DOCSLIB.ORG

Plaintiff's Motion for the Court to Issue Direction To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Plaintiff's Motion for the Court to Issue Direction To STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 18CVS 014001 COMMON CAUSE,etal, Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO LEGISLATIVE DEFENDANTS DAVID LEWIS,IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SENIOR CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON REDISTRICTING, et al., Defendants. m a EXHIBIT A STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE 1 A P P E A R A N C E S (continued) SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 2 Counsel for the Defendant-Intervenors: COUNTY OF WAKE 18 CVS 014001 3 Shanahan Law Group BY: John E. Branch, III COMMON CAUSE, ET AL., ) 4 128 E. Hargett Street, Suite 300 ) Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Plaintiffs, ) 5 (919) 856-9494 ) [email protected] vs. ) 6 ) Counsel for the Deponent: DAVID LEWIS, IN HIS OFFICIAL ) 7 CAPACITY AS SENIOR CHAIRMAN ) Fiduciary Litigation Group OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ) 8 BY: Tom Sparks ON REDISTRICTING, ET AL., ) 223 South West Street, Suite 900 ) 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Defendants. ) (919) 229-0845 10 [email protected] 11 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 12 Also Present: Trae Howerton, Videographer STEPHANIE HOFELLER 13 ________________________________________________ 14 9:38 A.M. 15 FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2019 16 Reported By: Discovery Court Reporters and Legal ________________________________________________ Videographers 17 BY: Lisa A. Wheeler, RPR, CRR POYNER SPRUILL 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1000 18 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 301 FAYETTEVILLE STREET, SUITE 1900 (919) 649-9998 19 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA --oOo-- 20 21 22 23 BY: LISA A. WHEELER, RPR, CRR 24 25 1 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 1 I N D E X 2 Counsel for the Plaintiffs: PAGE 3 Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer 2 BY: R. Stanton Jones 4 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW EXAMINATION BY MR. JONES 6 Washington, D.C. 20001-3743 3 5 (202) 942-5000 EXAMINATION BY MS. SCULLY 44 [email protected] 4 6 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRANCH 195 -and- 5 7 6 Poyner Spruill 7 8 BY: Edwin M. Speas, Jr. E X H I B I T S 301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1900 8 HOFELLER 9 Raleigh, NC 27601 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE (919) 783-6400 9 10 [email protected] EXHIBIT 1 Subpoena, Stephanie Hofeller 9 11 Counsel for the Defendants State Board of Elections 10 Lizon and Ethics Enforcement and its members: 11 12 EXHIBIT 2 Color Photocopied Photographs 14 North Carolina Department of Justice 12 EXHIBIT 3 Subpoena, Kathleen H. Hofeller 167 13 Special Litigation 13 EXHIBIT 4 Subpoena, The Estate of Thomas 167 BY: Paul M. Cox Hofeller 14 114 West Edenton Street 14 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 15 EXHIBIT 5 Certificate of Service 174 (919) 716-6900 15 [email protected] (Incompetent Proceeding), with 16 Attachments Counsel for the Legislative Defendants: 16 17 EXHIBIT 6 Petition for Adjudication of 174 BakerHostetler 17 Incompetence and Application 18 BY: Elizabeth A. Scully for Appointment of Guardian or Washington Square, Suite 1100 18 19 Limited Guardian 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 19 Washington, D.C. 20036-5403 EXHIBIT 7 Interim Report of the Guardian 180 20 (202) 861-1500 Ad Litem [email protected] 20 21 EXHIBIT 8 Order on Motion for 184 -and- 21 Appointment of Interim 22 Guardian Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart 22 23 BY: Thomas A. Farr 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 EXHIBIT 9 Report of the Guardian Ad 188 24 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 23 Litem (919) 787-9700 24 EXHIBIT 10 Motion to Dismiss 192 25 [email protected] 25 2 4 1 (Pages 1 to 4) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 married name of Stephanie Hofeller Lizon? 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going on the record 2 A. It was actually Stephanie Louise Lizon. 3 at 9:38 a.m. Today's date is May the 17th, 3 Q. Okay. And now you -- you've dropped the 4 2019. This begins the video deposition of 4 Lizon; you just go by Stephanie Hofeller? 5 Stephanie Hofeller taken in the matter of 5 A. That's right. 6 Common Cause, et al., versus David Lewis, in 6 Q. And that's your maiden name? 7 his Official Capacity As Senior Chairman of 7 A. Correct. 8 the House Select Committee on Redistrict -- 8 Q. Excellent. Okay. I'll go over some brief 9 Redistricting, et al. This is filed in the 9 ground rules for the deposition today if 10 General Court of Justice, Superior Court 10 that's okay. 11 Division, in Wake County, North Carolina, 11 A. Yes. 12 Case Number 18 CVS 014001. 12 Q. So you understand that you've taken an oath 13 If counsel will please identify 13 to tell the truth today? 14 yourselves for the record and whom you 14 A. I do. 15 represent and then our court reporter will 15 Q. Great. And the court reporter is taking down 16 swear in our witness. 16 everything that we say so let's try not to 17 MR. JONES: Stanton Jones from Arnold & 17 talk over one another. If you let me finish 18 Porter for the plaintiffs. 18 my question, I will let you finish your 19 MR. SPEAS: Eddie Speas with Poyner 19 answer. Does that make sense? 20 Spruill for the plaintiffs. 20 A. Acknowledged, yes. 21 MR. COX: Paul Cox with the North 21 Q. Your -- your counsel may object to some of my 22 Carolina Attorney General's Office for the 22 questions today and -- and that's fine. 23 State Board of Elections. 23 Un- -- you understand that unless he 24 MR. BRANCH: John Branch with Shanahan 24 instructs you not to answer a question, you 25 Law Group for the intervenor defendants. 25 should let him state his objection for the 5 7 1 MR. FARR: Tom Farr with Ogletree 1 record and then you'll go ahead and answer? 2 Deakins for the def- -- legislative 2 A. Yes, I understand that. 3 defendants. 3 Q. Great. Is there any reason that you couldn't 4 MS. SCULLY: Elizabeth Scully with 4 give complete, accurate, and truthful 5 BakerHostetler for the legislative 5 testimony today? 6 defendants. 6 A. No. 7 MR. SPARKS: Tom Sparks representing 7 Q. And if you want a break, just let me know. 8 the deponent, Stephanie Hofeller. 8 We'll finish the question and answer that 9 * * * * 9 we're doing and -- and happy to take a break 10 STEPHANIE HOFELLER, 10 whenever you'd like, okay? 11 having been first sworn or affirmed by the court 11 A. All right. Thanks. 12 reporter and Notary Public to tell the truth, the 12 Q. What state do you live in? 13 whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified 13 A. Kentucky. 14 as follows: 14 Q. Great. So you don't live in North Carolina? 15 EXAMINATION 15 A. That's correct. 16 BY MR. JONES: 16 Q. Okay. And where you live in Kentucky, how 17 Q. Good morning, Ms. Hofeller. 17 far is it from where we are in Raleigh? 18 A. Hello. 18 A. It's about a ten- or 11-hour drive. 19 Q. I'm Stanton Jones from Arnold & Porter and I 19 Q. Okay. Do you know, roughly how many miles is 20 represent the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. 20 it? 21 Would you please state your full name for the 21 A. Roughly 650, something like that, I think. 22 record. 22 Q. Okay. And can you tell me, who -- who are 23 A. Stephanie Louise Hofeller. 23 your parents? 24 Q. Excellent. And am I right that you 24 A. My father is Thomas Brooks Hofeller and my 25 previously went by what I believe is a 25 mother is Kathleen Hartsough Hofeller. 6 8 2 (Pages 5 to 8) DISCOVERY COURT REPORTERS www.discoverydepo.com 1-919-424-8242 STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 1 Q. Great. So I have some questions about the 1 February, did you review this -- this list of 2 subpoena that you received in this case. Is 2 documents and things that were -- were asked 3 that okay? 3 to be produced? 4 A. Yes. 4 A. Yes, I did. 5 Q. Great. So earlier this year you received a 5 Q. Okay. And did -- did you understand that the 6 subpoena from the plaintiffs in this case; is 6 subpoena was requesting any electronic 7 that right? 7 storage devices that had any of your father's 8 A. That's correct. 8 work drawing maps for the North Carolina 9 Q. Okay. 9 legislature? 10 MR. JONES: Mark this. 10 A. Yes. 11 (HOFELLER EXHIBIT 1 was marked for 11 Q. Okay. Did you have any materials that were 12 identification.) 12 responsive to these requests in the subpoena? 13 BY MR. JONES: 13 A. I did. 14 Q. I'm showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 14 Q. Okay. And -- and were -- am I right that 15 1. Do you recognize this document as the 15 those were electronic storage devices? 16 subpoena that you received from the 16 A. Yes. 17 plaintiffs in this case? 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. Yes. Yes, I do. 18 A. External hard drives and ad -- I don't know 19 Q. Okay. And do you see on the first page under 19 what the proper -- or what people prefer to 20 name and address of person subpoenaed on the 20 call them, ad-stick, thumb drive, external 21 left side toward the top it says, Stephanie 21 storage devices to be used as backup 22 Hofeller Lizon? That -- that's you, correct? 22 principally.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Computer Models and Post-Bandemer Redistricting
    Computer Models and Post-Bandemer Redistricting Michelle H. Browdy Since the Supreme Court first held political redistricting1 to be justicia- ble in Baker v. Carr,2 legal challenges to districting plans have increased dramatically.3 Because the Court's 1986 decision in Davis v. Bandemer4 held partisan gerrymandering5 to be justiciable for the first time,6 even more litigation will likely accompany redistricting following the 1990 cen- 1. States are divided into geographical districts from which representatives are elected either for the United States House of Representatives or for state legislative bodies. Political redistricting occurs when states redraw their political boundary lines after each decennial census. Since the benefits and detriments of automated redistricting apply equally to both congressional and state legislative redis- triting, this Note will not distinguish between them. The Supreme Court, however, does treat chal- lenges to the two types of districts differently, applying tighter standards of population equality to congressional districts than to state legislative districts. Compare Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) (invalidating plan for New Jersey's congressional districts with average deviation from perfect population equality of 0.1384%) with Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983) (upholding plan for Wyoming state legislature with maximum population deviation of 89%). 2. 369 U.S. 186 (1962). In Baker, the Court held that a challenge to the disparity of population size in districts of the Tennessee General Assembly was justiciable under the equal protection clause, U.S. CoN sT. amend XIV, § 1. A previous challenge to the lack of population equality in districts in Illinois had been held nonjusticiable when it was brought under the guaranty clause, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Districting Criteria and a Proposal for Their Empirical Redefinition
    GERRYMANDERED BY DEFINITION: THE DISTORTION OF “TRADITIONAL” DISTRICTING CRITERIA AND A PROPOSAL FOR THEIR EMPIRICAL REDEFINITION YUNSIEG P. KIM* & JOWEI CHEN† What are “traditional” districting criteria? The meaning of that term is critical to curbing abusive districting practices because adherence to traditional criteria grants districting plans a prima facie impression of constitutionality and serves as a strong defense to racial gerrymandering claims. Yet, the Supreme Court has never intelligibly defined “traditional” districting criteria or its indicative qualities. Exploiting this silence, various actors are attempting to define that term in service of their own interests, usually at the expense of the public’s. For example, legislatures pushing redistricting plans that would advantage certain parties or incumbents claim that those districting goals are “traditional”—and therefore must be judicially protected—by relying on anecdotal examples of a state having used them. This Article proposes a definition of “traditional” districting criteria that would both reduce such abuse and adhere to a commonly understood meaning of that word: widely accepted as standard practice. Under this alternative, which we call the empirical definition, a criterion is “traditional” only if a majority of states require or allow it and fewer than a quarter prohibit it in state constitutions, statutes, or legislative guidelines. According to the empirical definition and our database of the fifty states’ redistricting laws, compactness, contiguity, equal population, and preserving county and city boundaries are traditional criteria. Among others, partisan advantage, incumbent protection, and preserving communities of interest are nontraditional. The empirical definition would not only curb abusive districting but also reduce the influence of undesirable judicial activism by binding judges’ discretion to an objectively discernible definition of “traditional” criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2018 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus RUCHO ET AL. v. COMMON CAUSE ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 18–422. Argued March 26, 2019—Decided June 27, 2019* Voters and other plaintiffs in North Carolina and Maryland filed suits challenging their States’ congressional districting maps as unconsti- tutional partisan gerrymanders. The North Carolina plaintiffs claimed that the State’s districting plan discriminated against Demo- crats, while the Maryland plaintiffs claimed that their State’s plan discriminated against Republicans. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Four- teenth Amendment, the Elections Clause, and Article I, §2. The Dis- trict Courts in both cases ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the de- fendants appealed directly to this Court. Held: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions be- yond the reach of the federal courts. Pp. 6–34. (a) In these cases, the Court is asked to decide an important ques- tion of constitutional law. Before it does so, the Court “must find that the question is presented in a ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ that is .
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Marland Greenbelt Division
    Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 43-16 Filed 12/07/11 Page 1 of 53 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARLAND GREENBELT DIVISION MS.PATRICIA FLETCHER, ) et al., ) ) Civ. Action No.: RWT-11-3220 ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) LINDA LAMONE in her official ) capacity as State Administrator of ) Elections for the state of Maryland; ) And ROBERT L. WALKER in his ) official capacity as Chairman of the ) State Board of Elections, ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________) DECLARATION AND EXPERT REPORT OF RONALD KEITH GADDIE, Ph.D. Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 43-16 Filed 12/07/11 Page 2 of 53 DECLARATION OF RONALD KEITH GADDIE I, Ronald Keith Gaddie, being competent to testify, hereby affirm on my personal knowledge as follows: 1. My name is Ronald Keith Gaddie. I reside at 3801 Chamberlyne Way, Norman, Oklahoma, 73072. I have been retained as an expert to provide analysis of the Maryland congressional districts by counsel for the Fannie Lou Hamer Coalition. I am being compensated at a rate of $300.00 per hour. I am a tenured professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma. I teach courses on electoral politics, research methods, and southern politics at the undergraduate and graduate level. I am also the general editor (with Kelly Damphousse) of the journal Social Science Quarterly. I am the author or coauthor of several books, journal articles, law review articles, and book chapters and papers on aspects of elections, including most recently The Triumph of Voting Rights in the South. In the last decade I have worked on redistricting cases in several states, and I provided previous expert testimony on voting rights, redistricting, and statistical issues.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 214 Filed 05/30/19 Page 1 of 5 1 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 2 MARK R. BECKINGTON ANTHONY R. HAKL 3 Supervising Deputy Attorneys General GABRIELLE D. BOUTIN, SBN 267308 4 R. MATTHEW WISE, SBN 238485 ANNA T. FERRARI, SBN 261579 5 TODD GRABARSKY, SBN 286999 NOREEN P. SKELLY, SBN 186135 6 Deputy Attorneys General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 7 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 8 Telephone: (916) 210-6053 Fax: (916) 324-8835 9 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California, by and 10 through Attorney General Xavier Becerra 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. Case No. 18-cv-01865-RS 16 Plaintiffs, 18-cv-02279-RS 17 v. 18 NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS IN WILBUR L. ROSS, et al., RELATED ACTION 19 Defendants. 20 ------------------------------------------------------ 21 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., 22 Plaintiffs, 23 v. 24 WILBUR L. ROSS, et al., 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 214 Filed 05/30/19 Page 2 of 5 1 The plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases respectfully provide notice to the Court of 2 proceedings in the related action of State of New York v. U.S. Department of Commerce, 18-CV- 3 2921 in the United States Court for the Southern District of New York (New York action). 4 On May 30, 2019, certain plaintiffs in the New York action filed in the district court a 5 request for an order to show cause whether sanctions or other appropriate relief are warranted in 6 light of new evidence contradicting sworn deposition testimony in that case.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Brief of the Brennan Center for Justice in Support of Petitioners
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 159 MM 2017 League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, Carmen Febo San Miguel, James Solomon, John Greiner, John Capowski, Gretchen Brandt, Thomas Rentschler, Mary Elizabeth Lawn, Lisa Isaacs, Don Lancaster, Jordi Comas, Robert Smith, William Marx, Richard Mantell, Priscilla Mcnulty, Thomas Ulrich, Robert Mckinstry, Mark Lichty, Lorraine Petrosky, Petitioners, v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the Pennsylvania General Assembly; Thomas W. Wolf, In His Capacity as Governor of Pennsylvania; Michael J. Stack III, In His Capacity As Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania and President of the Pennsylvania Senate; Michael C Turzai, In His Capacity As Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives; Joseph B. Scarnati III, In His Capacity As Pennsylvania Senate President Pro Tempore; Robert Torres, In His Capacity As Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Jonathan M. Marks, In His Capacity As Commissioner of the Bureau Of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation of the Pennsylvania Department of State, Respondents. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS On Consideration from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Civ. No. 261 MD 2017 On the brief: Richard L. Bazelon (PA No. 02505) A. Richard Feldman (PA No. 41329) Laura W. Brill Lisa A. Barton (PA No. 78139) Nicholas Daum Bazelon, Less & Feldman, P.C. Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP One South Broad Street, Suite 1500 10100 Santa Monica Blvd. #1725 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Los Angeles, CA (215) 568-1155 Michael C. Li Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Thomas P. Wolf The Brennan Center for Justice The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University 120 Broadway, Suite 1750 School of Law New York, NY TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Voting Issues and Representations in Some of the Most Prominent Peer-Reviewed Journals That Examine Voting in Local Elections
    Craig M. Burnett, Ph.D. Vladimir Kogan, Ph.D. 26 Riggs Place Locust Valley, NY 11560 August 29, 2017 RE: Village of Port Chester, NY, RFQ #2017-02 Village of Port Chester 222 Grace Church Street Port Chester, NY 105753 Attn: Janusz Richards, Village Clerk Dear Mr. Richards: We write to you in response to Port Chester's request for qualifications(RFQ #2017-02). As a research team, we have analyzed and ultimately published research on questions relating to local voting issues and representations in some of the most prominent peer-reviewed journals that examine voting in local elections. Our work begins with the premise that all voting systems entail tradeoffs. Indeed, the selection, implementation, and continued use of any electoral method comes with its own set of pros and cons. What makes us unique, however, is that we can bring an academic perspective to the question of which system might provide the best mix of benefits and costs for the Village of Port Chester, informed by empirical research and our own knowledge of the relevant caselaw. As you will see from both of our included curriculum vitaes, we are experts in the field of electoral systems, urban, state, and local politics and representation. Our work relies heavily on the sophisticated use of modern statistical analysis and software to examine large-scale voting datasets. This work includes analysis of Hispanic/Latino voters, minority representation, and compliance with relevant federal laws. We have included a few sample publications with our response that are representative of the nature, scope, and sophistication of the work we can provide the village.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Cause V. Lewis, 358 F
    C. The 2017 Plans Were Designed Intentionally and Effectively to Maximize Republican Partisan Advantage Within Specific County Groupings ..........................................................................................................109 1. Senate County Groupings ................................................................. 109 2. House County Groupings .................................................................. 149 D. The 2017 Plans Protected the Republican Majorities in the 2018 Elections ............................................................................................................223 E. The 2017 Plans Harm the Organizational and Individual Plaintiffs ............................................................................................................224 1. The 2017 Plans Harm the North Carolina Democratic Party ...................................................................................................... 224 2. The 2017 Plans Harm Common Cause .......................................... 230 3. The 2017 Plans Harm the Individual Plaintiffs .......................... 231 F. Defendants Offered No Meaningful Defense of the 2017 Plans............238 1. No Witness Denied That the Plans Are Intentional and Effective Partisan Gerrymanders ................................................... 238 2. Defendants’ Criticisms of Plaintiffs’ Experts Were Not Persuasive ............................................................................................ 239 3. Dr. Karen Owen’s Testimony on “Representation”
    [Show full text]
  • Election Law in the American Political System
    ELECTION LAW IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM Second Edition James A. Gardner Guy-Uriel Charles 2021 SUPPLEMENT (Last revised August 9, 2021) This Supplement is designed for use with the Second Edition of Gardner and Charles, Election Law in the American Political System (Aspen 2018). Please insert or replace the text below at the appropriate point in the casebook, as indicated. REPLACE: Chapter 1, in its entirety, with the following. Chapter 1 Democracy in the Present Context A. Introduction 1. A Note on This Supplement Unlike past Supplements, which have confined themselves to updating materials presented in the main text, this Supplement begins a transition of the text toward a major reorganization which will be completed in the forthcoming Third Edition. A significant rethinking of the field, we believe, is necessary following the 2020 presidential election, which marked a radical departure from any prior regime of American election law. In our view, there is election law before 2020, and election law after 2020, and a new edition is necessary to make sense of, and sensibly to present, the new regime. The new edition of Election Law in the American Political System is guided by three foundational premises. First, as the title of the book indicates, we believe that election law cannot be meaningfully studied as an isolated body of legal doctrine. On the contrary, because election law is the way by which societies operationalize their commitment to democratic, popular self-rule, it cannot be fully understood unless it is examined in the context of the political system in which it is embedded.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ________________________________ ) DAVID HARRIS, CHRISTINE ) BOWSER, and SAMUEL LOVE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:13-cv-949 ) PATRICK MCCRORY, in his ) capacity as Governor of North ) Carolina, NORTH CAROLINA ) STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ) and JOSHUA HOWARD, in his ) capacity as Chairman of the ) North Carolina State Board ) of Elections, ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Circuit Judge Roger L. Gregory wrote the majority opinion, in which District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., joined and filed a separate concurrence. District Judge William L. Osteen, Jr., joined in part and filed a dissent as to Part II.A.2: “[T]he Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment . desired to place clear limits on the States’ use of race as a criterion for legislative action, and to have the federal courts enforce those limitations.” Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 491 (1989). For good reason. Racial classifications are, after all, “antithetical to the Fourteenth Amendment, whose ‘central purpose’ was ‘to eliminate racial discrimination emanating from Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 142 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 100 official sources in the States.’” Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 907 (1996) (Shaw II) (quoting McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 192 (1964)). The “disregard of individual rights” is the “fatal flaw” in such race-based classifications. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 320 (1978); see also J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. at 493 (explaining that the “‘rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Hofeller, Republican Master of Political Maps, Dies at 75 - the New York Times
    8/21/2018 Thomas Hofeller, Republican Master of Political Maps, Dies at 75 - The New York Times Thomas Hofeller, Republican Master of Political Maps, Dies at 75 By Michael Wines Aug. 21, 2018 Thomas B. Hofeller, a political consultant whose mastery of redistricting strategy helped propel the Republican Party from underdog to the dominant force in state legislatures and the House of Representatives, died on Thursday at his home in Raleigh, N.C. He was 75. The Rev. Greg Jones, the rector of St. Michael’s Episcopal Church in Raleigh, where a service is scheduled for Friday, confirmed the death. The political website The Hill, quoting Dale Oldham, a friend and business partner of Mr. Hofeller’s, said the cause was cancer. For most of his 48‑year career, Mr. Hoffeler was little known outside the small band of government clerks, political strategists and data buffs who surfaced, cicada‑like, after every decennial census to draw new political maps. But after Republicans swept many state legislative elections in 2010, giving them control over the political maps that would be drawn after that year’s census, Mr. Hofeller gained an almost mythic reputation as an architect of the party’s comeback. He was extolled — or lambasted — in magazines and books and online as a father of the Republican strategy of cementing political control by controlling redistricting, and as the Michelangelo of the modern gerrymander. He was in fact an important element of Republican success after 2010, most notably in North Carolina, where he drew new maps for House seats that turned a 7‑to‑6 Democratic edge into a 10‑ to‑3 Republican fortress.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Whip Hand”: Congress's Elections Clause Power As
    THE “WHIP HAND”: CONGRESS’S ELECTIONS CLAUSE POWER AS THE LAST HOPE FOR REDISTRICTING REFORM AFTER RUCHO Kevin Wender* Redistricting activists have long argued that partisan gerrymandering poses a fundamental threat to American democracy. These concerns have become particularly acute as increasingly sophisticated technologies have enabled legislators to draw highly gerrymandered maps that powerfully entrench partisan advantage. Despite these concerns, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 2019 case of Rucho v. Common Cause, declared partisan gerrymandering to be a political issue outside the purview of the federal courts. The decision dealt a major blow to redistricting activists who, for over fifty years, had hoped that the Court would intervene to combat the drawing of electoral districts for partisan gain. This Note examines and evaluates the possible avenues for comprehensive redistricting reform in the aftermath of Rucho. While recognizing some recent successes, this Note analyzes how state-level redistricting remedies face significant constitutional and political barriers that would likely prevent comprehensive reform. Furthermore, this Note argues that the Elections Clause gives Congress strong constitutional authority to enact nationwide anti-gerrymandering legislation, and that this power under the Elections Clause represents the last hope for achieving comprehensive redistricting reform. Finally, this Note proposes legislation that would require states to adopt independent redistricting commissions for congressional elections while
    [Show full text]