INTERLOCUTORY TRANSFER STATEMENT. William M. Gardner, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of New Hampshire THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Transcription

1 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT CASE NO. City of Manchester, Hon. Barbara E. Shaw and John R. Rist V. William M. Gardner, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of New Hampshire City of Concord V. William M. Gardner, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of New Hampshire Hon. Mary Jane Wallner, Harold Lynde, Hon. Thomas Katsiantonis, Jean Sanders, Hon. Kate Miller, Patricia Martin, Joe Cicirelli, William Butynski, William Donovan, Ginny Schneider, Michael Marsh, Peg Fargo, Joy K. Tilton, Roland Hofemann, Suzanne Gottling, Joseph Jesseman, Ron Geoffrey, Sr., Margaret Small-Porter, Brian T. Stern, Robyn St. Pierre, Jillian Dubois, Sinda Ullstrup, Hon. Charles Townsend V. William M. Gardner, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of New Hampshire Town of Gilford, Peter Millham and Leo Sanfacon V. William M. Gardner, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of New Hampshire Hon. Marshall E. Quandt, Hon. Tony F. Soltani,Hon. Matthew Quant, Hon. Leo Pepino, Hon. Julie E. Brown,Hon.Steven Vaillancourt, Hon. Irene Messier, Hon. James Pilliod Hon, James MacKay, Mary Ellen Moran-Siudut, Hon. Jean-Guy Bergeron William M. Gardner, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of New Hampshire INTERLOCUTORY TRANSFER STATEMENT

2 I. STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE This consolidated action involves a request for declaratory and injunctive relief against William M. Gardner, in his official capacity as Secretary of the State, based upon the claimed unconstitutionality of the House of Representatives redistricting plan, House Blll592 (the "House Redistricting Plan"), enacted as2012 Laws, Chapter 9 and codified into RSA 662:5 (2012). Various petitioners filed five separate actions against the Secretary of State and all of those actions have now been consolidated. The House of Representatives, through its Speaker, intervened. All of the parties to these actions have agreed to an interlocutory transfer without ruling. Sup. Ct. R.9. The record of this transferred case includes this Interlocutory Transfer Statement, the Appendix to the Interlocutory Transfer Statement ("Iapp"), and the Certified Record of the Legislative Record of 2012 Laws, Chapter 9 ("Leg.Rec."). There is no transcript needed to resolve this case. II. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The Petitioners include cities, torvns, and voters from various parts of New Hampshire. Many of the individual voters are legislators and prospective candidates for the House of Representatives. 2. Each of the Petitioners either is a municipality or lives in a town or ward that is large enough to constitute a House of Representatives District under Part II, Article 11, of the New Hampshire Constitution. 3. The City of Manchester ("Manchester") is a municipality with a total population, according to the 2010 Decennial Census conducted by the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census (the "Census"), of 109,565. Manchester has divided itself into

3 twelve wards of roughly equal population based on 2010 Census block data. The population of those wards according to the 2010 Census is as follows: a. Manchester Ward I - 9,121; b. Manchester Ward 2-9,219; c. Manchester Ward 3-9,1I3; d. Manchester Ward 4-9,175; e. Manchester Ward 5-9,250; f. Manchester'Ward 6-9,260; g. Manchester Ward 7-9,778; h. Manchester'Ward 8-9,135; i. Manchester Ward 9-9,169; j. Manchester Ward I0-9,0I2; k. Manchester Ward 11-8,991; l. ManchesterWard 12-9, The Honorable Barbara E. Shaw is an individual who resides at 45 Randall Street in Ward 9 in Manchester, New Hampshrre. 5. John R. Rist is an individual who resides at I92 Mammoth Road in Ward 8 in Manchester, New Hampshire. 6. The City of Concord ("Concord") is a municipality with a total population according to the 2010 Census of 42,695. Concord has divided itself into ten wards of roughly equal population based on 2010 Census block data. The population of those wards according to the 2010 Census is as follows:

4 a. Concord Ward I - 4,465; b. Concord Ward 2-4,387; c. Concord'Ward 3-4,328; d. Concord'Ward 4-4,737; e. Concord Ward 5-4,077; f. Concord Ward 6-4,165; g. Concord'Ward 7-4,25I; h. Concord Ward 8-4,741; i. Concord Ward 9-4,342; j. Concord Ward 10-4, The Honorable Mary Jane Wallner is an individual who resides at 4 Chestnut Pasture Road, in Ward 5 in Concord, New Hampshire. 8. The Honorable Harold V. Lynde, Jr. is an individual who resides at 114 Jeremy Hill Road, Pelham, New Hampshire. Pelham has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 12, The Honorable Thomas Katsiantonis is an individual who resides at 45 Glen Bloom Drive, in Ward 8 in Manchester, New Hampshire. 10. Jean Sanders is an individual who resides at 1 Stonewall Terrace, Atkinson, New Hampshire. Atkinson has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 6, The Honorable Kathryn Miller is an individual is an individual who resides at 27 Meredith Center Road, Meredith, New Hampshire. Meredith has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 6,241.

5 12. Patricia Martin is an individual who resides at77 Farrar Road, Rindge, New Hampshire. Rindge has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 6, Joe Cicirelli is an individual who resides at 144 Back Canaan Road, Strafford, New Hampshire. Strafford has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 3, The Honorable William Butynuski, Ph.D., is an individual who resides at 60 River Road, Hinsdale, New Hampshire. Hinsdale has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 4, William Donovan is an individual who resides at 20 Donovan Road, Gilford, New Hampshire. Gilford has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 7, Ginny Schneider is an individual who resides at25 Park Street, Henniker, New Hampshire. Henniker has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 4, Michael Marsh is an individual who resides at 90 Depot Road, Greenland, New Hampshire. Greenland has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 3, Peg Fargo is an individual who resides at 1 Blueberry Lane, Bow, New Hampshire. Bow has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 7, Joy K. Tilton is an individual who resides at 4 Hill Street, Northfield, New Hampshire. Northfield has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 4, Roland Hofemann is an individual who resides at 18 Wellington Avenue, in Ward 6 in Dover, New Hampshire. Dover has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 29,987. Dover has divided itself into six wards of roughly equal population based on 2010 Census block data. The population of those wards according to the 2010 Census are as follows: a. Dover Ward 7-4,991; b. Dover Ward 2-5,074:,

6 c. Dover Ward 3-5,028; d. Dover Ward 4-5,134; e. Dover Ward 5-4,773; f. Dover'Ward 6-4, Suzanne Gottling is an individual who resides at 173 Lake Avenue, Sunapee, New Hampshire. Sunapee has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 3, Joseph Jesseman is an individual who resides at 99 Silver Lake Road, Tilton, New Hampshire. Tilton has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 3, Ron Geoffrey, Sr. is an individual who resides at 470 Chester Road in Auburn, New Hampshire. Auburn has atotal population according to the 2010 federal census of 4, Margaret Small-Porter is an individual who resides at 28 Beech Street, Newmarket, New Hampshire. Newmarket has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 8, Brian T. Stem is an individual who resides al20i Tolend Road, in Ward 5 in Dover, New Hampshire. 26. Robyn St. Piene is an individual who resides at29 Lovering Avenue, Loudon, New Hampshire. Loudon has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 5, Jillian Dubois is an individual who resides at 19 St. Francis Place, Hudson, New Hampshire. Hudson has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 24, Sinda Ullstrup is an individual who resides at 46 Mary Rowe Drive, Hillsborough, New Hampshire. Hillsborough has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 6, Charles Townsend is an individual who resides at 49 }lall Road, Canaan, NH Canaan has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 3,909.

7 30. The Town of Gilford is a municipality with a total population according to the 2010 Census of 7, Peter V. Millham is an individual who resides at 426 Belknap Mountain Road, Gilford, New Hampshire. 32. Leo B. Sanfacon is an individual who resides at 38 Hawthorne Way, Gilford, New Hampshire. 33. The Honorable Marshall E. Quandt is an individual who resides at 45 Franklin Street, Exeter, New Hampshire. Exeter has a total population according the 2010 Census of 14, The Honorable Matthew Quandt is an individual who resides at 45 Franklin Street, Exeter, New Hampshire. 35. The Honorable Tony F. Soltani is an individual who resides ai1073 Highland Drive, Epsom, New Hampshire. Epsom has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 4, The Honorable Leo Pepino is an individual who resides at 73 Walnut Street, in Ward 4 in Manchester, New Hampshire. 37. The Honorable Julie E. Brown is an individual who resides at 4I4 Lilac City East, Rochester, New Hampshire. Rochester has a total population according the 2010 Census of 29,752. Rochester has divided itself six wards of roughly equal population based on 2010 census block data. The population of those wards according to the 2010 Census is as follows: a. Rochester Ward I - 4,995; b. Rochester Ward 2-5,030;

8 c. Rochester Ward 3-4,91I; d. Rochester Ward 4-4,905; e. Rochester Ward 5-4,897; f. Rochester Ward 6-5,074; 38. The Honorable Steve Vaillancourt is an individual who resides at 161 Faith Lane, in Ward 8 in Manchester, New Hampshire. 39. The Honorable Irene Messier is an individual who resides at 40 New Gate Circle, in Ward 10 in Manchester, New Hampshire. 40. The Honorable James Pilliod, M.D., is an individual who resides at 504 Provence Road, Belmont, New Hampshire. Belmont has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 7,356. 4I. The Honorable James MacKay, Ph.D. is an individual who resides at 139 North State Street, in Ward 4 in Concord, New Hampshire. 42. Mary Ellen Moran-Siudut is an individual who resides at 28 Mullen Drive, Pittsfìeld, New Hampshire. Pittsfield has a total population according to the 2010 Census of 4, The Honorable Jean-Guy Bergeron is an individual who resides at 180 Marsh Road, Pelham, New Hampshire. 44. The Respondent in all suits is William M. Gardner, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of New Hampshire. 45. The Intervenor in all suits is the New Hampshire House of Representatives, through its Speaker.

9 Legislative Process 46. In Spring z}il,the Special Committee on Redistricting began the process of reapportioning House districts across the State. 47. In March 20II, Representative Paul Mirski, Chairman of the Special Committee on Redistricting, sent a letter to all cities in the State requesting that they change their ward lines to conform to 2010 census block data and report those new boundaries to the committee by mid- November 20II. 48. In October 2}ll, members of the Special Committee on Redistricting traveled to the counties and held public hearings. 49. On November 1, 2}II,the Special Committee on Redistricting adopted "Guidelines and Legal Principles Applicable to Redistricting the House." Those guidelines were based upon interpretations of certain federal and state constitutional requirements. A copy is attached at Iapp. p These guidelines passed by a committee vote of 14Io The committee also accepted draft plans created by committee members as well as members of the public. 52. During this process, the committee rejected a number of plans, including those that did not conform to its adopted guidelines. Specifically, it rejected plans that had a range of deviation above l\yo or that used the aggregate method of deviation for floterial districts. The committee also rejected plans that relied on a method of "weighted voting" in floterial districts. 53. The redistricting committee process to develop the final plan included making political judgments. It culminated in the creation of HB 592.

10 54. The redistricting committee recommended and submitted HB 592 to the full House on January 12,2012. HB 592 was debated and amendments were offered. 55. The House passed HB 592 on January 78,2072. The Senate passed HB 592 on March I,2012. On March 26,2012, Governor John Lynch vetoed HB 592. On March 28,2012, the Legislature overrode the Governor's veto. Census and Legislative Process 56. The 2010 Census determined that the population of New Hampshire was 1,316,470. The Census determined the population of each city and town in New Hampshire as well. The population figures referenced above and the figures for every other municipality can be found at Iapp p. 6. The 2010 Census population entries in that document for city wards use the former ward lines in effect at the time of the Census and do not accurately report the 20i0 Census population of those wards as currently constituted for purposes of RSA 662:5. For reapportionment purposes, New Hampshire cities have adjusted their ward boundaries in accordance with the Census. A1l of New Hampshire's cities adjusted their ward boundaries such that the lines corresponded with those of census blocks for which Census population figures are available. The population figures for the current wards of all New Hampshire cities can also be found atlapp p. 41 and are derived from the Census. 57. RSA ó62:5 sets the size of the New Hampshire House of Representatives at 400 members. Based on the constitutional mandate that representatives be apportioned "as equal as circumstances will admit" (N.H.CONST. Part II, Art. 9), the ideal number of inhabitants for each district amounts to 3,297 people.

11 58. The apportionment plan for the House of Representatives in RSA 662:5 relied upon the 2010 Census figures for municipalities and for city wards set forlh in Iapp. pp. 6 and 41, 59. Four of the five suits challenging the House Redistricting Plan were filed within a month of the override vote, with Gilford's suit following shortly thereafter. Manchester filed suit ApnI23, Concord filed April 24,Wallner et a1., filed Apnl25, Quandt, et al., filed Apnl27, and Gilford et al filed on April 30. RSA 662:5 (2012) 60. RSA 662:5 (2012) is the enacted House redistricting plan. A copy of RSA 662:5 and maps illustrating the House Redistricting Plan are attached at IApp. p.50 and 69. 6l. RSA 662:5 (2012) is compose d of 204 districts. A chart showing the number of single-town, multi-town and floterial districts and seats is attached aiiapp. p The deviation in single-member and multi-member districts is computed using the aggregate method. 63. Under the aggregate method, the entire population of the district is subtracted by the ideal population for one or more representatives. The difference is then divided by the ideal population. The resulting number is the aggregate deviation from the ideal population. 64. The deviation in floterial districts under RSA 662:5 is computed using the component method. Under the component method, deviations are measured for each underlying district individually; the deviation for the entire floterial district is not calculated. The formula used to calculate component method deviation in floterial districts under RSA 662:5 is attached at Iapp. p RSA 662:5 (2012) has a total statewide range of deviationof 9'9o/o'

12 66. RSA 662:5 (2012) preserves the boundaries of towns, wards, and unincorporated places. 67. RSA 662:5 (2012) preserves county boundaries. 68. Regarding the City of Manchester, RSA 662:5,VI (2012) gives each Manchester ward its own district with its own two representatives. It then places the excess inhabitants of each ward into the following floterial districts: a. Manchester Wards I,2, and 3 - two representatives (Hillsborough County, District No. 42); b. Manchester Wards 4,5,6, andt - three representatives (Hillsborough County, District No. 43); c. Manchester Wards 8, 9, and Litchfield - two representatives (Hillsborough County, District No. 44); d. Manchester Wards 10, 11, and 12 - two representatives (Hillsborough County, District No. 45). 69. Regarding the City of Concord, RSA 662:5,YII (2012)joins Hopkinton and Concord Ward 5 into a multi-member district with three representatives (Merrimack County, District No. 10). Concord Ward 5 has a total population of 4,077. Hopkinton has a total population of 5,589. RSA 662:5 (2012) also gives Concord Wards l, 2, 3, 4, 6, J, 8, 9, and 10 their own districts with their own representative (Merrimack County, District Nos ). It then places the excess inhabitants of each ward into the following floterial districts: a. Concord Wards 7,2,3, 4, 6, and 7 - two representatives (Merrimack County, District No. 27); and t2

13 b. Concord Wards 8, 9, and 10 - one representative (Merrimack County, District No. 28). 70. Regarding Pelham, RSA 662:5,VI (2012)joins Pelham with Hudson into a multimember district with eleven representatives (Hillsborough County, District No. 37). 71. Regarding Atkinson, RSA 662:5, VIII (2012) combines Atkinson with Plaistow into a multi-member district with four representatives (Merrimack County, District No. 14). It then places the excess inhabitants of that multi-member district with the excess inhabitants of another multi-member district into a floterial district containing one representative seat (District No.34). 12. Regarding Gilford, RSA 662:5,I (2012) combines Gilford with Meredith into a multi-member district with 4 representatives (Belknap County, District No. 2). Meredith and Gilford share a border through Lake Winnipesaukee. The border line "meanders through the lake, passing by several islands and reaching a point in the lake off South Point on Long Island in Moultonboro where Meredith and Gilford converge upon the Moultonboro line." (Meredith Town Line Report 1968, Lines ran in 1975, Report updated in I975.). To travel over land between Gilford and Meredith, one has to travel either through the Downtown or Lakeport or Weirs sections of Laconia, a minimum three-mile drive from town line to town line. 73. Regarding Rindge, RSA 662:5,III (2012) combines Rindge with Fitzwilliam into a multi-member district with two representatives (Cheshire County, District No. 11). It then places the excess inhabitants of that multi-member district with the excess inhabitants of another multi-member district into a floterial district containing one representative seat (Cheshire County, District No. 14).

14 74. Regarding Strafford, RSA 662:5,IX(2012) combines Strafford and New Durham into a multi-member district with two representatives (Strafford County, District No. 3). Strafford and New Durham touch only at a single geometric point. 75. Regarding Hinsdale, RSA 662:5,III (2012) combines Hinsdale with Chesterfield, Westmoreland, and V/alpole into a multi-member district with four representatives (Cheshire County, District No. 1). 76. Regarding Exeter, RSA 662:5,VllrI (2012) gives Exeter its own district with its own four representatives (Rockingham County, District No. 18). It then places the excess inhabitants of Exeter with the excess inhabitants of two other districts to form a floterial district containing one representative seat (Rockingham County, District No. 36). 77. Regarding Epsom, RSA 662:5,YII (2012) combines Epsom and Pittsfield into a multi-member district with two representatives (Merrimack County, District No. 21). It then places the excess inhabitants of that district with the excess inhabitants from another district to form a floterial district containing one representative (Merrimack County, District No. 29). 78. Regarding the City of Rochester, RSA 662:5,IX(2012) gives each Rochester ward its own district with its own representative (Strafford County, District Nos. 7-12). It then places the excess inhabitants of each ward into the following floterial districts: a. Rochester Wards 1 and 6 - b. Rochester Wards 2 and 3 - one representative (Strafford County, District No. 22); one representative (Strafford County, District No' 23); and c. Rochester Wards 4 and 5 - one representative (Strafford County, District No. 24). 79. Regarding Belmont, RSA 662:5,I (2012) gives Belmont its own district with its own two representatives (Belknap County, District No. 6). It then places the excess inhabitants

15 of that district with the excess inhabitants from another multi-member district with the city of Laconia into a floterial district containing one representative (Belknap County, District No. 9)' 80. Regarding Henniker, RSA 662:5,VII (2012) combines Henniker and Bradford into a multi-member district with two representatives (Merrimack County, District No. 6). 81. Regarding Greenland, RSA 662:5,YIil.I (2012) combines Greenland with Newington into a multi-member district with one representative (Rockingham County, District No. 23). It then places the excess inhabitants of that district with the excess inhabitants from two other districts into a floterial district containing one representative (Rockingham County, District No.31). 82. Regarding Bow, RSA 662:5, VII (2012) combines Bow and Dunbarton into a multi-member district with three representatives (Merrimack County, District No. 23). 83. Regarding Northfield, RSA 662:5,VII (2012) combines Northheld and Franklin Ward 3 into a multi-member district (Merrimack County, District No. 3). It then places the excess inhabitants of that district with the excess inhabitants of two other districts into a floterial district with one representative (Merrimack County, District No. 26)' 84. Regarding Dover, RSA 662:5,IX(2012) gives Dover Wards 7,2,3, and 4 their own district with one representative each (Strafford County, District Nos ). It also combines Dover Wards 5 and 6 with Somersworth Ward 2 into a multi-member district with three representatives (Strafford County, District No. 17). It then places the excess inhabitants of those districts (Strafford County, District Nos ) into the following floterial districts: a. Dover Wards 1 and2 (Strafford County, District No. 19) - one representative; b. Dover Wards 3 and 4 (Strafford County, District No. 20) - one representative;

16 c. Dover Wards 5 and 6 and Somersworth Ward 2with Somersworth Wards 7,3,4, and 5 and Rollinsford (District No. 21) - one representative. 85. Regarding Sunapee, RSA 662:5,X (2012) combines Sunapee and Croydon into a multi-member district with one representative (Sullivan, District No. 2). It then places the excess inhabitants of that district with the excess inhabitants of two other multi-member districts into a floterial district with one representative (Sullivan, District No. 9). 86. Regarding Tilton, RSA 662:5,I (2012) combines Tilton and Sanbornton into a multi-member district with two representatives (Belknap County, District No. 4). 87. Regarding Aubum, RSA 662:5, VIII (2012) combines Auburn with Chester and Sandown into a multi-member district with five representatives (Rockingham County, District No.4). 88. Regarding Newmarket, RSA 662:5, VIII (2012) combines Newmarket with Newfields into a multi-member district with three representatives (Rockingham County, District No. 17). It then places the excess inhabitants of that district with the excess inhabitants of two other districts into a floterial district with one representative (Rockingham County, District No. 36). 89. Regarding Loudon, RSA 6ó2:5,VII (2012) combines Loudon and Canterbury into a multi-member district with two representatives (Merrimack County, District No. 9). It then places the excess inhabitants of that district with the excess of inhabitants of two other districts into a floterial district with one representative (Merrimack County, District No. 26). 90. Regarding Hillsborough, RSA 662:5,YI (2012) combines Hillsborough into a multi-member district with Windsor and Antrim with two representatives (Hillsborough County, District No. 1). It then places the excess inhabitants of that district with the excess inhabitants of

17 two other multi-member districts into a floterial district with two representatives (Hillsborough County, District No. 38). 91. Regarding Canaan, RSA 662: 5,V (2012) combines Canaan into a multi-member district with Dorchester and Wentworth with one representative (Grafton County, District No. 11). It then places the excess inhabitants of that district with the excess inhabitants of two other multi-member districts into a floterial district with one representative (Grafton Country, District No. 16). 92. The House of Representatives considered and rejected various amendments to HB 592 whichproposed alternative redistricting plans. Those amendments included: I8h, Rep. Doherty et al., attached at lapp. p. li2; h, Rep. Cohn et a1., attached at lapp. p.ii4; h, Reps. Cohn & Vaillancourt, attached at Iapp. p. 116; I56h, Rep. Vaillancourt, attached at lapp. p. 1 18; h, Rep. Leishman, attached ai Iapp. p The House also considered and rejected an amendment that would have created a system of weighted voting in floterial districts. See floor amendment proposed by Rep. Pierce h, attached at Iapp. p.122, 94. The House rejected plans that used a range of deviation beyond 10%. 95. In reviewing reapportionment plans for the House of Representatives, the House considered the positive or negative percentage deviation of any district from the ideal population of 3,291per representative. In the end, the Legislature rejected plans that increased the total range of deviation above 10 percent or that used the aggregate method to calculate the amount of deviation in floterial districts.

18 96. In addition to the plans rejected by the House, Petitioners also submit at lapp. pp. I42 atñ 153 two altemative redistricting plans, one with an expanded deviation and one with 400 single member districts, that Petitioners may allege constitutes evidence that RSA 662:5 is unconstitutional. The Respondent and Intervenor disagree with that allegation, but agree that Petitioners may argue that point on appeal. 97. If the Court determines that the Petitioners have standing to challenge RSA 662:5 as unconstitutional, the Petitioners may argue what the appropriate remedy is in this case. City of Manchester Additional Facts 98. Using the component method of deviation, and accounting for the floterial seats shared with Litchfield, Manchester as a whole has a surplus of 3,287 inhabitants above the ideal of 3,291 inhabitants per representative. 99. Manchester has found no record of it sharing a representative with a surrounding town since its incorporation as New Hampshire's ltrst city in Demographically, Manchester and Litchfield are different communities. As to housing, according to the 2010 Census, Manchester has 21,667 owner occupied units (47%) compared with2,528 for Litchfield (89%). Manchesterhas24,105 renter occupied units (53%) compared with 300 for Litchfield (11%). See, OCensus/index.htm (demographic rrofile 7.xls) According to the Census, Manchester has 89,893 Non-HispanicA{on-Latino White inhabitants (52%) compared wtth7,87l (95%) for Litchfield. Manchester has 18,672 Hispanic/Latino and Non-white inhabitants (ls%) compared with 400 for Litchfield (5%). See, (demographiclrofile 7.xls). 18

19 I02. According to the United States Census Bureau American Community Survey (5 year average ), the median household income in Manchester is $53,377 andin Litchfi eld $ 1 0 0, S ee, htç : //www. nh. gov/o eplpro grams/d atacentet I ACS/municipal_data.htm (S eq5 3 ( 1 ).xls) According to the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration 2011 Property Tax Tables, tax assessment data showed the following values for commercial/industrial buildings: Statewide:$78,539,417,102; Manchester:$2,36I,516,527 (13% of statewide); and Litchfield 518p76,200 (.01% of statewide). See, do cuments/tbc- alpha.pdf. I04. According to data maintained by the New Hampshire Department of Education, in there were 6780 Manchester students eligible for free or reduced priced meals out of 14,268 students in grades 1 through 12, or 48o/o. The comparable data for Litchfield show 149 students eligible out of 1418 students, or 11ol0. See, data/ attendance.htm (lunch_school1l_12 (1).xls). Manchester's Bakersville School serves students in the northem portion of Ward 9. The same data show that for grades 1 through 5,272 out of 256 students (83%) are eligible for free or reduced price meals. Southside Middle School serves students in Wards 8 and 9 and other areas. For grades 6 through 8, 425 out of 820 students (52%) are eligible for free or reduced price meals. See, data/ attendance.htm (lunch_ schooll l_12 (3).xls) The data also show that for the 20ll -2012yeat, the maximum income level for a student in a family of four for free meals is $29,055 and for reduced price meals is $4 1, http ://www. education.nh. gov/pro gr am/ nutrition/documents/nslp_app_attach_n.pdf.

20 105. According to data maintained by the New Hampshire Department of Education, as of October I,2071, the Manchester school enrollment of Hispanic and non-white students was4,989 out of 15,536 total enrollment (32o/o). The comparable number in Litchfield was 116 out of 1,501 total enrollment (8%). See, datalattendance.htm (racel I 12 (z).xls) The data for Bakersville School (October 1, 2010) showed that out of 368 students, 222 are Hispanic or non-white, i.e. 60%o. See, hltp:llmy.doe.nh.gov/profiles/ profile.aspx?oid:9099&s:&d:&yea=20i1&tab:student. The data also shows that for Southside Middle School (October 1, 2010) out of 861 students, 301 are Hispanic or non-white, i.e.35%. See, htlp:llmy.doe.nh.gov/profiles/profile.aspx?oid:9317 &s:&.d:&year:20i1&tab:student The New Hampshire Department of Education also maintains data concerning students eligible to receive services for limited English proficiency services. For Manchester, as of October 1,2010, there are 1,732 eliglble students out of 15,732 total enrollment (11%)' See, The comparable figures for Litchfield are 0 out of 1,580 total enrollment (0%). See, hltp:llmy.doe.nh.gov/profiles/profile.aspx?oid:27656&s:&.d:&.yea=2011&'tab:student. Out of 368 students at Bakersville School, the data showed that there were 115 students eligible to receive services for limited English proficiency, or 37o/o. See, profile.aspx?oid:9099&.s:&d:&year:2071&tab:student. Out of 861 students at Southside Middle School, there were 65 students receiving services for limited English proficiency, or 8Yo. See, htç://my.doe.nh.gov/profiles/profile.aspx?oid:9317&s:&d: &yea=2071&tab:student Manchester and Litchfield do not share municipal services in common. Manchester is a member of the Southern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission, which

21 also serves Londonderry, Derry, Candia, Deerfield, Hooksett, Aubum, Bedford, Goffstown, New Boston, Rayrnond, Chester and Weare. Litchfield is a member of the Greater Nashua Regional Planning Commission. Manchester Water Works also serves parts of Hooksett, Auburn, Goffstown, Auburn, Derry and Londonderry. Manchester Environmental Protection Division (waste water treatment) also serves parts of Bedford, Goffstown, and Londonderry. Manchester School District also educates high school students from Auburn, Candia and Hooksett and provides career training services to students from Goffstown and Londonderry. Litchfield has an entirely separate school system Manchester has specific interests in deaiing with state legislation. Manchester received from the state this hscal year $56,761,000 of annual education adequacy grants under a formula that currently targets additional funding based upon the number of English language learners, special education participants and free and reduced lunch. RSA 198:40-a and 41. Under the state budget, Manchester received from the state this fiscal year $4,894,000 in revenue sharing from rooms & meals tax receipts. Since 90o/o of Ihat revenue is obligated to bond repaynent on the city-owned YenzonWireless Arena, reduction or elimination of that revenue sharing would cause technical default of the bond covenants. A large portion of Manchester's budget comes from its receipt of federal contracts that pass through state government agencies, including public health, human services, education and refugee resettlement. Cify of Concord Additional Facts 109. In the prior decade, each Concord ward was its own district and three representatives were elected atlarge in a floterial district that covered the entire City The City of Concord has found no record that the New Hampshire Legislature has ever reapportioned the City of Concord to share a representative with another town.

22 111. The City of Concord and the Town of Hopkinton are different. Each community, among other things, raises its own taxes, operates its own schools, and maintains its own roads. The City of Concord's emergency services include police and fire departments, which are different in size and scope than Hopkinton's emergency services. The City of Concord's interests with respect to education funding, the meals and rooms tax, and health and human services, may not be consistent with the Town of Hopkinton. III. QUESTTONS OF LAW All of the Petitioners seek a declaration that RSA 662:5 violates the New Hampshire Constitution, and an order enjoining implementation of RSA 662:5. Therefore, the principle legal questions are: 1. Did the trial court err in granting the motions to intervene by the House of Representatives, through the Speaker of the House? 2. Do some or all of the Petitioners lack standing to raise their claims of unconstitutionality? 3. Is RSA 662:5 unconstitutional under the Federal and State Constitutions? To answer this question, the Court may address these subsidiary questions: 3-A Does RSA 662:5 fail to adequately provide towns and city wards having a sufficient number of inhabitants their own districts of one or more representative seats and thus violate N.H.CONST. Part II, Article 11? 3-B Does RSA 662:5 fail to properly apply contiguity in the reapportionment of the House of Representatives and thus violate N.H.CONST. Part I, Articles I, 2 and 1 1 and Part II, Articles 9 and II? 3-C Does the New Hampshire Constitution require the Legislature to take into account community of interest factors in reapportioning the House of Representatives and, if so, does RSA 662:5 fail to properly account for those factors and thus violate N.H.CONST. Part I, Articles 1,2 and 11 and Part II, Articles 9 and II? 4. If some or all of RS A 662:5 is unconstitutional, is the statute severable? In its consideration of the constitutionality of RS A 662:5, the Court may be presented with the following questions of law. If RSA 662:5 is unconstitutional, answers to these questions may inform the redistricting process going forward.

23 5. Must the Legislature use a range of deviation above 10% if doing so would allow greater compliance with State Constitutional requirements? 6. Does the New Hampshire Constitution permit use of the "agg\egate method" to calculate deviations in floterial districts for the purpose of reapportionment of the House of Representatives; and, if so, must the Legislature use the "aggregate method" if doing so would allow greater compliance with State and Federal Constitutional requirements? 7. Does the New Hampshire Constitution permit the use of weighted voting in floterial districts in reapportioning the House of Representatives and, if so, must the Legislature use weighted voting in floterial districts if doing so would allow gteater compliance with State and Federal Constitutional requirements? 8. Does the federal-state principle of one person, one vote require the Legislature to disregard all of the other State Constitutional redistricting requirements and divide itself into single-member districts so as to ensure only the minimal deviations that are required in Congressional redistricting? IV. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY TRANSFER This case is the first to examine reapportionment of the House of Representation under the requirements of the 2006 amendment to N.H.CONST. Part II, Art. 11. This case is also the first to question whether certain community of interest factors, including income, race and regional connections, must be constitutionally considered in developing a reapportionment plan for the House of Representatives. As this Court is well aware,reapportionment is a contentious matter which often results in litigation at least every ten years. Indeed, New Hampshire saw redistricting litigation in this Court in2002,2q04, and again in Elections are among the most important activities in the civic life of this state. Because of the approaching filing deadlines for candidates for the House of Representatives, an interlocutory transfer is the only method to resolve these issues fast enough so that a legislative remedy may be adopted (if so ordered) in time to allow the Secretary of State to supervis e the 2012 election process. 23

24 V. PARTIES AND COUNSEL The names and addresses of the lawyers involved in this appeal and the names of their respective clients are as follows: Thomas J. Donovan, Bar No. 664 MCLANE, GRAF, RAULERSON & MIDDLETON PROFES SIONAL ASSOCIATION City HallPlaza,900 Elm Street P.O. Box 326 Manchester, NH (603) 62s-6464 Counselþr City of Manchester, Hon. Barbara E. Shaw, John R. Rist Danielle L. Pacik, Bar No Deputy City Solicitor, 41 Green Street Concord, New Hampshire (603) 22s-8s0s Counselþr City of Concord Peter V. Millham, Bar No Wescott, Dyer, Fitzgerald & Nichols, PA 28 Bowman St. Laconia, NH (603) s Counselfor Town of Gilþrd, Peter Millham and Lee Sanfocon Martin P. Honigberg, Bar No Jay Surdukowski, Bar No SULLOWAY & HOLLIS, P.L.L.C 9 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 1256 Concord, NH Tel: (ó03) Counselfor Hon. Mary Jane Wallner, Harold Lynde, Hon. Thomas Katsiantonis, Jean Sanders, Hon. Kate Miller, Patricia Martin, Joe Cicirelli, William Butynski, William Donovan, Ginny Schneider, Michael Marsh, Peg Fargo, 24

25 Joy K. Tilton, Roland Hofemann, Suzanne Gottling, Joseph Jesseman, Ron Geffiey, Sr., Margaret Small-Porter, Brian T. Stern, Robyn St. Pierue, Jillian Dubois, Sinda Ullstrup, Hon. Charles Townsend Tony F. Soltani, Bar No Jason B. Dennis, Bar No The Munilaw Group P O Box 300 Epsom, New Hampshire Counsel for Hon. Marshall Lee Quant, Hon. Tony F. Soltani, Hon. Matthew Quant, Hon. Leo Pepino, Hon. Julie Brown, Hon. Steven Vaillancourt, Hon. Irene Messier, Hon. James Pilliod, Hon. James MacKay, Mary Ellen Moran-Siudut, Hon. Jean-Guy Bergeron David A. Vicinanzo,Bar No Anthony J, Galdieri, Bar No Nixon Peabody LLP 900 Elm Street Manchester, NH Counselfor the New Hampshire House of Repres entatives, through its Speaker Michael A. Delaney Attomey General Anne M. Edwards, Bar No Stephen G. LaBonte, Bar No Capitol Street Concord, NH Counselfor the Secretary of State of the State of New Hampshire VI. TRIAL COURT SIGNATURE Dated: }if.ayll,2012 rc, wn, Presiding Justice 25

26 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDICIAL BRANGH SUPERIOR COURT Hillsborough Superior Court Northern District Telephone: (603) Chestnut Street TTY/TDD Relay: (800) Manchester NH May 1 1,2012 THOMAS J. DONOVAN, ESQ MCLANE GRAF RAULERSON & MIDDLETON PA 9OO ELM STREET PO BOX 326 MANCHESTER NH _Case Name: City of Manchester, et al v William M. Gardner, Secretary of State Case Number: CV cv-00273; cv-00380; cv-00139; CV You are hereby notified that on May 1 1,2012, the following order was entered in the above matter re: PLAINTIFF'S ASSENTED-TO MOTION TO JOIN ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS "Motion granted." re: INTERLOCUTORY TRANSFER STATEMENT (Signed Original Fonruarded this date to Attorney Donovan for Filing with Supreme Court) (Brown, J.) (537) John M. Safford Clerk of Court C: Stephen G. LaBonte, ESQ; Anne M. Edwards, ESQ; David Andrew Vicinanzo, ESQ; Anthony J. Galdieri, ESQ; Martin P. Honigberg, ESQ; Jay Surdukowski, ESQ; Jason B. Dennis, ESQ; Peter V. Millham, ESe; Danielle L. pacik, ESe; Richard J. Lehmann, ESe NHJ B DFPS (07 t01 t201 1)