[EL] Breaking: #SCOTUS to Hear ANOTHER AZ Redistricting Case
Rob Richie
rr at fairvote.org
Tue Jun 30 10:59:55 PDT 2015
When talking about this case and *Evenwel*, I would request that we drop
the highly misleading terminology of "one person, one vote" and replace it
with something like Justin's "mathematical equality" below. Calling this
line of cases the "population equality cases" might work, although of
course there's a long history of members in the same legislative body
having different numbers of constituents based on whether they represent
one-seat or multi-seat districts.
Rob Richie
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu> 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 90015213-736-7417justin.levitt at lls.edussrn.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>
> 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>
> 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>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>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>
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Rick Hasen [
>> <rhasen at law.uci.edu>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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://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/e3090370/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/e3090370/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/e3090370/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory