Source: http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases-AK.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:08:00+00:00

Document:
Alaska v. Holder, No. 1:12-cv-01376 (D.D.C.): a challenge in federal court to the constitutionality of section 4(b) and section 5 (the coverage formula and preclearance provisions) of the Voting Rights Act.
- Complaint (Aug. 21, 2012) and amended complaint (Aug. 22).
- Stipulation of voluntary dismissal (Oct. 3, 2013).
The latest: The complaint was filed on August 21, 2012, with an amended complaint filed the next day. After the Shelby County v. Holder decision, the parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal on Oct. 3, 2013.
Samuelsen v. Treadwell, No. 3:12-cv-00118 (D. Alaska): a challenge in federal court to the implementation of the state's new legislative maps without preclearance.
- Complaint (June 6, 2012).
- Motion for TRO (June 6), opposition (June 11), reply (June 12).
- Order denying TRO (June 15).
- Motion for preliminary injunction (June 6), opposition (June 20), reply (June 25).
- Amicus AK Redistricting Board memorandum (June 27).
- Order re scope of oral argument (June 26).
- Preclearance of plan (June 27).
- Motion for voluntary dismissal, order granting dismissal (June 27).
The latest: On June 27, the Alaska interim plan was precleared, and the case was dismissed (on plaintiffs' request) the same day.
In re 2011 Redistricting Cases (was Riley v. Alaska Redistricting Board), No. 4FA-11-02209CI (Alaska Super. Ct., 4th Dist.), and Nos. S-14441, S-14721 & S-15201 (Alaska Sup. Ct.): a challenge in state court to the state legislative plan, based on an alleged failure to maintain Fairbanks in a compact, relatively integrated socio-economic area.
- Complaint (July 12, 2011).
- Motion to dismiss (Sept. 9).
- Opposition by Petersburg (Sept. 19), Fairbanks North Star Borough (Sept. 19).
- Order denying motion to dismiss (Sept. 22).
- Motion for partial summary judgment (community of interest) (Oct. 18).
- Opposition (Oct. 21), reply (Oct. 24).
- Decision granting the partial motion for summary judgment (Oct. 25).
- Petersburg et al. motion for partial summary judgment (compactness) (Oct. 18).
- Opposition (Nov. 4), reply (Nov. 18).
- Alaska Redistricting Board's cross-motion for summary judgment (Nov. 4).
- Opposition (Nov. 18), reply (Nov. 30).
- Decision denying plaintiff's motion and granting Board's cross-motion (Dec. 12).
- Motion re compactness (Dec. 5), opp. (Dec. 13), reply (Dec. 15), order (Dec. 23).
- Motion re contiguity (Dec. 5), opp. (Dec. 13), reply (Dec. 14), order (Dec. 23).
- Motion re process (Dec. 5), opp. (Dec. 16), reply (Dec. 21), order (Dec. 23).
- Motion re law of the case (Dec. 5), opp. (Dec. 16), reply (Dec. 20), order (Dec. 23).
- Motion re HD 38 (Dec. 5), opp. (Dec. 16), reply (Dec. 21), order (Dec. 23).
- Trial briefs by plaintiffs, defendant (Dec. 28).
- Amicus briefs by Aleutians East, Fairbanks, Bristol Bay Native Corp. (Jan. 23, 2012).
- Proposed findings by plaintiffs, defendants (Jan. 23).
- Opinion granting injunction against plan (Feb. 3).
- Petition for review by plaintiffs, defendant (Feb. 13).
- Response by defendant (Feb. 17).
- Excerpts of record (vol. 1, 2, supp.).
- Amicus briefs by Ahtna et al., Aleutians East, Calista Corp., Fairbanks (Feb. 17).
- Opinion remanding case for Board to redraw plan (Mar. 14).
- Notice of compliance, request for judgment (exh. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H) (Apr. 11).
- Objections by Petersburg, Riley (Apr. 16).
- Objections by Alaska Dems., Aleutians East, Bristol Bay Native Corp. (Apr. 16).
- Objections by Calista Corp. et al., Fairbanks, RIGHTs Coal. (Apr. 16).
- Alaska Redistricting Board consolidated reply (Apr. 18).
- Order rejecting plan, remanding for Board to redraw plan (Apr. 20).
- Petition for review of trial court order (May 1).
- Responses by Petersburg, Riley (May 8).
- Responses by Aleutians East, Calista Corp. et al. (May 8).
- Responses by Fairbanks, RIGHTs Coal. (May 8).
- Opinion affirming trial court (Dec. 28, 2012).
- Petition for rehearing (Jan. 7, 2013), order re petition (Feb. 15).
- Request for clarification (Mar. 19), opp. (Mar. 26), clarification (Apr. 24).
- Motion to set deadlines by Petersburg (aff.), Riley (May 15).
- Opposition (May 22), reply (May 24).
- Order re hearings and schedule (May 30).
- Order re motion for reconsideration (schedule) (June 11).
- Petition for review of scheduling order (June 21).
- Responses by Riley, Alaska Dems. (July 5).
- Responses by Bristol Bay Native Corp., Fairbanks (July 5).
- Order denying review (July 15).
- Petition for order re interim plan (May 3, 2012), further explanation (May 8).
- Response by Riley (May 8).
- Responses by Alaska Dem. Party, Aleutians East et al. (May 8).
- Responses by Bristol Bay, Calista Corp. et al., RIGHTs Coal. (May 8).
- Order remanding for adjustment of interim districts (May 10).
- Board's notice of compliance (and interim districts) (May 15).
- Responses by Petersburg (May 16), Riley (May 18).
- Responses by Chilkoot, Haines, Metlakatla, RIGHTs Coal. (May 18).
- Response by Sealaska et al. (May 18).
- Order requiring use of Apr. 5 plan for 2012 elections (May 22), dissent (June 19).
- Motion to stay implementation pending preclearance (May 22), denial (May 30).
- Request for entry of final judgment (July 18, 2013).
- Petersburg non-objection (July 22).
- Riley app. to correct errors in plan (July 25), amended (Aug. 15).
- Order stating remaining issues (Aug. 28).
- Riley et al. motion (Sept. 12), opp. (Sept. 23), reply (Sept. 26).
- ADP motion re socioecon. integration (Sept. 16), opp. (Sept. 26), reply (Oct. 1).
- ADP motion re compactness (Sept. 16), opp. (Sept. 23), reply (Sept. 26).
- Amicus by Fairbanks (Sept. 26).
- ADP motion re Mat-Su/Kenai (Sept. 16), opp. (Sept. 23), reply (Sept. 26).
- Motion re House dist. 1-5 equal pop. (Sept. 12), opp. (Sept. 23), reply (Sept. 26).
- Motion re House dist. 9/12 equal pop. (Sept. 12), opp. (Sept. 23), reply (Sept. 26).
- Motion re Sen. equal pop. (Sept. 12), opp. (Sept. 23), reply (Sept. 26).
- Motion re geog. proport. (Sept. 12), opp. by Riley, ADP (Sept. 23), reply (Sept. 26).
- Motion re Sen. truncation (Sept. 12), opp. (Sept. 23), reply (Sept. 26).
- Order rejecting claims, granting summary judgment to Board (Nov. 18).
- Motion for entry of final judgment (Dec. 6), opp. (Dec. 11), reply (Dec. 18).
- Order re final judgment (Dec. 20).
- Order re prevailing party status (Apr. 11, 2014).
The latest: On October 25, 2011, the trial court granted a plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment on community of interest grounds, finding that House District 38 violated the Alaska Constitution; on December 23, it similarly granted motions on contiguity and compactness grounds. On December 12, the court granted the state Board's motion for summary judgment on compactness grounds, denying the Petersburg plaintiffs' claims. On February 3, 2012, the court ordered the redistricting board to redraw the legislative district plan, finding several violations of state constitutional requirements of compactness, contiguity, and communities of interest that were unnecessary even given the need to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
On March 14, 2012, on appeal from the trial court's order, the Alaska Supreme Court found the Board's process improper, and remanded for the Board to redraw districts first under the state constitution, and only then to adjust districts where necessary to achieve Voting Rights Act compliance. The Board returned with a new plan, which was rejected on April 20; the court found that the Board did not restart the process entirely, justifying each new district under the state constitution first, and remanded for compliance with the mandated procedure. On Dec. 28, the state Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board must start over, first creating a plan under the state constitution and then adjusting to achieve VRA compliance, but that it need not seek court approval before the final plan is complete.
On May 10, 2012, the state Supreme Court ordered the Board to redraw several districts in southeast Alaska (finding no obligation in that region under the Voting Rights Act) for use as an interim plan for 2012, which the Board did on May 15. Then, on May 22, the state Supreme Court reversed course, and ordered the temporary use of the April 5 maps for 2012 elections, out of concerns that the revised maps might not be precleared.
On July 14, 2013, the Board adopted a new plan for permanent districts; on July 18, it moved for entry of final judgment on those districts. Plaintiffs again objected, but on November 18, 2013, the trial court rejected plaintiffs' challenges and granted summary judgment to the state. Plaintiffs indicated that they would not appeal.
City of Petersburg v. Alaska, No. 1JU-11-00782CI (Alaska Super. Ct., 1st Dist.) [consolidated with Riley v. Alaska Redistricting Board]: a challenge in state court to the promulgated state legislative plan, based on an alleged failure to maintain Petersburg in a relatively integrated socio-economic area.
- Amended complaint (Aug. 26).
- Voluntary dismissal of all claims other than compactness (Oct. 20).
The latest: On October 20, the Petersburg plaintiffs dismissed all claims other than claims regarding the compactness of the districts.
Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Alaska Redistricting Board, No. 4FA-11-2213CI (Alaska Super. Ct., 4th Dist.) [consolidated with Riley v. Alaska Redistricting Board]: a challenge in state court to the promulgated state legislative plan, based on alleged unnecessary deviation from state requirements of compactness, contiguity, and maintaining relatively integrated socio-economic areas in the region surrounding Fairbanks.
- Complaint (July 13, 2011).
- Motion for voluntary dismissal (Oct. 25).
- Dismissal of FNSB (Nov. 3).
The latest: On November 3, plaintiffs were allowed to voluntarily dismiss their case and become an amicus curiae instead, allegedly because of cost concerns.
Alaska Dem. Party v. Alaska Redistricting Bd., No. 4FA-11-02435CI (Alaska Super. Ct., 4th Dist.) [consolidated with Riley v. Alaska Redistricting Board]: a challenge in state court to the promulgated 2013 state legislative plan, based on an allegedly unnecessary division of political boundaires and failure to maintain communities in compact, relatively integrated socio-economic areas.
- Complaint (Aug. 13, 2013).
The latest: The complaint was filed on Aug. 13, 2013. On August 28, the case was consolidated with the other challenges to the 2013 plan.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.