<x-flowed>Michael,

The original defendants are the Secretary of State and the 67 probate judges.  The Speaker of the House (represented by Jim Blacksher and me) ; the President Pro Tem of the Senate and a prominent black Senator (represented by Bobby Segall, Shannon Holliday, and Larry Menefee); and the Governor (represented by Al Agricola) have all moved to intervene.  The motions were vigorously opposed by the plaintiffs and mildly opposed by the AG (representing the SOS and the 67 PJs) [he said the legislative leaders should not intervene in their official capacities].  The court has the motions under consideration.

The AG has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (based on a theory of claim preclusion).  That motion is also under consideration.

The Legislative intervenors filed motions for summary judgment (based mainly on claim preclusion), but the court ordered them withdrawn until it rules on the motions to intervene.

I think the case is moving along pretty well.  I will take some time in the next couple of days to put the major pleadings up on my website.

I would be interested in knowing what other state laws are being attacked where the legislator thought the AG was rolling over.

Ed

At 10:27 AM 8/22/2005, you wrote:

While I was at NCSL last week, an Alabama state legislator brought up a
resolution during the redistricting and elections committee business meeting
to promote laws that would provide state legislatures standing in court
cases seeking to invalidate state laws.  The issue he was concerned with in
particular was a Larios-style redistricting lawsuit.  Apparently, the state
legislature is not named as a defendant in the Federal lawsuit and when the
legislature tried to join in the defense, a Federal judge denied the
request.  Furthermore, the legislator claimed that the state Attorney
General is not vigorously defending the state for political reasons.  The
legislator claimed that the tactic of not naming the legislature as a
defendant and the Attorney General not defending a case was being used in
other lawsuits seeking to invalidate other laws.

I've cut and pasted a June 17, 2005 news story from the Birmingham News on
the case.  Does anyone (perhaps Ed Still) have more information regarding
the circumstances of this lawsuit?

==================================
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Brookings Institution, Visiting Fellow
George Mason University, Assistant Professor
Dept of Public and International Affairs
4400 University Drive - 3F4
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

</x-flowed>