Source: http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:05:12+00:00

Document:
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).
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 to J. Thomas, withdrawn) (6/2/14).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, pending).
MD Shapiro v. McManus (cert. granted, reversed) (12/8/15).
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 (cert. granted, vacated, remanded) (5/30/17).
NJ Lavergne v. Bryson (cert. denied) (2/19/13).
NY In re Dep't of Commerce (pet. for mandamus, 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 of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (direct appeal, pending).
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).
- 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.
- Plaintiffs' reply (Exhibit 27 with declaration) (Sept. 18).
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.
- 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.
Due to the volume of filings, information on the New York cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.
- Motion for preliminary injunction (12/6/11).
- Opinion rejecting challenge and dismissing case (12/16/11).
- Brief of appellant, appendix (2/28/12).
- Briefs of Executive branch and Senate (4/16/12), House (4/18/12).
- Opinion summarily affirming (9/20/12).
- Petition for writ of certiorari (12/19/12).
- Defendant's waiver of right to respond (1/14/13).
- Cert. petition denied (2/19/13).
- Post-judgment motion (decl.) (11/13/17), response (2/7/18), order denying motion (4/2/18).
- 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).
- Opinion affirming trial court, dismissing case (9/10/12).
- Order denying petition (1/24/13).
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 North Carolina cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.
- 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.
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.
- Opinion dismissing cases (May 16, 2011).
- 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).
- Motion for leave to amend complaint (Nov. 14).
- Amd. complaints in Adams, Amite, Copiah, Pike, Simpson, Warren, Wayne Cntys.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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.
- Decision granting summary judgment to city defs. (Feb. 11, 2011).
- 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).
- Petition for certiorari (Dec. 21, 2012).
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.
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.
- Motion for preliminary injunction (app.) (Aug. 16, 2012).
- Motion for default judgment (Nov. 7).
- Order dismissing case (Mar. 18, 2013).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
intervening defendant (I, II) (Feb. 3).
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.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
Due to the volume of filings, information on the Wisconsin cases is located on a separate litigation page, here.
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.
- 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).
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).
- 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.
California v. Ross, No. 3:18-cv-01865 (N.D. Cal.): a challenge in federal court to the inclusion of a citizenship question on the decennial enumeration.
- 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).
- 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).
- Order denying summary judgment (12/14/18).
- Joint pretrial statement (12/21/18).
The latest: On August 17, 2018, the court denied a motion to dismiss. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied on December 14, 2018.
City of San Jose v. Ross, No. 5:18-cv-02279 (N.D. Cal.): a challenge in federal court to the inclusion of a citizenship question on the decennial enumeration.
- Complaint (exh. 1, 2, 3, 4) (4/17/18).
- 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).
- 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).
- Opp. (decl.) (11/16/18), reply (decl.) (11/26/18).
The latest: On August 17, 2018, the court denied a motion to dismiss. Defendants moved for summary judgment, and plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their claims under the APA; on December 14, 2018, the court denied both motions.
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).
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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).
- Response by State (11/12/13), Auditor (11/15/13).
- Amicus brief by California Common Cause et al. (1/23/14).
- Opinion reversing trial court, remanding for amended complaint (9/3/14).
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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).
- Second notice and opinion (Dec. 21).
and memorandum opinion (Feb. 8, 2016).
- Notice of Supplemental Authority (Exhibit) (Apr. 22).
- Notice of intervening case law (Apr. 27).
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).
Proposed Remedy Phase Procedu (Feb. 7).
- Order regarding Motion for Interim Award of Fees (April 26).
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).
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).
(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).
- Opinion denying preliminary injunction (6/1/18).
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.
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.

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