No. 17A795 __________________________________________________________________ In The Supreme Court of the United States ________________ Michael C. Turzai, in his capacity as Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, et al., Applicants, v. League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, et al., Respondents ________________ Emergency Application for Stay Pending Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from the January 22 and 26, 2018 Orders of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (159 MM 2017) ________________ OPPOSITION TO 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 Clifford B. Levine Lazar M. Palnick Counsel of Record Supreme Court Bar Id. No. 178614 Supreme Court Bar Id. No. 206304 1216 Heberton Street Alice B. Mitinger Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Alex M. Lacey (412) 661-3633 Cohen & Grigsby, P.C. [email protected] 625 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3152 (412) 297-4900 On behalf of Respondent Michael J. [email protected] Stack III, in his Capacity as Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania and President of the Pennsylvania Senate TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 II. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 2 A. Applicants’ Attack On The Integrity Of The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Is Unfounded And Offensive, And Has Been Waived .................. 3 1. The Applicants Failed To Seek Recusal Before The Pennsylvania Supreme Court And Have Waived Any Issue .............................. 4 2. Even If Applicants Had Not Waived This Argument, Their Insinuation Of Bias Is Unprofessional And Inconsistent With This Court’s Understanding Of Bias In The Context Of An Elected Judiciary ........................................................................... 6 3. Despite Applicants’ Insinuations, The Facts Here Do Not Support Their Efforts To Imply Bias ............................................ 9 B. The Schedule That The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Has Established Is Appropriate ......................................................................................... 11 1. The General Assembly Can Draw The Map Within The Requisite Time ............................................................................. 11 2. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Has Provided Sufficient Guidance To Draw The Map And Hold The Primary And General Elections......................................................................... 13 C. The 2011 Plan Is Pennsylvania Legislation And Is Thus Subject To The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Review Under The Pennsylvania Constitution ............................................................................................ 15 III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 17 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 2652 (2015) ...................................................................................... 2, 15,16 Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) ........................................................................................... Passim Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 ............................................................................................................. 7, 8 Commonwealth v. Edmunds 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) ............................................................................................... 7 DePaul v. Commonwealth, 969 A.2d 536 (Pa. 2009) ............................................................................................... 8 Freeman v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 709 F.3d 240 (3d Cir. 2013) ......................................................................................... 8 Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Comm’n, 38 A.3d 711 (Pa. 2012)............................................................................................... 14 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) ....................................................................................... 1 McKernan v. Superintendent Smithfield SCI, 849 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 2017) ......................................................................................... 5 Mellow v. Mitchell, 607 A.2d 204 (Pa. 1992) ................................................................................. 12, 13, 14 Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 590 (1875) ............................................................................... 2, 15 Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 812 A.2d 591 (Pa. 2002) ............................................................................................... 8 Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) ..................................................................................................... 8 U.S. v. Rodriguez, 627 F.3d 1372 (11th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................... 5 ii Statutes Pa. Const. art. IV, § 4 .................................................................................................. 11 Pa. Const. art. V, § 13 .................................................................................................... 8 U.S. Const. art. I, § 4 ..................................................................................................... 3 Rules Pa. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2(a) ........................................................................ 6 Pa. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3 (b) ....................................................................... 6 Other Authorities House Bill 2020 ............................................................................................................ 12 Senate Bill 1034 ........................................................................................................... 12 WILLIAM PENN, SOME FRUITS OF SOLITUDE (1693 (HEADLEY BROS. 1905)) ................. 16 iii TO THE HONORABLE SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR., ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT: Respondent Michael J. Stack, III, in his capacity as Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania and President of the Pennsylvania Senate, opposes the Emergency Application for Stay Pending Resolution of Appeal to this Court of Pennsylvania Speaker of the House of Representative Michael C. Turzai and Pennsylvania Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph B. Scarnati, III (“Applicants”).1 Respondent Stack joins in the opposition of the Petitioners, the League of Women Voters and individual voters from each of Pennsylvania’s eighteen congressional districts; and of the Executive Branch Respondents, Pennsylvania Governor Thomas W. Wolf, Acting Pennsylvania Secretary of State Robert Torres and Pennsylvania Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation Commissioner Jonathan Marks.2 I. INTRODUCTION For the reasons that Petitioners and Executive Respondents address, Lt. Gov. Stack opposes the Applicants’ attempt to encroach upon the fundamental right and duty of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “to say what the law is” with regards to the Pennsylvania Constitution. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803); 1 Lt. Gov. Stack similarly opposes the Emergency Application for Stay Pending Resolution of Appeal to this Court filed by the Intervenors (Pennsylvania Republicans who opposed Petitioners’ action before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court), pending in this Court at Docket No. 17A802. 2 Lt. Gov. Stack addresses this Court separately from the other Executive Branch Respondents because of his unique position as a both a member of Pennsylvania’s Executive Branch as Lt. Governor and as a member of the Legislative Branch as President of the Pennsylvania Senate. Lt. Gov. Stack sought the relief that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted below. Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 590 (1875). Lt. Gov. Stack writes separately to address three points: Applicants’ attack on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s impartiality, through innuendo alone, must fail. Applicants’ assertion that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 22, 2018 Order allows for insufficient time and guidance to create a constitutional map defies both law and fact. In Pennsylvania, enactment of a redistricting plan follows the same process as any other Pennsylvania statute, subject to judicial review under the Pennsylvania Constitution, as interpreted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and consistent with this Court’s understanding of redistricting as state legislation. See Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2673 (2015). Here, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court properly reviewed the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s legislative enactment, Act 131 of 2011 (the “2011 Plan”), and its order rejecting that plan and requiring the General Assembly to create a new plan – a plan that complies with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Constitution – should not be stayed. II. ARGUMENT The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has the right to review Pennsylvania law under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Applicants’ acceptance of this fundamental precept renders their request for any emergency relief from this Court improper. (Applicants’ Br. 9); see, e.g., Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.)