Filed an Emergency Application
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. ________ In The Supreme Court of the United States Michael C. Turzai, in his capacity as Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, and Joseph B. Scarnati III, in his capacity as Pennsylvania Senate President Pro Tempore, Applicants, v. League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, et al., Respondents. EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL TO THIS COURT To the Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Associate Justice of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit HOLTZMAN VOGEL JOSEFIAK CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. TORCHINSKY PLLC KATHLEEN GALLAGHER JASON TORCHINSKY CAROLYN BATZ MCGEE Counsel of Record JASON R. MCLEAN SHAWN SHEEHY RUSSELL D. GIANCOLA PHILLIP GORDON 650 Washington Road, Suite 700 45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15228 Warrenton, Virginia 20186 Phone: 412-563-4978 Phone: 540-341-8808 Email: [email protected] Facsimile: 540-341-8809 [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Applicant Attorneys for Applicant Representative Michael C. Turzai Senator Joseph B. Scarnati, III BLANK ROME LLP BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP BRIAN S. PASZAMANT PATRICK T. LEWIS JASON A. SNYDERMAN Key Tower DANIEL S. MORRIS 127 Public Square One Logan Square Suite 2000 130 N. 18th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44144 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Phone: 216-621-0200 Phone: 215-569-5791 Email: [email protected] Facsimile: 215-832-5791 Email: [email protected] ROBERT J. TUCKER [email protected] 200 Civic Center Drive [email protected] Suite 1200 Columbus, OH 43215-4138 Attorneys for Applicant Phone: 614-228-1541 Senator Joseph B. Scarnati, III Email: [email protected] E. MARK BRADEN RICHARD B. RAILE Washington Square Suite 1100 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-861-1500 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Applicant Representative Michael C. Turzai TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... ii OPINION BELOW ......................................................................................................... 3 JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................. 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................................... 4 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE APPLICATION .................................................... 7 I. There Is a Reasonable Probability That the Court Will Review This Case on the Merits and a Fair Prospect That It Will Vacate Or Reverse the Decision Below ................................................................................................ 8 II. Absent a Stay, Irreparable Harm Will Occur, and the Balance of Equities Favors a Stay. ....................................................................................... 18 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 22 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES In re 1991 Pa. Legis. Reapportionment Comm'n., 609 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1992) ........ 12, 21 Agre v. Wolf, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4316 (E.D. Pa. January 10, 2018) ............... 9, 17 Arizona State Legis. v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, 135 S. Ct. 2652 (2015) ................................................................................................. 1, 7, 9, 14, 15 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ............................................................................. 12 Benisek v. Lamone, No. 17-333 (U.S.) ......................................................................... 17 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) ................................................................................. 14 Bush v. Palm Beach Cnty. Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70 (2000) ................ 2, 14, 15, 22 Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) .............................................. 6 Colorado Gen. Assemb. v. Salazar, 541 U.S. 1093 (2004) ...................................... 2, 16 Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) ................................................................. 5, 12 Erfer v. Commonwealth, 794 A.2d 325 (Pa. 2002) .................................. 1, 5, 11, 12, 21 Eu v. San Francisco Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989) ............... 18 Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161 (U.S.) ............................................................................ 17 Guy v. Miller, 2011 Nev. Dist. LEXIS 32 .................................................................... 10 Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920) ......................................................................... 15 Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S. Ct. 893 (2014) .................................................................... 22 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) ............................................................ 7, 8 Holt v. 2011 Legis. Reapportionment Comm'n, 67 A.3d 1211, 1234, 1236 (Pa. 2013) .............................................................................................................. 13, 21 League of Women Voters of Pa., et al. v. Commonwealth of Pa., et al., (No. 159 MM 2017), 2018 Pa. LEXIS 438 ........................................................................... 4 ii League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 172 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 2015) .................... 10 Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1 (2012) ........................................................................ 18 McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892) .................................................................... 15 Mellow v. Mitchell, 607 A.2d 204 (Pa. 1992) ............................................................... 10 In Re Michael C. Turzai, Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, et al., No. 17-631 (U.S.) .............................................................. 9 Newbold v. Osser, 230 A.2d 54 (Pa. 1967) ............................................................. 12, 21 North Carolina v. Covington, 137 S. Ct. 1624 (2017) ........................................... 19, 21 Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565 (1916) ................................................ 15 Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. 2012).............................................................. 10 Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. 388 (2012) ............................................................................. 13 Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) .................................................................. 18, 19 Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) .......................................... 11 Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 17A745 (U.S.) .............................................................. 17 San Diegans for Mt. Soledad Nat’l War Mem’l v. Paulson, 548 U.S. 1301 (2006) ................................................................................................................... 22 Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932) .................................................................... 14, 15 Strange v. Searcy, 135 S. Ct. 940 (2015) ..................................................................... 22 Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) ....................................................................... 12 Watson v. Witkin, 22 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1941) ....................................................................... 9 Whitford v. Gill, No. 15-cv-421-bbc, 2017 WL. 383360 (W.D. Wisc. Jan. 27, 2017) .................................................................................................................... 21 Williams-Yulee v. Fla. Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656 (2015) .................................................... 12 iii CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4 ........................................................................................ 7, 9, 11 Pa. Const. art. II, § 16 .................................................................................................. 11 28 U.S.C. § 1257 ............................................................................................................. 4 OTHER AUTHORITIES THE FEDERALIST NO. 59 (A. Hamilton) .......................................................................... 9 Pennsylvania Dep’t of State, Campaign Finance Reports, https://www.campaignfinanceonline.pa.gov/Pages/CFReportSearch.aspx ......... 6 iv TO THE HONORABLE SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR., ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE THIRD C IRCUIT: “Redistricting involves lawmaking in its essential features and most important aspect.” Arizona State Legis. v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2667 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). But for the first time in United States history, a state court, in attempting to play the role of “lawmaker,” has invalidated a congressional districting plan without identifying a violation of the U.S. Constitution or a state constitutional or statutory provision providing specific redistricting criteria. Instead, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that the 2011 Pennsylvania Congressional plan (the “2011 Plan”) violates “requirements” that Congressional districts be “composed of compact and contiguous territory” and “do not divide any county, city, incorporated town, borough, township, or ward, except when necessary to ensure equality of population”—rules that exist nowhere in the Pennsylvania Constitution or any Pennsylvania