[EL] Breaking: #SCOTUS to Hear ANOTHER AZ Redistricting Case
Justin Levitt
levittj at lls.edu
Tue Jun 30 10:50:35 PDT 2015
/Evenwel/ will consider the nature of the population base, yes. But
whatever that qualitative decision, it's hard for me to believe that
this Court has an interest in requiring _stricter_ adherence to
mathematical equality in a way that overrides other legitimate state
interests. (Part of the question in the new Arizona case is an
allegation that the interests supporting unequal population were not
legitimate.) People keep forgetting about the West Virginia case from
this cycle -- /Tennant/ <http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases.php#WV> --
which opened up the "essentially identical" standard for congressional
districts to give _more_ flexibility to depart from mathematical
equality. That decision was 9-0.
Justin Levitt
--
Justin Levitt
Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321
On 6/30/2015 10:22 AM, Derek Muller wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <tel:405.325.2061>**| ***e*: rkgaddie at ou.edu
> <mailto:rkgaddie at ou.edu>**| t*: *@GaddieWindage
> <https://twitter.com/gaddiewindage>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto: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 <tel: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
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf
>> of Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2015 8:47 AM
>> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu <mailto: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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
>> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto: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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150630/38a2baac/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/20150630/38a2baac/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/20150630/38a2baac/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory