Subject: Re: More on control of Georgia v. Ashcroft redistricting appeal
From: "J. J. Gass" <jj.gass@nyu.edu>
Date: 3/4/2003, 12:32 PM
To: "election-law@majordomo.lls.edu" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>

There is recent precedent for the Court to referee among lawyers claiming to represent the same party.  Almost exactly a year ago, the Court ruled in favor of public defenders who had been representing the respondents in U.S. v. Drayton, a Fourth Amendment case.  A private practitioner contacted the defendants directly and moved for to be substituted as counsel, attaching retainer agreements signed by the defendants.  The Court denied the motion; see http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/04mar20021030/www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/030402pzor.pdf.
Obviously, the issue of state constitutional law presented in the Georgia case is of an entirely different magnitude.  Unless the Court thinks it's necessary to resolve the case before the end of the Term so that election officials and candidates can prepare for the 2004 elections, I can't imagine the Justices won't wait for the Georgia courts to sort this out before going forward with oral argument and decision.

J. J. Gass
Associate Counsel, Democracy Program
212-998-6281
jj.gass@nyu.edu

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor
phone 212-998-6730
fax 212-995-4550
www.brennancenter.org