself despite her interest in establishing
a political base and potentially running for Council Member in a redrawn
third ward.
4. The composition of the RC was not reflective of political parties
in the City with the DFL having three (3) members, the Republican Party
having three (3) members , the Independence Party having two (2) members
and the Green Party having one (1) member. This formulation did not
reflect the party preferences expressed by the voters of the City of
Minneapolis, who had voted in the 2001 election for no Independence
Party or Republican Council Members. The voters elected two (2) Green
Council Members.
5. The Redistricting Commission was not formulated to be "broadly
representative of the City population, including persons from groups
traditionally unrepresented in City Governance, including racial minorities;
The composition of the Redistricting Commission when formulated was
not broadly representative as required. The Charter Commission had authority
to appoint additional members of the RC to achieve balance, but chose
not to do so.
6. Nominees of political parties selected for the RC by the Minneapolis
Charter Commission were not in every case selected from lists submitted
by said political parties confirming to the requirement of the Minneapolis
City Charter that such lists must include, "Persons from groups
traditionally under represented in City government, including racial
minorities".
7. The RC composition did not reflect City-wide interests as two members
were from the Fourth Ward, both of whom shared the same employer, one
of whom, on information and belief, has certain supervisory responsibilities
over the other. Three members were from the Thirteenth Ward. No members
of the RC resided within Wards 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 & 12.
8. The RC composition did not reflect the racial composition of the
City of Minneapolis as only one member was of a minority group.
9. The Green Party, a major party in the State of Minnesota, was not
reasonably represented in the Redistricting Commission. It was represented
by only a single representative. This served to diminish reasonable
representation on the Redistricting Commission by the Green Party which
had received approximately 20% of the Citywide vote for Council Members,
with two Green Party members being elected to office. Green Party participation
on the RC was on third of the representation on the Commission by the
Republican Party, and was one half of the representation on the RC by
the Independence Party. However, no members were of either the Republican
or Independence Party were elected to any City Council office, and said
parties cumulatively received a negligible percentage of the vote by
Minneapolis voters for City Council.
10. Although the Republican and Independence Part received cumulatively
only negligible votes for offices in the City of Minneapolis together
they were represented by five (5) of the nine (9) members of the RC
(other than those serving on the RC only in reference to Park board
issues, and thus cumulatively constituted a majority of the RC.
B. REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ACTED INAPPROPRIATELY
11. Members of the RC received comments from interested parties desiring
actions to protect their respective interests. These conversations were
not recorded and entered into the public record.
1. The RC met on various dates between February 20, 2002 and April
18, 2002.
2. As members of the RC shared their individual political objectives
concerning the redesign of the Wards of the City, the majority of the
RC determined to minimize the objective of a fair redistricting of the
Wards of the City and rather entered into a conspiracy to incorporate
political objectives of others on the RC into the ultimate plan in exchange
for support for individually held political objectives.
C. CIRCUMVENTION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION & HEARING
3. The RC held hearings for the public. Despite legal requirements
to the contrary, none of these hearings presented to the public a redistricting
plan, or map of proposed redistricting that reflected either the tentative
plans under consideration by the RC, or the key elements of the Redistricting
Plan ultimately adopted . The public was presented in those hearings
with a different plan, not reasonably indicative of the Tentative Plan
under consideration .
4. Public comment from individuals representing a variety of communities
and neighborhoods, organizations was overwhelming in condemnation of
certain proposed changes. Speakers overwhelmingly opposed the obvious
gerrymandering by RC. The RC chairperson and committee during these
hearings were not receptive to view of the various speakers and were
unresponsive to the broad opposition to the RC proposed alterations.
5. Following clear expression of significant Citywide opposition to
the Redistricting Plan, the RC made changes that exacerbated the problems
cited within public testimony. Having drawn a new and further discriminatory
map, The RC provided no further Public Hearings, declined to accept
comment, and submitted the Redistricting Plan as revised to the Minneapolis
City Clerk.
6. The Public Hearing requirement was circumvented in that key elements
were not made public and hence not discussed. Only after all public
hearings were completed were wards redefined to eliminate the principle
that each Ward would continue to include the residence of the Council
Member selected by the voters of the Ward to serve the ward. Such reshaping
of Wards would isolate the Sixth Ward from its recently elected Council
representative. The Eighth Ward was reshaped to place its recently elected
Council representative approximately one half block outside the ward.
The sixth ward was reshaped to place its recently elected council representative
approximately two blocks outside the ward. Further, the Eighth Ward
was left with no Council Member residing within the Ward.
7. The Public Hearing requirement was circumvented in that issues of
significant concern raised by citizens attending public hearings were
ignored (i.e. concentration of minorities, limitation of minority involvement
in economic planning) and key elements of the plan ultimately adopted
were not presented to the public within maps made available.
D. CITY COUNCIL HAS NEITHER ADOPTED NOR REJECTED THE
REDISTRICTING PLAN
8. On April 25, 2002 the RC delivered the Redistricting Plan it developed
to the Minneapolis City Clerk who filed the same.
9. The minor amount of demographic change affecting only a few of the
City’s wards did not warrant the significant changes in ward size
and shape proposed by the RC. Despite opposition, the RC recommended
a Redistricting Plan that had not been submitted for public comment
and that altered traditional districts for purposes unrelated to the
2000 census data.
10. The Governing Body of the City of Minneapolis, the City Council,
has yet to adopt or reject the Redistricting Plan formulated by the
RC.
11. Consideration of the Redistricting Plan prepared by the RC was
identified within schedules distributed to City Council members as an
agenda item to be addressed by the City Council as a whole, sitting
as both the Elections Committee, and the City Council, but such consideration
was not had. Despite the failure by the City Council to either approve
or reject the Redistricting Plan developed by the RC; the Minneapolis
City Council on April 26, 2002 enacted voting precincts based upon the
unapproved RC plan.
E. THE REDISTRICTING PLAN AS PROPOSED VIOLATED APPLICABLE
LEGAL STANDARDS
12. The RC proposed Redistricting Plan breached the shape and size
provisions of Chapter 1, Sect. 3 of the Minneapolis City Charter which
requires that each Ward "consist of contiguous compact territory
not be more that twice as long as it is wide". Wards 3, 7 and 13
were altered by the RC Redistricting Plan where each of these Wards
would become more than twice as long as wide, each such suggested Ward
being a direct violation of the City Charter.
13. The boundary alterations did not reflect demographic changes from
the 2000 census, but rather targeted wards to limit the overall power
of minority populations and to attempt to limit representation by the
Green Party.
14. The illegal and bizarre shapes developed for the respective wards
by the RC were designed to address political objectives rather than
to fairly adjust City Wards to reflect population changes.
15. The Fifth Ward was redefined to pack racial minority population
into the Ward, and to isolate this population from significant participation
in economic development and planning, and to isolate and diminish the
political influence of black voters in other wards. Race was the predominate
factor in the redistricting of this Ward to cause a supermajority of
83% African-American based upon the total population.
16. The boundaries of Ward 5 were reduced on the southern boundary
to exclude downtown business segments, and the Riverfront development
district and considerable White population . The northern boundary was
extended to include minority populations. This alteration represented
a sharp increase in minority concentration in Ward 5, without a corresponding
demographic change in the census.
17. Further, the Fifth Ward was deprived of its economic and downtown
base in order to diminish minority influence, punish the Ward for electing
a member of the Green Party to the City Council, and to provide for
a downtown ward to secure individual Political interests of others.
This action is economically regressive to the Fifth Ward and serves
to diminish the Fifth Ward of its economic viability.
18. The addition of additional minority voters in Ward five was further
designed to minimize the presence of and influence in other Wards of
minority voters.
19. The Seventh Ward was redefined as a downtown ward including the
Riverfront and Northside development areas. This was justified, in part,
by a population count concentrating transient non-voting individuals,
including those in shelters and in jails (a high percentage of which
are minorities) and by utilization of projected, rather than existing,
housing patterns. This occurred despite opposition of the Minneapolis
Downtown Council (a business council) and Downtown Residents Council.
The Seventh Ward was given a bizarre shape and was more than twice as
long as it was wide and was designed to concentrate approximately 46%
of the property tax base of the City within said Ward.
20. The boundaries of the Sixth Ward, which has historically included
a traditionally Native American concentration, was divided in a manner
as to separate the Native American community from its most significant
residential institution, the Little Earth housing project, which was
placed in an adjacent ward. The boundary change was designed to limit
the voting power of American Indian voters.
21. The boundary change of the Sixth Ward also excluded from the Ward
its incumbent City Council member, a member of the Green Party, so as
to punish the voters in the ward for electing a member of the Green
Party.
22. The Sixth Ward was redistricted under the RC Plan to exclude the
incumbent Council Member, a Green Party member. This was not presented
to the public via public hearing and thus there was no opportunity for
public comment.
23. The Redistricting Plan by the RC would place Plaintiff Dean Zimmermann
the sitting Council Member elected in the 2001 City election as representative
of the Sixth Ward within the Ninth Ward, the Ward served by Council
Member Gary Schift, the sitting Council Member elected by the Sixth
Ward. This would result in the City of Minneapolis losing the services
of at least one sitting Council Member. The Redistricting Commission
would propose to do this without public hearing or comment.
24. The Third Ward was redefined with the goal of advancing the political
interest of Karen ("Kari") Dziedzic who currently is serving
as chairman of the Charter Commission the body that selected the RC.
The boundaries of the Third Ward were adjusted to serve the interest
of Karen ("Kari") Dziedzic to establish a political base and
potentially to run for elective office in said Ward. The Third Ward
was also fractured to reduce its minority population.
25. Wards within the City of Minneapolis were redrawn with the intention
of protecting the political interest of several existing Council Members,
particularly in the Fourth and Twelfth Wards.
26. The Eighth Ward was redistricted unde the RC Plan to exclude the
sitting council member elected in the 2001 City election as representative
of the Eighth Ward. Said incumbent Council Member is an American Indian.
This exclusion was not presented to the public via public hearing and
thus there was no opportunity for public comment. The Eighth Ward has
been represented for the past sixteen (16) years by consecutive council
members who are members of racial minorities. It was redesigned to make
future election of a member of a racial minority to be less likely.
II. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE, VIOLATION OF REDISTRICTING REQUIREMENTS OF MINNEAPOLIS CITY
CHARTER
27. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 to 53 herein, and further allege
that such actions constitutes unreasonable and illegal actions attributable
to Defendant City of Minneapolis, and that this action is properly brought
to Hennepin County District Court, as this Court is designated with
the Minneapolis City Charter as being the body that shall exercise original
jurisdiction in any matter relating to the reappointment of the City’s
Wards.
COUNT TWO, VIOLATION OF CITY CHARTER CH 1, SECT. 3
1. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 to 54 herein, and further allege
that Defendant has violated City Charter, Chapter 1, Section 3 requiring
that any ward must consist of compact territory not more than twice
as long as it is wide. Wards 3, 7 and 13 each are more than twice as
long as they are wide, and such Wards, along with other wards, are not
sufficiently compact.
COUNT THREE, VIOLATION OF CITY CHARTER CH. 1, SECT. 3
2. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 to 55 herein, and further allege
that Defendant has violated Chapter 1, Sect. 3 of the Minneapolis City
Charter by failing to appoint a RC that was broadly representative of
the City Population.
COUNT FOUR, VIOLATION MINN. STAT.
3. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 to 56 herein and further allege
that Defendant has violated Minnesota Statutes, in that the Governing
Body of the City of Minneapolis has failed to approve or reject a plan
to redistrict the Wards within City of Minneapolis.
COUNT FIVE, VIOLATION OF MINN STAT. SECTION 14
4. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 to 57 herein, and further allege
that Defendant has violated Minn. Stat. Sec. 14, the Administrative
Procedure Act, by acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner relative
to its responsibilities to reasonably redistrict the City’s Wards.
COUNT SIX, VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. SECT. 1973
5. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 to 58 herein, and further allege
that Defendant has violated the Federal Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A.
Section 1973 by denying and abridging rights of the Citizens of the
City of Minneapolis including rights of racial and language minorities
to fairly and equally exercise their respective rights to vote.
COUNT SEVEN - VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. SECT. 1983 AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
6. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 to 59 herein and further allege
that Defendant has violated 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1983, and the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, altering the Ward
boundaries without regard to traditional districting principles, in
bizarre shapes and predominantly on the basis of race and as punishment
to voters of wards who have elected Council representatives who are
affiliated with the Green Party, and other impermissible grounds.
COUNT EIGHT, 42 U.S.C SECT 1985 and 42 U.S.C. SECT 1986 CONSPIRACY
1. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 to 60 herein and further allege
that Defendant has violated 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 42 U.S.C. 1986 by permitting
certain members of the RC to conspire to develop an impermissible and
illegal Redistricting Plan based on impermissible criteria.
COUNT NINE, VIOLATION OF FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT
1. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 to 61 herein and further allege
that Defendant has violated the Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
and engaged in gerrymandering of the Wards, in part motivated by race,
within the City of Minneapolis.
III. RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and each of the, pray for judgment against the
Defendant as follows:
A. That this Court declare the Redistricting Plan developed by the
Redistricting Commission, and filed on with the City Clerk of the
City of Minneapolis, to be null and void and of no effect.
B. That this Court issue a Writ of Mandamus to Defendant, directing
that its governing body, the Minneapolis City Council to proceed as
determined appropriate by the Court to:
1) Consider and approve or disapprove the Redistricting Plan adopted
by the Redistricting Commission; and further requiring that should
the City Council approve such Plan, it do so only upon its determination
that said Redistricting Plan is in conformance with applicable law.
2) To return the Redistricting Plan adopted by the Redistricting
Commission to the Redistricting Commission for further consideration
and revision in accordance with law.
3) To appoint, pursuant to applicable law, a new Redistricting
Commission to pursue its duties in accordance with the Charter of
Defendant City of Minneapolis, including holding public hearings
that properly inform citizens of such tentative plans as the Redistricting
Commission may have under consideration.
C. Alternatively, that this Court review the entire record of redistricting
proceedings by the City of Minneapolis, including actions by, and
inactions of, the Minneapolis City Council, the Minneapolis City Charter
Commission, and the Minneapolis Redistricting Commission, including
public comment presented to the Minneapolis Redistricting Commission,
and thereupon develop and adopt an appropriate Redistricting Plan
for the Wards within the City of Minneapolis, and direct that Defendant
implement said Redistricting Plan.
D. That this Court issue such injunctive releif as may best effectuate
the above.
E. That this Court issue its order directing such other and further
relief as the Court may find to be just and equitable.
Larry B. Leventhal
LARRY LEVENTHAL & ASSOCIATES
Attorney Reg. No. 62534
Suite 420-Sexton Building
529 South 7th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
(612) 333-5747
Mike Hager, Esq.
Attorney Reg. No.172662 1250 3rd Street
Suite 2
White Bear Lake, MN 55110
(651) 426-4009
Jordan S. Kushner, Esq.
Of Counsel
Law Office of Jordan S. Kushner
Attorney Reg. No. 219307
Suite 636-Sexton Building
529 South 7th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
(612) 288-0545
By:
Larry B. Leventhal
Date:
