Litigation in the 2010 cycle

Little v. NY LATFOR, No. 2310-2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. (trial), Albany County): a challenge to New York's 2010 law adjusting the basis for state legislative districts to count incarcerated persons at their residential address prior to incarceration. Further litigation documents are posted here.
     - Trial court
          - Complaint (Apr. 4, 2011).
          - Motion for summary judgment (Aug. 5), defendant's reply (Sept. 14).
          - Defendant's opp. & cross-MSJ (Aug. 19), plaintiffs' reply (Sept. 1).
          - Intervenors' motion for summary judgment (Aug. 19).
          - Dilan amicus brief (Aug. 17) (rejected by court).
          - Opinion granting defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dec. 1).
     - Court of Appeals (highest appellate court)
          - Sua sponte inquiry re jurisdiction (Dec. 16).
               - Letters from State (Dec. 27), intervenors (Dec. 23).
          - Decision transferring jurisdiction to Appellate Div., 3d Dept. (Feb. 14).
     - Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court)
          - Notice withdrawing appeal (Mar. 13).
The latest: On December 1, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding constitutional the law adjusting where incarcerated persons are to be counted, and dismissing the challenge on all grounds. The decision was appealed directly to the state's highest appellate court, which found that it had no direct appellate jurisdiction in the case; the case was then transferred to the intermediate appellate court, but plaintiffs withdrew their appeal before that court heard the case.

Favors v. Cuomo, No. 1:11-cv-05632 (E.D.N.Y.): a challenge to New York's state legislative and congressional districts, based on the legislature's presumed inability to draw lines in a timely fashion, and the state's advisory body's alleged failure to release data adjusting to account for the incarcerated population in a timely fashion.
     - Initial matters
          - Complaint (Nov. 17, 2011).
               - Complaint by intervenors Drayton et al. (Dec. 19), Lee et al. (Dec. 28).
               - Complaint by intervenors Rose et al. (Feb. 15).
          - Motions to dismiss by several defs. (Dec. 12), Assemb. Kolb, Oaks (Dec. 28).
               - Opp. to Dec. 12 motions by plaintiffs, Sampson (Dec. 29), reply (Jan. 9).
               - Opp. to Dec. 28 motions by plaintiffs, Sampson (& aff.) (Jan. 17), reply (Feb. 6).
               - Order denying motions to dismiss (Feb. 21), opinion (Mar. 8).
          - Voluntary dismissal of counts relating to data adjustment (Jan. 17).

     - Congressional plan
          - Order to show cause re special master (Feb. 15).
               - Responses by plaintiffs, defs. Cuomo et al., Kolb, Oaks, Skelos et al. (Feb. 17).
               - Order assigning magistrate judge (Feb. 21).
          - Memoranda re congressional plans, by:
               - Kolb (Feb. 29), Silver et al. (I, II) (Mar. 2), Skelos et al. (I, II) (Feb. 29).
               - Kaye et al., Lee et al., Ramos et al., Rose et al. (Feb. 29).
               - Responses by plaintiffs, Kolb, Silver et al., Skelos et al. (Mar. 2).
                    - Drayton et al., Lee et al., Ramos et al., Rose et al. (Mar. 2).
          - Order to show cause why draft should not be recommended (Mar. 5).
               - Regional map, District map, Demographics.
               - Responses by Kolb (Mar. 7), Sampson, Silver (Mar. 6), Skelos (Mar. 7).
                    - Drayton et al., Ramos et al. (Mar. 6), Rose et al. (Mar. 7).
          - Magistrate's report (att. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) (Mar. 12).
               - Reactions by:
                    - plaintiffs, Skelos (Mar. 14).
                    - Drayton et al., Lee et al., Ramos et al. (I, II), Rose et al. (Mar. 14).
                    - Barron (1, 2), Brooklyn Heights Ass'n, Bucki, Clarke, Dague (Mar. 19).
                    - DANR (1, 2, 3, 4), Flemming, Freeborn, Heastie, James (Mar. 19).
                    - Mamaroneck, Nir, Orthodox Alliance for Liberty, Simmons (Mar. 19).
                    - Voting Rights for All, Wright (Mar. 19).
          - Final court order adopting congressional maps (and final plan maps) (Mar. 19).

     - State legislative plan
          - Amd. complaints by plaintiffs, intervenors Drayton, Lee, Ramos, Ullman (Mar. 27).
               - Dilan cross-claim (May 1).
          - Motion to dismiss by Silver et al., Skelos et al. (Apr. 2).
               - Responses by plaintiffs, Dilan, intervenors Drayton, Lee, Ramos, Ullman (Apr. 9).
               - Opinion denying motions to dismiss (except as to Ullmann) (May 16).
          - Motion to dismiss cross-claim by Skelos (June 18), opp. (July 9), reply (July 16).
          - Briefs re likelihood of preclearance by Dilan (supp.), Lee (Apr. 13).
          - Motions for preliminary injunction by Drayton (exh. A, B, C), Ramos (Apr. 12).
               - Opposition by Silver, Kolb (Apr. 17).
               - Opp.: Skelos (att. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20).
               - Opinion denying preliminary injunction (May 16).
          - Submissions re population disparity by:
               - Dilan (decl.), Lee (att. 1, 2) (Apr. 27).
               - Drayton (Gibbs decl. (exhs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), Beveridge decl. (exhs. 1, 2, 3, 4)).
               - Ramos (att. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), Ullman (decl. (exhs. 1, 2, 3, 4)) (Apr. 27).
                    - Reply by Silver, Skelos (May 4).
          - Motion for summ. judg. re Assembly districts VRA claims (June 29).
               - Silver statement of facts (June 29).
               - Opp. by Drayton (statement of facts) (July 20), reply (Aug. 3).
           - Motion for summ. judg. re Senate districts equal population claim (June 29).
               - Skelos statement of facts (Geremia decl.) (June 29).
               - Opp. by Dilan (facts), Drayton (facts), Ramos (facts) (July 20).
               - Reply to Dilan, Drayton, Ramos (Aug. 3).
          - Motion for summary judgment re Senate districts VRA claims (June 29).
               - Skelos statement of facts (Geremia decl.) (June 29).
               - Opp. by Drayton (statement of facts) (July 20).
               - Ramos withdrawal of VRA claim (July 20).
          - Magistrate's order re atty/client and leg. privilege for discovery (Aug. 10).
               - Appeal of magistrate's order by Kolb, Skelos (Aug. 24).
                    - Response by Dilan, Drayton, Ramos (Sept. 10).
                    - Reply by Kolb (Sept. 21), Silver, Skelos (Sept. 24).
               - 2nd magistrate order re privilege (Feb. 8, 2013).
               - Appeal of magistrate's order by Dilan, Kolb, Silver, Skelos (Feb. 25).
                    - Response by Dilan, Drayton, Kolb, Silver, Skelos (Mar. 8), Ramos (Mar. 11).
                    - Reply by Dilan, Silver, Skelos (Mar. 18).
          - Vol. dismissal of section 2 claims re Nassau Assembly districts (Dec. 18).

The latest: On Feb. 21, the court appointed a Magistrate Judge to create plans for court approval, starting with a congressional map; the magistrate issued draft plans on Mar. 6 and a final report and recommendation on Mar. 12. On Mar. 19, the court issued an order adopting final congressional maps.

Plaintiffs and intervenors filed amended complaints against the state legislative maps on March 27. Motions to dismiss and motions for preliminary injunctions were denied on May 16. A discovery dispute has continued since that date, revolving in part around assertions of legislative and attorney-client privilege.

Cohen v. NY LATFOR, No. 101026/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. (trial), New York County): a challenge in state court to the decision to draw 63 state Senate districts (and not 62 districts) under the formula in New York's state constitution establishing the size of the Senate.
     - Complaint (Jan. 31, 2012).
     - Motion to dismiss (Feb. 16).
     - Opinion dismissing case (Mar. 9).
The latest: On March 9, the court dismissed the case as unripe, finding the proposal to add a 63rd Senate seat merely speculative at that date.

Cohen v. Cuomo, No. 102185/12 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. (trial), New York County) & No. 135 (N.Y. Ct. of Appeals): a challenge in state court to the decision to draw 63 state Senate districts (and not 62 districts) under the formula in New York's state constitution establishing the size of the Senate, filed after the state legislative map was passed.
     - Trial court
          - Petition (Mar. 15, 2012).
          - Memorandum and affidavits (Mar. 15), opposition (Mar. 29), reply (Apr. 4).
          - Opinion denying petition, permitting 63 state Senate seats (Apr. 13).
     - Court of Appeals (highest appellate court)
          - Initial letter to court (Apr. 16).
          - Common Cause/NY amicus brief (Apr. 23).
          - Opinion affirming judgment below (May 3).
The latest: On April 13, the court denied the petition, finding that the legislature had permissible latitude to use two different formulas with respect to different New York counties, in determining the size of the New York state Senate. The decision was affirmed on appeal.

New York v. United States, No. 1:12-cv-00413 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of New York's state Senate districts.
     - Complaint (Mar. 16).
     - Notice of voluntary dismissal (Apr. 27).
The latest: After Senate districts were precleared, the case was dismissed.

New York v. United States II, No. 1:12-cv-00500 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of New York's state Assembly districts.
     - Complaint (Mar. 30).
     - Preclearance letter (May 18).
     - Notice of voluntary dismissal (May 18).
The latest: After Assembly districts were precleared, the case was dismissed.