Case 1:13-cv-03233-JKB Document 186-1 Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 65 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * O. JOHN BENISEK, et al., * Plaintiffs, * Case No. 13-cv-3233 v. * LINDA H. LAMONE., et al., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 30, 2017 BRIAN E. FROSH Attorney General of Maryland JENNIFER L. KATZ (Bar No. 28973) SARAH W. RICE (Bar No. 29113) Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General 200 St. Paul Place, 20th Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 576-7005 (tel.); (410) 576-6955 (fax) [email protected] Attorneys for defendants Case 1:13-cv-03233-JKB Document 186-1 Filed 06/30/17 Page 2 of 65 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 FACTS ................................................................................................................................. 3 The Redistricting Process in Maryland .................................................................... 3 Gathering Input for the 2011 Congressional Map .................................................... 6 Drawing the 2011 Congressional Map ................................................................... 11 Characteristics of the 2011 Congressional Redistricting Map ............................... 14 Political Composition of the Sixth District ............................................................ 18 Post-Redistricting Congressional Elections in the Sixth District ........................... 21 Statistical Measures Show the Congressional Plan Lacks Partisan Bias .............. 23 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 24 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................................... 24 II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO COME FORWARD WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE A GENUINE ISSUE FOR TRIAL ON ANY OF THE ELEMENTS OF FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION. ................................................................................... 25 A. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Raise a Genuine Issue for Trial that the Governor or GRAC Acted With the Specific Intent to Retaliate Against Plaintiffs for Their First Amendment Expression. ........................ 25 B. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Raise a Genuine Issue for Trial that the 2011 Congressional Redistricting Plan Resulted in a Demonstrable and Concrete Injury. .......................................................................................... 32 1. Plaintiffs Provide No Explanation of What Distinguishes Permissible from Impermissible Vote Dilution in the Partisan Context. ............................................................................................ 35 2. Plaintiffs Have Not Demonstrated the Identified Vote Dilution Burdened Their First Amendment Expression. ................................ 38 C. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Raise a Genuine Issue for Trial that the Governor’s and GRAC’s Alleged Retaliatory Animus Was the “But- For” Cause of any Election Outcome. ......................................................... 42 Case 1:13-cv-03233-JKB Document 186-1 Filed 06/30/17 Page 3 of 65 III. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CLAIM IS BARRED BY LACHES BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS’ INEXCUSABLE DELAY IN BRINGING THE CLAIM HAS PREJUDICED THE STATE. ..................................................................... 47 IV. THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS TO OBTAIN A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION..................................................................... 50 A. Plaintiffs Have Made No Showing of Irreparable Harm. ........................... 51 B. The Balance of Equities Does Not Weigh in Favor of Plaintiffs. ............... 54 C. A Preliminary Injunction Is Not in the Public Interest. .............................. 54 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 55 ii Case 1:13-cv-03233-JKB Document 186-1 Filed 06/30/17 Page 4 of 65 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Acevedo-Diaz v. Aponte, 1 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 1993) ..................................................... 43, 44 Anne Arundel County Republican Cent. Comm. v. State Admin. Bd. of Election Laws, 781 F. Supp. 394 (D. Md. 1991), aff’d, 504 U.S. 938 (1992) ....................... 4, 15 Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963). ........................................................ 40 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................. 24 Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County, 722 F.3d 184 (4th Cir. 2013) ............................ 51 Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017) ................................................................... 37, 53 Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (1961) ................................................................. 47 Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) ........................................................ 25, 33, 35, 42 Doe v. Banos, 713 F. Supp. 2d 404 (D.N.J. 2010), aff’d on other grounds, 416 F. App’x 185 (3d Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................. 52 Drewitt v. Pratt, 999 F.2d 774 (4th Cir. 1993) .................................................................. 25 Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................ 43, 44 Fleishman v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 698 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2012) ............................................ 43 Fletcher v. Lamone, 831 F. Supp. 2d 887 (D. Md. 2011), aff’d, 133 S. Ct. 29 (2012) ........................................................................................................................... 14 Giddens v. Isbrandtsen Co., 355 F.2d 125 (4th Cir. 1966). .............................................. 49 Gill v. Whitford, --S. Ct.--, 2017 WL 2621675 (June 19, 2017) ................................. 53, 54 Gill v. Whitford, --S. Ct.--, 2017 WL 1106512 (June 19, 2017) ....................................... 55 Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................ 43 Greene v. Doruff, 660 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2011) ................................................................ 44 Greenwich Citizens Comm., Inc. v. Ctys. of Warren & Washington Indus. Dev. Agency, 77 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. 1996). .............................................................................. 44 iii Case 1:13-cv-03233-JKB Document 186-1 Filed 06/30/17 Page 5 of 65 Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) .................................................................... 43, 45 Heffernan v. City of Paterson, N.J., 136 S. Ct. 1412 (2016). ............................................ 26 Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994). ............................................................. 34, 35 Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972) .................................................................................... 32 League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) ................................ 37 League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................. 53, 54 Legislative Redistricting Cases, 331 Md. 574 (1993) ......................................................... 4 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ........................................................ 48 Maryland Citizens Comm. for Fair Cong. Redistricting, Inc. v. Tawes, 226 F. Supp. 80 (D. Md. 1964) ................................................................................................. 5 Maryland Citizens Comm. for Fair Cong. Redistricting, Inc. v. Tawes, 253 F. Supp. 731 (D. Md. 1966) ................................................................................... 5, 16, 17 Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (2012) .......................................................................... 54 Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer, 849 F. Supp. 1022 (D. Md. 1994 .............................................................................................................................. 35 McCrory v. Harris, 136 S. Ct. 1001 (2016) ...................................................................... 53 Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) .................. 24 McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) ................................. 43, 44 Mt. Healthy School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) ......................................................................................................... 42, 43, 44, 46 New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345 (1977) .................... 54 Perry v. Judd, 840 F. Supp. 2d 945 (E.D. Va. 2012), aff’d, 471 F. App’x 219 (4th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................................. 47 Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972). ...................................................................... 26 Preston v. Bd. of Trs. of Chicago State Univ., 120 F. Supp. 3d 801 (N.D. Ill.