FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JAN 9, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13508 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -003 52 -C V -C G -C L I O N E L G U S T A F S O N , T H O M A S M . B R O W N , e t a l., P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s T H E H O N O R A B L E A D R I A N J O H N S , T H E H O N O R A B L E A L F R E D Q . B O O T H , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s , L O W E L L B A R R O N , H E N R Y ( H A N K ) S A N D E R S , e t a l., Int erveno r- D ef endant sA p p el l ees.Pur su ant to 2 8 U .S. C. § 22 84 (a), a thre e -j udg efe deral di stric t c ourt wa s empa

ne le d to 1 hear this case. Sec tion 2284(a) state s that “[a] di strict court of three judg es shall be c onvened when other

wise re quired by

Act of Congress, or when an action is filed challeng ing the constitutionality

of the a pportionment of congressional districts or the a pportionment of any statewide le g islative body .” 2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 9, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a nt s , ni ne t e e n A l a ba m a vot e r s , f i l e d s ui tc ha l l e ngi ng A l a ba m a ’ s 2001 le g is la tiv e r e d is tr ic tin g p la n s , A c ts 2 0 0 1 - 7 2 7 a n d 2 0 0 1 - 7 2 9 . ( A la . C o d e § 2 9 - 1 - 2 .3 ( 2001) a nd A l a . C ode § 29- 1- 1. 2 ( 2001) , r e s pe c t i ve l y ) . A ppe l l a nt s c l a i m tha tthe re di stri ct i ng pl ans: (1) vi ol at e the const i tut i on al gu ar ant ee of on e- pers on , on e- vo t e; (2 ) co n st i tu t e i l l eg al p art i san g errym an d eri n g ; an d (3 ) v i o l at e A p p el l an t s’ F i rst A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o the f r e e dom of

a s s oc i a t i on. A f

t e rc onduc t i ng a be nc h tr i a l , the thr e e - j udge di s tr i c tc our t he l d tha ta l l P l a i nt i f f s ’ c l a i m s w e r e ba rr e d unde rthe 1 d o c tr in e o f

r e s ju d ic a ta a n d d is m is s e d A p p e lla n ts ’ c la im s w ith p r e ju d ic e . T h is ap p e a le d e n s u e d .3 B AC KG R OU ND O n J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , A p p e lla n ts b r o u g h t th is la w s u it a g a in s t A lab a m a p r o b a te ju d g e s to c h a lle n g e th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f th e 2 0 0 1 A lab a m a r e d is tr ic tin g p la n s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a llo w e d G o v e rn o rB o b R ile y to in te r v e n e o n b e h a lf o f th e p e o p le of A l a ba m a , a nd S e na t orL ow e l l B a rr on, S e na t orH a nk S a nde r s , a nd R e p r e s e n ta tiv e S e th H a m m e tt a ls o in te r v e n e d in th e irin d iv id u a l c ap a c itie s . D e f e n d a n ts f ile d a m o tio n f

o rju d g m e n t o n th e p le a d in g s a n d S e n a to rL o w e ll B arron, S enat or H ank S anders , and R epre se nt at i ve S eth H am m ett(“ A pp el l ee s” ) fi l ed m o t i o n s t o d i sm i ss. T he di s tr i c tc our tor de r e d a be nc h tr i a l on the i s s ue of r e s j udi c a t a , s i nc e the m ot i on s t o d i sm i ss and t he m ot i on for j ud gm enton the pl ea di ng s a rgued t hat A ppe l l a nt s ’ c l a i m s w e r e ba rr e d by pr e vi ous l i t i ga t i on tha tc ha l l e nge d the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of

A l a ba m a ’ s 2001 r e di s tr i c t i ng pl a ns . A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the e xt e ns i ve r e c or d i n thi s c a s e , the di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue d a n or de rdi s m i s s i ng A p p e lla n ts ’ c la im s b a s e d o n r e s ju d ic a ta . G us taf s on v . J ohns , 434 F . S upp. 2d 1246 ( S . D . A l a . 2006) . I n the or de r , the di s tr i c tc our ts e tf or th a de t a i l e d hi s t or y of the l i t i gat i on surr ou nd i ng A l abam a’ s 200 1 redi stri ct i ng pl ans, and t he key pl ay er s in v o lv e d in th a t litig a tio n . Id . at12 48 -53. T he m ostpert i nentof these fa ct s a re as f o llo w s .4

I n J u n e 2 0 0 1 , tw o s e p a r a te la w s u its w e r e f ile d in f e d e r a l c o u r t, B arnet t

v. A labam a a nd Mo n tie l v . D a v is . B oth l aw sui t s a l l eged thatA l abam a’ s l egi sl ature h a d f a ile d to r e d r a w its d is tr ic ts . B a r n e tt a nd Mon t i el

w e r e a s s i g n e d t o th e s a me di stri ctcourtj ud ge. A ft erthese l aw sui t s w er e f i l ed, A l abam a’ s l egi sl ature c onve ne d a s pe c i a l s e s s i on t o r e dr a w the l e gi s l a t i ve di s tr i c t s , a nd the r e di s tr i c t i ng pl ans w er e pas se d b y A l abam a’ s L egi sl ature, si gn ed by the G ov erno r, and p as se d in to la w . I n lig h t o f

th e s e d e v e lo p m e n ts , A lab a m a ’s A tto rn e y G e n e r a l m o v e d to di sm i ss bo th the B a r n e tt a nd Mon t i el

l a w s ui t s , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tor de r e d the pl ai nt i ff s i n b oth cas es t o res po nd t o the A tt orney G ener al ’ s m ot i on s. T he Mon t i el pl a i nt i f f s r e s ponde d by a m e ndi ng the i rc om pl a i nta nd di r e c t l y c ha l l e ngi ng the const i tut i on al i ty of the re di stri ct i ng pl ans. T he B a r n e tt pl a i nt i f f s di d nota m e nd thei r c om pl ai nt , and t he di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed the ca se as m oo t . T he Mon t i el pl ai nt i ff s a l l eged thatthe 20 01 re di stri ct i ng pl ans vi ol at ed the const i tut i on al r e qui r e m e nt s of

one - pe r s on, one - vot e a nd c ons t i tut e d i l l e ga l r a c i a l ge rry m a nde r i ng by ove rpopul a t i ng w hi t e m a j or i ty di s tr i c t s a nd the r e by di l ut i ng the i rvot e . T he d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e d e f e n d a n ts o n b o th c la im s . Mo n tie l v . D a v is , 21 5 F . S up p. 2d 12 79 , 12 88 -89 (S . D . A l a. 20 02 ). In the ca se before thi s C ou rt , the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatthe l aw sui tw as bei ng m anaged by a L i t i gat i on M anagem entC om m i tt ee (“ C om m i tt ee ”) com po se dWhil e the Ba rn e tt casewas not re solved on the merits, the district cour t found that the 2 persons drivingthe Ba rn e tt lawsuit werefully

awa re of Mo nti e l suit and acquie sced to the f inal judgment in Montiel . 5 o f J e rry L a th a n , S e n a to rS te p h e n F r e n c h , a n d M a r ty C o n n o r s . A ll th r e e h a d tie s to th e R e p u b lic a n P a r ty o f A lab a m a . T h e C o m m itte e in s tig a te d th e p r e s e n t la w s u it a f t e rthe S upr e m e C our ts um m a r i l y a f f i r m e d a thr e e -

j udge f e de r a l c our t ’ s de c i s i on tha tG e or gi a ’ s s t a t e l e gi s l a t i ve r e appor t i onm e ntpl a ns vi ol a t e d the one pe r s on, one v o te p r in c ip le . Se e L ar i os v . C ox , 542 U . S . 947, 124 S . C t . 2806, 159 L . E d. 2d 8 3 1 (2 0 0 4 ). T h e d i stri ctco u rtfo u n d th atth e C o m m i tt ee recru i t ed th e p l ai n t i ffs, hi re d the l aw ye rs , ra i se d fun ds, and m ade l i t i gat i on deci si on s. T he di stri ctcourt a ls o f o u n d th a t L a th a n , F r e n c h , a n d C o n n o r s w e r e th e d r iv in g f o r c e s b e h in d b o th the M on t i el a nd B a r n e tt

l aw sui t s. A ft ercond uct i ng tho roug h anal ys i s, the di stri ct

2 courtconcl ud ed A pp el l ant s’ cl ai m s w er e barre d b as ed on the do ctri ne of re s j ud i ca t a gi ven t he Mon t i el s u it. ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW We r e v i e w de nov o a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n c lu s io n to ap p ly r e s ju d ic a ta . E qual E m pl oym ent

O pp ortun i t

y C om m ’n v. P em co A er op l ex, Inc. , 383 F . 3d 1280, 1285 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ). T he fa ctual det erm i nat i on s und er l yi ng thi s c on cl usi on ar e accep t ed o n rev i ew u n l ess cl earl y erro n eo u s. R i c har ds on v . A labam a Stat e B d. of E du c. , 93 5 F . 2d 12 40 , 12 44 (11t h C i r. 19 91 ).6 J UR I S DI C T I ON A s a n i ni t i al m att er , A pp el l ee s a rgue thatthi s C ou rtl ac ks j uri sdi ct i on t o h ea r thi s appe a l , be c aus e the U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C our tha s e xc l us i ve j ur i s di c t i on p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 3 to h e a rap p e a ls f r o m th r e e -

ju d g e f e d e r a l c o u r ts . S ect i o n 1 2 5 3 st at es: D i rectap p eal s fro m d eci si o n s o f th ree-j u d g e co u rt s. E x cep tas o th erw i se prov i ded b y l aw , any par ty m ay appeal t o the S up re m e C ou rtfr om an order gr a nt i ng orde ny i ng, a f

t e rnot i c e a nd he a r i ng, a n i nt e r l oc ut ory orpe r m a ne nt i nj unc t i on i n a ny c i vi l a c t i on, s ui torpr oc e e di ng r e qui r e d by a ny A c tof C o n g ress t o b e h eard an d d et erm i n ed b y a d i stri ctco u rto f th ree j u d g es. 28 U . S . C . § 1253. H ow e ve r , i n M T M , Inc. v. B axl ey , 4 2 0 U .S . 7 9 9 , 8 0 4 , 9 5 S . C t. 1278, 1281, 43 L . E d. 2d 636 ( 1975) , the U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C our tc a r ve d out an except i on t o § 12 53 , ho l di ng “ thata di re ctappeal w i l l l i e t o thi s C ou rtun der § 1253 f r om the or de rof

a thr e e - j udge f e de r a l c our tde ny i ng i nt e r l oc ut or y or pe r m a ne nti nj unc t i ve r e l i e f onl y w he r e s uc h or de rr e s t s upon r e s ol ut i on of the m e r i t s of the c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m pr e s e nt e d be l ow . ” A ppe l l e e s a r gue tha ti n 1976, a y ea r a ft er M TM

w as deci ded, C on gres s r epea l ed the three -j ud ge fe dera l court s ta tu te a n d e n a c te d a n e w th r e e - ju d g e f e d e r a l c o u r t s ta tu te . H o w e v e r , M TM ha s not be e n ove rrul e d, a nd w e a r e the r e f or e r e qui r e d t o f

ol l ow i t s hol di ng. S i nc e a f i ndi ng tha ta pl a i nt i f

f’ s c l a i m i s ba rr e d by r e s j udi c a t a i s nota r e s ol ut i on on the m e r i t s of th e c o n s titu tio n a l c la im , w e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to h e a rth is ap p e a l. See C ash v.Ap p e l l e e s al s o argu eth atth i s c a s ei s g o v e r n e d b y St. John v. W

isconsin Employment 3 Relations Bd. , 340 U.S. 411, 71 S. C t. 375, 95 L . Ed. 386 (1951). I n St. John , the Supreme Court did hear a dire ct appe al af

ter a three -judg e fe deral court bar red a claim base d on res judicata, and this case ha s not been e xplicitly overr uled. However, MT

M , which wa s decide d twenty four year s after St. John , car

ved out an the e x ception to § 1253 and provides the Supreme Court’ s most current rea soning on this issue. 7 B a rn h a rt , 327 F . 3d 1252, 1256 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( s t a t i ng tha ta de c i s i on ba s e d on re s j ud i ca t a i s nota dec i si on on the m er i t s) . 3 DI S C US S I ON I n or de rf

orr e s j udi c a t a t o ba rA ppe l l a nt s ’ c l a i m s “ f oure l e m e nt s m us tbe pr e s e nt : ( 1) the r e m us tbe a f i na l j udgm e nton the m e r i t s , ( 2) the de c i s i on m us tbe r e n d e r e d b y a c o u r t o f

c o m p e te n t ju r is d ic tio n , ( 3 ) th e p a r tie s , o rth o s e in p r iv ity w i th the m , m us tbe i de nt i c a l i n both s ui t s ; a nd ( 4) the s a m e c a us e of a c t i on m us tbe i nv ol ved i n b oth cas es . ” I . A . D ur bi n, I

nc . v . J e f f e rs on N at ’ l B ank , 793 F . 2d 1541, 1549 ( 11th C i r . 1986) . T he pa r t i e s do notdi s put e tha tthe f i r s ttw o e l e m e nt s ha ve b e e n m e t. A p p e lla n ts d is p u te th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g s th a t th e th ir d a n d f o u r th e le m e n ts w e r e m e t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th a t th e A p p e lla n ts w e r e in p r iv ity w i th the Mon t i el

pl ai nt i ff s und erthe do ctri ne of vi rtual re pres ent at i on . T he di stri ct courtal so foun d thatthi s c as e a nd the Mon t i el c a s e h a d th e s a m e c a u s e s o f a c tio n . A . V i r tua l R e pr e s e nt a t i on T he Mon t i el

p la in tif f s a n d th e p la in tif

f s in th is c a s e a r e n o t id e n tic a l; th e r e f o r e , th e p la in tif

f s in th e tw o c a s e s m u s t b e in p r iv ity f o rr e s ju d ic a ta to ap p ly .8

P r iv ity ap p lie s w h e n a p e r s o n , th o u g h n o t a p a r ty to th e s u it, h a s h is in te r e s ts a d e q u a te ly r e p r e s e n te d b y a p la in tif f in th e s u it. P em co , 3 8 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 6 . W e ha ve r e c ogni z e d tha tpr i vi ty c a n e xi s tunde rthe doc tr i ne of vi r tua l r e pr e s e nt a t i on, an d th e d i stri ctco u rtfo u n d th atth e fact s est ab l i sh ed th atA p p el l an t s i n th i s case w er e vi rtual l y r epre se nt ed by the Mon t i el P la in tif f s . T he do ctri ne of vi rtual re pres ent at i on “ supp ort s afi nd i ng of pri vi ty ‘ w hen the r e s pe c t i ve i nt e r e s t s a r e c l os e l y a l i gne d a nd the pa r ty t o the pr i orl i t i ga t i on adequat el y r epre se nt ed tho se i nt er es t s. ’ ” Jaf f re e v . W al lace , 837 F . 2d 1461, 1467 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . W e h a v e e m p lo y e d th e f o llo w in g f

a c to r s to de t e r m i ne i f

vi r tua l r e pr e s e nt a t i on e xi s t s be tw e e n pa r t i e s : ( 1) pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the f i r s tl i t i ga t i on, ( 2) appa r e ntc ons e ntt o be bound, ( 3) appa r e ntt a c t i c a l m a ne uve r i ng, a n d ( 4 ) c lo s e r e la tio n s h ip s b e tw e e n th e p a r tie s a n d n o n - p a r tie s . Id . A l l o f th ese f a c t or s ne e d notbe f

ound; “ r a the r , w e e xa m i ne [ the f a c t or s ] i n c onc e r tt o de t e r m i ne w hether there i s vi rtual re pres ent at i on . ” P em co , 383 F . 3d a t1287. “ W he the ror no ta par ty i s avi rtual re pres ent at i ve of anot her i s aqu es t i on of fa ct . ” Id . H a vi ng r e vi e w e d both the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de ra nd the r e c or d, w e c a nnot s a y th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly e rr e d in f in d in g th a t A p p e lla n ts w e r e v ir tu a lly re pres ent ed by the Mon t i el P la in tif f s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e n g a g e d in a n e x c e e d in g ly thor ough a na l y s i s of

the s pe c i f

i c f a c t s of thi s c a s e a nd c or r e c t l y appl i e d the m t o theAppellants argue that the district cour t improperly

applied the c ontrol theory in finding 4 privity be tw e e n th epa

rtie s. Ho wever, thedis tric t c ourt did no t us ethec ontrol t

he or y in establishing privity ; rather , it employed the theor y of virtual representation. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, Alabama , 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) 5 (en banc) , this court adopted a s binding pre cedent all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to Oc tober 1, 1981.

9 vi rtual re pres ent at i on fa ct ors, and w e f i nd no cl ea r e rr or. 4 H ow ever , w e w i l l further di sc uss A pp el l ant s’ ar gu m entthatthe di stri ctcourt e rr e d b y r e

je c tin g th is C o u r t’s r e q u ir e m e n t th a t “le g a l a c c o u n tab ility ” e x is ts betw ee n p art i es and n on -par t i es for vi rtual re pres ent at i on t o app l y. W e have s t at ed tha tf orvi r tua l r e pr e s e nt a t i on t o appl y , the pa r ty t o the pr i orl a w s ui tha s t o be “le g a lly a c c o u n tab le ” to th e p a r ty in th e s u b s e q u e n t la w s u it. P em co , 38 3 F . 3d at 1 2 8 9 . W e d escri b ed l eg al acco u n t ab i l i ty ap p l yi n g t o th e fo l l o w i n g rel at i o n sh i p s:

“ e s t a t e be ne f

i c i a r i e s bound by a dm i ni s tr a t or s , pr e s i de nt s a nd s ol e s t a ke hol de r s by the i rc om pa ni e s , pa r e ntc orpor a t i on by the i rs ubs i di a r i e s , a nd a trus tbe ne f i c i a ry by the trust ee . ” P o lla r d

v . C o c kn e ll , 57 8 F . 2d 10 02 , 10 08 -09 (5t h C i r. 19 78 ). 5 T he Mon t i el

pl ai nt i ff s w er e notl egal l y a cc ou nt abl e t o A pp el l ant s a s c ont e m pl a t e d i n P o l la rd . H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtm ade adi st i nct i on betw ee n pri vat e l aw i ss ues a nd pu bl i c l aw i ss ues. T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed that re d istricti n g “i s a p u b li c a ctio n th at h as o n ly an in d irec t i m p ac t o n a p lain ti ff’s i nt er es t . ” G us taf

s on , 43 4 F . S up p. 2d at12 57 . T he di stri ctcourthel d thatthere fore10

a p la in tif f n e e d n o t h a v e le g a l a c c o u n tab ility to a p la in tif f in a s u b s e q u e n t la w s u it f o rv ir tu a l r e p r e s e n ta tio n to ap p ly . G us taf s on , 4 3 4 F .S u p p . 2 d 1 2 5 7 n .7 . T h is h o l d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n twi th Un i t e d S t a t e S u p r e m e C o u r ta n d th i s C i r c u i t ’ s c a s e l a w. I n R i c h a r d

s v . J e f f e rs o n C o u n t

y, A la b a ma , 5 1 7 U .S . 7 9 3 , 8 0 3 , 1 1 6 S C t. 17 61 , 17 68 , 13 5 L . E d. 2d 76 (199 6), the S up re m e C ou rtdi st i ng ui shed betw ee n pr i va t e c a us e s of

a c t i on a nd “ othe rpubl i c a c t i on tha tha s onl y a n i ndi r e c ti m pa c ton [ a pl a i nt i f

f s ] i nt e r e s t s . ” T hi s C i r c ui t , c i t i ng R i c har ds , ha s a l s o a c know l e dge d the di f f e r e nc e be tw e e n the tw o ty pe s of a c t i ons a nd s t a t e d tha ti n publ i c l a w a c t i ons the S up re m e C ou rthas s ug gest ed “ thatthere i s l es s pre cl usi on prot ec t i on for apl ai nt i ff w h o c o m p la in [ s ] a b o u t . . . [ a ] p u b lic a c tio n th a t h a s o n ly a n in d ir e c t im p a c t o n h is i nt er es t s. ” P em co , 383 F . 3d a t1289. S i nc e both thi s c a s e a nd Mon t i el case i nvol ve the publ i c l a w i s s ue of c ha l l e ngi ng A l a ba m a ’ s r e di s tr i c t i ng pl a ns , w e f i nd thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n h ol di ng thatthe pl ai nt i ff s i n the tw o cas es need n o th av e h ad a l eg al l y acco u n t ab l e rel at i o n sh i p fo r res j u d i cat a t o ap p l y. B . S a m e C a us e s of

A c t i on R e s ju d ic a ta w ill o n ly ap p ly if th e s a m e c a u s e s o f

a c tio n w e r e b r o u g h t in bo th cas es . T he sa m e c ause s of a ct i on “ ext ends no ton l y t o p re ci se l egal theory pr e s e nt e d i n the pr e vi ous l i t i ga t i on, butt o a l l l e ga l the or i e s a nd c l a i m s a r i s i ng out of the sa m e ‘ op er at i ve nu cl eus of f ac t . ’ ” O lm s t e ad v . A m oc o O i l C o. , 725 F . 2d 627,11

6 3 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . C la im s f ile d in a s e c o n d la w s u it a r e b a rr e d if th e y c o u ld ha ve be e n r a i s e d i n the e a r l i e rpr oc e e di ng. D avi la v. D el ta A i r L i nes, Inc. , 326 F . 3d 1183, 1187 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . “ T he pr i nc i pa l t e s tf orde t e r m i ni ng w he the rthe c a u s e s o f a c tio n a r e th e s a m e is w h e th e rth e p r im a ry r ig h t a n d d u ty a r e th e s a m e in ea ch ca se . ” D u r b in , 793 F . 2d a t1549. I n de t e r m i ni ng w he the rthe c a us e s of a c t i on a r e th e s a m e , w e lo o k to th e s u b s ta n c e o f th e a c tio n , n o t th e irf

o r m . Id . A ppl y i ng the s e pr i nc i pl e s t o thi s c a s e , w e f i nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d not err i n fi nd i ng thatthe causes of ac t i on i n the Mon t i el ca se i nv ol ve the sa m e c ause s of a c t i on pr e s e nt e d i n thi s c a s e . T he c a us e s of a c t i on i n both c a s e s a r os e outof the s a m e “ ope r a t i ve nuc l e us of f a c t ” - the 2001 r e di s tr i c t i ng pl a ns . F ur the r m or e , the c l a i m s i n both c a s e s i nvol ve the s a m e “ pr i m a ry r i ghta nd duty ” i n tha tthe c a us e s of a c t i on s oughtt o i nva l i da t e the r e di s tr i c t i ng pl a ns be c a us e the popul a t i on de vi a t i ons w ith in th e p la n s c r e a te d a s itu a tio n w h e r e v o te s w e r e g iv e n u n e q u a l w e ig h t. W h ile A pp el l ant s a rgue thatthei r par t i sa n g erry m anderi ng cl ai m coul d n othave been brou gh tby the Mon t i el

P l ai nt i ff s s i nce they r es i ded i n d i ff er entdi stri ct s, the di stri ct courthel d, and w e a gree , thatthe part i sa n g erry m anderi ng cl ai m coul d h ave been b r o u g h t b e f

o r e . A p p e lla n ts d id n o t r a is e th e irp a r tis a n g e rry m a n d e r in g c la im w ith r e s p e c t to s p e c if

ic d is tr ic ts ; r a th e r , th e irc la im c h a lle n g e d th e r e d is tr ic tin g p la n in i t s e nt i re ty. In bo th cas es , al l the cl ai m s have the sa m e s ub st ance i n thattheyAppellants also argue that they should be allowed to c halleng e Alaba ma’s re districting 6 plans on partisan g err

y mandering grounds, bec ause thelaw surrounding pa rtisan g err

y mandering c laims had b e c omemorec le arly de fine d in

light o f t heSup remeCourt ’ssumma ry a ff ir manc ein Larios v. Cox . Whil e this Court has stated that re s judicata is inappropriate when therehas been a substantial chang e in the facts or law, Jaffree , 837 F.2d at 1469, the decision in Larios does not constitute a substantial cha ng e in the law. See Larios v. Cox , 300 F.Supp. 2d 1320, 1353 (N.D . Ga. 2004) . 12 c ha l l e nge the r e di s tr i c t i ng pl a ns ba s e d on popul a t i on de vi a t i ons . T he r e f or e , the appl i ca t i on of re s j ud i ca t a i s app ropri at e. 6 A cc ordi ng l y, w e f

i nd thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n fi nd i ng thatre s j u d i c a t a b a rr e d A p p e l l a n t s ’ c l a i ms a n d a f f i r m. A FFI R M ED .