No. 02-1580 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RICHARD VIETH, et al., Appellants, v. ROBERT C. JUBELIRER, et al., _______________________________ Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AND THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS STEVEN R. SHAPIRO BURT NEUBORNE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Counsel of Record FOUNDATION DEBORAH GOLDBERG 125 Broad Street J. J. GASS New York NY 10004 ADAM H. MORSE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE ARTHUR N. EISENBERG AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 161 Avenue of the Americas 125 Broad Street 12th Floor New York NY 10004 New York NY 10013 (212) 998-6730 Attorneys for Amici Curiae (Additional Counsel listed on signature page) 182637 A ((800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................. ii INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................. 1 ARGUMENT......................................................................... 2 I. In the Two Decades Since Bandemer, Partisan Gerrymandering Claims Have Been Justiciable in Name Only............................................................. 2 A. Both Major Parties Regularly Create Partisan Gerrymanders. ........................................................ 3 B. The Vague Bandemer Standard Has Not Slowed the Proliferation of Partisan Gerrymanders......................................................... 7 II. Partisan Gerrymanders Deny the Majority Rule and Electoral Accountability the Constitution Requires. .................................................................. 12 A. The Constitution Embodies the Framers’ Vision of Representative Democracy................... 12 B. Modern Redistricting Reverses the Framers’ Conception of the Houses of Congress. ............... 14 C. Four Constitutional Clauses Directly Protect Voters from Extreme Partisan Gerrymanders. ..... 19 1. Elections Clause............................................. 19 2. First Amendment. .......................................... 20 3. Equal Protection Clause................................. 22 4. Guarantee Clause. .......................................... 24 III. No State May Surrender Legislative Control, Irrespective of the Votes of the Majority, to a Favored Faction ....................................................... 26 CONCLUSION.................................................................... 30 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997)........................................................... 28 Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999)......................................................... 13 Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983)......................................................... 21 Badham v. Eu, 694 F. Supp. 664 (N.D. Cal. 1988).............................. 5, 11 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)..................................................... 2, 26 Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)......................................................... 29 Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992)......................................................... 21 Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)............................................................. 2 Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980)......................................................... 19 Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001)................................................... 19, 20 Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986)................................................. 1, 7, 28 iii Duckworth v. State Admin. Bd. of Election Laws, 332 F.3d 769 (4th Cir. 2002) ............................................. 5 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)......................................................... 21 Fed. Maritime Comm’n v. S. Car. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743 (2002)......................................................... 13 Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983)......................................................... 24 Harper v. Va. Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)......................................................... 22 Ill. State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979)......................................................... 13 In re Legislative Districting of the State, 805 A.2d 292 (Md. 2002) .................................................. 5 INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)......................................................... 12 Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967)......................................................... 22 Kramer v. Union Free School Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969)......................................................... 14 Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly of Colo., 377 U.S. 713 (1964)......................................................... 26 Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315 (1973)......................................................... 24 Martinez v. Bush, 234 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (S.D. Fla. 2002) ...................... 3, 4, 8 iv NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)......................................................... 21 NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963)......................................................... 22 Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982)........................................................... 12 O’Hare Truck Serv., Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996)......................................................... 21 O’Lear v. Miller, 222 F. Supp. 2d 850 (E.D. Mich.)........................ 4, 8, 9, 10 Police Dep’t of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972)..................................................... 19, 21 Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)......................................................... 25 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)............................................. 22, 25, 26 Tashjian v. Republican Party, 479 U.S. 208 (1986)......................................................... 19 Terrazas v. Slagle, 821 F. Supp. 1162 (W.D. Tex. 1993) ................................ 9 U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)......................................................... 19 United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977)............................................................. 18 v Vieth v. Pennsylvania, 188 F. Supp. 2d 532, (M.D. Pa. 2002)............................. 11 Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)......................................................... 23 Constitutional Provisions U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 1................................................... 13 U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3................................................... 13 U.S. Const. art. 1, § 2, cl. 4.................................................. 13 U.S. Const. art. I, § 4............................................................ 19 U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4................................................... 13, 24 Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 1973.................................................................. 18 42 U.S.C. § 1973c................................................................ 18 Pub. L. No. 94-171 (1975)................................................... 29 Other Authorities Gordon E. Baker, The Unfinished Reapportionment Revolution, in Political Gerrymandering and the Courts (Bernard Grofman, ed., 1990).............................. 25 Jay S. Bybee, Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens’ Song of the Seventeenth Amendment, 91 Nw. U. L. Rev. 500 (1997) ......................................... 16 How to Rig an Election, The Economist, Apr. 27, 2002..................................... 3, 17 vi Thomas B. Edsall, Democrats Hold Edge Over GOP in Redistricting; Gains Still Possible for Republicans, Washington Post, Dec. 14, 2001........................................ 6 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (Max Farrand ed. 1911) ................................................... 25 The Federalist Nos. 52 (Madison)....................................... 15 The Federalist Nos. 53 (Madison)....................................... 15 The Federalist Nos. 57 (Madison)....................................... 15 The Federalist Nos. 62 (Madison)....................................... 16 The Federalist Nos. 63 (Madison)....................................... 15 David J. Garrow, Ruining the House, N.Y. Times, Nov. 13, 2002.............................................. 17 Richard L. Hasen, The Benefits of “Judicially Unmanageable” Standards in Election Cases Under the Equal Protection Clause, 80 N.C. L. Rev. 1469 (2002) ........................................... 11 Carl Ingram, Davis OKs Redistricting that Keeps the Status Quo, L.A. Times, Sept. 28, 2001.............................................. 12 Samuel Issacharoff, Gerrymandering and Political Cartels, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 593 (2002).......................................... 25 Sarah Koenig, Congressional Districts Fought in Federal Suit, Baltimore Sun, June 19, 2002............................................ 5 vii Claude R. Marx, Democrats Vow Lawsuit over State's Congressional Redistricting, Intelligencer Journal (Lancaster, Pa.), Jan. 5, 2002........... 8 Michael W. McConnell, The Redistricting Cases: Original Mistakes and Current Consequences, 24 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 103 (2000).................... 3, 8, 25 John L. Micek, GOP-run Legislature Approves