Filter by Type
Filter by Issue Area
Filter by Document Type
Filter by Case/Action Status
CLC filed this exhibit to be considered with the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. This exhibit contains a letter from Earl Comstock to Secretary Ross concerning the census.
This was submitted by Jessie Liu, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
Districts 5 and 10 were found to be drawn in contravention of the constituional madates of Article III, Section 20, thus making the redistricting map unconsitituional as drawn.
Today, the Court issued this judgment that grants the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and denies the defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. This ensures that Maryland will undergo redistricting reform.
CLC filed a proposed order in this case that requests the Court order that the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied and that CLC's motion be granted.
CLC filed this exhibit to be considered with the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. This exhibit contains an email from Peter Davidson to Secretary Ross concerning the census.
CLC filed this exhibit to be considered with the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. This exhibit contains a redacted email from Danielle Cutrona to Wendy Teramoto.
Reply in support of defendant (DOJ) motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff (CLC) cross-motion for summary judgment.
DOJ moves for summary judgment under CLC's claim under the Freedom of Information Act.
Today, the Court issued this opinion from Judge Niemeyer, Judge Bredar, and Judge Russell. This opinion was issued in conjunction with a judgment that directed Maryland to institute redistricting reform.
The issue of gerrymandering has received unprecedented attention recently. Independent redistricting commissions (IRCs) are state-based solutions that change the system of drawing electoral maps to a more open process that is reflective of citizen voices. This helps make politicians more accountable...
On August 12, 2019, Voters Not Politicians (VNP), the nonpartisan, citizen-led group that drafted and worked to pass the constitutional amendment establishing the Michigan Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission, filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in the case. VNP moved to intervene in order to offer its expertise and insights as the drafter and sponsor of the constitutional amendment at issue and to defend the constitutionality of the eligibility requirements for commissioners and the amendment as whole. The constitutional amendment establishing the Commission was approved by over 61% (2.5 million) of Michigan voters, with support from voters of both major political parties.
On August 12, 2019, VNP filed a Proposed Answer along with its motion to intervene as a defendant in the case, arguing that the eligibility requirements for the Commission do not violate the U.S. Constitution. Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved the constitutional amendment establishing the Commission, recognizing that politicians have an inherent conflict of interest in drawing their own electoral districts. Voters in 67 of Michigan’s 83 counties approved the constitutional amendment.
On July 30, 2019 plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asking the Court to direct Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to suspend the implementation of all provisions of the Michigan Constitution relating to the Commission. Plaintiffs also ask the court to consolidate the preliminary injunction motion with a trial on the merits, alleging that there are only legal questions at issue in the case.
On July 30, 2019, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the federal district court for the Western District of Michigan alleging that the eligibility requirements for commissioners to serve on the Michigan Citizens Redistricting Commission (“Commission”) are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs also argue that the eligibility requirements are not severable from the rest of the constitutional amendment, and thus the whole amendment must be struck down. The plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief. The constitutional amendment establishing the Commission was approved by over 61% (2.5 million) of Michigan voters, with support from voters of both major political parties.