National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. East Ramapo…

Background

The court received East Ramapo Central School District’s proposed compromise remedial plan and the plaintiffs’ response. The order states that the plaintiffs agreed on the ward plan but disagreed with several other parts of the proposal. Those disputes concerned whether all nine positions would be up for election at the next election; whether ward candidates would have to reside in the relevant ward; whether a special election should occur before the regularly scheduled May 2021 election; and whether implementation should await data from the 2020 decennial census or the Second Circuit’s decision on the defendant’s appeal of the court’s earlier liability ruling.

The order also identifies disputes about whether voter education and polling-place evaluation would require two months of lead time. The court inferred, subject to correction by the parties, that the plaintiffs disagreed with the defendant’s proposed allocation of incumbents to wards. The order discusses the plaintiffs’ proposal for a special election for four seats that would have been open had the May 2020 election occurred, including allocating three of those seats to new majority-minority Wards 1, 2, and 3. It also describes the defendant’s proposed allocations for Wards 1 and 2 and its proposed lack of an incumbent allocation for Ward 3.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that it must defer to the governing legislative body’s choice when that choice is consistent with federal statutes and the Constitution. It also stated that a district court may not replace a legally acceptable remedial plan with one it considers better. Accordingly, the court said it would not consider the plaintiffs’ preferences except to the extent their objections might show that the defendant’s proposal would not remedy the Section 2 violation previously found by the court.

Order

The court ordered the parties to attend a telephone conference on October 9, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. It directed the plaintiffs to submit a letter by October 7 identifying which defendant proposals, if any, they believed would prevent the proposal from remedying the violation. The plaintiffs could cite legal authority but were not to argue their positions in the letter. The defendant could respond by October 8 at 2:00 p.m., also with authority but without argument. This order did not decide the disputed remedial terms.