[EL] Breaking: #SCOTUS to Hear ANOTHER AZ Redistricting Case

Tue Jun 30 09:45:54 PDT 2015

I agree.  I'm reading through the materials now.
It is a very messy case with three opinions from the three judge court, 
and the problem of relying upon a preclearance regime which is now dead.

On 6/30/15 9:35 AM, Gaddie, Ronald K. wrote:
> This appears to be a bit different from Ewel.  It looks almost like a 
> /Larios/ challenge.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ronald Keith Gaddie, Ph.D.
> /President's Associates Presidential Professor//
> /Chair, Department of Political Science <http://psc.ou.edu>
> Associate Director, Center for Intelligence & National Security 
> <http://cins.ouhsc.edu>
> The University of Oklahoma
> *p:* 405.325.2061**| ***e*: rkgaddie at ou.edu 
> <mailto:rkgaddie at ou.edu>**| t*: *@GaddieWindage 
> <https://twitter.com/gaddiewindage>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Rick 
> Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 8:47 AM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] Breaking: #SCOTUS to Hear ANOTHER AZ Redistricting Case
>
>
>     Breaking: #SCOTUS to Hear ANOTHER AZ Redistricting Case
>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73892>
>
> Posted onJune 30, 2015 6:33 am 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73892>byRick Hasen 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The case 
> <http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063015zr_pnk0.pdf>is 
> Wesley v. AZ Redistricting Commission (14-232) and the three questions 
> presented (in thejurisdictional statement 
> <http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020140825%20juris.pdf>) 
>  deal with one person, one vote deviations to satisfy partisan 
> advantage, deviations from partisan advantage to satisfy the (now 
> defunct) preclearance requirements of the DOJ, and whether the 
> redistricting commission erred in allegedly drawing Hispanic influence 
> districts.  This could turn out to be a major case, although the first 
> question seems to have been resolved by the Supreme Court’s summary 
> affirmance in Larios v. Cox, and the second question seems mooted by 
> /Shelby County/‘s killing of preclearance. I am not sure why the Court 
> took this case, but we will find out soon enough. Perhaps the Court 
> thought it should take the case while the larger /Evenwel/one person, 
> one vote case was pending.
>
> The full questions presented are:
>
> Screen Shot 2015-06-30 at 6.38.46 AM 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2015-06-30-at-6.38.46-AM.png>
>
> Via Justin Levitt, <http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases-AZ.php#AZ>here 
> are the relevant documents:
>
> *District court*
>
> –*_Opinion_rejecting challenges* 
> <http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020140429%20order.pdf>,_concurrence_ 
> <http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020140429%20concur.pdf>,_dissent_ 
> <http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020140429%20dissent.pdf>(Apr. 
> 29, 2014).
>
> *U.S. Supreme Court*
> –Notice of appeal 
> <http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020140625%20noa.pdf>(June 
> 25).
> –Jurisdictional statement 
> <http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020140825%20juris.pdf>(Aug. 
> 25).
> –Motion to dismiss or affirm 
> <http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020141113%20affirm.pdf>(Nov. 
> 13).
> –Opposition 
> <http://redistricting.lls.edu/files/AZ%20harris%2020141202%20opp.pdf>(Dec. 
> 2).
>
> Thor Hearne, whose fraudulent fraud squad activities get full play in 
> my book, /The Voting Wars/, brought this case.
>
> This post has been updated.
>
> Share 
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73892&title=Breaking%3A%20%23SCOTUS%20to%20Hear%20ANOTHER%20AZ%20Redistricting%20Case&description=>
> Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme 
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting Rights Act 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> -- 
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150630/ec077f4c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 91743 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150630/ec077f4c/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150630/ec077f4c/attachment-0001.png>