DOCSLIB.ORG

1 in the United States District Court for the Middle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 in the United States District Court for the Middle IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA COMMON CAUSE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT A. RUCHO, in his official capacity as Chairman of the North Carolina No. 1:16-CV-1026 Senate Redistricting Committee for the 2016 Extra Session and Co-Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting, et al., Defendants. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT A. RUCHO, in his official capacity as Chairman of the North Carolina No. 1:16-CV-1164 Senate Redistricting Committee for the 2016 Extra Session and Co-Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting, et al., Defendants. 1 Case 1:16-cv-01026-WO-JEP Document 118 Filed 01/09/18 Page 1 of 205 Before WYNN, Circuit Judge, and OSTEEN, JR., District Judge, and BRITT, Senior District Judge. * * * * * Circuit Judge Wynn wrote the majority opinion in which Senior District Judge Britt concurred. District Judge Osteen, Jr., wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. MEMORANDUM OPINION WYNN, Circuit Judge: In these consolidated cases, two groups of Plaintiffs allege that North Carolina’s 2016 Congressional Redistricting Plan (the “2016 Plan”) constitutes a partisan gerrymander in violation of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Sections 2 and 4 of the Constitution. Legislative Defendants1 do not dispute that the General Assembly intended for the 2016 Plan to favor supporters of Republican candidates and disfavor supporters of non-Republican candidates. Nor could they. The Republican-controlled North Carolina General Assembly expressly directed the legislators and consultant responsible for drawing the 2016 Plan to rely on “political data”—past election results specifying whether, and to what extent, particular voting districts had favored Republican or Democratic candidates, and therefore were likely to do so in the future—to draw a districting plan that would 1 Senator Robert Rucho, in his official capacity as co-chair of the Joint Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting (the “Committee”); Representative David Lewis, in his official capacity as co-chair of the Committee; Timothy K. Moore, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives; and Philip E. Berger, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate. 2 Case 1:16-cv-01026-WO-JEP Document 118 Filed 01/09/18 Page 2 of 205 ensure Republican candidates would prevail in the vast majority of the state’s congressional districts. Ex. 1007. Legislative Defendants also do not argue—and have never argued—that the 2016 Plan’s intentional disfavoring of supporters of non-Republican candidates advances any democratic, constitutional, or public interest. Nor could they. Neither the Supreme Court nor any lower court has recognized any such interest furthered by partisan gerrymandering—“the drawing of legislative district lines to subordinate adherents of one political party and entrench a rival party in power.” Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2658 (2015). And, as further detailed below, partisan gerrymandering runs contrary to numerous fundamental democratic principles and individual rights enshrined in the Constitution. Rather than seeking to advance any democratic or constitutional interest, the state legislator responsible for drawing the 2016 Plan said he drew the map to advantage Republican candidates because he “think[s] electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats.” Ex. 1016, at 34:21–23. But that is not a choice the Constitution allows legislative mapdrawers to make. Rather, “the core principle of [our] republican government [is] that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.” Ariz. State Leg., 135 S. Ct. at 2677 (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 Case 1:16-cv-01026-WO-JEP Document 118 Filed 01/09/18 Page 3 of 205 Accordingly, and as further explained below, we conclude that Plaintiffs prevail on all of their constitutional claims.2 I. A. Over the last 30 years, North Carolina voters repeatedly have asked state and federal courts to pass judgment on the constitutionality of the congressional districting plans drawn by their state legislators. The first such challenge involved a redistricting plan adopted by the North Carolina General Assembly after the 1990 census, which increased the size of North Carolina’s congressional delegation from 11 to 12 members. See Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I), 509 U.S. 630, 633–34 (1993). When the General Assembly set out to redraw the state’s congressional districts to incorporate the new seat, the Department of Justice, pursuant to its “max-black” policy, pushed for the creation of a second majority-black district to augment, it maintained, the representation of the state’s African-American voters in Congress. Id. at 635. In response, the General Assembly prepared a revised district map that included the majority-black First and Twelfth Districts (the “1992 Plan”). Id. Several dozen North Carolina voters, most of whom were Republican, challenged the 1992 Plan as a partisan gerrymander, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Pope v. 2 This opinion constitutes our findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1). 4 Case 1:16-cv-01026-WO-JEP Document 118 Filed 01/09/18 Page 4 of 205 Blue, 809 F. Supp. 392, 394–95, 397–98 (W.D.N.C. 1992), aff’d 506 U.S. 801 (1992). A divided three-judge panel dismissed the action, holding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the redistricting plan had a legally cognizable “discriminatory effect” on any “identifiable [political] group,” under the standard set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 127 (1986) (plurality op.). Pope, 809 F. Supp. at 397. Separately, a group of North Carolina voters challenged the 1992 Plan as a racial gerrymander, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Shaw I, 509 U.S. at 636–37. After several years of litigation, the Supreme Court held that the General Assembly’s use of race as the predominant factor in drawing the second majority-black district in the 1992 Plan violated the Equal Protection Clause, and enjoined the use of that district in future elections. Shaw v. Hunt (Shaw II), 517 U.S. 899, 905–18 (1996). In 1997, a politically divided General Assembly enacted a remedial plan expected to elect six Republican and six Democratic Representatives, rendering each party’s share of the state’s congressional delegation proportional to its share of the statewide vote in the most recent congressional election. Cromartie v. Hunt, 133 F. Supp. 2d 407, 412–13 (E.D.N.C. 2000), rev’d sub nom. Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001); id. at 423–24 (Thornburg, J., dissenting). In 2001, after several more years of litigation, the Supreme Court approved that remedial plan. See Easley, 532 U.S. 234 (holding that three-judge panel’s finding that race constituted the predominant motivation in redrawing remedial districts was not supported by substantial evidence). 5 Case 1:16-cv-01026-WO-JEP Document 118 Filed 01/09/18 Page 5 of 205 Just as litigation regarding the 1992 Plan came to an end, the results of the 2000 census entitled North Carolina to another seat in Congress, and the General Assembly again set out to redraw the state’s congressional districts to include the additional seat. The resulting plan, which was adopted in 2001 (the “2001 Plan”), was used in each of the State’s congressional elections between 2001 and 2010. In all but one of these elections, the party receiving more statewide votes for their candidates for the House of Representatives also won a majority of the seats in North Carolina’s congressional delegation (the only exception being the 2010 election, in which Republicans won 54 percent of votes statewide but only 6 of the 13 seats). Exs. 1021–25. Although the 2001 Plan did not include any majority-black districts, black voters in the First and Twelfth Districts were consistently successful in electing their preferred candidates. Harris v. McCrory, 159 F. Supp. 3d 600, 606–07 (M.D.N.C. 2016), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017). Unlike the 1992 Plan, the 2001 Plan did not generate significant federal litigation. Id. at 607. B. In 2010, for the first time in more than a century, North Carolina voters elected Republican majorities in both the North Carolina Senate and the North Carolina House of Representatives, giving Republicans exclusive control over the decennial congressional redistricting process.3 See id. at 607. The House of Representatives and Senate each 3 Under the North Carolina Constitution, the Governor lacks the authority to veto redistricting legislation. See N.C. Const. art. II, § 22. 6 Case 1:16-cv-01026-WO-JEP Document 118 Filed 01/09/18 Page 6 of 205 established redistricting committees, which were jointly responsible for preparing a proposed congressional redistricting plan. Id. Representative David Lewis, in his capacity as the senior chair of the House Redistricting Committee, and Senator Robert Rucho, in his capacity as senior chair of the Senate Redistricting Committee, were responsible for developing the proposed redistricting plan. Id. Through private counsel, the committees engaged Dr. Thomas Hofeller, who had previously worked as the redistricting coordinator for the Republican National Committee, to draw the new congressional districting plan. Id. Concurrent with his work on the 2011 North Carolina congressional redistricting plan, Dr. Hofeller also served on a “redistricting team” established as part of the Republican State Leadership Committee’s (“RSLC”) Redistricting Majority Project, commonly referred to as “REDMAP.” Ex.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Congressional Directory UTAH
    274 Congressional Directory UTAH UTAH (Population 2010, 2,763,885) SENATORS MICHAEL S. LEE, Republican, of Alpine, UT; born in Mesa, AZ, June 4, 1971; education: B.S., Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 1994; J.D., Brigham Young University, 1997; pro- fessional: law clerk to Judge Dee Benson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah; law clerk to Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Court; attorney with the law firm Sidley & Austin; Assistant U.S. Attorney in Salt Lake City; general counsel to the Governor of Utah; law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito; partner at Howrey law firm; religion: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; married: Sharon Burr of Provo, UT; children: James, John, and Eliza; committees: chair, Joint Economic Committee; Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Energy and Natural Resources; Judiciary; elected to the U.S. Senate on November 2, 2010; reelected to the U.S. Senate on November 8, 2016. Office Listings https://lee.senate.gov https://facebook.com/senatormikelee https://twitter.com/SenMikeLee https://youtube.com/senatormikelee 361A Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 .............................................. (202) 224–5444 Chief of Staff.—Allyson Bell. FAX: 228–1168 Legislative Director.—Christy Woodruff. Communications Director.—Conn Carroll. Press Secretary.—Erik Kujanpaa. Administrative Director.—Alyssa Burleson. State Director.—Robert Axson. Federal Building, 125 South State, Suite 4225, Salt Lake City, UT 84138 ........................... (801) 524–5933 Federal Building, 324 25th Street, Suite 1410, Ogden, UT 84401 ......................................... (801) 392–9633 285 West Tabernacle Street, Suite 200, St.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Report Report Number 704, November 2011 Nominating Candidates the Politics and Process of Utah’S Unique Convention and Primary System
    Research Report Report Number 704, November 2011 Nominating Candidates The Politics and Process of Utah’s Unique Convention and Primary System HIGHLIGHTS For most of its history, Utah has used a convention- g Utah is one of only seven states that still uses a primary system to nominate candidates for elected office. convention, and the only one that allows political parties to preclude a primary election for major In the spring of election years, citizens in small caucus offices if candidates receive enough delegate votes. g Utah adopted a direct primary in 1937, a system meetings held throughout the state elect delegates to which lasted 10 years. represent them at county and state conventions. County g In 1947, the Legislature re-established a caucus- convention system. If a candidate obtained 80% or conventions nominate candidates for races solely within more of the delegates’ votes in the convention, he or she was declared the nominee without a primary. the county boundaries, while the state convention is used g In the 1990s, the Legislature granted more power to the parties to manage their conventions. In to nominate candidates for statewide offices or those 1996, the then-70% threshold to avoid a primary was lowered to 60% by the Democratic Party. The that serve districts that span multiple counties. At these Republican Party made the same change in 1999. conventions, delegates nominate candidates to compete g Utah’s historically high voter turnout rates have consistently declined in recent decades. In 1960, for their party’s nomination in the primary election, or, 78.3% of the voting age population voted in the general election.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Staff: 86Th Legislature
    HRO HOUSE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION Texas House of Representatives Legislative Staff 86th Legislature 2019 Focus Report No. 86-3 House Research Organization Page 2 Table of Contents House of Representatives ....................................3 House Committees ..............................................15 Senate ...................................................................18 Senate Committees .............................................22 Other State Numbers...........................................24 Cover design by Robert Inks House Research Organization Page 3 House of Representatives ALLEN, Alma A. GW.5 BELL, Cecil Jr. E2.708 Phone: (512) 463-0744 Phone: (512) 463-0650 Fax: (512) 463-0761 Fax: (512) 463-0575 Chief of staff ...........................................Anneliese Vogel Chief of staff .............................................. Ariane Marion Legislative director .....................................Jaime Puente Policy analyst ...........................................Clinton Harned Legislative aide....................................... Jennifer Russell Legislative aide.............................................Brian Aldaco ALLISON, Steve E1.512 BELL, Keith E2.702 Phone: (512) 463-0686 Phone: (512) 463-0458 Chief of staff .................................................Rocky Gage Fax: (512) 463-2040 Legislative director ...................................German Lopez Chief of staff .................................... Georgeanne Palmer Scheduler ...............................................Redding Mickler
    [Show full text]
  • Research Report Report Number 710, June 2012 Partisan Politics, Polarization, and Participation
    Research Report Report Number 710, June 2012 Partisan Politics, Polarization, and Participation HIGHLIGHTS In the 2012 Utah Priorities Survey, respondents listed g In the 2012 Utah Priorities Survey, 52% of partisan politics as one of their top concerns for the respondents reported that they were concerned or very concerned about partisan politics, upcoming elections. This is significant not only because making it a top-ten issue for Utahns in this year’s elections. it was the first time this issue had been listed as a top-ten g The current Congress shows the highest historical level of polarization since the end of concern in this series of surveys, but also the first time it Reconstruction. was seen as a concern at all. There have been many reports g Since 1939, there has been a slow and steady decline in the number of moderates in the U.S. about the rise in partisanship and party polarization in Congress to a historic low for both chambers in 2011. national politics, and on the implications of this increase. g Utah’s voter turnout rate has been declining Partisanship can have important influences on voter turnout rates. Research indicates throughout the past several decades. Whereas Utah’s rate used to be well above the national that an increase in polarization “energizes the electorate” and increases voter turnout; average, it is now below average. high participation is indicative of a highly informed electorate where polarization is at its 1 g Research shows that the perception that an greatest. However, Utah’s voter participation rate has been declining for several decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Report Report Number 704, November 2011 Nominating Candidates the Politics and Process of Utah’S Unique Convention and Primary System
    Research Report Report Number 704, November 2011 Nominating Candidates The Politics and Process of Utah’s Unique Convention and Primary System HIGHLIGHTS For most of its history, Utah has used a convention- g Utah is one of only seven states that still uses a primary system to nominate candidates for elected office. convention, and the only one that allows political parties to preclude a primary election for major In the spring of election years, citizens in small caucus offices if candidates receive enough delegate votes. g Utah adopted a direct primary in 1937, a system meetings held throughout the state elect delegates to which lasted 10 years. represent them at county and state conventions. County g In 1947, the Legislature re-established a caucus- convention system. If a candidate obtained 70% or conventions nominate candidates for races solely within more of the delegates’ votes in the convention, he or she was declared the nominee without a primary. the county boundaries, while the state convention is used g In the 1990s, the Legislature granted more power to the parties to manage their conventions. In 1996, to nominate candidates for statewide offices or those the 70% threshold to avoid a primary was lowered to 60% by the Democratic Party. The Republican that serve districts that span multiple counties. At these Party made the same change in 1999. conventions, delegates nominate candidates to compete g Utah’s historically high voter turnout rates have consistently declined in recent decades. In 1960, for their party’s nomination in the primary election, or, 78.3% of the voting age population voted in the general election.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerrymandered Gridlock: Addressing the Hazardous Impact of Partisan Redistricting Nathan S
    Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy Volume 28 | Issue 1 Article 9 May 2014 Gerrymandered Gridlock: Addressing the Hazardous Impact of Partisan Redistricting Nathan S. Catanese Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp Recommended Citation Nathan S. Catanese, Gerrymandered Gridlock: Addressing the Hazardous Impact of Partisan Redistricting, 28 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 323 (2014). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol28/iss1/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 34929-nde_28-1 Sheet No. 167 Side A 05/07/2014 15:37:06 \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDE\28-1\NDE109.txt unknown Seq: 1 2-MAY-14 7:13 NOTES GERRYMANDERED GRIDLOCK: ADDRESSING THE HAZARDOUS IMPACT OF PARTISAN REDISTRICTING NATHAN S. CATANESE* “It used to be that the idea was, once every two years voters elected their representatives, and now, instead, it’s every ten years the representatives choose their constituents.”1 “We are in the business of rigging elections.”2 “To sum up, redistricting is a political disaster—an enormous political train wreck that occurs every ten years.”3 INTRODUCTION Nate Silver, noted statistician and founder of the popular blog Five Thirty Eight, recently estimated that in the House of Representatives, out of the four hundred and thirty-five districts, there are only thirty-five swing districts.4 Essentially, this means that congressional districts have become more polarized—either Republican-leaning districts are more conservative or Democratic-leaning districts are more liberal.5 With more members elected from districts in which there is no threat from * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • UTAH BAR JOURNAL Vol
    E" UTAH BAR JOURNAL Vol. 9 No.5 May 1996 c Utah Construction Law: Recovery For Nonpayment 8 APracticing Historical Law in the Utah Territory: Sketch 12 Strike the Unsigned Minute Entry! 18 Utah Office of Guardian Ad Litem 21 Justice Court Growth 35 "" r- Utah 0 Published by The Utah State Bar UTAH BAR JOURNAL- 645 South 200 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Vol. 9 NO.5 May 1996 Telephone (801) 531-9077 President VISION OF THE BAR: To lead society in the creation of a justice system Dennis V. Haslam that is understood, valued, respected and accessible to all. President-Elect MISSION OF THE BAR: To represent lawyers in the State of Utah and Steven M. Kaufman to serve the public and the legal profession by promoting justice, profes- Executive Director sional excellence, civility, ethics, respect for and understanding of, the law. John C. Baldwin Bar Journal Committee Letters to the Editor......... ......... ............. ...... ......... ...... ...........................4 and Editorial Board Editor President's .Message ...... ......... .................... ...... ......... .... ..... ...... ....... ... ...5 Calvin E. Thorpe by Dennis V. Haslam Associate Editors M. Karlynn Hinman Commissioner's Report .........................................................................6 Willam D. Holyoak by John Florez R'àndall L. Romrell Articles Editors Utah Construction Law: Recovery For Nonpayment ...........................8 Christopher Burke by Michael iv Homer and David J. Burns Lee S. McCullough Letters Editor Practicing Law in the Utah Territory: A Historical Sketch.................12 Victoria Kidman by David Epperson Views from the Bench Editors Judge Michael L. Hutchings Strike the Unsigned Minute Entry! .....................................................18 Judge Stephen VanDyke by Michael A. Jensen Legislative Report Editor Lisa Watts Baskin Utah Office of Guardian Ad Litem .....................................................21 Case Summaries Editors by Kristin G.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Before BCRA: Soft Money at the State Level
    L I F E B E F O R E B C R A S O F T M O N E Y A T T H E S T A T E L E V E L I N T H E 2 0 0 0 & 2 0 0 2 E L E C T I O N C Y C L E S By D E N I S E B A R B E R T H E I N S T I T U T E O N M O N E Y I N S T A T E P O L I T I C S D E C . 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 1 833 NORTH MAIN, SECOND FLOOR • HELENA, MT • 59601 PHONE 406-449-2480 • FAX 406-457-2091 • E-MAIL [email protected] www.followthemoney.org T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S State Parties: Looking for New Dance Partners ........................................3 Summary of Findings...............................................................................5 State-by-State Rankings ...........................................................................7 Who Gives to State Party Committees? ....................................................9 National Committees: State Party Sugar Daddies ................................... 10 Patterns in Giving....................................................................... 11 Transfers and Trading................................................................. 11 Reporting Discrepancies ............................................................. 13 Top Individual Contributors ................................................................... 14 Interstate Trading of Soft Money............................................................ 19 Top Industries ........................................................................................ 21 Tables ........................................................................................................ Table 1: Soft-Money Contributions, 2000 and 2002......................7 Table 2: Types of Contributors to State Party Committees ............9 Table 3: Soft Money from the National Committees ................... 10 Table 4: Top 25 Individual Contributors of Soft Money.............. 16 Table 5: Top 30 Industries Contributing to State Parties.............
    [Show full text]
  • Does the Introduction of Independent Redistricting Reduce Congressional Partisanship?*
    Does the Introduction of Independent Redistricting * Reduce Congressional Partisanship? By David G. Oedel[1], Allen K. Lynch,[2] Sean E. Mulholland[3] and Neil T. Edwards[4] Draft Copy of November 11, 2008; Not Ready for Quotation or Citation Until Published Abstract In contemporary American politics, partisanship is frequently seen as excessive, even if some aspects of partisanship may fundamentally characterize the U.S. political system. To reduce partisanship in the process of drawing political districts, independent redistricting commissions and related forms of de-politicized systems for redistricting have been implemented in some states. This paper analyzes whether the presence of relatively independent redistricting also reduces partisanship in the voting behavior of congressional representatives elected from the relevant redefined districts. Contrary to the initial expectations of the authors, the evidence reviewed here suggests that politically independent redistricting seems to reduce partisanship in the voting behavior of congressional delegations from affected states in statistically significant ways. The authors conclude with notes about the study’s implications for further research into redistricting and partisanship. Contents The Perceived Problem of Excessive Partisanship, p. 2 How This Paper Fits in With Other Literature, p. 3 The Hypothesis that Strategic Redistricting Causes Excessive Partisanship, p. 8 Independent Redistricting as a Proposed Antidote, p. 13 The Types of Redistricting Processes, p. 16 Results of the Mercer Study of Redistricting Systems, p. 17 The “Before and After” Test: Did Adoption of Independent Redistricting Change The Voting Behavior of those States’ Congressional Representatives? p. 27 Measuring Changes in Partisanship in Congressional Voting Behavior, p. 29 * Copyright © 2008; all rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Defendant FEC's Motion for Summary
    Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 41 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 131 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ) LOUISIANA, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civ. No. 15-1241 (CRC-SS-TSC) ) v. ) ) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT Defendant. ) ) DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant Federal Election Commission (“Commission”) respectfully moves this Court for an order (1) granting summary judgment to the Commission pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 7(h), and (2) denying plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion (Docket No. 33). In support of this motion, the Commission is filing a Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, a Statement of Material Facts and accompanying Exhibits, and a Proposed Order. Pursuant to the protective order entered in this case, the Commission is separately submitting under seal unredacted versions of its Statement of Material Facts and Exhibits that plaintiffs have designated as confidential. Respectfully submitted, Daniel A. Petalas (D.C. Bar No. 467908) Seth Nesin Acting General Counsel Attorney [email protected] [email protected] Lisa J. Stevenson (D.C. Bar No. 457628) Greg J. Mueller (D.C. Bar No. 462840) Deputy General Counsel — Law Attorney [email protected] [email protected] Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 41 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 131 Kevin Deeley /s/ Charles Kitcher Acting Associate General Counsel Charles Kitcher (D.C. Bar No. 986226) [email protected] Attorney [email protected] Harry J.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae University Professors Concerned About Equal Representation for Equal Numbers of People in Support of Appellants ------♦
    Nos. 05-204, 05-254, 05-276 and 05-439 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al., Appellants, v. RICK PERRY, et al., Appellees. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Appellants, v. RICK PERRY, et al., Appellees. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Texas --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS CONCERNED ABOUT EQUAL REPRESENTATION FOR EQUAL NUMBERS OF PEOPLE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- LUCAS A. POWE, JR. Counsel of Record 727 East Dean Keeton Street Austin, Texas 78705-3299 (512) 232-1345 ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 EDDIE JACKSON, et al., Appellants, v. RICK PERRY, et al., Appellees. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- GI FORUM, et al., Appellants, v. RICK PERRY, et al., Appellees. i QUESTION PRESENTED May a legislative body, in mid-decade, voluntarily and without a compelling reason replace a valid districting plan with a new one relying on the population data from the last census? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
    [Show full text]
  • The Gerrymandering Orgy Begins
    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Popular Media Public Discourse 2011 The Gerrymandering Orgy Begins Herman Schwartz Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/pub_disc_media Part of the Election Law Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Page 1 of 6 The gerrymandering orgy There are two kinds of political begins gerrymandering and both are common. One is bipartisan or “sweetheart” By: Herman Schwartz January 14, 2011 04:42 AM EST gerrymandering, by which neither party fully controls the redistricting process. To It is almost time for the decennial assault protect powerful incumbents, friends and on U.S. democracy to begin: a great allies, the two parties divide the electoral gerrymandering orgy in which voters will be districts, generally in proportion to their “packed” and “cracked,” incumbents relative share of the electorate. In 2004, “kidnapped” and new electoral districts devised using computer programs that can distinguish between voters on the same block. The result: a bizarre menagerie of electoral districts shaped like snakes, dragons and other exotic creatures that make a travesty of democracy. This year, the Democrats will be the big losers. In a true democracy, people choose their rulers. Gerrymandering turns that upside down, so instead of government “by the p eople and for the people,” it becomes “by the politicians and for the politicians.” We are the only major country that puts virtually its entire electoral process, including drawing districts, in the hands of partisan politicians like former Rep. Katherine Harris of Florida or her Democratic counterparts.
    [Show full text]