[EL] Breaking: #SCOTUS to Hear ANOTHER AZ Redistricting Case
Derek Muller
derek.muller at gmail.com
Tue Jun 30 10:22:13 PDT 2015
I think all of these comments are right, but at its heart, this case, like
*Evenwel*, turns on strengthening another undertheorized element of the
"one person, one vote" mantra: if (essentially) identical numbers of people
are require under congressional redistricting, but a 10% deviation is
permitted for state legislative districts, a stronger "one person, one
vote" theory would require something closer to an equal number of people in
each district for state legislative districts, too. So while the districts
might survive under Section 2, they might fail if the Equal Protection
Clause were construed to require close(r) to equal numbers of people (or,
in conjunction with *Evenwel*, equal numbers of "voters," however defined).
While *Evenwel* is different in kind, it, too, turns on a stronger
interpretation of the "one person, one vote" doctrine.
Also, I recall at oral argument in *Alabama Legislative Black Caucus *that
Alabama claimed it was trying to reach equal numbers of people in its
legislative districts with 2% deviations, and Justice Kagan pressing back
that it wasn't required because deviations of up to 10% were permitted. A
new, more stringent "one person, one vote" analysis would have a
significant impact on cases like these.
Of course, this would also join *Evenwel *as another "one person, one vote"
case where (some) conservative and liberal partisans would appear to
reverse their roles in, perhaps, a more results-oriented jurisprudence (see
Noah Feldman's piece here:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-27/-one-man-one-vote-keeps-changing
)....
Derek
Derek T. Muller
Associate Professor of Law
Pepperdine University School of Law
24255 Pacific Coast Hwy
Malibu, CA 90263
+1 310-506-7058
SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/author=464341
Twitter: http://twitter.com/derektmuller
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Gaddie, Ronald K. <rkgaddie at ou.edu> wrote:
> I think the S.5 argument can fall apart because all those districts
> could be justified via S.2.
>
> ------------------------------
> 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* | t: *@GaddieWindage
> <https://twitter.com/gaddiewindage>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 11:45 AM
> *To:* Gaddie, Ronald K.; law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Breaking: #SCOTUS to Hear ANOTHER AZ Redistricting
> Case
>
> 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* | 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 on June 30, 2015 6:33 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73892> by Rick
> 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 the jurisdictional 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:
>
> [image: 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.
> [image: 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 in redistricting <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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150630/f2b414ef/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 91743 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150630/f2b414ef/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150630/f2b414ef/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory