- U.S. Supreme
District of Columbia
Redistricting status map
|All suits resolved|
Note: Under federal law, a three-judge federal trial court hears constitutional challenges to federal or state legislative districts or requests for preclearance, and these decisions are appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal appellate courts therefore tend to get involved only when there is no constitutional challenge or judicial preclearance request, or when only local districts are challenged.
Alaska v. Holder, No. 1:12-cv-01376 (D.D.C.): a challenge in federal court to the constitutionality of section 4(b) and section 5 (the coverage formula and preclearance provisions) of the Voting Rights Act.
- Complaint (Aug. 21, 2012) and amended complaint (Aug. 22).
The latest: The complaint was filed on August 21, 2012, with an amended complaint filed the next day.
Samuelsen v. Treadwell, No. 3:12-cv-00118 (D. Alaska): a challenge in federal court to the implementation of the state's new legislative maps without preclearance.
- Complaint (June 6, 2012).
- Motion for TRO (June 6), opposition (June 11), reply (June 12).
- Order denying TRO (June 15).
- Motion for preliminary injunction (June 6), opposition (June 20), reply (June 25).
- Amicus AK Redistricting Board memorandum (June 27).
- Order re scope of oral argument (June 26).
- Preclearance of plan (June 27).
- Motion for voluntary dismissal, order granting dismissal (June 27).
The latest: On June 27, the Alaska interim plan was precleared, and the case was dismissed (on plaintiffs' request) the same day.
In re 2011 Redistricting Cases (was Riley v. Alaska Redistricting Board), No. 4FA-11-2209CI (Alaska Super. Ct., 4th Dist.), and No. S-14441 & No. S-14721 (Alaska Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the promulgated state legislative plan, based on an alleged failure to maintain Fairbanks in a compact, relatively integrated socio-economic area.
- Trial court
- Complaint (July 12, 2011).
- Motion to dismiss (Sept. 9).
- Opposition by Petersburg (Sept. 19), Fairbanks North Star Borough (Sept. 19).
- Reply (Sept. 21).
- Order denying motion to dismiss (Sept. 22).
- Motion for partial summary judgment (community of interest) (Oct. 18).
- Opposition (Oct. 21), reply (Oct. 24).
- Decision granting the partial motion for summary judgment (Oct. 25).
- Petersburg et al. motion for partial summary judgment (compactness) (Oct. 18).
- Opposition (Nov. 4), reply (Nov. 18).
- Alaska Redistricting Board's cross-motion for summary judgment (Nov. 4).
- Opposition (Nov. 18), reply (Nov. 30).
- Decision denying plaintiff's motion and granting Board's cross-motion (Dec. 12).
- Riley et al. motions for partial summary judgment
- Motion re compactness (Dec. 5), opp. (Dec. 13), reply (Dec. 15), order (Dec. 23).
- Motion re contiguity (Dec. 5), opp. (Dec. 13), reply (Dec. 14), order (Dec. 23).
- Motion re process (Dec. 5), opp. (Dec. 16), reply (Dec. 21), order (Dec. 23).
- Motion re law of the case (Dec. 5), opp. (Dec. 16), reply (Dec. 20), order (Dec. 23).
- Motion re HD 38 (Dec. 5), opp. (Dec. 16), reply (Dec. 21), order (Dec. 23).
- Trial briefs by plaintiffs, defendant (Dec. 28).
- Amicus briefs by Aleutians East, Fairbanks, Bristol Bay Native Corp. (Jan. 23, 2012).
- Proposed findings by plaintiffs, defendants (Jan. 23).
- Opinion granting injunction against plan (Feb. 3).
- State Supreme Court
- Petition for review by plaintiffs, defendant (Feb. 13).
- Response by defendant (Feb. 17).
- Excerpts of record (vol. 1, 2, supp.).
- Amicus briefs by Ahtna et al., Aleutians East, Calista Corp., Fairbanks (Feb. 17).
- Opinion remanding case for Board to redraw plan (Mar. 14).
- Trial court II
- Notice of compliance, request for judgment (exh. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H) (Apr. 11).
- Objections by Petersburg, Riley (Apr. 16).
- Objections by Alaska Dems., Aleutians East, Bristol Bay Native Corp. (Apr. 16).
- Objections by Calista Corp. et al., Fairbanks, RIGHTs Coal. (Apr. 16).
- Alaska Redistricting Board consolidated reply (Apr. 18).
- Order rejecting plan, remanding for Board to redraw plan (Apr. 20).
- State Supreme Court II
- Petition for review of trial court order (May 1).
- Responses by Petersburg, Riley (May 8).
- Responses by Aleutians East, Calista Corp. et al. (May 8).
- Responses by Fairbanks, RIGHTs Coal. (May 8).
- Opinion affirming trial court (Dec. 28, 2012).
- Petition for rehearing (Jan. 7, 2013), order re petition (Feb. 15).
- Request for clarification (Mar. 19), opp. (Mar. 26), clarification (Apr. 24).
- Trial court III
- Motion to set deadlines by Petersburg (aff.), Riley (May 15).
- Petition for order re interim plan (May 3, 2012), further explanation (May 8).
- Response by Riley (May 8).
- Responses by Alaska Dem. Party, Aleutians East et al. (May 8).
- Responses by Bristol Bay, Calista Corp. et al., RIGHTs Coal. (May 8).
- Order remanding for adjustment of interim districts (May 10).
- Board's notice of compliance (and interim districts) (May 15).
- Responses by Petersburg (May 16), Riley (May 18).
- Responses by Chilkoot, Haines, Metlakatla, RIGHTs Coal. (May 18).
- Response by Sealaska et al. (May 18).
- Order requiring use of Apr. 5 plan for 2012 elections (May 22), dissent (June 19).
- Motion to stay implementation pending preclearance (May 22), denial (May 30).
The latest: On October 25, 2011, the trial court granted a plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment on community of interest grounds, finding that House District 38 violated the Alaska Constitution; on December 23, it similarly granted motions on contiguity and compactness grounds. On December 12, the court granted the state Board's motion for summary judgment on compactness grounds, denying the Petersburg plaintiffs' claims. On February 3, 2012, the court ordered the redistricting board to redraw the legislative district plan, finding several violations of state constitutional requirements of compactness, contiguity, and communities of interest that were unnecessary even given the need to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
On March 14, 2012, on appeal from the trial court's order, the Alaska Supreme Court found the Board's process improper, and remanded for the Board to redraw districts first under the state constitution, and only then to adjust districts where necessary to achieve Voting Rights Act compliance. The Board returned with a new plan, which was rejected on April 20; the court found that the Board did not restart the process entirely, justifying each new district under the state constitution first, and remanded for compliance with the mandated procedure. On Dec. 28, the state Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board must start over, first creating a plan under the state constitution and then adjusting to achieve VRA compliance, but that it need not seek court approval before the final plan is complete.
On May 10, 2012, the state Supreme Court ordered the Board to redraw several districts in southeast Alaska (finding no obligation in that region under the Voting Rights Act) for use as an interim plan for 2012, which the Board did on May 15. Then, on May 22, the state Supreme Court reversed course, and ordered the temporary use of the April 5 maps for 2012 elections, out of concerns that the revised maps might not be precleared. A decision on permanent districts is still pending.
City of Petersburg v. Alaska, No. 1JU-11-00782CI (Alaska Super. Ct., 1st Dist.) [consolidated with Riley v. Alaska Redistricting Board]: a challenge in state court to the promulgated state legislative plan, based on an alleged failure to maintain Petersburg in a relatively integrated socio-economic area.
- Complaint (July 12, 2011).
- Amended complaint (Aug. 26).
- Voluntary dismissal of all claims other than compactness (Oct. 20).
The latest: On October 20, the Petersburg plaintiffs dismissed all claims other than claims regarding the compactness of the districts.
Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Alaska Redistricting Board, No. 4FA-11-2213CI (Alaska Super. Ct., 4th Dist.) [consolidated with Riley v. Alaska Redistricting Board]: a challenge in state court to the promulgated state legislative plan, based on alleged unnecessary deviation from state requirements of compactness, contiguity, and maintaining relatively integrated socio-economic areas in the region surrounding Fairbanks.
- Complaint (July 13, 2011).
- Motion for voluntary dismissal (Oct. 25).
- Dismissal of FNSB (Nov. 3).
The latest: On November 3, plaintiffs were allowed to voluntarily dismiss their case and become an amicus curiae instead, allegedly because of cost concerns.