Home » News » Politics
September 19. 2012 10:19PM
Manchester loses appeal to redistricting decision
CONCORD — A Superior Court judge has denied the city of Manchester's motion to continue a lawsuit seeking to strike down a redistricting plan crafted by House Republican leadership and upheld by the state Supreme Court.
The decision dismissed the city's lawsuit, but led to a war of words between Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas and House Speaker William O'Brien.
“The Manchester petitioners have not represented that any outstanding issues beyond those subject to this opinion remain to be adjudicated in the case. Accordingly, the Manchester petitioners' petition is dismissed with prejudice,” Hillsborough County Superior Court Justice Kenneth C. Brown wrote in his decision, which was handed down Monday.
In a statement released Wednesday, House Speaker William O'Brien praised Brown's ruling and criticized the city of Manchester's decision to appeal.
“While it was certainly reasonable to expect that there would be a challenge to the implementation of a new constitutional amendment, the choice by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen to continue this case after the Supreme Court ruling was a colossal waste of both taxpayer funds and the court's time,” O'Brien said. “The fact that the court decided to dismiss this case with prejudice clearly demonstrates this was a frivolous fishing expedition that accomplished nothing.”
O'Brien claimed that the city's action cost “roughly $13,000.” He called on the city “to consider reimbursing the state for this upshifting of costs to the hardworking taxpayers of New Hampshire.”
Gatsas, meanwhile, said he would be happy to consider O'Brien's proposal, should O'Brien be willing to reimburse the city for additional costs Gatsas said the city incurred from pension reforms enacted by the Legislature last year.
“I have no problem reimbursing him $13,000 for upshifting costs if he'd like to send me a check for $4 million in downshifting to us,” Gatsas said. “We certainly can continue that dialogue.”
Manchester, Concord and three other plaintiffs sued the state over the redistricting plan, saying it was unconstitutional because it failed to follow the 2006 state constitutional amendment requiring that every community with sufficient population be provided a House seat. They argued the House proposal failed to deliver on that promise to 62 communities and divided cities, towns and wards unnecessarily, created districts that are not contiguous and ignored communities of interest. The Supreme Court in June unanimously rejected the plaintiffs' claim, saying the challengers did not prove that the plan violated the State Constitution. Manchester alone appealed and was again rejected Monday.
Gatsas said the city “believed” in its cause and that the court erred when it applied federal deviation rules to New Hampshire.
“When you compare New Hampshire, which has more than 400 representatives, to every other state in the country, the deviation isn't reasonable,” he said.
Tim Buckland may be reached at tbuckland@unionleader.com.
The decision dismissed the city's lawsuit, but led to a war of words between Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas and House Speaker William O'Brien.
“The Manchester petitioners have not represented that any outstanding issues beyond those subject to this opinion remain to be adjudicated in the case. Accordingly, the Manchester petitioners' petition is dismissed with prejudice,” Hillsborough County Superior Court Justice Kenneth C. Brown wrote in his decision, which was handed down Monday.
In a statement released Wednesday, House Speaker William O'Brien praised Brown's ruling and criticized the city of Manchester's decision to appeal.
“While it was certainly reasonable to expect that there would be a challenge to the implementation of a new constitutional amendment, the choice by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen to continue this case after the Supreme Court ruling was a colossal waste of both taxpayer funds and the court's time,” O'Brien said. “The fact that the court decided to dismiss this case with prejudice clearly demonstrates this was a frivolous fishing expedition that accomplished nothing.”
O'Brien claimed that the city's action cost “roughly $13,000.” He called on the city “to consider reimbursing the state for this upshifting of costs to the hardworking taxpayers of New Hampshire.”
Gatsas, meanwhile, said he would be happy to consider O'Brien's proposal, should O'Brien be willing to reimburse the city for additional costs Gatsas said the city incurred from pension reforms enacted by the Legislature last year.
“I have no problem reimbursing him $13,000 for upshifting costs if he'd like to send me a check for $4 million in downshifting to us,” Gatsas said. “We certainly can continue that dialogue.”
Manchester, Concord and three other plaintiffs sued the state over the redistricting plan, saying it was unconstitutional because it failed to follow the 2006 state constitutional amendment requiring that every community with sufficient population be provided a House seat. They argued the House proposal failed to deliver on that promise to 62 communities and divided cities, towns and wards unnecessarily, created districts that are not contiguous and ignored communities of interest. The Supreme Court in June unanimously rejected the plaintiffs' claim, saying the challengers did not prove that the plan violated the State Constitution. Manchester alone appealed and was again rejected Monday.
Gatsas said the city “believed” in its cause and that the court erred when it applied federal deviation rules to New Hampshire.
“When you compare New Hampshire, which has more than 400 representatives, to every other state in the country, the deviation isn't reasonable,” he said.
- - - - - - - -
Tim Buckland may be reached at tbuckland@unionleader.com.
» SHARE EVENTS FOR PUBLICATION, IT'S FREE!
Upcoming Events
- Should Manchester's mayor receive a 59% pay raise?
- Yes
- 23%
- No
- 77%
- Total Votes: 292