[EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable

Thu Jun 27 09:01:00 PDT 2019

I think the instinct – and I call it that, an instinct, not necessarily a thought-through position -- behind the statement is that anyone in your district is a constituent.  He certainly could have used “voters” or “eligible voters” or “citizens.”  I don’t think legislative offices turn away resident aliens who seek assistance, for example, because they are not “constituents.”

Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Sq. So.
NYC, NY 10012
212 998-6377

From: Trevor Potter [mailto:tpotter at capdale.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 11:57 AM
To: Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable

How do you think he defines “ constituents”?

Trevor Potter

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 27, 2019, at 5:34 PM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu%3cmailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>>> wrote:

In describing the one-person, one-vote doctrine, CJ Roberts says: “each representative must be accountable to (approximately) the same number of constituents (my emphasis).

If states/localities ever do redistrict based on eligible voters rather than population, I am sure that line will be quoted extensively.

Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Sq. So.
NYC, NY 10012
212 998-6377

From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Adam Bonin
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 10:58 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu%3cmailto:law-election at uci.edu>>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable

I'm not sure that's even an option. District court already determined that Commerce had never offered other reasons, and remanded just to confirm that Commerce had general jurisdiction to run the Census. See pp 266-70. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/2019-01-15-574-Findings%20Of%20Fact.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brennancenter.org_sites_default_files_legal-2Dwork_2019-2D01-2D15-2D574-2DFindings-2520Of-2520Fact.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=-GeSXw67sotv25U19eXvb00wdCy7Qan56cOs8AQnRs8&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brennancenter.org_sites_default_files_legal-2Dwork_2019-2D01-2D15-2D574-2DFindings-2520Of-2520Fact.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=LbJENb2EllxoCgCoJ2HVRc8NEUPigx0yk1vjzx_rQuE&e=>

in short, wrote Judge Furman:

Remand, meanwhile, is appropriate as well, in recognition of the fact that Congress delegated its authority over administration of the census to the Secretary of Commerce, not to this Court. That is not to say that Defendants can or would be able to remedy the defects in Secretary Ross’s decision that this Court has found in time for the 2020 census. But to the extent that a “remand” is even necessary to make clear that the Secretary of Commerce retains authority to make decisions about the census, so long as they are consistent with law and this Court’s Opinion, a remand is appropriate.

The parties’ respective arguments for an alternative remedy are unpersuasive. For their part, Defendants contend that remand without vacatur is “the only potentially appropriate remedy.” Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. 83-85, ¶¶ 80-85. Putting aside whether such a remedy is consistent with the plain language of the APA, it is inappropriate here. Courts authorizing remand without vacatur have done so where the agency shows “at least a serious possibility that [it] will be able to substantiate its decision on remand” and that “the consequences of vacating may be quite disruptive.” Allied-Signal, Inc., 988 F.2d at 151. Defendants have done neither here. The problem with Secretary Ross’s decision was not that it was inadequately explained, but rather that it was substantively arbitrary and capricious and “not in accordance” with statutes that constrain his discretion. And as Plaintiffs correctly point out, “the Secretary has never suggested an alternative basis for his decision.” Pls.’ Proposed Conclusions ¶ 456. Notably, Defendants offer nothing more than a bare conclusory assertion that “there is a non-trivial likelihood that the agency will be able to state a valid legal basis for its decision” on remand. Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. 84, ¶ 83 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Nothing in either the Administrative Record or the trial record even remotely suggests such a “likelihood.”

Adam C. Bonin
The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
121 S. Broad Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19107

(267) 242-5014 (c)
(215) 701-2321 (f)
adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com%3cmailto:adam at boninlaw.com>>
http://www.boninlaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.boninlaw.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=5nw5r1b3sb3G1JWIhiJ2DVgax61Ueo6qdXgCirhxC_I&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.boninlaw.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=mkbb2G-jkLnGJBJzMr2UJfXbYH-VB1McmVMLmemoMmc&e=>

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:41 AM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>> wrote:
Here’s the link to the opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D966-5Fbq7c.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=qAtiZ17eMvJ732Di9_JC-OXYV_cslaKSgM-4-GQ6f88&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D966-5Fbq7c.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=DQFA1sOXdJTscTCfjVf3QhCvds4_JOEHcXdAO6GhZfw&e=>

Question is whether agency can come up with another explanation in time

From: Pamela S Karlan <pkarlan at stanford.edu<mailto:pkarlan at stanford.edu<mailto:pkarlan at stanford.edu%3cmailto:pkarlan at stanford.edu>>>
Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 7:38 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu%3cmailto:law-election at uci.edu>>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable

Census case got remanded on the grounds that the VRA enforcement rationale can’t support the decision to ask the citizenship question.
Pam Karlan
Stanford Law School
karlan at stanford.edu<mailto:karlan at stanford.edu<mailto:karlan at stanford.edu%3cmailto:karlan at stanford.edu>>
650.725.4851

On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:12 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>> wrote:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D422-5F9ol1.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=85g-hGm03JlLwImwB0lIr3OygRx-c5p1rQQZLSzCh1o&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D422-5F9ol1.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=a5OruKQ5Zhuzhye4Ja03XDcbASkb58d_KokAg8GKjq4&e=>

--
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
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu%3cmailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uci.edu_faculty_full-2Dtime_hasen_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=zTd4EHeAUAprQTknF2BB2QppjQqw3XuVIMd60E4jnL0&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uci.edu_faculty_full-2Dtime_hasen_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=ef5XEfzfYm0obGPKIqVRNXtdfwPdV0BRj4e9n6QP45c&e=>
http://electionlawblog.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__electionlawblog.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=X__JGNarEx4GYxGTlRTwNqCCdY419n39Bzxu4enQMto&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__electionlawblog.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=AiYhbBnmopseHn2mTsS73PXVVdL_3d1NC2XHKrmkikQ&e=>
<image001.png>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=kuPf1P2mC5tDj4PLhfedwmUTgMbR9zv3Swwmas0ZlSU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=N3xF4k3FuHKq0_dTIPnYeg7QSieM43kv-RMW84edEn4&e=>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=kuPf1P2mC5tDj4PLhfedwmUTgMbR9zv3Swwmas0ZlSU&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=N3xF4k3FuHKq0_dTIPnYeg7QSieM43kv-RMW84edEn4&e=>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=kuPf1P2mC5tDj4PLhfedwmUTgMbR9zv3Swwmas0ZlSU&e=>

[This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190627/3d05dd0e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9617 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190627/3d05dd0e/attachment.png>