[EL] Breaking: #SCOTUS to Hear ANOTHER AZ Redistricting Case
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Jun 30 10:58:40 PDT 2015
Now that I've read through the materials, I'm convinced they took this
case primarily because it came from a 3 judge court, and Alito and other
Justices were not ready to summarily affirm without giving these issues
a fuller airing.
I don't expect this to be a blockbuster case on any count (watch me eat
my words in a year).
On 6/30/15 10:50 AM, Justin Levitt wrote:
> /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>
>> 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**|
>> 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**| 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] on behalf of
>>> Rick Hasen [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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
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/20150630/449870be/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/20150630/449870be/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/20150630/449870be/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory