2323 E.

Franklin Ave Minneapolis, MN 55406

May 23, 2012

Honorable Mark Ritchie Minnesota Secretary of State 180 State Office Building 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55155 Dear Secretary of State Ritchie: Common Cause Minnesota urges you, as the lead defendant in the redistricting litigation (Hippert v. Ritchie), to protect Minnesota taxpayers from paying the excessive attorney fees requested in the redistricting case. In past Minnesota redistricting cases, the state has awarded attorney fees for Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. 1988). However, the state of Minnesota in 2002 did challenge the amount of the fees awarded. This year the facts are different and require a more vigorous defense of taxpayer money. It is important to note that the court does have considerable discretion in awarding such fees. With the state budget facing a likely deficit during the next biennium, the state needs to be mindful of every expense that it makes and vigorously oppose expenses that it should not have to award. Common Cause Minnesota requests that your office oppose the attorney fees requested by both the Hippert and Martin plaintiffs for the reasons stated below. First, the primary purpose of the redistricting case was not to determine if the plaintiffs rights were violated under the law but to develop the legislative and congressional districts that reflect the population changes unveiled in the 2010 census. The state of Minnesota was a truly a nominal defendant in the matter and played no active role in the proceedings. As a result, there was no prevailing party in the matter because the argument was between the three plaintiffs over how the map should be drawn and not over whether the plaintiffs rights had been violated. In fact, the reason that Minnesotas legislative and congressional districts were malapportioned on February 21, 2011, was a direct result of the actions of the Hippert and Martin plaintiffs. Those plaintiffs essentially represented the interests of the Democratic Farmer Labor Party and the Republican Party of Minnesota in the legislative and executive branches. This is demonstrated by the fact of the Hippert map is almost exactly the same as the map proposed by Republicans in the Minnesota legislature and the named plaintiff for the Martin party is the chair of the Democratic Famer Labor Party. It is because these groups could not agree on new congressional and legislative maps during the legislative session that the

court had to intervene in this matter. Not only that, but the legislature had an opportunity to reform the redistricting process and thus prevent the redistricting dispute from landing before the state court. The court should not reward the parties for failing to do their job as required under the Minnesota Constitution. Second, the attorney fees requested are significantly higher than the value that the attorneys provided to the court. Traditionally, the court has significantly reduced the attorney fees awarded based on the number of hours that could be reasonably expended on litigation and by examining the results. In 2002, the court awarded a flat rate of $100,000 per party. If that number were adjusted for inflation than each party should only receive $127,896.05 in attorney fees this year. That amount should be reduced because the final plan adopted by the court was not significantly similar to the three parties plans. In fact, the court said that its map was based on a least change map from the previous legislative and congressional boundaries. In addition, most of the work provided by the Hippert plaintiff was actually the work of the legislative caucus staff that drew the legislative and congressional maps submitted by the Republican Party. In comparing the map drawn by the House Republican caucus and the Hippert map, they are almost identical. For that reason it is hard to justify what value the lawyers for the Hippert plaintiff provided to the court. Less is known about the origin of the Martin plaintiff map because the DFL legislative caucus never introduced a plan during the legislative session. However, based on examination of the billing records of the Martin plaintiff there is evidence of coordination and collaboration with the DFL legislative staff. This raises significant questions about the real value that the Martin attorneys provided the plaintiff in submitting a legislative and congressional map. For these reasons, the Minnesota Secretary of State should oppose any fees awarded to the Hippert and Martin plaintiffs. It is clear that the parties intended to use the courts as the venue to handle this legislative dispute. For that reason, there should be no expectation that the citizens of Minnesota should be expected to pay for their failure to get the job done. In fact, the citizens of Minnesota already allocated significant amounts of money to the legislative caucuses to accomplish this task. To now make them pay for the attorneys in this matter is duplicative and unnecessary. Please stand up for Minnesota taxpayers.

Sincerely,

Mike Dean Common Cause Minnesota