"Harris V. Arizona Independent Redistricting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 14- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States WESLEY W. HARRIS, et al., Appellants, v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION, et al., Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF ARIZONA JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT MARK F. ( T HOR) HEARNE, II STEPHEN G. LARSON Counsel of Record ROBERT C. O’BRIEN STEPHEN S. DAVIS STEVEN A. HASKINS ARENT FOX LLP ARENT FOX LLP 1717 K Street, NW 555 West Fifth Street, Washington, D.C. 20036 48th Floor (202) 857-6000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 [email protected] (213) 629-7400 DAVID J. CANTELME MICHAEL T. LIBURDI CANTELME & BROWN PLC SNELL & WILMER LLP 3003 N. Central Avenue, Suite 600 One Arizona Center Phoenix, AZ 85012 400 E. Van Buren Street (602) 200-0104 Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 382-6000 (Additional Counsel listed on signature page) August 25, 2014 254945 A (800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the desire to gain partisan advantage for one political party justify intentionally creating over-populated legislative districts that result in tens of thousands of individual voters being denied Equal Protection because their individual votes are devalued, violating the one-person, one-vote principle? 2. Does the desire to obtain favorable preclearance review by the Justice Department permit the creation of legislative districts that deviate from the one-person, one-vote principle? And, even if creating unequal districts to obtain preclearance approval was once justified, is this still a legitimate justification after Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013)? 3. Was the Arizona redistricting commission correct to disregard the majority- minority rule and rely on race and political party affiliation to create Hispanic “influence” districts? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING The Appellants here and plaintiffs below are Wesley W. Harris, LaMont E. Andrews, Cynthia L. Biggs, Lynne F. Breyer, Beth K. Hallgren, Lina Hatch, Terry L. Hill, Joyce M. Hill, Karen M. McKean, and Sharese Steffans (Harris voters). These individuals are Arizona citizens and registered voters, and each resides in an over- populated Arizona legislative district. Appellees and defendants are the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Colleen Mathis, Linda C. McNulty, Scott D. Freeman, Richard Stertz, and Cid R. Kallen (replacing former Commissioner Jose M. Herrera pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d)), in their official capacity as members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, and Ken Bennett, in his official capacity as Arizona Secretary of State. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED . i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING . ii TABLE OF CONTENTS. iii TABLE OF APPENDICES . vi TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES . .viii JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS WESLEY HARRIS, et al . .1 OPINIONS BELOW. .1 JURISDICTION . .1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTE INVOLVED . .2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE . .3 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . .4 A. Factual Background . .4 B. Procedural History . .10 REASONS FOR NOTING PROBABLE JURISDICTION. .14 iv Table of Contents Page I. Partisan advantage does not justify violating the one-person, one-vote standard of the Equal Protection Clause . .19 A. This Court did not create a “safe harbor” for legislative districts with population deviations of less than ten-percent . .20 B. This Court’s summary affi rmance of Larios did not create a safe harbor allowing population deviations up to ten percent. .23 II. The IRC’s supposition the Justice Department would more likely approve its redistricting scheme does not justify creating legislative districts with signifi cant population deviation . .27 A. Section 5 of the VRA does not justify the IRC intentionally creating districts with population deviations . .28 B. Systematic and intentional population deviations on the basis of race or ethnicity are not permitted to obtain Section 5 preclearance . .31 C. In any event, the redistricting scheme did not satisfy the VRA’s requirements . .33 v Table of Contents Page III. Because the new Hispanic “influence” districts did not satisfy the requirements of Section 2 of the VRA, the use of race or ethnicity as a predominant factor in their creation was impermissible . .39 CONCLUSION . .41 vi TABLE OF APPENDICES Page APPENDIX A — PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM FINAL JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, FILED JUNE 25, 2014 . .1a APPENDIX B — OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, FILED APRIL 29, 2014 . .3a APPENDIX C — ROSLYN O. SILVER OPINION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, FILED APRIL 29, 2014. .82a APPENDIX D — NEIL V. WAKE DISSENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, FILED APRIL 29, 2014 . .105a APPENDIX E — ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE, FIFTY-FIRST LEGISLATURE, SECOND REGULAR SESSION . .146a APPENDIX F — EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, DATED MARCH 25, 2013 . .153a vii Table of Appendices Page APPENDIX G — STATE OF ARIZONA, IRC LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS, % DISTRICT DEVIATION FROM IDEAL DISTRICT SIZE COMPARED TO REGISTRATION PLURALITY . .209a APPENDIX H — A.R.S. § 16-1103 . .210a APPENDIX I — RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT . .211a APPENDIX J — RELEVANT STATUTES . .212a APPENDIX K — EXPERT REPORT OF THOMAS BROOKS HOFELLER PH.D.. .216a APPENDIX L — ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION 2012 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT POPULATION DATA TABLE . .245a viii TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES Page F E D E R A L C A S E S Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182 (1971) . .25 Ala. Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 988 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (M.D. Ala. 2013) . .17 Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, No. 13-1314 . .5 Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) . passim Benisek v. Mack, 2014 WL 1379098 (D. Md. Apr. 8, 2014) . .18 Bradley v. Sch. Bd. of City of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696 (1974). .29 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) . .29 Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983) . .21 Campos v. City of Houston, 113 F.3d 544 (5th Cir. 1997) . .36 ix Cited Authorities Page Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1 (1975) . .8, 22 Chen v. City of Houston, 532 U.S. 1046 (2001) . .26, 27 City of Lockhart v. United States, 460 U.S. 125 (1983) . .6 Cunningham v. Mun. of Metro. Seattle, 751 F. Supp. 885 (W. D. Wash. 1990). .18 Daly v. Hunt, 903 F.3d 1212 (4th Cir. 1996) . .16, 22 Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) . 17, 18 Davis v. Mich. Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989) . .29, 30 DeGrandy v. Wetherell, 794 F. Supp. 1076 (N.D. Fla. 1992) . .20 Fletcher v. Lamone, 831 F. Supp. 2d 887 (D. Md. 2011) . .17 Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963) . .20 x Cited Authorities Page Hadley v. Junior College Dist., 397 U.S. 50 (1970) . .25 Harper v. Va. Dept. of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) . .29, 30 Hulme v. Madison Cnty., 188 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (S.D. Ill. 2001) . .25 Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) . .20, 38 Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320, aff’d 542 U.S. 947 (N.D. Ga. 2004) . passim League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) . .33, 35 Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973). .21, 22 Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173 (1977) . .23 Marylanders v. Schaefer, 849 F. Supp. 1022 (D. Md. 1994) . 22, 38 Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) . 28, 32, 33 xi Cited Authorities Page Moon v. Meadows, 952 F. Supp. 1141 (E.D. Va. 1997) . .20 Negron v. City of Miami Beach, Fla., 113 F.3d 1563 (11th Cir. 1997) . .36 Nixon v. Kent Cnty., 76 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) . .35 Raske v. Martinez, 876 F.2d 1496 (11th Cir. 1989) . .38 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) . passim Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406 (2008) . .6 Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) . .22 Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695 (1964) . .3, 21 Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996) . .37 Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) . passim xii Cited Authorities Page Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) . .35 United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938) . .14 United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103 (1801) . .29 Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) . .14, 17, 18, 26 Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Development Corp., 427 U.S. 252 (1977) . .21 STATE STATUTES ARIZ. CONST. art. 4, pt. 2, § 1(3)-(23) . .5 ARIZ. CONST. art. 4, pt. 2, § 1(14). .5 OTHER AUTHORITIES 28 U.S.C. § 1253. .1 42 U.S.C. § 1973 . .2 42 U.S.C. § 1973c . .2 42 U.S.C. § 1973n. .32 xiii Cited Authorities Page Arizona Secretary of State, 2000 General Election, www.azsos.gov/election/2000/info/ pubpamphlet/prop2-C-2000.htm. .4 Arizona Secretary of State, 2000 General Election: Ballot Measures, “Fair Districts, Fair Elections,” http://www.azsos.gov/election/ 2000/General/ballotmeasures.htm . .4 Def. Post-trial Br., 2013 WL 1727989 § 3(B)(1)(a) . .40 IRC website, congressional district population data table: http://azredistricting.org/ Maps/Final-Maps/Congressional/Reports/ Final%20Congressional%20Districts%20-%20 Population%20Data%20Table.pdf. .19 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS WESLEY HARRIS, et al. Appellants Wesley Harris, LaMont E. Andrews, Cynthia L. Biggs, Lynne F. Breyer, Beth K. Hallgren, Lina Hatch, Terry L. Hill, Joyce M. Hill, Karen M. McKean, and Sharese Steffans, for themselves and all residents of Arizona whose votes have been diluted by the State’s 2012 legislative redistricting plan, appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from the final judgment, App.