Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/81548180/Redistricting-Decision
Timestamp: 2014-08-23 17:21:39
Document Index: 493368131

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2284', '§1973', '§ 71', '§2284', '§1973', '§575']

P. 1Redistricting DecisionRedistricting DecisionRatings: (0)|Views: 8,866
|Likes: 0Published by Jon CampbellMore info:Published by: Jon Campbell on Feb 14, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/81548180/Redistricting-Decision02/14/2012pdftextoriginal 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK----------------------------------------------------------------xMARK A. FAVORS, HOWARD LIEB, LILLIE :H. GALAN, EDWARD A. MULRAINE, :WARREN SHREIBER, and WEYMAN A. :CAREY, :
REQUEST TO CHIEF JUDGE OF
DONNA KAYE DRAYTON, EDWIN ELLIS, :
APPEALS FOR APPOINTMENT OF
AIDA FORREST, GENE A. JOHNSON, JOY :
WOOLLEY, SHEILA WRIGHT, LINDA LEE, :
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §2284(b)
SHING CHOR CHUNG, JULIA YANG, JUNG :HO HONG, JUAN RAMOS, NICK :CHAVARRIA, GRACIELA HEYMANN, :SANDRA MARTINEZ, EDWIN ROLDAN, :and MANOLIN TIRADO, :
DOCKET #11-cv-5632(DLI)(RLM)
Intervenor Plaintiffs, :-against- ::ANDREW M.CUOMO, as Governor of the State :of New York, ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York, :, as :ROBERT J. DUFFY, as President of the Senate of :the State of New York, DEAN G. SKELOS, as :Majority Leader and President Pro Tempore of the :Senate of the State of New York, SHELDON :SILVER, as Speaker of the Assembly of the State :of New York, JOHN L. SAMPSON, as Minority :Leader of the Senate of the State of New York, :BRIAN M. KOLB, as Minority Leader of the :Assembly of the State of New York, the NEW :YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE :ON DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH AND :APPORTIONMENT (“LATFOR”), JOHN J. :McENENY, as Member of LATFOR, ROBERT :OAKS, as Member of LATFOR, ROMAN :HEDGES, as Member of LATFOR, MICHAEL F. :NOZZOLIO, as Member of LATFOR, MARTIN :MALAVÉ DILAN, as Member of LATFOR, and :WELQUIS R. LOPEZ, as Member of LATOR, ::Defendants. :----------------------------------------------------------------x
Defendant Eric T. Schneiderman and Counts V and VI were voluntarily dismissed from this case.
DocketEntries #40, 66 and this Court’s January 10, 2012, and February 1, 2012 Electronic Orders, respectively.
Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RLM Document 73 Filed 02/13/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 854
By complaint filed on November 17, 2011, plaintiffs seek the court’s appointment of aSpecial Master to effectuate the independent redistricting of New York State’s Senate, Assemblyand congressional districts based upon standardized, fair criteria such as population equality,contiguity of districts, fair representation of minority groups, respect for political subdivisions(such as counties and towns), compactness of districts and preservation of communities of interest.
Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5. The complaint,
, alleges violations of Section 5 of theVoting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. §1973,
which includes defendants’ non-compliance with New York’s “Prisoner Reallocation Law” of 2010 (N.Y. Correction Law § 71(8) (McKinney 2011)).By letter dated December 2, 2011, plaintiffs requested that this court notify the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (“Chief Circuit Judge”) that a three-judge courtshould be designated to hear this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2284(b). (Docket Entry #2) ByElectronic Order dated December 6, 2011, the court directed defendants to show cause at ahearing to be held on December 12, 2011, why the court should not make such a request of theChief Circuit Judge and directed the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of said Electronic Orderforthwith to the Chief Circuit Judge.
By Docket Entry dated December 7, 2011, the Court Clerk verified the mailing of this Court’s December 6
Electronic Order to the Chief Circuit Judge.
By letters dated December 8 and 9, 2011 (
DocketEntries #9, 13, 16, and 20), the defendants did not oppose the convening of the three-judge panel.However, most of the defendants requested that the case not proceed pending this court’sdetermination of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, which were to be filedimminently. Accordingly, by Electronic Order dated December 20, 2011, plaintiffs weredirected to show cause no later than December 28, 2011 as to whether they objected to this courtdeciding the motions to dismiss before requesting that the Chief Circuit Judge appoint a three-
3 judge panel. By letter dated December 27, 2011, plaintiffs agreed that, as defendants’ motions todismiss only addressed the ripeness of the issues presented, this court’s prompt consideration of the motions to dismiss prior to the convening of the three-judge panel would further expedite theresolution of this dispute. (
Docket Entry #36, 70).
As of February 3, 2012, all motions todismiss are fully briefed,
While it was the original intention of this court to proceed to decide the motions todismiss
requesting that the Chief Circuit Judge appoint a three-judge panel, certain recentevents have made it necessary, in this court’s view, to make the request now.and are
.As the Court may be aware, on January 27, 2012, the Hon. Gary L. Sharpe, Chief Judgeof the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, issued a decision in thecase of United States of America v. State of New York, et. al.
10-cv-1214, which,
setJune 26, 2012 as the date for New York’s congressional primary election, in order for New Yorkto comply with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986,42 U.S.C. §§1973ff to 1973ff-7, as amended by the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment(MOVE) Act, Pub. L. No. 111-84, subtitle H, §§575-589, 123 Stat. 2190, 2318-2335 (2009)(“the NDNY case”). By letter dated January 30, 2012, plaintiffs assert that this is the earliestprimary election date contemplated by the parties to the instant action and it requires thecandidate petitioning period to begin on March 20, 2012. (Docket Entry #65) DefendantsSkelos, Silver, McEneny, Hedges, Nozzolio, and Lopez disagree contending that Judge Sharpehas no jurisdiction over New York’s primaries for the State Assembly and Senate; any courtintervention in ongoing state legislative redistricting efforts would be premature since the
Defendant Kolb had moved to dismiss on substantive constitutional grounds of equal protection and due process,as well as procedural issues of ripeness, but subsequently withdrew the constitutional claims, without prejudice,upon objection by plaintiffs. (
Docket Entries #62, 69)
Defendants Cuomo and Duffy have not filed a motion to dismiss, nor have they joined in any of the otherdefendants’ motions to dismiss. Instead, they have chosen to interpose an answer once the motions to dismiss aredecided. (
Docket Entry #47).