Litigation in the 2010 cycle

(Click here for a summary of which maps were struck/upheld in the 2010 cycle.)
(Click here for a summary of which maps were struck/upheld in the 2000 cycle.)
(Click for individual cases in the 2000, 1990, 1980 cycles.)

As of 8/1/19: active cases in 8 states
(5 affecting congress, 4 affecting state leg)
256	total cases filed,	16	still active

Redistricting status map

Suit filed
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.

Supreme Court 57 cases, 19 opinions

5th	*Lepak v. City of Irving* (cert. denied) (4/1/13).
AL	*ALBC v. Alabama* (direct appeal, dismissed) (12/2/13).
AL	*ALBC v. Alabama II* (direct appeal, vacated and remanded) (3/25/15).
AZ	*Ariz. State Legis. v. AIRC* (direct appeal, affirmed) (6/29/15).
AZ	*Harris v. AIRC* (direct appeal, affirmed) (4/20/16).
CA	*Citizens for Fair Rep. v. Padilla* (pet. for mandamus, denied) (10/1/18).
CA	*Ross v. California* (cert. granted, vacated, remanded) (6/28/19).
FL	*Romo v. Scott* (emerg. pet. to J. Thomas, withdrawn) (6/2/14).
HI	*Kostick v. Nago* (direct appeal, summ. affirmed) (1/21/14).
IL	*LWV of Ill. v. Quinn* (direct appeal, summ. affirmed) (5/21/12).
IL	*Radogno v. Ill. Bd. of Elections* (direct appeal, summ. affirmed) (10/1/12).
LA	*Louisiana v. Bryson* (denial of motion to file original complaint) (3/19/12).
MD	*Benisek v. Lamone* (direct appeal, affirmed) (6/18/18).
MD	*Bouchat v. Maryland* (cert. denied) (4/15/13).
MD	*Fletcher v. Lamone* (direct appeal, summ. affirmed) (6/25/12).
MD	*Lamone v. Benisek* (direct appeal, vacated as nonjusticiable) (6/27/19).
MD	*Parrott v. Lamone* (direct appeal, summ. dismissed) (1/9/17).
MD	*Shapiro v. McManus* (cert. granted, reversed) (12/8/15).
MI	*Chatfield v. LWV* (stay pending appeal) PENDING .
MI	*MI Senate v. LWV* (stay pending appeal) PENDING .
MS	*Miss. NAACP v. Barbour* (direct appeal, summ. affirmed) (10/31/11).
MS	*Miss. NAACP v. Barbour II* (direct appeal, summ. affirmed) (5/20/13).
NC	*Common Cause v. Rucho* (direct appeal, vacated and remanded) (6/25/18).
NC	*Cooper v. Harris* (direct appeal, affirmed) (5/22/17).
NC	*Cooper v. Harris II* (direct appeal, summ. affirmed) (6/28/18).
NC	*Covington v. NC* (direct appeal, affirming liability, vacating remedy) (6/5/17).
NC	*Covington v. NC II* (direct appeal, affirmed in part, reversed in part) (6/28/18).
NC	*Dickson v. Rucho* (cert. granted, vacated, remanded) (4/20/15).
NC	*Dickson v. Rucho II* (cert. granted, vacated, remanded) (5/30/17).
NC	*Rucho v. Common Cause* (direct appeal, vacated as nonjusticiable) (6/27/19).
NJ	*Lavergne v. Bryson* (cert. denied) (2/19/13).
NY	*In re Dep't of Commerce* (remand w/ instructions to vacate) (6/28/19).
NY	*Dep't of Commerce v. NY* (cert. granted, affirmed in part, reversed in part) (6/27/19).
OH	*Chabot v. APRI* (stay pending appeal) PENDING .
OH	*Householder v. APRI* (stay pending appeal) PENDING .
PA	*Agre v. Wolf* (direct appeal, dismissed as moot) (5/29/18).
PA	*Scarnati v. Agre* (direct appeal, summ. dismissed) (6/4/18).
PA	*Turzai v. Brandt* (cert. denied) (10/29/18).
PA	*Turzai v. LWV PA* (application for stay denied) (2/5/18).
SC	*Backus v. South Carolina* (direct appeal, summ. affirmed) (10/1/12).
SC	*Backus v. South Carolina II* (direct appeal, dismissed) (10/6/14).
TX	*Abbott v. Perez* (direct appeal, mostly reversed, affirmed in part) (6/25/18).
TX	*Evenwel v. Abbott* (direct appeal, affirmed) (4/4/16).
TX	*Morris v. Texas* (direct appeal, summ. dismissed) (1/16/18).
TX	*Perez v. Texas* (direct appeal, reversed fed. court interim plan) (1/20/12).
TX	*Texas v. United States* (direct appeal, vacated and remanded) (6/27/13).
TX	*Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott* (direct appeal, summ. dismissed) (1/16/18).
VA	*Bethune-Hill v. VSBOE* (direct appeal, affirmed in part, vacated in part) (3/1/17).
VA	*Cantor v. Personhuballah* (direct appeal, vacated and remanded) (3/30/15).
VA	*VA House v. Bethune-Hill* (direct appeal, dismissed on standing) (6/17/19).
VA	*VA House v. Bethune-Hill II* (direct appeal, summ. dismissed) (6/17/19).
VA	*Wittman v. Personhuballah* (direct appeal, dismissed on standing) (5/23/16).
WI	*Gill v. Whitford* (direct appeal, remanded on standing) (6/18/18).
WV	*Tennant v. Jefferson Cty. Comm'n* (direct appeal, reversed) (9/25/12).
DC	*LaVergne v. US House of Reps.* (direct appeal, summ. dismissed) (11/5/18).
DC	*Nix v. Holder* (was Laroque v. Holder) (cert. petition denied) (11/13/12).
DC	*Shelby County v. Alabama* (cert. granted, reversed) (6/25/13).

First Circuit
Maine
Turcotte v. LaPage, No. 1:11-cv-00312 (D. Me.) & No. 12-1229 (1st Cir.): a challenge in federal court to congressional districts that are drawn by representatives of political parties.
     - Trial court
          - Complaint (Aug. 17, 2011) and amended complaint (Aug. 19).
          - Motion to dismiss (Oct. 17), response (Nov. 7), reply (Nov. 21).
          - Magistrate's recommendation to dismiss (Nov. 30).
               - Plaintiff's objections to recommendation (Dec. 19) and supplement (Dec. 29).
               - Opposition to objections (Jan. 11, 2012).
          - Order adopting magistrate's recommendation to dismiss (Jan. 13).
     - Court of appeals
          - Brief by plaintiff (June 18), defendant (July 24), plaintiff's reply (Aug. 19).
          - Judgment affirming lower court, dismissing appeal (Nov. 29).
          - Petition for rehearing en banc (Dec. 13), denied (Jan. 30, 2013).
The latest: On November 30, 2011, the magistrate judge recommended that the case be dismissed, and on January 13, that recommendation was adopted by the court. The court of appeal affirmed on November 29, 2012.

Desena v. State of Maine, No. 1:11-cv-00117 (D. Me.): a challenge in federal court to the unequal population of Maine's congressional districts, based on districting scheduled for 2013, but elections in 2012 using lines from the last cycle.
     - Complaint (Mar. 28, 2011).
     - Defendant's brief (May 20), plaintiff's reply (May 31).
     - Plaintiff's brief (May 20), defendant's reply (May 31), intervenor's reply (May 31).
     - Intervenor Maine Democratic Party's brief (May 20).
     - Court order requiring redistricting before 2012 elections (June 21).
     - Order to show cause (Oct. 3).
     - Final judgment (Nov. 1).
The latest: On June 21, 2011, the court ruled that congressional districts must be redrawn by the 2012 elections, rather than the 2013 deadline in state law, and asked the legislature to act by September 30. A plan was passed on September 28, and on November 1, the court issued final judgment approving the September 28 plan.

New Hampshire
New Hampshire v. Holder, No. 1:12-cv-01854 (D.D.C.): a suit in federal court seeking bailout from section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
     - Complaint (Nov. 15, 2012).
     - Proposed consent decree (Dec. 21).
     - Approved consent decree (Mar. 1, 2013).
The latest: On March 1, 2013, the DC court approved the proposed consent decree, allowing New Hampshire to bail out from under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

City of Manchester v. Gardner, No. 216-2012-CV-00366 (N.H. Super. Ct., Hillsborough Northern) & No. 2012-0338 (N.H. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
     - Trial court
          - Petition (Apr. 23, 2012).
          - Motion to dismiss (May 1).
          - Request for interlocutory transfer (May 11).
     - State supreme court
          - Acceptance of transfer and briefing order (May 14).
          - Briefs on standing by:
               - SoS, intervenor State House (May 17), Manchester (May 21).
               - Concord, Gilford, Quandt (May 22).
               - Order finding standing (May 22).
          - Motion for prelim. inj. to delay filing (May 21), order denying motion (May 22).
          - Merits briefs by:
               - Concord, Gilford, Manchester, Quandt, Wallner, SoS, state House (May 23).
               - Amicus brief by Dover/Meredith (May 23).
               - Responses by Concord, Manchester, Wallner, SoS, State House (May 30).
          - Opinion rejecting challenges (June 19).
     - Trial court II
          - Order on remand, dismissing case (Sept. 17).
The latest: Several cases were consolidated in the state Supreme Court; on June 19, the court rejected the state constitutional challenges to the state legislative plan. The court found that legislative decisions to seek a population deviation of less than 10% rationally justified dividing municipalities, and that the record did not demonstrate other unjustified failures to keep municipalities whole.

City of Concord v. Gardner, No. 217-2012-cv-00273 (N.H. Super. Ct., Merrimack): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
- Petition (Apr. 24, 2012).
The latest: The petition for relief was filed on April 24. The case has been consolidated with City of Manchester v. Gardner, above.

Wallner v. Gardner, No. 216-2012-CV-00380 (N.H. Super. Ct., Hillsborough Northern): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
- Petition (Apr. 25, 2012).
The latest: The petition for relief was filed on April 25. The case has been consolidated with City of Manchester v. Gardner, above.

Town of Gilford v. Gardner, No. 211-2012-cv-00139 (N.H. Super. Ct., Belknap): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
- Petition (Apr. 30, 2012).
The latest: The petition for relief was apparently filed on April 30. The case has been consolidated with City of Manchester v. Gardner, above.

Quandt v. Gardner, No. 216-2012-CV-00412 (N.H. Super. Ct., Hillsborough Northern): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on grounds that the plan improperly allocates representatives to towns under the state constitution.
- Petition (Apr. 30, 2012).
- Motion for preliminary injunction (Apr. 30).
The latest: The petition for relief was apparently filed on April 30. The case has been consolidated with City of Manchester v. Gardner, above.

Rhode Island
Davidson v. City of Cranston, No. 1:14-cv-00091 (D.R.I.): a challenge in federal court to the city council districts of Cranston, Rhode Island, based on an unconstitutional dilution of equal representation stemming from the city's failure to adjust for the imprisoned population when drawing districts.
     - Complaint (Feb. 19, 2014).
     - Motion to dismiss (Mar. 13), opposition (Mar. 31), reply (Apr. 7).
          - Opinion denying motion to dismiss (Sept. 8).
     - City motion for summary judgment (exhs. A, B, C, D, E) (July 9, 2015).
          - Plaintiffs' response and cross-motion for summary judgment (Aug. 6).
            (exhs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
            25, 26).
               - City opp. to plaintiffs' cross-motion (exhs. A, B, C, D, E, F, G) (Aug. 31).
               - Plaintiffs' reply (Exhibit 27 with declaration) (Sept. 18).
          - City reply (Aug. 31).
          - Statements of undisputed facts by city (July 15), plaintiffs (Aug. 6).
               - Resp. by plaintiffs (Aug. 6), city (Aug. 31).
The latest: A motion to dismiss was denied on September 8, 2014; the city filed a motion for summary judgment on July 9, 2015.

Puyana v. Rhode Island, No. PC-2012-1272 (R.I. Super. Ct., Providence): a challenge in state court to the state House districts, on compactness gounds and allegedly improper districting to favor a particular incumbent.
     - Complaint (Mar. 8, 2012) & amended complaint (Mar. 9).
     - Def. motion for judgment on the pleadings (Apr. 9, 2013), opp. (May 14), reply (May 21).
     - Order granting motion for judgment on the pleadings (May 29).
The latest: On May 29, the court granted the state's motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the case.

Second Circuit
Connecticut
NAACP v. Merrill, No. 3:18-cv-01094 (D. Conn.): a challenge in federal court to the state legislative districts, as violating equal population requirements based on counting incarcerated individuals where they are incarcerated rather than their pre-incarceration address.
- Complaint (6/28/18).
- Motion to dismiss (9/6/18), opp. (10/4/18), reply (10/18/18).
The latest: On June 28, 2018, the complaint was filed. A motion to dismiss was filed on September 6, 2018.

In re Petition of Reapportionment Comm'n, No. SC 18907 (Conn. Sup. Ct.): a request that the state supreme court draw lines, based on the failure of the state's backup commission to do so.
     - Petition (Dec. 2, 2011).
          - Grant of extension of time through December 21 (Dec. 6).
     - Memoranda by Republican commissioners, Democratic commissioners (Dec. 21).
     - Scheduling order for special master (Dec. 27).
     - Order directing special master (Jan. 3).
     - Briefs from interested parties
          - Reapportionment Comm'n Democrats (app.), Republicans (app.),
          - Coalition for Minority Representation Statewide, Hartwell.
     - Replies by
          - Reapportionment Comm'n Democrats (app.), Republicans,
          - Coalition for Minority Representation Statewide.
     - Special Master's order, draft report (and appendix) (Jan. 13).
     - Comments by
          - Reapportionment Comm'n Democrats, Republicans,
          - Coalition for Minority Representation Statewide, Durham.
     - Special Master's letter transmitting Jan. 13 plan to court (Jan. 19).
     - Order adopting special master's map (Feb. 10).
The latest: A petition requesting more time was granted; the backup commission had until December 21, but missed this deadline as well. The court appointed a special master, who presented a map to the court on January 19; that map was approved by the court on February 10.

New York
Due to the volume of filings, information on the New York cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.

Third Circuit
New Jersey
Lavergne v. Bryson, No. 3:11-cv-07117 (D.N.J.) & No. 12-1171 (3d Cir.) & No. 12-778 (S. Ct.): an action in federal court challenging the number of congressional seats and the consequent apportionment of congressional districts, based in part on the assertion that the bill originally proposed as the 1st Amendment was actually ratified by the states in 1792.
  Trial court
     - Complaint (12/6/11).
     - Motion for preliminary injunction (12/6/11).
     - Opinion rejecting challenge and dismissing case (12/16/11).
  Court of appeals
     - Brief of appellant, appendix (2/28/12).
     - Briefs of Executive branch and Senate (4/16/12), House (4/18/12).
     - Reply (5/14/12).
     - Opinion summarily affirming (9/20/12).
  Supreme Court
     - Petition for writ of certiorari (12/19/12).
     - Defendant's waiver of right to respond (1/14/13).
     - Cert. petition denied (2/19/13).
  Trial court (cont.)
     - Post-judgment motion (decl.) (11/13/17), response (2/7/18), order denying motion (4/2/18).
The latest: On December 16, 2011, the trial court dismissed the case. On September 20, 2012, that decision was summarily affirmed on appeal.

Gonzalez v. NJ Apportionment Comm'n, No. L-001173-11 (N.J. Super. Ct., Mercer County), No. C-000069-11 (N.J. Super. Ct., Ocean County), No. A-0747-11T4 & A-0869-11T4 (N.J. Super Ct., App. Div.) & No. C-438 (N.J. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court on state and federal constitutional grounds to the state legislative map passed by New Jersey's politician commission, and the process that created the map.
  Trial court
     - Complaint (4/20/11) and amended complaint (5/11/11).
     - Denial of application for TRO (5/26/11).
     - Motion to dismiss (7/1/11).
     - Opinion granting motion to dismiss (8/31/11).
  Appellate division
     - Opinion affirming trial court, dismissing case (9/10/12).
  Supreme Court
     - Petition for certification
     - Order denying petition (1/24/13).
The latest: On August 31, 2011, the judge rejected the plaintiffs' claims, and granted defendants' motion to dismiss. On September 10, 2012, the decision was affirmed on appeal, and the Supreme Court denied a petition for certification on January 24, 2013.

Pennsylvania
On January 10, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court consolidated all litigation challenging the state legislative lines. On January 25, the court rejected the state legislative maps, returning them to the state's politician commission for redrafting.

Due to the volume of filings, information on the Pennsylvania cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.

Fourth Circuit
Maryland
Due to the volume of filings, information on the Maryland cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.

North Carolina
Due to the volume of filings, information on the North Carolina cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.

South Carolina
Harrell v. Holder, No. 1:11-CV-01454 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of South Carolina's state House districts.
     - Complaint (Aug. 9, 2011).
The latest: After the plan was precleared on October 11, plaintiffs dismissed the complaint on October 13.

Harrell v. Holder II, No. 1:11-CV-01566 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of South Carolina's congressional districts.
     - Preclearance submission to DoJ.
     - Complaint (Aug. 30, 2011).
The latest: After the plan was precleared on October 28, plaintiffs dismissed the complaint on October 31.

McConnell v. United States, No. 1:11-CV-01794 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of South Carolina's state Senate districts.
     - Complaint (Oct. 7, 2011).
The latest: After the plan was precleared on November 14, plaintiffs dismissed the complaint on November 15.

Backus v. South Carolina, No. 3:11-cv-03120 (D.S.C.), No. 11-1404 & No. 13-1461 (Sup. Ct.): an action in federal court challenging the state legislative and congressional districts, based on alleged unlawful racial gerrymandering and a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
     - Trial court
          - Complaint (Nov. 11, 2011) and amended complaint (Nov. 23).
               - Intervenors' complaint (Feb. 9), dismissed (Feb. 15).
          - Motions to dismiss filed by State (Dec. 19), Gov. (Dec. 19), Lieut. Gov. (Dec. 28),
            House Speaker, Sen. Pres., Elections Comm'n, House Comms. (Dec. 19).
               - Opposition (Dec. 28).
               - Replies by Gov. et al., House members, Sen. Pres. (Jan. 4).
          - Deft.'s motion for summ. judgment (Senate) (Jan. 17), denied as moot (Feb. 15).
               - Opposition (Feb. 3), reply (Feb. 7).
          - Defendant's motion for summary judgment (House, Congress) (Feb. 13).
          - Plaintiffs' response clarifying claims and districts at issue (Jan. 26).
               - Opposition (Feb. 7).
          - Final memoranda by plaintiffs, Sen. Pres., House Speaker (Mar. 5).
          - Opinion rejecting challenge (Mar. 9).
     - U.S. Supreme Court
          - Jurisdictional statement (May 18).
          - Motion to dismiss or affirm (July 20), reply (Aug. 10).
          - Summary affirmance (Oct. 1).
     - Trial court
          - Motion for relief from order (Aug. 29, 2013).
               - Response by State (Sept. 16), Sen. Pres. (Sept. 13), reply (Sept. 26).
               - Response by House Speaker (Sept. 30), reply (Oct. 10).
               - Order denying motion for relief (Mar. 10, 2014).
     - U.S. Supreme Court
          - Jurisdictional statement, app. (June 6).
          - Motion to dismiss or affirm (Aug. 8).
          - Reply (Aug. 27).
          - Order dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Oct. 6).

The latest: The complaint was filed on November 11, and an amended complaint was filed on November 23; several motions to dismiss were filed on December 19. On January 19, the court dismissed the State, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and legislative committee chairs from the case, but denied motions to dismiss by the Elections Commission, House Speaker, and Senate President. On March 9, the court rejected the remaining claims, and dismissed the case. On October 1, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed. On August 29, 2013, plaintiffs moved for relief from the dismissal in light of Shelby County v. Holder; that motion was denied by the trial court on Mar. 10, 2014, with an appeal summarily dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 6.

Virginia
Due to the volume of filings, information on the Virginia cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.

West Virginia
Jefferson County Comm'n v. Tennant, No. 3:11-cv-00096 (N.D. W.Va.), No. 2:11-cv-00989 (S.D. W.Va.), No. 11A674 and No. 11-1184 (Sup. Ct.): a challenge in federal court to the congressional redistricting plan, based on unequal population and allegedly insufficient attention to compactness under state law.
     - Trial court
          - Complaint (Nov. 4).
          - Complaint by intervenor Cooper (Nov. 22).
          - Intervenor Cooper motion for summary judgment (Dec. 19).
          - Plaintiffs' opening brief (Dec. 20), response (Dec. 22).
          - Defendants' opening brief (Dec. 20), response by plaintiffs, Cooper (Dec. 22).
          - Opinion granting motion for summary judgment, dissent (Jan. 3).
          - Order denying request for stay (Jan. 10).
     - U.S. Supreme Court
          - State's application for stay pending appeal and appendix (Jan. 13).
          - Jefferson County Comm'n response (Jan. 17), State's reply (Jan. 18).
          - Stay granted by Supreme Court pending appeal (Jan. 20).
          - Jurisdictional statement (Mar. 27).
          - Appellee's motion to dismiss or affirm (May 25), opposition (June 5).
          - Opinion reversing district court (Sept. 25).
     - Trial court II
          - Court briefing order on remand (Oct. 5).
               - Response by intervenor (Oct. 24), plaintiffs, State (Dec. 3).
          - Opinion dismissing case (Jan. 25, 2013).
The latest: On January 3, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding the enacted plan in violation of federal equal population requirements. On September 25, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, finding that the state's consistently applied legitimate policies -- including maintaining political subdivisions, avoiding contests between incumbents, and minimizing population shifts -- were sufficient to support the 0.79% population disparity in congressional districts. On remand, the trial court dismissed the remainder of the complaint, which asserted claims under state law, finding that state court is the appropriate forum to pursue those claims.

State of West Virginia ex rel. Cooper v. Tennant, No. 11-1405 (W.Va. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state House redistricting plan, based on allegedly insufficient attention to preserving county boundaries.
     - Petition for writ of mandamus, appendix (Oct. 13, 2011).
     - Response by state Secretary of State (Nov. 4).
     - Response by Intervenor Speaker of the House, appendix (Nov. 4).
     - Order denying petition (Nov. 23) and final opinion (Feb. 13), dissent (July 20).
The latest: On November 23, the state Supreme Court denied the petitioner's claims, finding the plan constitutionally acceptable.

State of West Virginia ex rel. Andes v. Tennant, No. 11-1447 (W.Va. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state House redistricting plan, based on allegedly insufficient attention to preserving county boundaries, unequal representation to certain counties, and partisan gerrymandering.
     - Petition for writ of prohibition, appendix (Oct. 21, 2011).
     - Response by state Secretary of State (Nov. 4).
     - Response by Intervenor Speaker of the House, appendix (Nov. 4).
     - Order denying petition (Nov. 23) and final opinion (Feb. 13), dissent (July 20).
The latest: On November 23, the state Supreme Court denied the petitioner's claims, finding the plan constitutionally acceptable.

State of West Virginia ex rel. County Comm'n of Monroe County v. Tennant, No. 11-1516 (W.Va. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state House redistricting plan, based on allegedly insufficient attention to preserving county boundaries, and on allegedly improper implementation of multi-member districts.
     - Petition for writ of prohibition (Nov. 4).
     - Response by state Secretary of State (Nov. 14).
     - Response by Intervenor Speaker of the House, appendix (Nov. 14).
     - Order denying petition (Nov. 23) and final opinion (Feb. 13), dissent (July 20).
The latest: On November 23, the state Supreme Court denied the petitioner's claims, finding the plan constitutionally acceptable.

State of West Virginia ex rel. Callen v. Tennant, No. 11-1517 (W.Va. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state Senate redistricting plan, based on allegedly insufficient attention to preserving county boundaries and compactness.
     - Petition for writ of mandamus, appendix (Nov. 4).
     - Response by state Secretary of State (Nov. 14).
     - Order denying petition (Nov. 23) and final opinion (Feb. 13), dissent (July 20).
The latest: On November 23, the state Supreme Court denied the petitioner's claims, finding the plan constitutionally acceptable.

State of West Virginia ex rel. Cooper v. Tennant II, No. 11-1525 (W.Va. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state Senate redistricting plan, based on allegedly insufficient attention to preserving county boundaries, compactness, and unequal population.
     - Petition for writ of mandamus, appendix (Nov. 7).
     - Response by state Secretary of State (Nov. 14).
     - Order denying petition (Nov. 23) and final opinion (Feb. 13), dissent (July 20).
The latest: On November 23, the state Supreme Court denied the petitioner's claims, finding the plan constitutionally acceptable.

Fifth Circuit
5th Circuit general
Hancock Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Ruhr, No. 1:10-cv-564 (S.D. Miss.), No. 11-60446 and No. 13-60614 (5th Cir.): an action in federal court seeking to enjoin the use of 2011 county supervisorial districts alleged to be malapportioned, until district lines could be redrawn pursuant to the 2011 Census.
     - Trial court
          - Opinion dismissing cases (May 16, 2011).
     - Court of appeals
          - Appellate brief of plaintiffs (Oct. 18), AG (Nov. 17), reply (Dec. 22).
               - Supp. brief re standing of plaintiffs (May 16, 2012), AG (May 18).
               - Supp. brief re redistricting status (May 25).
          - Opinion vacating and remanding (Aug. 31).
     - Trial court II
          - Motion for leave to amend complaint (Nov. 14).
               - Amd. complaints in Adams, Amite, Copiah, Pike, Simpson, Warren, Wayne Cntys.
          - Motions to dismiss by:
               - AG (Dec. 7), Adams (Dec. 10), Amite (Dec. 7), Simpson, Warren, Wayne (Dec. 4).
               - Plaintiffs' response (memo) (Dec. 17).
               - AG rebuttal (Dec. 27).
          - Motion to set aside 2011 elections (July 25, 2013).
               - Responses by AG (Aug. 7), Adams, Amite (Aug. 12), Copiah, Simpson (Aug. 9).
               - Responses by Warren, Wayne (Aug. 9).
               - Reply (Aug. 19).
          - Supplemental briefs by:
               - Plaintiffs (July 25), AG (July 26).
               - Adams (July 26), Amite (July 25), Pike, Simpson, Warren, Wayne (July 26).
          - Order granting motions to dismiss as moot (Aug. 19).
     - Court of appeals II
          - Brief of plaintiffs (Nov. 6), AG, counties (Dec. 5), reply (Jan. 16, 2014).
          - Opinion affirming trial court, finding case moot (May 16).
The latest: On May 16, 2011, the trial court dismissed the cases on standing grounds. On August 31, 2012, the court of appeals reversed the lower court, but remanded for a determination of mootness; on August 19, 2013, the trial court dismissed the cases as moot. On May 16, 2014, that decision was affirmed on appeal; the court found it insufficiently certain that elections would take place in the future using malapportioned districts.

Lepak v. City of Irving, No. 11-10194 (5th Cir.) & No. 12-777 (S. Ct.): an action in federal court arguing that districts (for the city of Irving, Texas) must be drawn with approximately equal numbers of voting-age citizens in each district, not approximately equal total population.
     - Trial court
          - Decision granting summary judgment to city defs. (Feb. 11, 2011).
     - Court of appeals
          - Plaintiff's appellate brief, record excerpts (Apr. 12).
               - City's appellate brief (May 16).
               - Intervenor-defendants' appellate brief, record excerpts (May 16).
               - DOJ amicus brief (May 23).
               - Plaintiff's reply brief (June 1).
          - Opinion affirming decision below (Dec. 14).
               - Pet. for rehearing en banc (Jan. 4, 2012), response (Jan. 27), denial (Sept. 24).
     - U.S. Supreme Court
          - Petition for certiorari (Dec. 21, 2012).
               - Amicus briefs supporting cert. by:
                 Cato (Jan. 28, 2013), Ctr. for Const. Jurisprudence (Jan. 30).
                 Mountain States Legal Found. (Jan. 28).
          - Opp. by respondents, respondent-intervenors (Feb. 28).
          - Order denying certiorari (Apr. 1).
The latest: On December 14, 2011, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment to the city of Irving, finding a jurisdiction's preference for districts based on total population (rather than voting-age citizens) to be constitutional. On April 1, 2013, the Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Louisiana
Johnson v. Ardoin, No. 3:18-cv-00625 (M.D. La.): an action in federal court challenging the Louisiana congressional plan as an unlawful dilution of African-American voting power under the Voting Rights Act.
     - Complaint (6/13/18), amd. complaint (8/21/18).
     - Motion to dismiss (7/31/18), opposition (8/28/18), reply (9/10/18).
     - Motion to dismiss (9/10/18), opposition (10/12/18), reply (10/10/18).
The latest: An amended complaint was filed on August 21, 2018. A motion to dismiss was filed on July 31, 2018, and September 10, 2018.

Buckley v. Schedler, No. 3:13-cv-00763 (M.D. La.): an action in federal court challenging a Louisiana congressional district, alleging racial gerrymandering unsupported by a compelling state interest in the wake of Shelby County v. Holder.
     - Complaint (Nov. 25, 2013).
     - Notice of voluntary dismissal (Dec. 16).
The latest: The case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on December 16, 2013.

Ceasar v. Jindal, No. 6:12-cv-02198 (W.D. La.) & No. 13-30521 (5th Cir.): an action in federal court challenging Louisiana's congressional districts, alleging racial gerrymandering and violations of the Voting Rights Act.
     - Trial court
          - Motion for preliminary injunction (app.) (Aug. 16, 2012).
          - Motion for default judgment (Nov. 7).
          - Order dismissing case (Mar. 18, 2013).
     - Court of appeals
          - Notice of appeal (Apr. 18).
          - Order dismissing case for absence of docketing fee (June 14).
The latest: An initial pleading, styled as a motion for preliminary injunction, was filed on August 16, 2012. On March 18, 2013, the court noted that the plaintiff's ability to file without fees had been revoked after litigation in an unrelated case, and that he had been barred from filing further litigation until costs and fees were paid in a separate unrelated case. The court dismissed this lawsuit without prejudice to refiling once the prior fees were paid.

La. House of Representatives v. Holder, No. 1:11-cv-00770 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of Louisiana's state House districts, in parallel to the state's attempt to preclear maps through the DOJ's administrative process.
     - Complaint (Apr. 21, 2011).
The latest: After state House districts were precleared, the case was dismissed on June 21, 2011.

Louisiana v. Bryson, No. 22O140 ORG (U.S. Sup. Ct.): an original action in the Supreme Court, challenging the inclusion of "non-immigrant foreign nationals" in the Census Count, and alleging that an adjusted count would entitle Louisiana to an additional Congressional representative.
     - Complaint (Nov. 14, 2011).
     - Amicus briefs by Sec. Kobach, Eagle Forum (Jan. 13).
     - Amicus briefs by Judicial Watch, U.S. Border Control et al. (Jan. 13).
     - Opposition by Sec. Commerce et al. (Feb. 13), reply (Feb. 29).
     - Order denying motion to file complaint, dismissing case (Mar. 19).
The latest: On March 19, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to file an original action in the Supreme Court, terminating the case.

Hall v. Louisiana, No. 3:12-cv-00657 (M.D. La.): an action in federal court challenging the state legislation redrawing city court judicial districts in Baton Rouge, and requesting bail-in for Louisiana under the Voting Rights Act.
     - Original complaint (Oct. 18, 2012).
          - Hall 1st (Oct. 28), 2d (Jan. 10, 2013), 3d (Jan. 10), 4th amd. complaint (Oct. 9).
          - Intervenor Sharper cmplt. (May 13, 2013), 1st (May 20), 2d amd. complaint (Oct. 9).
     - Motions to dismiss
          - MTD Hall complaint (Nov. 1, 2012), opp. (Nov. 16).
               - Order dismissing some claims, preserving others (Sept. 30, 2013).
          - MTD amd. Hall complaint (Oct. 24, 2013), opp. (Nov. 14).
               - Order dismissing some claims, preserving others (Apr. 14, 2014).
          - MTD Sharper complaint (June 18, 2013), supp. (Nov. 1), opp. (Nov. 15).
               - Order dismissing some claims, preserving others (Mar. 31, 2014).
     - Motion for class cert. (Mar. 10, 2014).
          - Order denying class certification (Mar. 30, 2015).
     - Order re leg privilege (Apr. 23, 2014).
     - Motions for summary judgment
          - Plts. motion (June 2), opp. by AG, SoS (June 23), reply (July 18).
               - Order denying summary judgment (July 28).
          - AG motion (June 2), opp. (June 23), reply (July 18).
               - Order denying summary judgment (July 30).
          - SoS motion v. Hall (June 2), opp. (June 20), reply (July 18).
               - Order granting summary judgment on some claims, denying others (July 30).
          - SoS motion v. Sharper (June 2), opp. (June 20), reply (July 18).
               - Order granting summary judgment on some claims, denying others (July 30).
     - SoS motion for judgment as matter of law (Nov. 17).
          - Order rejecting constitutional claims against SoS (Mar. 31, 2015).
     - Proposed findings and conclusions by plaintiffs, AG, SoS, Baton Rouge (Dec. 10, 2014).
          - Order re judicial notice (Mar. 23, 2015).
     - Motion for preliminary injunction (May 22).
          - Motion to strike by State (June 3), SOS (June 8).
     - Opinion rejecting all challenges (June 9).
          - Motion for relief from judgment (mootness) (July 7).
               - Opp. by AG, SoS, Baton Rouge (July 28).
               - Reply (Aug. 11).
               - Ruling denying motion (Aug. 24).

The latest: On Mar. 31 and Apr. 14, 2014, the court dismissed equal population claims and claims under the Privileges and Immunities clause, but preserved claims under the Fifteenth Amendment and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On July 28, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their intentional discrimination claims; on July 30, 2014, the court granted the Secretary of State's motion for summary judgment on First Amendment and vote dilution claims against the Secretary; and on March 31, 2015, the court granted the Secretary of State's motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to right-to-vote and due process claims against the Secretary. On June 9, 2015, the court rejected all of the plaintiffs' remaining claims against all of the defendants, focusing on the lack of sufficient data to prove a successful claim under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Mississippi
Thomas v. Bryant, No. 3:18-cv-00441 (S.D. Miss.): an action in federal court challenging a state Senate district under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
     - Complaint (7/9/18) and amended complaint (7/25/18).
     - Def. motion for summ. judgment (9/4/18), opp. (decl.) (9/18/18), reply (9/25/18).
The latest: On July 25, 2018, an amended complaint was filed. On Sept. 4, 2018, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

Miss. NAACP v. Barbour, No. 3:11-cv-00159 (S.D. Miss.), No. 11-82 & No. 12-1019 (U.S.): a challenge in federal court to the unequal population of current state legislative districts, and their compliance with the Voting Rights Act, based on legislative inability to agree on district lines within the 2011 legislative session; the state Senate passed a Senate plan, and the state House added a state House plan and passed the whole, but the legislature did not formally adopt a state legislative plan before adjourning.
     - Trial court
          - Complaint (Mar. 17, 2011).
          - Motion for temporary restraining order (Mar. 29).
          - Motion for preliminary injunction (Mar. 28).
          - Motion to dismiss (Apr. 1).
          - Memorandum opinion and order (May 16).
     - U.S. Supreme Court (direct appeal)
          - Jurisdictional statement (July 15).
          - Motions to dismiss by Gov (Aug. 18), AG, SoS (Sept. 19).
          - Opposition (Sept. 29).
          - Summary affirmance (Oct. 31).
     - Trial court II
          - Motion to set aside 2011 elections, memo (Oct. 13, 2012).
               - Response by Gov (Oct. 29), AG, SoS, Miss. Dems. (Oct. 30).
          - Denial of motion to set aside elections (Nov. 19).
     - U.S. Supreme Court (direct appeal)
          - Jurisdictional statement (Feb. 8, 2013).
          - Motion to affirm by Gov et al. (Mar. 20), AG (Apr. 17), SoS (Apr. 18).
          - Reply (Apr. 25).
          - Summary affirmance (May 20).
The latest: On May 16, 2011, the court decided that 2011 state legislative elections may take place within the current districts, if the legislature does not enact valid districts beforehand; the court determined that the legislature's obligation under state law is to redistrict state lines by 2012, and the federal constitution does not compel a different result. On June 7, plaintiffs appealed the ruling directly to the US Supreme Court, which summarily affirmed on October 31, 2011.
     On October 13, 2012, plaintiffs asked the district court to set aside new lines drawn in 2012, as a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; on November 19, that motion was denied. Plaintiffs again appealed, and the lower court's ruling was summarily affirmed.

Clemons v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, No. 3:09-cv-00104 (N.D. Miss.) & No. 10-291 (Sup. Ct.): an action in federal court challenging the number of congressional seats and the consequent apportionment of congressional districts, based on the assertion that congressional districts cannot be equally populated if there are only 435 members of Congress.
     - Trial court
          - Complaint (Sept. 17, 2009) and amended complaint (Jan. 7, 2010).
          - Motion to dismiss / summary judgment (Dec. 21), opp. (Feb. 19), reply (Apr. 23).
          - Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Feb. 19), opp. (Apr. 23), reply (May 13).
          - Order granting summary judgment to government (July 8).
     - Supreme Court
          - Jurisdictional statement (Aug. 26).
          - Motion to dismiss or affirm (Nov. 17), reply (Nov. 22).
          - Order summarily vacating, remanding to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Dec. 13).
The latest: On July 8, 2010, the court issued an order granting summary judgment to the government defendants, and rejecting plaintiffs' claims. That order was vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 13, 2010, and remanded with an order to the district court to dismiss the case, for lack of jurisdiction.

Smith v. Hosemann, No. 3:01-cv-00855 (S.D. Miss.): in the 2000 cycle of redistricting, a federal court drew congressional lines. One of the defendants in that case then attempted in 2011 to seek relief from that judgment and to ask the court for a new map, on the grounds that the court's lines had become malapportioned after the 2010 census.
     - Motion to amend judgment (Sept. 12, 2011).
     - Responses to jurisdiction, filed by
       Miss. Attorney General, Miss. Secretary of State, Miss. Republican Party (Dec. 12).
     - Court order proposing map, with explanation, map, and stats (Dec. 19).
          - Responses by Buck et al., Miss. AG, Miss. SoS, Miss. Republican Party (Dec. 22).
     - Final opinion implementing proposed map (Dec. 30).
The latest: On December 30, the court issued a final opinion promulgating congressional districts.

Buck v. Barbour, No. 3:11-cv-00717 (S.D. Miss.): a challenge in federal court to the unequal population of current congressional districts, based on legislative inability to agree on congressional districts in timely fashion.
- Complaint (Nov. 21, 2011) and amended complaint (Dec. 7).
- Motion for preliminary injunction (Dec. 8).
The latest: The complaint was filed on November 21, 2011, with an amended complaint December 7. On December 19, this case was consolidated with Smith v. Hosemann, above.

Texas

On July 19, 2011, Texas filed a helpful summary of redistricting litigation in Morris v. Texas.

Due to the volume of redistricting litigation in Texas, information on Texas cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.

Sixth Circuit
Kentucky
Fischer v. Grimes, No. 12-CI-00109 (Ky. Circuit Ct., Franklin County), No. 2012-CA-000266-MR & No. 2012-CA-00264-I (Ky. Ct. Appeals), No. 2012-SC-000091-T & No. 2012-SC-000092-T (Ky. Sup. Ct.): an action in state court challenging the state legislative districts, based on alleged violations of equal population, partisan gerrymandering, and several state constitutional grounds, including unnecessary division of county lines.
     - Trial court
          - Complaint (Jan. 26, 2012) and amended complaint (Feb. 2).
          - Intervenors' complaint (State Senate districts) (Jan. 30).
          - Motion for temporary injunction (Jan. 26).
          - Response (Jan. 30), reply (Jan. 30).
          - Plaintiffs' supplemental memo (Feb. 3).
          - Supplemental response by defendant (Feb. 3), intervening defendant (Feb. 6).
          - Memoranda and answers to court's questions: Plaintiffs, intervening plaintiffs,
           intervening defendant (I, II) (Feb. 3).
          - Opinion granting temporary injunction (Feb. 7).
     - State Supreme Court
          - Motion for interlocutory relief (Court of appeals) (Feb. 11).
          - Motion to transfer and advance (state Supreme Court) (Feb. 11).
          - Motion for stay pending appeal (Feb. 14).
          - Response by plaintiffs, defendants (Feb. 17), intervenors (Feb. 14).
          - Order granting transfer (Feb. 17).
          - Response by plaintiffs, defendants, intervenors (Feb. 17).
          - Merits briefs by plaintiffs (Feb. 22), defendants (Feb. 21).
          - Merits briefs by intervening plaintiffs, intervening defendant (Feb. 22).
          - Order affirming trial court (Feb. 24), opinion (Apr. 26).
The latest: The complaint was filed on January 26. On February 7, the court granted a temporary injunction, finding that both state House and state Senate plans violate equal population guarantees and unnecessarily divide counties, and further raising potential concerns about the plan's contiguity and its deferral of some voters' right to choose a representative based on a transition to a Senate district with an election in 2014 rather than 2012. The legislature will now have to redraw state legislative lines; in the meantime, the 2002 plan will govern. The court also extended the filing deadline for state legislative races to Feb. 10. The court's decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court, which affirmed on Feb. 24.

Frost v. Grimes, No. 12-CI-00180 (Ky. Circuit Ct., Franklin County): an action in state court asking the court to draw congressional districts, based on the legislature's failure to do so.
     - Complaint (Feb. 9).
     - Voluntary dismissal.
The latest: The complaint was filed on February 9; after the legislature drew congressional lines, the case was dismissed.

Brown v. Kentucky, No. 2:13-cv-00068 (E.D. Ky.): an action in federal court challenging the state legislative districts as unconstitutionally malapportioned, based on the legislature's failure to draw compliant districts after the last Census.
     - Complaint (Apr. 26, 2013).
          - Counter- and crossclaim re excluding prison population (June 10).
               - Stumbo mot. to dismiss counterclaim (June 17), resp. (July 8), reply (July 15).
               - Brown et al. motion to dismiss counterclaim (July 11), response (July 26).
               - Order denying motions as moot (Oct. 31).
     - Motion to voluntarily dismiss state claims (July 11).
          - Responses by SoS, Stivers, Stumbo (July 25).
          - Order granting motion (Oct. 31).
     - Motion to dismiss by Leg. Res. Comm'n (July 12), opp. (July 26), reply (Aug. 2).
          - Opinion denying motion as moot (Aug. 16).
     - Motion for stay (June 17), opposition (June 19), reply (June 21).
          - Opinion denying stay (June 27).
     - Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (July 12).
          - Response by Leg. Res. Comm'n (July 25), SoS et al., Stumbo (July 26).
          - Opinion granting motion (Aug. 16).
               - Stumbo motion to alter judgment (Aug. 17), motion for stay (Aug. 18).
                    - Response, reply (Aug. 20).
                    - Order denying motions (Aug. 21).
     - Plaintiffs' motion for entry of final judgment (Aug. 29).
          - Opposition by Gov, Leg. Res. Comm'n (Sept. 23), Stumbo (Sept. 4).
          - Reply (Sept. 18).
          - Order granting entry of final judgment (Oct. 31).
     - Stivers statement of constitutionality (Sept. 5).
          - Response by plaintiffs (Sept. 18), Stumbo (Sept. 23), reply (Sept. 30).
          - Order declining to rule on constitutionality (Oct. 31).
     - Motion to dismiss (Sept. 5).
          - Opposition (Sept. 18), reply by Leg. Res. Comm'n, Stumbo (Sept. 23).
          - Order denying motion (Oct. 31).
     - Order granting fees to plaintiffs (Jan. 27, 2014).
          - Magistrate rec. re fees (May 19), objections (May 23).
               - Responses by Brown (May 27), Herbert (June 5).
               - Order rejecting objections, accepting magistrate's rec. (July 28).
The latest: On Aug. 16, 2013, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, declaring the 2000-cycle lines to be constitutionally invalid. New lines were drawn on August 23, 2013 in a special legislative session; plaintiffs announced that they would not contest the new lines.

Herbert v. Kentucky, No. 3:13-cv-00025 (E.D. Ky.): an action in federal court challenging the state legislative districts as unconstitutionally malapportioned, based on the legislature's failure to draw compliant districts after the last Census.
- Complaint (May 10, 2013).
The latest: The complaint was filed on May 10, 2013. On June 27, this case was consolidated with Brown v. Kentucky, above.

Michigan
League of Women Voters v. Johnson, No. 2:17-cv-14148 (E.D. Mich.), No. 18-1437 & No. 18-2383 (6th Cir.): an action in federal court challenging the state legislative and congressional districts as a partisan gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
     - Complaint (exh.) (12/22/17).
     - Motion to dismiss (1/23/18).
          - Plaintiffs' response (2/6/18), reply (exh. 1, 2, 3) (2/20/18).
          - Opinion dismissing statewide claims but permitting district claims (5/16/18).
     - Motion to dismiss state Senate claims (6/6/18), response (6/27/18), reply (7/11/18).
          - Order denying motion to dismiss (8/3/18).
     - Order declining to stay case pending SCOTUS gerrymandering decisions (3/14/18).
     - Order denying intervention by members of Congress (4/4/18), state leg. (8/14/18).
            Court of appeals
               - GOP reps. brief (4/25/18), response (5/16/18), reply (5/23/18).
               - Opinion reversing, requiring more explanation (8/30/18).
               - Trial court order on remand denying intervention (11/30/18).
               - GOP reps. brief (12/10/18), response (12/19/18), reply (12/19/18).
               - Order reversing, granting intervention (12/20/18).
     - Order re leg. privilege (5/23/18).
     - Motions for complete or partial summary judgment:
          - By plaintiffs re laches (exh.) (9/21/18).
               - Responses by SoS (exh. 1, 2), intervenors (exh.) (10/12/18), reply (10/26/18).
          - By SOS (exh.) (9/21/18), plaintiffs' opp. (exh.) (10/13/18), reply (10/26/18).
          - By intervenors (exh.) (9/21/18), plaintiffs' opp. (exh.) (10/13/18), reply (10/26/18).
          - Order denying each motion for summary judgment (11/30/18).
     - Motion in limine re gerrymandering metrics (exh.) (12/4/18).
          - Response (exh.) (12/14/18), reply (12/21/18).
The latest: On May 16, 2018, the court dismissed statewide claims on the basis of insufficient standing, but allowed claims regarding the constitutionality of each district to continue. On November 30, 2018, the court denied motions for summary judgment by plaintiffs, the Secretary of State, and congressional intervenors.
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Sec'y of State, No. 343517 (Mich. Ct. of Appeals), No. 157925 (Mich. S. Ct.): an action in state court challenging a 2018 ballot initiative to reform the way that state and federal districts are drawn in the 2020 cycle.
   Court of appeals
     - Complaint (exh. 1, 2), brief (4/25/18).
          - Response by SOS (5/22/18).
          - Response by intervenors (exh. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q) (5/22/18).
          - Reply (exh. 1, 2, 3) (5/31/18).
     - Cross-claim by intervenor ballot committee (exh. A, B, C, D, E) (5/10/18).
          - Intervenors' brief (exh. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q) (5/22/18).
          - Response by SOS (5/22/18), plaintiffs (exh. 1, 2, 3) (5/31/18).
          - Intervenors' reply (app. A, B, C, D, E, F, G) (5/31/18).
     - Opinion rejecting challenge to ballot initiative (6/7/18).
   Michigan Supreme Court
     - Application for leave to appeal to MI Sup. Ct. (6/11/18).
          - Responses by SoS, intervenors (6/22/18).
          - Amicus briefs by AG (6/22/18), Campaign Legal Center, Sen. Levin et al. (7/3/18).
     - Order denying motion to stay (6/14/18).
     - Order granting leave to appeal (7/6/18).

     - Opinion rejecting challenge to ballot initiative (7/31/18).

The latest: On June 7, 2018, the court of appeals, as a matter of original jurisdiction, rejected the challenges to the ballot initiative. On July 31, 2018, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed.
Michigan v. United States, No. 1:11-cv-01938 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of Michigan's legislative and congressional districts.
     - Complaint (Nov. 3, 2011).
     - Notice of consent by United States (Jan. 13).
     - Motion for entry of declaratory judgment (Feb. 22).
     - Order granting preclearance (Feb. 28).
The latest: On February 28, 2012, the court granted a declaratory judgment preclearing the redistricting plans.

Detroit Branch of the NAACP v. Snyder, No. 2:11-cv-15385 (E.D. Mich.): an action in federal court challenging the state House districts, based on alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, including targeting African-American incumbents for pairing, and "cracking" the Latino community of southwest Detroit.
     - Complaint (Dec. 8, 2011) and amended complaint (Jan. 3).
     - Motion for TRO / preliminary injunction (Dec. 8).
     - Motion to dismiss (Feb. 23) (and corrected version (Mar. 2)).
          - response (Mar. 8), reply by defendants, intervenor defendants (Mar. 12).
     - Intervenor defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (Feb. 23).
     - Opinion dismissing case (Apr. 6).
The latest: On April 6, the court dismissed the case, finding the pleadings insufficient to support an inference of intentional discrimination under the Equal Protection clause or of a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Ohio
Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Kasich, No. 1:18-cv-00357 (S.D. Ohio): a challenge in federal court to the congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
     - Complaint (5/23/18), amd. complaint (6/26/18), 2d amd. complaint (7/11/18).
     - Motion to dismiss (7/20/18), opposition (8/3/18), reply (8/10/18).
          - Order denying motion to dismiss (8/15/18).
     - Plaintiffs' proposed remedial map (exh.) (9/28/18).
     - Orders re privilege and discovery (12/3/18, 12/15/18, 12/21/18).
The latest: On June 26, 2018, an amended complaint was filed. The court denied a motion to dismiss on August 15, 2018.

Ohio ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Board, No. 2012-1443 (Ohio Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to ballot language describing a referendum to change the redistricting process for 2021.
     - Mandamus complaint (Aug. 23, 2012).
     - Merits brief & evidence (Aug. 27), response & evidence (Aug. 30), reply (Aug. 31).
     - Opinion granting writ, remanding for new language (Sept. 12).
The latest: On September 12, the court determined that the proposed ballot language was misleading, and remanded for Ohio's Ballot Board to write new language describing the proposed initiative.

Wilson v. Kasich, No. 2012-0019 (Ohio Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state legislative districts, based on alleged violations of the state constitution and of open meetings requirements.
     - Complaint and supporting affidavit (Jan. 4, 2012).
     - Resp. motion for judgment on pleadings, evidence (I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII) (Jan. 17).
          - Opposition (Jan. 27).
     - Plaintiffs' motion for order protecting court's jurisdiction (Jan. 13).
          - Response by SoS, Gov et al. (Jan. 19).
     - Plaintiffs' merit brief (Jan. 23).
          - Supporting deposition transcripts (exh.) (Jan. 17).
          - Supporting affidavits (Slagle, Pierre-Louis (app. 1, 2), McDonald (Jan. 17).
     - Merit briefs of SoS, Gov et al. (Jan. 30), plaintiffs' reply (Feb. 3).
     - Opinion barring 2012 challenge and preserving future challenge (Feb. 17).
     - Order requiring further briefing (Mar. 2).
          - Briefs of plaintiffs, SoS, Gov et al. (Mar. 23).
          - Responses by plaintiffs, Gov et al. (Mar. 30).
     - Opinion denying challenges and dismissing case (Nov. 27).
The latest: On February 17, 2012, the state Supreme Court dismissed the open meetings claims on jurisdictional grounds, and barred the other claims on laches grounds with respect to the 2012 elections. However, it retained jurisdiction over those other claims with respect to future elections. On November 27, 2012, the court denied relief for all other claims, finding that the politician commission responsible for the state legislative districts acted within its latitude to draw districts approximating those in place from the last cycle, notwithstanding companion constitutional commands to limit jurisdictional splits.

State ex rel. Ohioans for Fair Districts v. Husted, No. 2011-1646 (Ohio Sup Ct.): a challenge in state court to the law containing the congressional plan, which purports to limit the ability to submit the plan to a referendum, as other state laws are subject to referendum.
     - Complaint and supporting affidavit (Sept. 28, 2011).
     - Challengers' merits brief and supporting evidence (Oct. 12).
     - Respondent SoS merits brief and supporting evidence (Oct. 12).
     - Reply briefs of challengers, intervenor General Assem., respondent SoS (Oct. 13).
     - Decision granting writ (Oct. 14).
The latest: On October 14, the court unanimously granted the writ, allowing the possibility of a referendum to the state's congressional plan. If a referendum is to qualify, signatures must now be collected (from 6% of the state's electors) and filed by December 25, 2011. The new plan won't be legally valid until December 25, and if enough signatures qualify by that point, will continue to be invalid until a referendum is held on the plan.

Ward v. Kasich, No. 2011-CVH-1847 (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas, Clermont County): a challenge in state court to the congressional districts, based on the fact that a referendum renders the most recent plan at least temporarily invalid, and based on the fact that existing districts (from 2001) are unequally populated.
     - Complaint (Oct. 17, 2011).
          - Intervenor Latourette's complaint (Nov. 14).
          - Answer, counterclaim, and crossclaim (Dec. 14).
     - Intervenor Ohioans for Fair Districts et al. motion to dismiss (Dec. 9).
     - Settlement agreement (Jan. 9).
     - Entry of dismissal without prejudice (Jan. 12).
The latest: The complaint was filed on October 17, and a motion to dismiss was filed on December 9. The court's docket notes that a settlement agreement was reached on January 9, and the case was dismissed without prejudice on January 12.

Tennessee
Moore v. Tennessee, No. 12-0402-III (Tenn. Chancery Ct., Nashville): an action in state court challenging Tennessee's state Senate districts, based on alleged violations of the state constitution's requirement that county lines be preserved where possible.
     - Complaint (Mar. 16, 2012) and amended complaint (Mar. 19).
     - Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (June 20), statement of facts (Sept. 21).
          - Opposition by defendants, intervenors (Nov. 7), reply (Nov. 14).
          - Order denying motion for summary judgment (Dec. 20).
     - Motion to dismiss (Jan. 31, 2013), opposition (Feb. 11), reply (Feb. 13).
          - Order granting motion to dismiss (Feb. 19).
The latest: On February 19, the court dismissed the case.

Seventh Circuit
Illinois
Clark v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 2014-CH-07356 (Ill. Circuit Ct., Cook County, Chancery): a challenge in state court to a prospective ballot initiative to change the redistricting process, as beyond the initiative power permitted by the state constitution.
     - Complaint (Apr. 29, 2014).
     - Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on pleadings (May 20), intervenor opp. (June 3).
     - Intervenors' motion for judgment on pleadings (May 20).
     - Opinion finding proposed initiative unconstitutional (June 27).
The latest: On June 27, 2014, the court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Illinois Constitution permits only those ballot initiatives that are both "structural and procedural" changes to government, in their entirety; while redistricting was deemed a proper topic for a ballot initiative, the court found that provisions requiring the independence of those performing the redistricting were not proper initiative subjects.

League of Women Voters of Ill. v. Quinn, No. 1:11-cv-05569 (N.D. Ill.) & No. 11-943 (Sup. Ct.): a challenge in federal court to the promulgated state and congressional districts, based on an allegedly unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.
     - Trial court
          - Complaint (Aug. 16, 2011), and amended complaint (Sept. 1).
          - Motion to dismiss (Sept. 8), opposition (Sept. 23), reply (Sept. 30).
          - Decision dismissing case (Oct. 28).
     - U.S. Supreme Court
          - Jurisdictional statement (Jan. 27).
          - State's motion to affirm (Apr. 16).
          - Reply (Apr. 30).
          - Summary affirmance (May 21).
The latest: On October 28, the court dismissed the case, finding no First Amendment violation in the use of partisan data to conduct redistricting, because such redistricting placed no cognizable burden on citizens' ability to express political choices. On appeal, the decision was summarily affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court on May 21.

Radogno v. Illinois State Board of Elections, No. 1:11-cv-04884 (N.D. Ill.) & No. 11-1127 (Sup. Ct.): a challenge in federal court to the promulgated state legislative districts, based on alleged violations of the federal Voting Rights Act, unconstitutional partisan and racial gerrymandering, violations of the state's requirement that districts be reasonably compact, and violations of alleged state procedural requirements.
     - Trial court
          - Original (July 20, 2011), 1st (Aug. 10), 2nd amended complaint (Oct. 31).
          - Motion to dismiss (Aug. 25), opposition (Sept. 6), reply (Sept. 13).
               - Opinion dismissing several claims (Oct. 21).
          - Motion to dismiss partisan gerrymandering claims (Nov. 7)
               - Response (Nov. 11), reply (Nov. 15).
               - Opinion dismissing partisan gerrymandering claims (Nov. 22).
          - Motion for summary judgment (Nov. 7), opposition (Nov. 23).
               - Statement of material facts by defendants (Nov. 8), response (Nov. 23).
               - Statement of material facts by plaintiffs (Nov. 23).
               - Opinion dismissing remaining claims (Dec. 7).
     - U.S. Supreme Court
          - Jurisdictional statement (Mar. 12).
          - State's motion to affirm (June 15), reply (June 25).
          - Summary affirmance (Oct. 1).
The latest: On October 21, the court dismissed claims filed under the Illinois State constitution, a facial challenge to Illinois' new state Voting Rights Act, and a political gerrymandering claim under the First Amendment; preserved claims of racial gerrymandering; and granted permission to file an amended complaint to address standing concerns with respect to the Voting Rights Act, and to propose a standard for political gerrymandering claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. That amended complaint was filed on October 31, and the court again found the political gerrymandering claims insufficient, dismissing them. On December 7, the court dismissed the remaining racial gerrymandering and Voting Rights Act claims. The decision was summarily affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 1, 2012.

Brady v. Madigan, No. _____ (Ill. Sup Ct.): a challenge in state court to the constitutionality of the random selection of a tiebreaker for the state's backup commission, in the event that the legislature fails to draw state legislative districts. The suit also asks the Illinois Supreme Court to prohibit redistricting until the court rules on the challenge to the state procedure.
     - Complaint (May 10, 2011).
     - Introductory brief (May 10, 2011).
The latest: On June 15, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to take the case.

Committee for a Fair and Balanced Map v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 1:11-cv-05065 (N.D. Ill.): a challenge in federal court to the promulgated congressional districts, based on alleged violations of the federal Voting Rights Act, and unconstitutional partisan and racial gerrymandering.
     - Complaint (July 27, 2011), amended complaint (Nov. 4).
     - Motion for preliminary injunction (Aug. 4), withdrawn Aug. 24.
     - Motion to dismiss (Aug. 31), response (Sept. 28), reply (Oct. 12), surreply (Oct. 17).
          - Opinion granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss (Nov. 1).
     - Opinion on subpoena scope (disclosing communications w/ outside entities) (Oct. 15).
     - Motion for permanent injunction (Nov. 4), response (Nov. 14).
     - Motion to dismiss partisan gerrymandering claims (Nov. 11), opposition (Nov. 15).
     - Opinion rejecting challenge and upholding districts (Dec. 15).
The latest: On November 1, the court issued an opinion preserving claims of racial gerrymandering and violations of the Voting Rights Act, and dismissing claims of partisan gerrymandering (with permission to file an amended complaint proposing a workable standard for such claims under the Fourteenth Amendment). Plaintiffs filed that amended complaint, and a motion for permanent injunction, on November 4. A hearing was held on November 17 and 18, and on December 15, the court rejected the remaining claims on the merits.

Cross v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 113840 (Ill. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in the state Supreme Court to the state legislative districts, based on alleged violations of the state constitution.
     - Complaint (Feb. 8, 2012).
     - Order denying complaint as untimely (June 7).
The latest: On June 7, the court denied permission to file a complaint challenging the state legislative plan in an original action in the state Supreme Court, on the grounds that such a challenge was untimely.

Wisconsin
Due to the volume of filings, information on the Wisconsin cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.

Eighth Circuit
Arkansas
Larry v. Arkansas, No. 4:18-cv-00116 (E.D. Ark.): a challenge in federal court to the congressional districts, based on alleged improper use of race and violations of the Voting Rights Act.
     - Complaint (2/9/18).
     - SOS brief re 3-judge court (3/2/18), resp. (3/15/18), reply (3/23/18).
          - Response by State (3/28/18), plaintiffs' reply (4/9/18).
          - Order re three-judge court (4/23/18).
     - Motion to dismiss by:
       Gov. et al. (2/26/18), opp. (3/5/18) (supp.), reply (3/12/18).
       SOS (3/2/18), opp. (3/9/18), reply (3/14/18).
       Rep. Gillam (3/5/18).
          - Order dismissing equal protection claim, preserving VRA claim (4/23/18).
          - Order dismissing VRA claim for lack of standing (8/3/18).
     - Motion for reconsideration (8/13/18).
          - Responses by SOS (8/24/18), Gov et al. ()pt. 1 (8/27/18), pt. 2 (8/28/18)).
          - Order denying reconsideration (10/12/18).
     - Notice of appeal (8/20/18).
The latest: On April 23, 2018, the court dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection claim, but preserved the claim under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On August 3, 2018, the court dismissed the remaining VRA claim for lack of standing.

Jeffers v. Beebe, No. 2:12-cv-00016 (E.D. Ark.): a challenge in federal court to the state Senate lines, based on alleged racial gerrymandering and violations of the Voting Rights Act.
     - Complaint (Jan. 23, 2012) and amended complaint (Feb. 22).
     - Motion to dismiss (Feb. 6), response (I, II) (Feb. 22).
     - Motion to dismiss amended complaint (Mar. 6), response (Mar. 26), reply (Mar. 28).
          - Order denying motion to dismiss (Apr. 5).
     - Gov. et al.'s motion for summary judgment and statement of facts (Apr. 13).
          - Response by plaintiffs (statement of facts), SoS (Apr. 27).
          - Order denying motion for summary judgment (May 1).
     - SoS motion for summary judgment and statement of facts (Apr. 27).
     - Trial briefs by plaintiffs, SoS, Gov et al. (May 2).
          - Joint stipulation of facts (May 4).
     - Order denying request to postpone primary (May 11).
     - Proposed findings of fact by plaintiffs, SoS, Gov et al. (May 15).
     - Motion to enjoin election results (May 23), response (May 24).
          - Order denying motion (May 29).
     - Opinion rejecting challenge, upholding plan (Sept. 17).
The latest: On September 17, the court rejected the plaintiffs' challenges, upholding the state plan against racial gerrymandering and Voting Rights Act claims. The court found that a minority population may not sustain a Voting Rights Act challenge if they constitute a bare numerical majority in the challenged district, and also questioned the plaintiffs' proof of racial polarization and intentional racial discrimination.
Minnesota
Britton v. Ritchie, No. 0:11-CV-00093 (D. Minn.): a challenge in federal court to the unequal population of current districts, based on the legislature's inability to agree on congressional and state legislative districts within the 2011 legislative session.
     - Complaint (Jan. 12, 2011).
     - Intervenor Hippert complaint (Jan. 21, 2011) and Sellner complaint (May 23).
     - Motion to lift stay (May 17, 2011), denied (July 21).
     - Stipulation for dismissal (Aug. 22, 2012).
The latest: After resolution of the redistricting plan in state court, the case was voluntarily dismissed on August 22, 2012.

Hippert v. Ritchie, No. 86-CV-11-433 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Wright County) & No. A110152 (Minn. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the unequal population of current districts, based on the legislature's inability to agree on constitutional and state legislative districts within the 2011 legislative session.
     - Complaint (Jan. 21, 2011).
     - Martin intervenors' complaint (May 23).
     - Britton intervenors' complaint (July 29).
     - Redistricting criteria used by the panel (Nov. 4).
     - Responses to Nov. 18 proposed congressional plans
          - Response of SoS Ritchie, Britton et al., Hippert et al., Martin et al. (Dec. 9).
     - Responses to Nov. 18 proposed legislative plans
          - Response of SoS Ritchie, Britton et al., Hippert et al., Martin et al. (Dec. 9).
     - Final congressional order (maps 1, 2, 3, 4, app. B, C, D, E, F, G, H) (Feb. 21).
     - Final state leg. order (maps 1, 2, 3, 4, app. B, C, D, E, F, G, H) (Feb. 21).
The latest: On June 1, 2011, the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a special five-judge redistricting panel (website here) to redraw districts. The panel held public meetings from October 4-14. On Nov. 4, the panel issued criteria to guide its work: in addition to federal requirements, districts drawn by the court would be contiguous and compact, would not divide political subdivisions more than necessary, would preserve communities of interest where possible, and would not be drawn for the purpose of protecting or defeating incumbents (though the impact of redistricting on incumbents may be considered). On Feb. 21, the panel issued congressional and state legislative lines.

Missouri
Due to the volume of filings, information on the Missouri cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.

Ninth Circuit
Alaska
Due to the volume of filings, information on the Alaska cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.

Arizona
Due to the volume of filings, information on the Arizona cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.

California
California v. Ross, No. 3:18-cv-01865 (N.D. Cal.), No. 19-15456 (9th Cir.) & No. 18-1214 (S. Ct.): a challenge in federal court to the inclusion of a citizenship question on the decennial enumeration.

  Trial court
     - Complaint (3/26/18), amd. complaint (5/4/18).
     - Motion to dismiss (6/21/18), opp. (7/17/18), reply (7/31/18).
          - Amicus supporting dismissal by ACLJ (6/29/18), Project on Fair Rep. (7/2/18).
          - Amicus opposing dismissal by Members of Cong. (7/19/18), LCCHR (7/24/18).
          - Order denying motion to dismiss (8/17/18).
     - Statement, admin. record (6/8/18).
          - Notice, supp. to admin. record (6/21/18).
     - Defendants' motion for summ. judgment (exh.) (11/2/18).
          - Opp. by plaintiffs (request for judicial notice) (decl.), LAUSD (decl.) (11/16/18).
          - Amicus brief by CA leg. (decl.) (11/20/18).
          - Reply (decl.) (11/26/18).
          - Order denying summary judgment (12/14/18).
     - Proposed findings by plaintiffs (fact, law), intervenor LAUSD, defendants (12/28/18).
     - Joint pretrial statement (1/2/19).
     - Trial affidavits and declarations (12/28/18).
          - Order re trial declarations (1/11/19), amended declarations (1/14/19).
     - Designations of depositions by plaintiffs (1/2/19), defendants (exh.) (1/7/19).
     - Post-trial proposed findings by plaintiffs (fact, law), defendants (2/1/19).

     - Opinion finding constitutional and statutory violations, enjoining question (3/6/19).

  U.S. Supreme Court
     - Petition for cert. before judgment (app.) (3/18/19).
          - Amicus brief of Fair Lines America Foundation (3/21/19).
          - Plaintiffs' response (4/5/19).

     - Order vacating judgment in light of Dep't of Commerce v. New York (6/28/19).

The latest: On March 6, 2019, the court issued an opinion finding that the addition of the citizenship question violated both the constitution and federal statutes. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment, and on June 28, 2019, vacated the decision below in light of Department of Commerce v. New York.

City of San Jose v. Ross, No. 5:18-cv-02279 (N.D. Cal.) & No. 18-1214 (S. Ct.): a challenge in federal court to the inclusion of a citizenship question on the decennial enumeration.

  Trial court
     - Complaint (exh. 1, 2, 3, 4) (4/17/18).
     - Motion to dismiss (6/21/18), opp. (7/17/18), reply (7/31/18).
          - Amicus supporting dismissal by Project on Fair Rep. (7/2/18).
          - Amicus opposing by Members of Cong. (7/19/18), LCCHR et al. (7/24/18).
          - Order denying motion to dismiss (8/17/18).
     - Plaintiffs' motion for summ. judgment on APA claims (decl.) (11/2/18).
          - Opp. (11/16/18), reply (decl.) (11/26/18), supp. (12/10/18).
          - Order denying summary judgment (12/14/18).
     - Defendants' motion for summ. judgment (exh.) (11/2/18).
          - Opp. (decl.) (11/16/18), reply (decl.) (11/26/18).
          - Order denying summary judgment (12/14/18).
     - Proposed findings by plaintiffs, defendants (12/28/18).
     - Joint pretrial statement (1/2/19).
     - Trial affidavits/declarations (12/28/18), supp. trial affidavits (1/8/19, 1/9/19, 1/14/19).
     - Post-trial proposed findings by plaintiffs, defendants (2/1/19).

     - Opinion finding constitutional and statutory violations, enjoining question (3/6/19).

  U.S. Supreme Court
     - Petition for cert. before judgment (app.) (3/18/19).
          - Plaintiffs' response (3/20/19).

     - Order vacating judgment in light of Dep't of Commerce v. New York (6/28/19).

The latest: On March 6, 2019, the court issued an opinion finding that the addition of the citizenship question violated both the constitution and federal statutes. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment, and on June 28, 2019, vacated the decision below in light of Department of Commerce v. New York.
Citizens for Fair Representation v. Padilla, No. 2:17-cv-00973 (E.D. Cal.), No. 18-123 (S. Ct.): a challenge in federal court to the number of representatives in the California state legislature.
     - Complaint (exh. A, B, C) (5/18/17), amd. complaint (exh. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (3/19/18).
     - Motion to dismiss (5/30/17), opposition (8/8/17), reply (9/1/17).
          - Order dismissing orig. complaint as generalized grievance (1/31/18).
     - Motion to dismiss (4/16/18), opposition (6/1/18), reply (6/8/18).

          - Opinion dismissing case as nonjusticiable generalized grievance (11/29/18).

     - Order declining to convene three-judge court (8/1/18).
       U.S. Supreme Court
          - Petition for mandamus (7/10/18), resp. waived (8/8/18).
          - Order denying mandamus relief (10/1/18).
The latest: The original complaint was filed on May 8, 2017, and dismissed on January 31, 2018. An amended complaint was filed on March 19, 2018. On October 1, 2018, the Supreme Court declined to grant mandamus requiring the convening of a three-judge court; on November 29, 2018, the trial court dismissed the case.
DeWitt v. Ryan, No. 3:15-cv-05261 (N.D. Cal.) & No. 16-16162 (9th Cir.): a challenge in federal court to the single-member district mandate for Congress, to the power of the California commission to draw congressional districts, and to the California state and federal districts as containing an unequal number of voters, among other causes of action.
  Trial court
     - Complaint (11/17/15), amended complaint (3/17/16).
     - Order sua sponte dismissing complaint (1/12/16), 2nd order (3/16/16).
     - Plaintiffs brief responding to Evenwel v. Abbott (4/11/16).
     - Motion to dismiss (4/15/16), brief re dismissing without 3-judge panel (4/22/16).
          - Opposition (4/28/16), reply (5/6/16).
     - Order dismissing case (5/31/16).
  Court of appeals
     - Plaintiffs' brief (10/31/16), response (exc.) (1/6/17).
     - Application for prelim. inj. pending appeal (8/21/17), denied (10/16/17).
          - Motion for reconsideration (10/17/17), denied (10/19/17).
     - Order affirming dismissal of case (12/1/17).
          - Petition for rehearing (12/4/17), denied (1/9/18).
The latest: The complaint was filed on November 17, 2015, and after the court dismissed most claims on January 12, 2016, an amended complaint was filed on March 17, 2016. The case was dismissed on May 31, 2016, and the court of appeals affirmed on December 1, 2017.
Connerly v. California, No. 34-2011-80000966 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento County) & No. C073753 (Cal. Ct. Appeals, 3d Appellate Dist.): a challenge in the state courts to the selection of redistricting commissioners reflecting the state's diversity, including racial, ethnic, and gender diversity; the challenge is lodged under the state constitution, prohibiting discrimination or favorable treatment based on race in public employment, education, or contracting.
      Trial court
          - Petition (10/4/11) and amended petition (3/20/12).
          - Demurrer to initial complaint by state (12/16/11).
               - State's demurrer to amd. complaint (4/30/12), opp. (5/18/12), reply (5/24/12).
               - Auditor's demurrer to amd. cmplt. (memo) (4/30/12), opp. (5/18/12), reply (5/24/12).
               - Common Cause et al. amicus brief (5/15/12), opposition (5/24/12).
          - Opinion granting demurrer, dismissing case (12/21/12).
      Court of appeals
          - Plaintiffs' brief (8/19/13).
               - Response by State (11/12/13), Auditor (11/15/13).
               - Reply (1/7/14).
               - Amicus brief by California Common Cause et al. (1/23/14).
          - Opinion reversing trial court, remanding for amended complaint (9/3/14).
      Trial court II
          - Second amended petition (12/4/14).
               - Plaintiffs' demurrer to state's affirm. defenses (2/23/15).
          - Common Cause et al. complaint in intervention (10/30/15).
          - Plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal (11/6/17).
The latest: On December 21, 2012, the court granted the demurrer and dismissed the case, finding that the redistricting commissioners are public officers rather than public employees, and therefore beyond the reach of the state constitutional provision prohibiting discrimination or favorable treatment based on race in public employment, education, or contracting. On September 13, 2014, the court of appeals reversed and remanded, with instructions to allow the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint with a new legal theory. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, but then voluntarily dismissed the case on November 6, 2017.
Vandermost v. Bowen, No. S196493 (Cal. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in the state Supreme Court to the state Senate maps, based on alleged violations of state constitutional criteria and the federal Voting Rights Act.
     - Original (Sept. 15, 2011), 1st amended petition (Sept. 29).
          - Quinn declaration, supplement, and 2nd supplement.
          - Exhibits vols. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.
     - Commission opposition part 1 and part 2 (Oct. 11), exhibits vols. 1, 2, 3, 4, app.
     - Secretary of State opposition (Oct. 11), exhibits vols. 1, 2.1, 2.2.
     - Petitioners' reply (Oct. 17).
     - Motion to strike Quinn declaration (Oct. 11), opposition (Oct. 17).
     - Order denying petition (Oct. 26).
The latest: On October 26, the California Supreme Court denied petitioner's challenge to the state Senate maps.
Radanovich v. Bowen, No. S196852 (Cal. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in the state Supreme Court to the congressional maps, based on alleged racial gerrymandering, violations of state constitutional criteria, and violations of the federal Voting Rights Act.
     - Petition for writ of mandate (Sept. 29, 2011).
          - Quinn declaration and exhibit vols. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.
           - Exhibits vols. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5.
     - Commission opposition part 1 and part 2 (Oct. 11), exhibits vols. 1, 2, 3, 4, app.
     - Secretary of State opposition (Oct. 11), exhibits vols. 1, 2.1, 2.2.
     - Petitioners' reply part 1, part 2 (Oct. 17).
     - Motion to strike Quinn declaration (Oct. 11), opposition (Oct. 17).
     - Order denying petition (Oct. 26).
The latest: On October 26, the California Supreme Court denied petitioner's challenge to the congressional maps.

Radanovich v. Bowen, No. 2:11-cv-09786 (C.D. Cal.): a challenge in federal court to the congressional districts, alleging unconstitutional racial gerrymandering and violations of the Voting Rights Act.
     - Complaint (Nov. 23, 2011).
     - Motion to dismiss (Jan. 12), opposition (Jan. 23), reply (Jan. 30).
     - Order granting motion to dismiss (Feb. 9).
The latest: On February 9, the court dismissed the case on res judicata grounds, finding that the plaintiffs had already received a decision on the merits in state court.
Vandermost v. Bowen II, No. S198387 (Cal. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to state Senate districts (including a request that the court prepare alternative districts) in light of the alleged likelihood that the districts will be qualified for referendum.
     - Petition (Dec. 2, 2011).
          - Supporting declarations by Bell ( I and II), Quinn (Dec. 6).
          - Preliminary opposition by SoS, redistricting comm'n (exh. vols. 1, 2, 3, 4) (Dec. 6).
          - Supporting declaration by Lean (Dec. 6).
          - Reply and supporting declaration (Dec. 7).
     - Order to show cause (Dec. 9).
          - Opposition by SoS, redistricting commission (Dec. 14).
          - Reply (Dec. 19).
          - Amicus brief by Munger (Dec. 21), reply (Dec. 22).
          - Amicus brief by Common Cause, Sen. Steinberg (Dec. 21), consol. reply (Dec. 22).
     - Supp. briefing re impact of signature validity rate, by petitioner, SoS, comm'n (Jan. 4).
          - Supp. replies by petitioner, SoS, commission (Jan. 6).
     - Opinion using Commission maps temporarily, even if referendum qualifies (Jan. 27).
The latest: If enough signatures have been submitted to qualify the state Senate maps for a November referendum, the Commission's state Senate map is not legally binding. On January 27, the state Supreme Court ruled that if the referendum qualified, the Court would use the Commission's Senate maps as temporary lines, given the absence of better alternatives. A referendum would still determine the long-term viability of the Commission's map.

Hawaii
Kostick v. Nago, No. 1:12-cv-00184 (D. Haw.) & No. 13-456 (Sup. Ct.): a challenge in federal court to the equal population of Hawaii's state legislative plan, based on the allegedly improper removal of nonresident persons from the apportionment base (see Solomon v. Abercrombie, below).
     - Trial court
          - Complaint (Apr. 6, 2012) and amended complaint (Apr. 27).
          - Motion for preliminary injunction (Apr. 23), stipulated facts (Apr. 20).
               - Opposition (May 3), reply (May 8).
               - Order denying motion for preliminary injunction (May 22).
          - Motions for summary judgment by:
               - Plaintiffs (statement of facts, response) (Oct. 1), opp. (Oct. 29), reply (Nov. 19).
               - Defendants (statement of facts) (Oct. 1), opposition (Oct. 29), reply (Nov. 19).
          - Opinion granting summary judgment to defendants (July 11, 2013).
     - U.S. Supreme Court
          - Notice of appeal (Aug. 9).
          - Jurisdictional statement (Oct. 8).
          - Motion to affirm (Dec. 12), opposition (Dec. 26).
          - Order summarily affirming (Jan. 21, 2014).
The latest: On May 22, 2012, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding it unlikely that they would prevail on the merits of their challenge to the constitutionality of Hawaii's population base. On Jan. 22, 2013, plaintiffs dismissed state law claims from their complaint, which would have been jurisdictionally barred. On July 11, 2013, the court granted summary judgment to the state, rejecting the plaintiffs' challenges. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the lower court's decision.

Solomon v. Abercrombie, No. SCPW-11-0000732 (Haw. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state Senate districts, challenging the alleged failure to properly remove (under the state constitution) nonresident students and military from the apportionment base before redistricting.
     - Petition for writ of mandamus (Oct. 10, 2011).
     - Answer by state (Nov. 18), governor (Nov. 21), response by office of elections (Dec. 28).
     - Reapportionment commission's motion for summary judgment (Nov. 23).
          - Governor's opposition to motion for summary judgment (Dec. 9), reply (Dec. 12).
          - Plaintiff's motion to strike MSJ (Dec. 1), opposition (Dec. 2).
          - Order striking motion for summary judgment (Dec. 22).
     - Order (Jan. 4) and opinion (Jan. 6) granting petition for writ of mandamus.
The latest: On January 4, the court granted the petition for writ of mandamus, striking the state legislative plan for failure to properly remove nonresident students and military from the apportionment base, as required by the state constitution. The state's politician commission will have to draft a new plan.

Matsukawa v. State of Hawaii 2011 Reapportionment Comm'n, No. SCPW-11-0000741 (Haw. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state legislative districts, challenging the alleged failure to properly remove (under the state constitution) nonresident students and military from the apportionment base before redistricting.
     - Response (Nov. 18).
     - Reapportionment commission's motion for summary judgment (Nov. 23).
          - Plaintiff's opposition to motion for summary judgment (Nov. 28), reply (Dec. 2).
          - Order striking motion for summary judgment (Dec. 22).
     - Order (Jan. 4) and opinion (Jan. 6) granting petition for writ of mandamus.
          - Commission's motion for clarification and/or reconsideration (Jan. 13).
          - Order denying motion for reconsideration (Jan. 20).
The latest: On January 4, the court granted the petition for writ of mandamus, striking the state legislative plan for failure to properly remove nonresident students and military from the apportionment base, as required by the state constitution. The state's politician commission will have to draft a new plan.

Idaho
Denney v. Ysursa, No. 39570-2012 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the Secretary of State's refusal to replace commissioners nominated by the Speaker of the Idaho House and the chairman of the Idaho Republicans, at the request of those two officials.
     - Attorney General's interpretation of authority to remove commissioners (Jan. 20, 2012).
     - Petition for writ of mandamus (Jan. 24) and supplement (Jan. 25).
     - Order dismissing petition (Jan. 25).
The latest: On January 25, the Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioners had not established a clear right under state law to the relief they were seeking -- an order requiring the Secretary of State to replace the two identified commissioners.

In re Constitutionality of Idaho Legislative Reapportionment Plan of 2002, No. 39127-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the constitutionality of the existing districts, given the first independent commission's failure to submit proposed districts before the relevant deadline.
     - Complaint (Sept. 7, 2011).
     - Order denying request for writ of mandate to reconvene commission (Sept. 9).
     - Brief in support of petition (Sept. 23).
     - Order declaring 2002 districts unconstitutional (Oct. 6).
The latest: On September 9, the Idaho Supreme Court determined that it had no power to require the independent commission to reconvene to draw districts for the current cycle, but noted that the Secretary of State could issue an order convening a new commission. Separately, on October 6, the court determined that 2002 districts were unconstitutionally malapportioned based on the most recent Census.

Frasure v. Idaho Redistricting Commission, No. 39128-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court requesting declaratory relief concerning the interpretation of state redistricting law, and requesting that the court adopt congressional and legislative districts.
     - Complaint (Sept. 7, 2011).
     - Order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The latest: On September 9, the Idaho Supreme Court determined that it had no original jurisdiction to clarify state law (such a case would have to proceed first in trial court), and dismissed the case.

Twin Falls County v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, No. 39373-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state legislative plan, based on allegedly insufficient attention to county boundaries.
     - Petition (Nov. 16, 2011), response (Dec. 21).
     - Petitioners' brief (Dec. 27).
     - Amicus curiae brief (Dec. 21).
     - Decision striking down state plan (Jan. 18).
The latest: On January 18, over a strong dissent, the state Supreme Court struck down the state redistricting plan, finding that it unlawfully split more counties than necessary. The state's independent commission was directed to reconvene in order to draw a substitute plan.

Benewah County v. Idaho Comm'n on Redistricting, No. 39432-2011 (Idaho Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state legislative plan, based on multiple provisions of state law, including unnecessary division of counties.
     - Petition (Dec. 7, 2011) and brief in support (Dec. 28).
     - State's brief (Jan. 6).
The latest: Upon the decision in Twin Falls County, above, this case was apparently dismissed as moot.

Montana
Willems v. Montana, No. DV13-C07 (Mont. Dist. Ct., Wheatland County, 14th Dist.), No. ADV-2013-609 (Mont. Dist. Ct., Lewis & Clark County, 1st Dist.) & No. DA 13-0820 (Mont. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the way in which a district was designated a "holdover" district for State Senate representation in a staggered election system; the challenge is based on the decision that the district will next elect a state Senator in 2016, rather than 2014.
      Trial court
          - Complaint (Mar. 14, 2013).
          - Plaintiffs' mot. for summ. judg. (Aug. 1), response (Sept. 11), reply (Sept. 27).
               - State's cross-mot. for summ. judg. (Sept. 11), response (Sept. 27), reply (Oct. 21).
               - Plaintiffs' surreply (Oct. 25), response (Nov. 4).
          - Opinion granting summary judgment to defendants (Dec. 6).
      Montana Supreme Court
          - Notice of appeal (Dec. 6).
          - Briefs by plaintiffs (Jan. 7, 2014), state (Feb. 7), plaintiffs' reply (Feb. 13).
          - Order (Feb. 25), opinion affirming trial court's decision (Mar. 26).
The latest: On December 6, 2013, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants, rejecting the challenges to the designation of a "holdover" district and the process by which it was established. On February 25, 2014, the decision was affirmed on appeal. The court found no violation of public meeting requirements, and no violation in designating particular districts to be delayed in their election of new senators under the commission's plan, given the necessity for some staggered seats.
Nevada
Guy v. Miller, No. 11-OC-00042-1B (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City): a challenge in state court to the unequal population of current districts, based on legislative inability to agree on congressional and state legislative districts within the 2011 legislative session.
     - Complaint (Feb. 24, 2011).
     - Republican Party intervention (Mar. 31).
     - Appointment of special masters (Aug. 3).
     - Designation of criteria and schedule (Sept. 21).
     - Report of the special masters (Oct. 14).
          - Congressional plan: statewide, detail.
          - State Senate plan: statewide, detail maps 1 and 2.
          - State Assembly plan: statewide, detail maps 1 and 2.
     - Final order approving districts (Oct. 27).
The latest: After hearings on October 10-11, the special masters issued a report and accompanying district plans for congressional and state legislative districts, on October 14. The masters found, inter alia, that bloc voting was not sufficient to usually defeat the minority communities' preferred candidates. The trial court modified those plans slightly, and then approved final maps on October 27.

Miller v. First Judicial Court, No. 59322 (Nev. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in the state supreme court filed by the state's Secretary of State to the state trial court's alleged refusal to decide questions of law (particularly questions under the Voting Rights Act) in the Guy v. Miller case, above, in timely fashion.
     - Petition for writ of mandamus (Oct. 3, 2011).
     - League of Women Voters' motion to compel (Oct. 6), denied (Oct. 6).
     - Motions for stay by SOS (Oct. 6), real parties in interest (Oct. 6), denied (Oct. 7).
     - Briefs by SOS (Oct. 14), League of Women Voters (one (Oct. 19) and two (Oct. 24)).
          - Responses by Garza (Oct. 24), Guy et al. (Oct. 24), King et al. (Oct. 24).
          - Reply (Nov. 3).
     - Motion to dismiss (Nov. 4).
     - Order denying petition for writ of mandamus (Nov. 4).
The latest: On October 7, the court denied a motion to stay district court proceedings, with the Guy v. Miller litigation and this case proceeding in parallel. After the Guy v. Miller court approved final maps on October 27, the Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, finding a direct appeal from that Guy v. Miller ruling to be the proper forum to adjudicate whether the court should have drawn lines, or whether the legislature has power to establish districts despite the governor's veto.

Teijeiro v. Schneider, No. 3:11-cv-00330 (D. Nev.): a challenge in federal court to the unequal population of current districts, based on legislative inability to agree on congressional and state legislative districts within the 2011 legislative session.
     - Complaint (May 9, 2011).
     - Motion to dismiss (Sept. 26).
     - Voluntary dismissal (Dec. 2).
The latest: On December 2, at plaintiffs' request, the case was dismissed.
Oregon
Meeker v. Kitzhaber, No. CV-110197 (Ore. Circuit Ct.): a challenge in state court to the unequal population of current congressional districts, based on legislative inability to agree on a congressional district plan.
- Complaint (May 18, 2011).
The latest: The case was dismissed on July 12, 2011.
Washington
In re 2012 Washington State Redistricting Plan, No. 86976-6 (Wash. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the congressional and state legislative districts, based on alleged violations of several state criteria, including unequal population, insufficient attention to political boundaries, and inadequate competition.
     - Petition for declaratory judgment (Feb. 8, 2012).
     - Briefs re interim plan by petitioner, State (Mar. 1).
          - Petitioner's response brief (Mar. 8).
     - Order approving map temporarily for 2012, briefing to continue (Mar. 14).
     - Motion for dismissal, concurrence (Oct. 29).
     - Order dismissing the case (Nov. 2).
The latest: On March 14, the state Supreme Court determined that too little time remained to address petitioner's claims for 2012, and ordered the use of the commission's maps for the upcoming 2012 elections. On November 2, 2012, the case was dismissed by stipulation of the parties.

Tenth Circuit
Colorado
In re Reapportionment of the Colorado General Assembly, No. 2011SA282 (Colo. Sup. Ct.): judicial review (mandatory under state law) of state legislative districts passed by the commission.
     - Submission by commission (Oct. 3), memo in support (Oct. 13), reply (Oct. 31).
     - Statements in support of plan
          - Colorado Latino Forum (Oct. 13), reply (Oct. 31).
     - Statements opposed to plan (Oct. 24)
          - Arapahoe County, Douglas County, Elbert County, Garfield County, Jefferson County
          - Las Animas County, Montezuma County, Weld County, Town of Superior
          - Colo. Citizens for Fair Representation, Sw. Colo. Citizens for a Constitutional Map.
     - Opinion rejecting plan and returning map to commission (Nov. 15).
     - New plan submitted by commission (Dec. 5), memo in support (Dec. 8).
     - Statements in support of plan (Dec. 7-8).
          - Garfield County, Clean Water Action, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund
          - NARAL Pro-Choice Colo., New Era Colorado, Planned Parenthood Votes Colo.
          - Michael Cerbo, Jennie Sanchez
     - Statements opposed to plan (Dec. 7-8).
          - Colo. Reapportionment Commissioners Berry et al.
          - Delta County, El Paso County, Elbert County, Grand County, Gunnison County
          - Washington County, Town of Superior et al., Club 20 et al.
          - Colo. Citizens for Fair Representation (and sur-reply), J.M. Fay.
     - Opinion approving resubmitted plan (Dec. 12).
The latest: On November 15, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected the commission's proposed plan as insufficiently attentive to county boundaries, and returned the maps to the commission for re-drafting. On November 29, the commission approved new state legislative plans, which were approved by the state Supreme Court on December 12.

Moreno v. Gessler, No. 11cv3461 & 11cv3463 (Denver Dist. Ct.) & No. 2011SC842 (Colo. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the unequal population of current congressional districts, based on legislative inability to agree on district lines within the 2011 legislative session.
     - Trial court
          - Complaint (May 10, 2011).
          - Intervenors Colo. Latino Forum et al. complaint (July 22).
          - Moreno plaintiffs' proposed map, adopted by court Nov. 10.
          - Decision adopting Moreno Plaintiffs' proposed map. (Nov. 10).
     - State supreme court
          - Order affirming trial court decision (Dec. 5) and accompanying opinion (Feb. 27).
The latest: After considering various proposals, the trial court adopted maps proposed by the Moreno plaintiffs -- aligned with the interest of Colorado Democrats -- on November 10. On December 5, the state Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.

Hall v. Gessler, No. 11cv3463 (Denver Dist. Ct.): a challenge to the unequal population of current congressional districts, based on legislative inability to agree on district lines within the 2011 legislative session.
- Complaint (May 10, 2011).
The latest: This case was consolidated with Moreno v. Gessler, above.

Kansas
Essex v. Kobach, No. 5:12-cv-04046 (D. Kan.): a challenge in federal court to the unequal population of current congressional and state legislative districts, based on the legislature's inability to agree on new lines.
     - Complaint (May 3, 2012).
     - Intervenor complaints by:
          - Beer, Berry et al., Bradford, Craig et al., Crow, Denning, King et al. (May 21-25).
          - Landwehr et al., O'Neal, Owens et al., Pilcher-Cook et al., Roy et al. (May 21-25).
          - Smith et al., Taylor, Yoder (May 21-25).
     - Joint stipulation of facts (May 26).
     - Briefs by:
          - plaintiff, SoS (May 29).
          - Beer, Berry et al., Bradford, Craig et al., Denning, Keller (May 25-28).
          - King et al., Landwehr et al., Owens et al., Roy et al., Taylor (May 25-29).
          - Amicus briefs by Gov (May 31), Johnson County Bd. of Cmm'rs (June 1).
     - Post-trial briefs by:
          - State, SoS (June 1).
          - Berry et al., Bradford, King et al., Landwehr et al., Owens et al., Roy et al. (June 1).
     - Opinion establishing districts (June 7).
The latest: On June 7, the court issued an opinion drawing both state legislative and congressional districts, in the face of legislative inability to do so.

New Mexico
On October 14, 2011, the New Mexico Supreme Court consolidated all redistricting litigation in the 1st Judicial District Court, in Santa Fe.

Due to the volume of filings in New Mexico, information on the New Mexico cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.

Oklahoma
Duffee v. State Question 748, No. O-109127 (Okla. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state's backup commission, passed by initiative in 2010 and specifying a role for the Democratic and Republican parties, rather than simply the state's largest two parties.
The latest: On February 28, 2011, the Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to take original jurisdiction in the case. The case will proceed, if at all, through the trial courts first.

Wilson v. Fallin, No. O-109652 (Okla. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state Senate reapportionment, on state constitutional grounds.
     - Petition for review and accompanying brief (July 7, 2011).
The latest: On September 1, the Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed the challenge, finding its own original jurisdiction limited to review of state legislative plans on the basis of equal population alone. Any further challenge to the state Senate reapportionment on other grounds must proceed through the trial courts first. The court's opinion leaves it unclear whether, in such challenges, the state constitutional requirement to consider factors like compactness and economic and political interests is an independently justiciable mandate.

Wilson v. Oklahoma, No. CJ-2011-6249 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma County) & No. SD-110042 (Okla. Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state Senate reapportionment, on state constitutional grounds.
     - Trial court
          - Petition (Sept. 6, 2011).
          - Intervenor Bingman's motion to dismiss (Sept. 12).
          - Intervenor state House motion to dismiss (Sept. 21).
          - Entry of judgment dismissing case (Oct. 25).
     - Oklahoma Supreme Court
          - Appellant's petition in error (Nov. 1).
          - Response by Sec. Ziriax, Sen. Bingman, state House (Nov. 21).
          - Opinion affirming trial court and rejecting challenge (Jan. 17).
The latest: On October 11, the trial court dismissed the case. On January 17, the state Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the state constitution requires only that the legislature consider factors like compactness and the preservation of political units to the extent feasible, and holding that the challenge had not alleged a deficiency in the extent to which the legislature considered such factors.

Utah
Utah Dem. Party v. Legis. Records Comm., No. 120906505 (Utah Dist. Ct., 3d Dist.): a challenge in state court to allegedly excessive fees for a records request regarding the 2011-2012 redistricting cycle.
     - Petition (Sept. 25, 2012).
     - Def. motion for summary judgment (Mar. 26, 2013), opposition (Apr. 2), reply (Apr. 16).
     - Plt. motion for judgment on the record (Apr. 2), opposition (Apr. 16), reply (Apr. 17).
     - Judgment on the record (May 15).
The latest: The petition for relief was filed on September 25, 2012. On May 15, 2013, the court granted judgment ruling that much of the case was moot, but also awarding attorneys' fees to the petitioners.

Wyoming
Hunzie v. Maxfield, No. 179-562 (Wyo. Dist. Ct., Laramie County): a challenge in state court to the state's legislative plan, based on alleged violations of the state and federal constitution, including allegedly insufficient attention to county representation.
     - Complaint (April 5, 2012) and amended complaint (June 13).
     - State's motion for summary judgment (Aug. 6, 2014).
          - Opposition (Oct. 16), reply (Nov. 7).
The latest: The complaint was filed on April 5, 2012, and an amended complaint was filed on June 13. The state filed a motion for summary judgment on August 6, 2014.

Eleventh Circuit
Alabama
Chestnut v. Merrill, No. 2:18-cv-00907 (N.D. Ala.): an action in federal court challenging the congressional plan as allegedly violating the Voting Rights Act.
     - Complaint (6/13/18) and amd. complaint (7/23/18).
     - Motion to dismiss (7/9/18), opposition (7/23/18), denied as moot (8/2/18).
     - Motion for judgment on the pleadings (11/2/18), opp. (11/30/18), reply (12/21/18).
The latest: The complaint was filed on June 13, 2018, and an amended complaint was filed on July 23, 2018. The state has moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the matter must be heard by a three-judge court.
Alabama v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, No. 2:18-cv-00772 (N.D. Ala.): an action in federal court challenging an apportionment count including undocumented noncitizens.
- Complaint (5/21/18).
- Motion to dismiss (11/13/18).
The latest: The complaint was filed on May 21, 2018, and a motion to dismiss was filed on November 13, 2018.
Ala. Legis. Black Caucus v. Alabama, No. 2:12-cv-00691 (M.D. Ala.), No. 13-395, No. 13-895 & No. 13-1138 (S. Ct.): an action in federal court challenging the state legislative lines as allegedly violating the Voting Rights Act and the federal constitution.
     - Trial court
          - Complaint (Aug. 10, 2012) and amended complaint (Jan. 15, 2013).
          - Mot. to dismiss (Aug. 31, 2012), opp. (Sept. 4), reply (Sept. 11), surreply (Sept. 13).
               - Order denying motion as moot (Oct. 10).
          - Order staying case (Sept. 21), order lifting stay (Oct. 10).
          - Def. motion for judg. on pleadings (Oct. 26), resp. (Nov. 14), reply (Nov. 26).
               - Order dismissing one count, preserving another (Dec. 26).
          - Plts. motion for perm. injunction (Apr. 17, 2013), resp. (Apr. 24), reply (May 6).
               - Order denying permanent injunction (July 30).
          - Order approving class certification (Mar. 28).
          - Order re briefing ripeness and standing, concurrence (June 28).
               - Brief by plaintiffs, defendants (July 9).
               - Order dismissing relevant claims (July 30).
               - U.S. Supreme Court
                    - Notice of appeal (Aug. 12).
                    - Jurisdictional statement (Sept. 25).
                    - State's motion to dismiss or affirm (Oct. 25), opposition (Nov. 12).
                    - Order dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction (Dec. 2).
     - Trial court II
          - Motions for summary judgment by:
               - ALBC plts. (partial) (Aug. 27, 2012), opp. (Oct. 26), reply (Nov. 2).
               - ALBC plts. (partial) (brief) (Feb. 6, 2013), resp. (Feb. 28), reply (Mar. 4).
                    - Opinion denying motion for summary judgment, concurrence (Apr. 5).
               - Defendants (partial) (Apr. 4), response (Apr. 17), reply (Apr. 24).
               - Defendants (ALBC plaintiffs) (June 17), response (July 10), reply (July 17).
               - Defendants (Newton plaintiffs) (June 17), response (July 10), reply (July 17).
                    - Opinion granting some motions, denying others, partial concur (Aug. 2).
          - Pretrial joint stipulation of facts (Aug. 2).
          - Proposed post-trial findings by ALBC plts., Newton plts., State (Aug. 21).
          - Suggestion of death (Sept. 18), response (Sept. 25).
          - Opinion rejecting challenges and finding for state (and dissent) (Dec. 20).
     - U.S. Supreme Court
          - Notice of appeal (Jan. 6, 2014).
          - Jurisdictional statement of AL Leg. Black Caucus (app. 1, 2) (Jan. 23).
               - Joint motion to dismiss or affirm (Apr. 21), reply (May 2).
          - Jurisdictional statement of AL Dem. Conf. (Mar. 14).
               - Joint motion to dismiss or affirm (Apr. 21), opposition (May 5).
          - Order accepting jurisdiction, setting for argument (June 2).
          - Brief for AL Dem. Conf., AL Leg. Black Caucus (Aug. 13).
               - Amicus briefs by
                 ADL, Brennan Center, NAACP LDF, NC litigants (Aug. 20).
                 DOJ, Lawyers' Comm., Prof. Gaddie et al. (Aug. 20).
          - Brief for State (Oct. 9).
               - Amicus briefs by AL leg. leaders, Oldham, Pacific Legal Found. (Oct. 16).
          - Replies for AL Dem. Conf. (Oct. 28), AL Leg. Black Caucus (Oct. 27).
          - AL Leg. Black Caucus supp. brief re county delegations, standing (Jan. 30, 2015).
               - Response (Feb. 26).
          - Opinion vacating trial court opinion, remanding (Mar. 25).
     - Trial court III  « NEW
          - Motion for summ. judg. (exh. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P) (Apr. 28, 2015).
               - Order denying motion, with leave to refile (Apr. 29).
          - Status report and clarification of claims (May 13).
          - Order re previous findings/rulings, statement of Judge Thompson (May 29).
               - Motion for reconsideration (June 12), denied (July 27).
          - Post-remand brief by AL Leg. Black Caucus, AL Dem. Conf. (June 12).
               - Post-remand brief by State (exh. 1, 2, 3) (July 24).
               - Reply by AL Leg. Black Caucus, AL Dem. Conf. (Aug. 7).
          - Conditional motion to certify questions to AL Sup. Ct. (July 24).
          - Order to respond to requests for info (Aug. 13).
               - Responses by AL Leg. Black Caucus (exh.), AL Dem. Conf. (exh. 4A, 5A) (Aug. 19).
               - Response by State (1, 2) (exh.) (Aug. 19).
          - Order requiring plaintiffs to draw map pursuant to certain criteria (Aug. 28).
               - Responses by AL Leg. Black Caucus, ADC (Sept. 25).
          - Defendants’ motion to amend the briefing schedule (Sept. 29).
               - ADC plaintiffs' response, opposition (Sept. 30).
               - Defendants' reply (Oct. 1).
               - Order granting the amendment of the briefing schedule in part (Oct. 2).
          - ADC notice of supplemental filing (apps. 7A2, 7A6, 8A5) (Oct. 15).
               - Defendants’ response (Nov. 13).
          - ALBC plaintiffs' notice of intervening case law and reply to defendants' brief,
           correction (Nov. 23).
               - Second notice and opinion (Dec. 21).
          - ADC notice of intervening court decision in related case
           and memorandum opinion (Feb. 8, 2016).
          - Notice of Supplemental Authority (Exhibit) (Apr. 22).
          - Notice of intervening case law (Apr. 27).
          - Notice by Alabama Democratic Conference et al Response to
            Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority (May 5).
          - Plaintiffs Supplemental Authority Attachment(1) (Aug. 12).
          - Plaintiff Supplemental Authority (Aug. 15).
          - Plaintiffs Notice of Supplemental Authority Attachment(1) (Sept. 26).
          - Notice by Alabama Association of Black County Officials (Dec. 19).
          - Notice of Appeal (Dec. 19).
          - Memorandum Opinion & Order (January 20, 2017).
          - Status Conference set for February 14, 2017 (Jan. 20)
          - Notice by Randy Davis, Gerald Dial, Jim McClendon of Filing Joint
            Proposed Remedy Phase Procedu (Feb. 7).
          - Order: 1) The status conference set on February 14, 2017, is cancelled;
            (2) The deadlines set out in the Joint Proposed Remedy Phase Procedures
            (Doc. # 326 ) are approved and adopted by the Court; (3) The ADC Plaintiffs'
            objections to the content of the submissions that the other parties propose
            should accompany the redistricting plans are overruled to the extent and in the
            manner explained herein; and (4) Before the close of business on May 24, 2017,
            the State Defendants shall file a notice informing the Court whether legislative
            redistricting plans were passed or not, and, if so, identifying the respective
            bill numbers. (Feb. 10).
          - Order regarding Motion for Interim Award of Fees (April 26).

The latest: On December 26, 2012, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to an allegation of an equal population violation involving malapportionment of districts involving distinct local legislative delegations, but not with respect to racial gerrymandering claims. The court also dismissed a partisan gerrymandering claim, with leave for plaintiffs to amend in order to offer a justiciable standard; after plaintiffs did so, the court denied plaintiffs summary judgment on this claim on April 5, 2013, and granted defendants summary judgment on this claim on July 30. The decision with respect to the equal population violation was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on December 2 for lack of jurisdiction.

On June 17, the state defendants moved for summary judgment against all plaintiffs on all remaining counts; the court dismissed a claim based on the impact of redistricting on the composition of local delegations given difference on local bills, but denied summary judgment on the racial discrimination claims, sending the case to trial. On December 20, 2013, the court ruled for the state defendants, rejecting all remaining claims (including the racial gerrymandering challenge).

On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court opinion with respect to the racial gerrymandering claim, and remanded. The Court found that the trial court incorrectly analyzed whether race predominated in the drawing of particular districts, and that Alabama's mechanically demographic approach to race did not amount to legitimate compliance with the Voting Rights Act. (That analysis closely follows my own.) The trial court will now reassess plaintiffs' racial gerrymandering challenges; the Court's opinion strongly suggests that at least some of the challenged districts will be found to be unconstitutional. On August 28, 2015, the trial court issued an order requiring plaintiffs to submit a new map within 28 days, pursuant to certain criteria laid out in the court's order.

Newton v. Alabama, No. 2:12-cv-01081 (M.D. Ala.): an action in federal court challenging the state legislative lines as allegedly violating the Voting Rights Act, and as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.
- Complaint (Dec. 13, 2012).
The latest: On December 19, this case was consolidated with Ala. Legis. Black Caucus v. Alabama, above.

Alabama v. Holder, No. 1:11-CV-01628 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of Alabama's congressional districts.
- Complaint (Sept. 9, 2011).
The latest: After the plan was precleared on November 21, plaintiffs dismissed the complaint.
Alabama v. Holder II, No. 1:12-cv-01232 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of Alabama's state legislative districts.
- Complaint (July 26, 2012).
- Notice of dismissal (Oct. 5, 2012).
The latest: After the districts were precleared on October 5, plaintiffs dismissed the complaint.
Sexton v. Bentley, No. CV-2012-00503 (Ala. Circuit Ct., Montgomery County): an action in state court challenging the legislature's authority to draw state districts after the end of the regular legislative session.
     - Complaint (May 17, 2012).
     - Motion for temporary restraining order (May 17), response (May 18).
          - Order denying temporary restraining order (May 18).
     - Motion to dismiss (May 18).
     - 2d motion to dismiss by legislators, governor (June 11).
     - Notice of dismissal (Aug. 15).
The latest: On August 15, 2012, the case was voluntarily dismissed.

Florida
Due to the volume of filings, information on the Florida cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.

Georgia
Dwight v. Kemp, No. 1:18-cv-02869 (N.D. Ga.): an action in federal court challenging the congressional plan as unlawfully diluting African-American voting power under the Voting Rights Act.
- Complaint (6/13/18), amd. complaint (7/13/18).
- Motion to dismiss (exh.) (7/5/18), denied as moot (8/9/18).
The latest: On June 18, 2018, the complaint was filed. A motion to dismiss was filed on July 5, 2018.
GA State Conf. of the NAACP v. Georgia, No. 1:17-cv-01427 (N.D. Ga.): an action in federal court challenging two state House districts redrawn in the 2015 redistricting as unconstitutional racial and partisan gerrymanders, and as a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
     - Complaint (4/24/17), 1st amd. complaint (9/11/18).
     - Partial motion to dismiss (5/30/17), opposition (6/13/17), reply (6/27/17).
          - Opinion dismissing partisan gerrymandering and Voting Rights Act claims (8/25/17).
     - Thompson plaintiffs' 1st amd. complaint (10/27/17).
     - Motion to dismiss (exh. A) (11/13/17), opp. (11/27/17), reply (12/11/17).
          - Voluntary dismissal of Wayne Swanson's claims (2/6/18).
          - Opinion dismissing intentional discrimination claims (2/23/18).
          - Order allowing amd. complaint w/partisan gerrymandering claim after Gill (9/4/18).
     - Expert reports for
       plaintiffs, by Chen, Cooper (exh. A, B, C1, C2, D, E1, E2), McCrary, Webster (12/22/17).
       defendants (exh. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) (1/24/18), by Alford (1/31/18).
          - Rebuttals by Chen, McCrary (2/12/18).
     - Depositions by plaintiffs
       (Alford, Balfour, Chandler, Efstration, Jones, Nix, Rutledge, Strickland, Welch).
          - Plaintiffs' deposition exhibits (A, B, C, D, E, F).
     - Depositions by defendants (Chen, Harrell, Johnson, McLeod, Payton).
     - Motion for preliminary injunction (exh. 2-90) (2/20/18).
          - Opposition (decl. by Barnes, Harvey, Ledford, Lunsford, Taing, Wright) (3/26/18).
          - Reply (exh.) (4/9/18).
          - Opinion denying preliminary injunction (6/1/18).
     - Additional expert reports for
       plaintiffs, by Cooper (exhs.), Engstrom, McDonald (8/6/18).
       defendants, by Alford, Wright (exhs.) (9/28/18).
       plaintiffs, by Cooper (exhs.), Engstrom (10/19/18).
The latest: On August 25, 2017, the court dismissed the partisan gerrymandering and Voting Rights Act claims of the GA NAACP plaintiffs; on February 23, 2018, the court dismissed the intentional discrimination claims of the Thompson plaintiffs. Some racial gerrymandering and some Voting Rights Act claims remain on September 4, 2018, in the aftermath of Gill v. Whitford, the court allowed the amendment of the complaints to re-allege partisan gerrymandering claims. On June 1, 2018, the court declined to grant a preliminary injunction.

Thompson v. Kemp (also Brooks v. Kemp), No. 1:17-cv-03856 (N.D. Ga.): an action in federal court challenging two state House districts redrawn in the 2015 redistricting as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, as districts unconstitutionally drawn with the intent to harm based on race, and as a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
- Complaint (10/3/17), 1st (10/27/17), 2d (7/14/18), 3d (9/13/18) amd. complaint.
The latest: An amended complaint was filed on October 27, 2017. On November 1, 2017, the case was consolidated for pretrial purposes with GA NAACP v. Georgia, above.

Howard v. Augusta-Richmond County, No. 1:14-cv-00097 (S.D. Ga.): an action in federal court claiming that a change in the election date of Augusta-Richmond elections could not be enforced, based on a DOJ objection to the change before the decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
     - Complaint (Apr. 14, 2014).
     - Motion for appointment of 3-judge court (Apr. 21), opp. (Apr. 30), reply (May 2).
          - Order denying appointment of 3-judge court (May 13).
     - Motion for preliminary injunction (Apr. 22), opp. (Apr. 30), reply (May 12).
          - Order denying motion as moot (May 13).
     - Motion to dismiss (Apr. 30), opp. (May 7).
          - Order granting motion to dismiss (May 13).
The latest: On May 13, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court framed the issue not as whether Shelby County was retroactive, but as whether section 5 stood as an obstacle to the enforcement of Georgia's law. Although the DOJ had objected to the law, and had not withdrawn its objection, the county was still eligible to seek judicial preclearance, which would necessarily be granted after Shelby County's holding that the 2006 formula for applying section 5 was unconstitutional.

Georgia v. Holder, No. 1:11-CV-01788 (D.D.C.): an action in federal court requesting preclearance of Georgia's state legislative and congressional districts, and in the alternative, requesting a declaration that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.
     - Complaint (Oct. 6, 2011).
     - Motion to dismiss (Dec. 23).
     - Order dismissing the case (Jan. 3).
The latest: After districts were precleared, the case was dismissed on January 3.

D.C. Circuit
District of Columbia
These cases pertain to cases brought by local jurisdictions involving important challenges under the Voting Rights Act, including challenges in the Supreme Court to the constitutionality of various portions of the Voting Rights Act.

Due to the volume of filings, information on these cases, including the Supreme Court cases challenging the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, is located on a separate litigation page, here.

Litigation in the 2010 cycle

Latest site updates

My redistricting work

My faculty page

Department of Justice

Census Bureau

Brennan Center for Justice: redistricting

Other links

Congress	State legislature	Maps & Data	States
Current status	Current status		Alabama	Indiana	Nebraska	South Carolina
Timing	Timing		Alaska	Iowa	Nevada	South Dakota
Authority	Authority	Litigation	Arizona	Kansas	New Hampshire	Tennessee
Institution	Institution		Arkansas	Kentucky	New Jersey	Texas
Party control	Party control		California	Louisiana	New Mexico	Utah
Criteria	Criteria	Reform	Colorado	Maine	New York	Vermont
			Connecticut	Maryland	North Carolina	Virginia
			Delaware	Massachusetts	North Dakota	Washington
			Florida	Michigan	Ohio	West Virginia
			Georgia	Minnesota	Oklahoma	Wisconsin
Overview of redistricting		Further resources	Hawaii	Mississippi	Oregon	Wyoming
Why it matters	Redistricting criteria	My work	Idaho	Missouri	Pennsylvania
Public engagement	Preclearance	Tools	Illinois	Montana	Rhode Island