Litigation in the 2010 cycle

»  Congressional
»  State House  « NEW 
»  State Senate

On October 14, 2011, the New Mexico Supreme Court consolidated all redistricting litigation in the 1st Judicial District Court, in Santa Fe. That court has drawn congressional lines, and lines for the state Senate and state House. The state House lines have been appealed, and reversed, with instructions for the trial court to redraw the lines; that decision has itself been challenged in federal court.

Egolf v. Duran, No. D-101-cv-201102942 (N.M. 1st Judicial Dist. Ct.): all of the litigation challenging New Mexico districts was consolidated under this case.
     - Maestas et al. motion for partial summary judgment (Nov. 22), reply (Dec. 8).
     - Proposed findings of fact by Maestas et al. (Nov. 28), NM LULAC (Dec. 5).
     - Pretrial briefs:
          - Maestas et al. (Dec. 2), exec. defs. (omnibus (Nov. 10) & specific (Dec. 2)).
          - joint plan proponents (exec. defs., Egolf et al., Sena et al., James et al.) (Dec. 2).
          - legislative defendants (exhs. A, B, C) (Dec. 9).
          - intervenors Navajo Nation et al. (exhs. A and B) (Dec. 2), NM LULAC (Dec. 4).
     - Written closing arguments and post-trial briefs:
          - Maestas et al., executive defendants et al. (Dec. 9), Egolf et al. (Dec. 27).
          - joint plan proponents (exec. defs., Egolf et al.) (Dec. 9)
          - intervenors Navajo Nation et al., intervenors NM LULAC (Dec. 9).
     - Supplemental post-trial proposed findings of fact:
          - exec. defs. et al., Sena et al. (Dec. 9), Egolf et al., Maestas et al. (Dec. 27).
     - Opinion drawing congressional districts (Dec. 29).
The latest: Trial began on congressional districts December 5. On December 29, the court issued a congressional plan, preserving the vast majority of the existing districts and finding no need to depart from those districts under the Voting Rights Act.

Chavez-Hankins v. Duran, No. 1:12-cv-00140 (D.N.M.): a challenge in federal court to the state Supreme Court's order remanding consideration of the state House districts to the state trial court, alleging equal population violations and racial gerrymandering.
     - Complaint (Feb. 13, 2012).
          - Intervenor Navajo Nation et al. complaint (Feb. 21).
     - Briefs re jurisdiction by plaintiffs, Maestas et al., defendants (Feb. 22).
          - Response by plaintiffs, Egolf et al., Jennings et al., Maestas et al., State (Feb. 24).
     - Briefs re delaying election deadlines by Egolf et al., defendants (Feb. 23).
          - Response by plaintiffs, Egolf et al., Jennings et al. (Feb. 24).
     - Briefs re constitutionality of Sup. Ct. remand, by plaintiffs, defendants (Feb. 23).
          - Responses by Egolf et al., Jennings et al., State (Feb. 27).
     - Motion to dismiss by intervenors Jennings et al., Egolf et al. (Feb. 22).
          - Response by plaintiffs, Egolf et al., Jennings et al., Maestas et al., State (Feb. 24).
     - Order to show cause why suit should not be dismissed (Mar. 23).
          - Stipulation of dismissal (Apr. 13).
The latest: On April 13, the parties agreed to dismiss the case.

Egolf v. Duran, No. D-101-cv-201102942 (N.M. 1st Judicial Dist. Ct.): all of the litigation challenging New Mexico districts was consolidated under this case.
Maestas v. Hall, No. 12-33386 (N.M. Sup. Ct.), and Jennings v. New Mexico Court of Appeals, No. 12-33387 (N.M. Sup. Ct.) are the cases arising out of petitions asking the New Mexico Supreme Court to assume control of the appeal.
     - Trial court
          - Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law:
               - Egolf et al., Maestas et al., Pueblo of Laguna et al. (Dec. 5) & supp. (Dec. 28)
               - Sena et al., legislative plaintiffs (Dec. 28), exec. defendants (Dec. 5)
               - legislative defendants (Dec. 5), James et al. (Dec. 7)
               - intervenors Navajo Nation et al. (Dec. 5) and amended (Dec. 9)
          - Pretrial briefs:
               - Egolf et al., Maestas et al., James et al., Pueblo of Laguna et al. (Dec. 9).
               - executive defendants (omnibus (Nov. 10) & specific (Dec. 9)).
               - legislative defendants (exhs. A, B, C) (Dec. 9).
               - intervenors Navajo Nation et al., intervenors NM LULAC (Dec. 9).
          - Written closing arguments and post-trial briefs:
               - Egolf et al., Maestas et al., James et al., Pueblo of Laguna et al. (Dec. 28).
               - executive defendants, legislative defendants (Dec. 28).
               - intervenors Navajo Nation et al. (Dec. 28).
          - Opinion drawing state House districts (Jan. 3).
     - State Supreme Court
          - Petition for superintending control by Jennings-Lujan, Maestas-Egolf (Jan. 17).
          - Stay of judgment pending appeal (Jan. 18).
          - Opening briefs by:
               - Egolf et al., Maestas et al., James et al., Pueblo of Laguna et al. (Jan. 27).
               - Sena et al., executive defendants (I, II), legislative defendants (Jan. 27).
               - intervenors Navajo Nation et al. (Jan. 27).
          - Response briefs by:
               - Egolf et al., James et al./exec. defs. (Jan. 31).
               - executive defendants, legislative defendants (Jan. 31).
               - intervenors Navajo Nation et al. (Jan. 31).
          - Order reversing and remanding (Feb. 10) and explanatory opinion (Feb. 21).
     - Trial court (II)
          - Proposed post-remand plans (1, 2).
          - Post-remand briefs by:
               - Egolf et al., James et al., Pueblo of Laguna et al., Sena et al. (Feb. 15).
               - executive defendants, legislative defendants (Feb. 15).
          - Decision and final order drawing state House districts (Feb. 27).  « NEW 

The latest: Trial began on the state House districts on December 12. On January 3, the court issued a state House plan, focused on minimizing population deviation, and drawing districts to allow Native Americans an effective opportunity to elect candidates of choice under the Voting Rights Act. The court found no need, under the totality of circumstances, to draw maps specifically protecting Hispanic voters under the Voting Rights Act.

The decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court, which reversed on February 10. The state Supreme Court asked the trial court to reconsider the extent to which mildly larger population deviations would satisfy other state redistricting criteria, to reconsider the partisan impact and incumbent pairings of a court-ordered plan, and to recognize a district protecting Hispanic voters in the Clovis area under the Voting Rights Act. On February 27, the trial court issued a new state House plan.

Egolf v. Duran, No. D-101-cv-201102942 (N.M. 1st Judicial Dist. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the redistricting of the state Senate.
     - Egolf complaint (Sept. 26, 2011).
          - Intervenors Navajo Nation et al. complaint (Oct. 25), amd. complaint (Oct. 28).
          - Intervenors NM LULAC et al. complaint (Nov. 9)
     - Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law:
          - Pueblo of Laguna et al. (Dec. 30), James et al. (Dec. 31).
          - joint plan proponents (exec. defs., Egolf et al., Sena et al., James et al.) (Dec. 30).
          - executive defendants, legislative defendants (Dec. 30).
          - intervenors Navajo Nation et al. (Dec. 30).
     - Pretrial briefs:
          - Egolf and Maestas et al., James et al., Pueblo of Laguna et al. (Dec. 30).
          - executive defendants (omnibus (Nov. 10) & specific (Dec. 30)).
          - legislative defendants (exhs. A, B, C) (Dec. 9) & specific (Dec. 30)).
          - intervenors Navajo Nation et al. (Dec. 30).
     - Opinion drawing state Senate districts (Jan. 16).
The latest: Trial began on the state Senate districts on January 3, 2012. On January 16, the court issued a state Senate plan, focused on minimizing population deviation, and drawing districts to allow Native Americans an effective opportunity to elect candidates of choice under the Voting Rights Act. The court found no need, under the totality of circumstances, to draw maps specifically protecting Hispanic voters under the Voting Rights Act.