- 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.
Adams v. Comm'n on Appellate Court Appointments, No. CV-10-0405-SA (Ariz. Sup. Ct. Jan. 19, 2011): a challenge in state court to the eligibility of three individuals nominated to the pool of potential commissioners for the state's independent commission.
- Opinion (July 8, 2011).
The latest: The Arizona Supreme Court determined that two directors of irrigation districts were, as "public officers," ineligible to be named to the commission; an appointed tribal judge was not a "public officer," and therefore not disqualified.
Ariz. Ind. Redistricting Comm'n v. Brewer, No. CV2011-019475 (Az. Super. Ct., Maricopa County) and No. CV-11-0313 (Az. Sup. Ct.): a petition in state court seeking a declaration that the impeachment of Commissioner Mathis was invalid, on state constitutional grounds.
- Background documents
- Gov. letter removing Mathis, call for session seeking concurrence (Nov. 1, 2011).
- Joint Legislative Redistricting Comm. grievances (Nov. 1).
- Trial court
- Complaint (Nov. 1).
- Application for temporary restraining order (Nov. 1).
- Voluntary dismissal without prejudice to refiling (Nov. 2).
- State Supreme Court
- Petition for Special Action (Nov. 4).
- Decision reinstating Commissioner Mathis (Nov. 17), opinion (Apr. 20).
- Clarification of decision reinstating Mathis (Nov. 23).
The latest: On November 17, the Arizona Supreme Court declared the impeachment of Commissioner Mathis invalid, stating that Gov. Brewer's removal letter did not demonstrate the neglect of duty or misconduct required for impeachment.
Leach v. Ariz. Ind. Redistricting Comm'n, No. CV2012-007344 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa County): a challenge in state court to the congressional maps, based on alleged procedural deficiencies in the manner by which the maps were drawn.
- Complaint and exhibits (Apr. 27, 2012), 1st (June 5), 2d amd. complaint (Nov. 9).
- Motion to dismiss orig. complaint (May 21).
- Motion to dismiss amd. complaint (June 27), response (July 27), reply (Aug. 15).
- Opinion dismissing some counts (Oct. 15).
- Motion to dismiss 2d complaint (Dec. 3).
- Stipulation to dismiss count 1 (Dec. 6), response to remainder (Dec. 24).
- Reply (Jan. 7, 2013).
- Order denying motion to dismiss (Feb. 21).
- Motion for judgment on the pleadings (June 5).
The latest: On October 15, the court dismissed some claims based on the commission's allegedly improper process, including the claim that the commission considered an improper grid as the starting point for the congressional map, the claim that it improperly advertised a draft map, and the claim that technical consultants were improperly chosen. The court preserved the viability of other claims, but dismissed the complaint in its entirety as overly long and largely irrelevant; plaintiffs were invited to file an amended complaint, and did so on November 9, 2012.
Harris v. Ariz. Ind. Redistricting Comm'n, No. 2:12-cv-00894 (D. Ariz.): a challenge in federal court to the state legislative maps, based on alleged equal population violations stemming from alleged partisan bias.
- Complaint and exhibits (Apr. 27, 2012), 1st (July 5), 2d amd. complaint (Nov. 16).
- Notice disclaiming intent to affect 2012 elections (May 22).
- Motion to dismiss (May 23), opposition (June 25), denied as moot (July 6).
- Motion to dismiss (Aug. 3), response (Sept. 7), reply (Sept. 28).
- Motion under rule 56 (Sept. 7), response (Sept. 28), reply (Oct. 5).
- Denial of motion to dismiss (Nov. 16).
- Defts' motion for judgment on pleadings (Dec. 3), resp. (Dec. 21), reply (Jan. 8, 2013).
- Order granting motion w/r/t commissioners (Feb. 22).
- Defts' motion for protective order (Dec. 21), resp. (Jan. 9, 2013), reply (Jan. 15).
- Order denying motion (Feb. 22).
- Defts' motion re standard of review (Jan. 14, 2013), response (Jan. 31), reply (Feb. 11).
- Order denying motion (Feb. 22).
- Legis. privilege decisions to invoke (1, 2, 3) (Feb. 6), not to invoke (1, 2) (Feb. 8).
- Proposed findings by plaintiffs, defendants (Mar. 18).
- Pretrial briefs by plaintiffs, defendants (Mar. 18).
- Pretrial order (Mar. 25).
- Post-trial briefs by plaintiffs, defendants, amicus Navajo Nation (Apr. 10).
The latest: The complaint was filed on April 27, 2012. On May 22, the plaintiffs filed a notice disclaiming any attempt to seek injunctive relief affecting the 2012 elections. On November 16, 2012, the court denied a motion to dismiss, sending the case on toward trial, tentatively set for March 25, 2013. On February 22, 2013, the court dismissed the Commissioners individually; the case will proceed against the Commission as a whole and against the SOS in his official capacity.
Ariz. State Legis. v. Ariz. Ind. Redistricting Comm'n, No. 2:12-cv-01211 (D. Ariz.): a challenge in federal court to the authority of the redistricting commission to draw congressional maps, given the alleged constitutional delegation of such authority to the legislature, by the Elections Clause.
- Complaint (June 7, 2012) and amd. complaint (July 20).
- Motion to dismiss (Aug. 10), response (Aug. 27), reply (Sept. 7).
The latest: The complaint was filed on June 7, 2012, and an amended complaint was filed on July 20.
Arizona v. Holder, No. 1:11-cv-01559 (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. The challenge focuses on provisions designating coverage based on language minority status.
- Complaint (Aug. 30, 2011) and amended complaint (Sept. 28).
- Opinion denying three-judge court (Jan. 11, 2012).
- Voluntary dismissal without prejudice (Apr. 10).
The latest: On April 10, 2012, the case was voluntarily dismissed.
Arizona v. Mathis, No. CV2011-016442 (Az. Super. Ct., Maricopa County), No. 1-CA-CV-12-0068 (Az. Ct. of Appeals, Div. 1), T-12-0002-CV (Az. Sup. Ct.): a petition in state court to force three of Arizona's independent redistricting commissioners to comply with an investigation by the state Attorney General into alleged violations of the state's Open Meeting Act, in connection with the hiring of redistricting consultants.
- Trial court
- Petition for Enforcement of Written Investigative Demands, Exhibits (Sept. 7, 2011).
- Decision finding conflict by AG, requiring alternate counsel (Oct. 27).
- Commission motion for summary judgment (Oct. 19), reply (Nov. 9).
- AG cross-motion for summary judgment (Oct. 25).
- Response by Comm'r McNulty (Nov. 9), Comm'r Herrera (Nov. 16).
- Statement of facts by AG (Oct. 25), commission (Nov. 9).
- Decision granting summary judgment to commission (Dec. 9).
- Court of appeals
- Motion to dismiss the appeal (Jan. 27, 2012).
- Opening brief of state (Feb. 3).
- Answering briefs by indiv. comm'rs (app.), Comm'n (app.) (Apr. 12).
- Reply (May 8).
- Opinion affirming trial court (Dec. 11).
- State Supreme Court
- Petition to transfer to Sup. Ct. (May 7, 2012), response (May 14), denial (May 30).
The latest: On Dec. 9, the court granted the commission's motion for summary judgment, finding the commissioners exempt from Arizona's general open meetings law, and the individual commissioners entitled to legislative immunity. On December 11, the court of appeals affirmed that decision; the court found that the commission is exempt from the open meetings law only to the extent of a direct conflict with the state constitution, and that communications relating to hiring are not exempt from that open meetings law, but also noted that the State had not appealed the trial court's decision that the Attorney General had no cause to proceed with further investigation, and therefore dismissed the case.
Ariz. Ind. Redistricting Comm'n v. Horne, No. CV2011-017914 (Az. Super. Ct., Maricopa County): a petition in state court seeking a declaration that the Attorney General lacks the power to prosecute or otherwise punish independent redistricting commission members for performance of their official duties, and that the Open Meeting Law is unenforceable against the commission.
- Complaint (Sept. 27, 2011).
- Motion to dismiss (Oct. 3), response (Oct. 19), reply (Oct. 25).
The latest: On October 3, this case was consolidated with Arizona v. Mathis, above.