UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Transcription

1 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: Filed: 12/06/11 11/28/11 Page 1 of 31 3 PageID #:157 #:161 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ) ILLINOIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 11-CV-5569 v. ) ) PAT QUINN, in his official capacity as Governor ) of the State of Illinois, and WILLIAM M. ) McGUFFAGE, JUDITH C. RICE, BRYAN A. ) SCHNEIDER, CHARLES W. SCHOLZ, JESSE R. ) SMART, HAROLD D. BYERS, ERNEST C. ) GOWEN AND BETTY J. COFFRIN in their ) Official capacities as Members of the ) Illinois State Board of Elections, ) ) Defendants. ) ) NOTICE OF APPEAL TO: Richard J. Prendergast Brent D. Stratton Michael T. Layden Chief Deputy Attorney General Special Asst. Attorneys General Office of the Illinois Attorney General Richard J. Prendergast, Ltd. 100 W. Randolph 12th Floor 111 W. Washington St., Suite 1100 Chicago, IL Chicago, IL David W. Ellis Eric M. Madiar Special Asst. Attorney General Special Asst. Attorney General 402 State House 605 State House Springfield, IL Springfield, IL Michael J. Kasper Special Asst. Attorney General 222 N. LaSalle St., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60601

2 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: Filed: 12/06/11 11/28/11 Page 2 of 31 3 PageID #:158 #:162 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1253, Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Illinois hereby appeals to the United States Supreme Court from this Court s Memorandum Opinion and Order filed and entered on October 28, 2011, granting Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, and from this Court s Minute Order entered on November 16, 2011, denying the Plaintiff s motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. Dated: November 28, 2011 By: /s/ Thomas Geoghegan Thomas H. Geoghegan Michael P. Persoon Sean Morales-Doyle Despres, Schwartz & Geoghegan Ltd. 77 West Washington St., Ste. 711 Chicago, IL Ph: (312) Fax: (312) One of plaintiffs attorneys

3 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: Filed: 12/06/11 11/28/11 Page 3 of 31 3 PageID #:159 #:163 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas Geoghegan, hereby certify that on this 28 th day of November, 2011, the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL was forwarded and served to all counsel of record via electronic filing pursuant to Local Rule 5.9, Electronic Filing. /s/ Thomas Geoghegan Thomas H. Geoghegan Michael P. Persoon Sean Morales-Doyle Despres, Schwartz & Geoghegan, Ltd. 77 W. Washington, Suite 711 Chicago, IL Ph: (312) Fax: (312)

4 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 4 of 31 PageID #:164 SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INFORMATION SHEET Include the names of all plaintiffs (petitioners) and defendants (respondents) who are parties to the appeal. Use a separate sheet if needed. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DOCKET NUMBER: 11 cv 5569 PLAINTIFF (Petitioner) v. DEFENDANT (Respondent) League of Women Voters/appellant Quinn/appellee (Use separate sheet for additional counsel) PETITIONER S COUNSEL RESPONDENT S COUNSEL Name Thomas H. Geoghegan Name Brent D. Stratton Firm Despres Schwartz & Geoghegan Firm Office of the Atty General Address 77 W. Washington St. Suite 711 Chgo.Il Address 100 W. Randolph St. 13 th fl. Chgo.Il Phone 312) Phone 312) Other Information District Judge Bucklo Date Filed in District Court 8/16/11 Court Reporter M. Snyder X-5563 Date of Judgment 10/28/11, 11/16/11 Nature of Suit Code 440 Date of Notice of Appeal 11/28/11 COUNSEL: Appointed Retained X Pro Se FEE STATUS: Paid X Due IFP IFP Pending U.S. Waived Has Docketing Statement been filed with the District Court Clerk s Office? Yes No X If State/Federal Habeas Corpus (28 USC 2254/28 USC 2255), was Certificate of Appealability: Granted Denied Pending If Certificate of Appealability was granted or denied, date of order: If defendant is in federal custody, please provide U.S. Marshall number (USM#): IMPORTANT: THIS FORM IS TO ACCOMPANY THE SHORT RECORD SENT TO THE CLERK OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 3(A). Rev 04/01

5 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: Filed: 12/06/11 10/28/11 Page 51 of 31 1 PageID #:136 #:165 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Northern District of Illinois CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 Eastern Division League of Women Voters of Illinois Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 1:11 cv Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo Pat Quinn, et al. Defendant. NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, October 28, 2011: MINUTE entry before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo:Defendants' motion (17) to Dismiss Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See Opinion and Order for details. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice(mpj, ) ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information. For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at

6 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: Filed: 12/06/11 10/28/11 Page 61 of 31 9 PageID #:137 #:166 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs ) NO. 1:11-cv-5569 ) PAT QUINN, in his official capacity as Governor, ) Judge Elaine E. Bucklo of the State of Illinois, and WILLIAM M. ) Judge Diane S. Sykes McGUFFAGE, JUDITH C. RICE, BRYAN A. ) Judge Philip P. Simon SCHNEIDER, CHARLES W. SCHOLZ, JESSE R. ) SMART, HAROLD D. BYERS, ERNEST C. ) GOWEN and BETTY J. COFFRIN in their ) Official capacities as members of the ) Illinois State Board of Elections, ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER This is the second of two cases filed in this district challenging the Illinois General Assembly s most recent redistricting of the state s legislative districts. This one is brought by the League of Women Voters (LWV) who claim that their First Amendment rights have been violated by the redistricting plan. The Defendants the Governor and individual members of the Illinois State Board of Elections have now moved to dismiss. Because the redistricting plan in no way burdens the exercise of First Amendment rights of LWV or its members, Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [DE 17] will be granted. BACKGROUND Just like the first redistricting challenge brought by Christine Radogno, the Minority leader of the Illinois Senate, and others (1:11-cv-4884), this case challenges the General Assembly Redistricting Act of 2011, which cemented Illinois s proposed new map of 118 House districts and 59 Senate districts. After the first challenge to the redistricting plan had already

7 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: Filed: 12/06/11 10/28/11 Page 72 of 31 9 PageID #:138 #:167 been filed, LWV initiated this case. LWV s original complaint challenged both the redistricting plan for Illinois s General Assembly seats and the redistricting plan for Illinois s federal seats in the House of Representatives. Since that complaint was sufficiently related to the redistricting challenge brought by Radogno, this case was reassigned to us so that it could be handled by the same three-judge panel handling the Radogno case. This reassignment was on the condition, however, that LWV file an amended complaint limited only to the redistricting plan for Illinois s General Assembly seats. That Amended Complaint was filed on September 1, 2011, and Defendants filed their motion to dismiss a week later. Defendants motion originally challenged LVW s standing to assert a First Amendment challenge on behalf of its individual members. Defendants did not pursue that challenge further in their reply brief, however, and for good reason, as LVW s associational standing is sufficiently well established in the Amended Complaint. Moreover, all parties now agree that Governor Pat Quinn should be dismissed as a Defendant. The only issue now before us is thus whether LVW s Amended Complaint states a cognizable claims against the remaining Defendants. DISCUSSION LWV s Amended Complaint raises a single count based on a discrete legal theory: Illinois s redistricting plan is unconstitutional because it is a content-based restriction on LWV members First Amendment rights of expression. LWV argues that by adopt[ing] a redistricting scheme based on partisan speech and other content-based expressive activity, the Defendants have implemented an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech without any 2

8 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: Filed: 12/06/11 10/28/11 Page 83 of 31 9 PageID #:139 #:168 safeguards to ensure the least possible regulation or abridgment of protected speech and expressive activity. [DE 11 at 2.] LVW contends that the redistricting plan explicitly took account of the partisan composition of the new districts, and the plan is therefore based on the content of partisan speech or viewpoints of residents. [DE 11 at 7.] The redistricting plan thus unlawfully abridge[s] or regulate[s] expressive activity of LWV s members because it is attempting to control or influence the kinds of views, opinions and speech that members of the League of Women Voters of Illinois and other state residents placed in those districts are likely to express or hear and receive. [DE 11 at 7, 9.] Precisely how the redistricting plan accomplishes this feat, however, is entirely unclear from the Amended Complaint. LWV correctly acknowledges that this is a novel legal theory for redistricting cases. It grows out of two new Supreme Court holdings, Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm n, 558 U.S. _, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) and Arizona Free Enterprise Club s Freedom Club v. Bennett, _U.S. _, 131 S. Ct (2011), which according to LWV significantly strengthen the limiting effect of the First Amendment on government regulation of electoral matters. [DE 26 at 3.] In LWV s view, Citizens United and Arizona Free Enterprise foreclose the use of viewpoint based redistricting to control, adjust or influence electoral speech or partisan activity in state legislative campaigns on First Amendment grounds. [DE 26 at 6.] According to LWV, by considering the partisan composition of a district in redrawing its lines, the redistricting plan is countering the expression by LWV-IL members and other citizens who expressed views tilting their districts too far to one side or the other. [DE 26 at 12.] Under Citizens United and 3

9 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: Filed: 12/06/11 10/28/11 Page 94 of 31 9 PageID #:140 #:169 Arizona Free Enterprise, this viewpoint-based gerrymandering violates the First Amendment because Illinois may not seek to restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others. [DE 26 at 3 (quoting Citizens United).] Illinois s attempt to balance or control electoral speech is therefore the argument goes a violation of the First Amendment because it seeks to control the marketplace of ideas. [DE 26 at 2.] As LWV summarizes its position, the government is regulating electoral speech for a purpose that the Supreme Court has condemned as unlawful in both Citizens United and Arizona Free Enterprise.... [DE 26 at 7.] It is of course true that the First Amendment broadly protects political expression in order to foster the uninhibited exchange of ideas among the citizenry. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14 (1976). In Buckley, for example, a law that capped a candidate s expenditure of personal funds to finance a political campaign was found to burden the candidate s First Amendment right to engage in unfettered political speech. Id; see also Davis v. Federal Election Comm n, 554 U.S. 724, 741 (2008) (finding unconstitutional a law that imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of the First Amendment right to use personal funds for campaign speech ). The problem with LWV s argument, however, is that it brushes aside a critical first step to bringing a content-based First Amendment challenge: the challenged law must actually restrict some form of protected expression. It seems a rather obvious point. See, e.g., Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, (U.S. 1987) (reversing a district court finding that the Foreign Agents Registration Act s use of the term political propaganda violated the First Amendment because, in the absence of any direct abridgment of speech, the Act placed no burden on protected expression ); Initiative and Referendum Inst. v. Walker, 450 F.3d 1082, 1104 (10th 4

10 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: #: Filed: 12/06/11 10/28/11 Page 10 5 of 931 PageID #:141 #:170 Cir. 2006) ( To qualify as a content-based regulation of speech, a statute must restrict speech or expressive conduct in the first place. ); Asociación de Educación Privada de P.R., Inc. v. Echevarría-Vargas, 385 F.3d 81, (1st Cir. 2004) (a law requiring disclosure of information about changes in school textbooks was not a content-based restriction because it [did] not purport to address the content of speech; nor [did] it purport to regulate speech at all ); U.S. West, Inc. v. FCC, 182 F.3d 1224, 1232 (10th Cir. 1999) ( As a threshold requirement for the application of the First Amendment, the government action must abridge or restrict protected speech. ). This threshold requirement was obviously met in both Citizens United and Arizona Free Enterprise, as well as in Buckley and Davis, as those cases all stand for the proposition that a law may not burden campaign expenditures long recognized as a form of speech unless it is justified by a compelling state interest. It would therefore be correct to say that Citizens United and Arizona Free Enterprise significantly strengthen the limiting effect of the First Amendment on government regulation of campaign contributions. But LWV advertises these cases as applying more broadly: they significantly strengthen the limiting effect of the First Amendment on government regulation of electoral matters. [DE 26 at 3 (emphasis added).] To which we ask: what does government regulation of electoral matters even mean? The way LWV has framed the issue, electoral matters is apparently supposed to represent some sort of protected form of expression on par with campaign expenditures. Indeed, LWV repeatedly invokes similarly vague phrases as if they were well recognized categories of expression under the First Amendment. In addition to electoral matters, LWV also states that the redistricting plan implicates electoral speech or partisan activity [DE 26 at 6], election- 5

11 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: #: Filed: 12/06/11 10/28/11 Page 11 6 of 931 PageID #:142 #:171 related speech [DE 26 at 8], electoral debate [DE 26 at 10], and free electoral debate that the redistricting plan seeks to control or distort [DE 26 at 14]. Whatever these phrases mean, none of them even begins to satisfy the threshold requirement for a content-based First Amendment challenge here: a showing that the redistricting plan is preventing LWV s members from engaging in expressive activities. Under the redistricting plan, are LWV s members being in any way prohibited from running for office, expressing their political views, endorsing and campaigning for their favorite candidates, voting for their preferred candidate, or otherwise influencing the political process through their expression? The answer is no. LWV s summary of its members alleged injuries is similarly vague about the speech or expression actually being burdened by the redistricting plan: The viewpoint based redistricting here places distinct burdens on First Amendment rights of LWV-IL members and other citizens. First, it counters the views expressed by some LWV-IL members whether they be Republicans in districts that are too Republican or Democrats in districts that are too Democratic. Second, it interferes with the kind of debate they would hear and receive if the government did not interfere at all. See Martin v. City of Struthers, Ohio, 319 U.S Sometimes the only contested elections take place in the party primaries. There is a different interchange of ideas in a district strongly consisting of adherents to one party s views in one-sided or strongly Democratic or Republican districts, the content of the debate can be quite different, with more competitive primary elections than districts where there is an even balance. [DE 26 at 18.] Once again, nothing in this summary indicates that the redistricting plan actually restricts expression. Indeed, LWV s citation to City of Struthers is instructive. That case struck down an Ohio city ordinance that prohibited knocking on doors while leafleting, finding that the freedom to distribute information to every citizen wherever he desires to receive it is so clearly vital to the 6

12 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: #: Filed: 12/06/11 10/28/11 Page 12 7 of 931 PageID #:143 #:172 preservation of a free society that it qualifies as a protected form of expression under the First Amendment. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. at Illinois s redistricting plan does not prohibit LWV s members from engaging in any similarly vital expressive act. On the contrary, LWV s challenge looks much more like the challenge proposed and rejected in Walker. In that case the plaintiff brought a content-based First Amendment challenge to Utah s referendum requirement, which required a super-majority vote for certain types of ballot questions. Plaintiff s theory, as summarized by the Tenth Circuit, was that every structural feature of government that makes some political outcomes less likely than others and thereby discourages some speakers from engaging in protected speech violates the First Amendment. Walker, 450 F.3d at The court affirmed the dismissal of this theory because while [t]he First Amendment ensures that all points of view may be heard[,] it does not ensure that all points of view are equally likely to prevail. Id. at Similarly here, LWV seems to believe that since the redistricting plan makes some political outcomes less likely than others, the speech of its members is burdened or discouraged. We fail to see how. The redistricting plan does not prevent any LWV member from engaging in any political speech, whether that be expressing a political view, endorsing and campaigning for a candidate, contributing to a candidate, or voting for a candidate. And while it is true that the redistricting plan undoubtedly means that one party is more likely to be victorious in any given district, the First Amendment, to repeat, does not ensure that all points of view are equally likely to prevail. Note, moreover, the ramifications of LVW s theory: redistricting plans could never take partisanship into consideration without violating the First Amendment. This is an untenable 7

13 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: #: Filed: 12/06/11 10/28/11 Page 13 8 of 931 PageID #:144 #:173 position, as the Supreme Court has long emphasized that some burdening of partisan viewpoints is an inevitable part of drawing district lines. Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 753 (1973) ( [p]olitics and political considerations are inseparable from districting and apportionment... The reality is that districting inevitably has and is intended to have substantial political consequences ). Indeed, the implications of LVW s argument is exactly what the plurality opinion in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) warned against and rejected: a First Amendment claim [for political gerrymandering], if it were sustained, would render unlawful all consideration of political affiliation in districting, just as it renders unlawful all consideration of political affiliation in hiring for non-policy-level government jobs. Vieth, 541 U.S. at 294 (plurality). In the end, we have no doubt that LWV thinks it is on the cutting edge of redistricting law, presenting a novel legal theory based on a creative and nuanced reading of recent Supreme Court cases. We read those cases much differently. Therefore, LWV s Amended Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. 8

14 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: #: Filed: 12/06/11 10/28/11 Page 14 9 of 931 PageID #:145 #:174 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [DE 17] is GRANTED. Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: October 27, 2011 s/ Elaine E. Bucklo ELAINE E. BUCKLO, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS s/ Diane S. Sykes DIANE S. SYKES, JUDGE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH CIRCUIT s/ Philip P. Simon PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 9

15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: #: Filed: 12/06/11 10/28/11 Page 15 1 of 131 PageID #:146 #:175 AO 450(Rev. 5/85)Judgment in a Civil Case United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division The League of Women Voters JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE v. Case Number: 11 C 5569 Pat Quinn, et al. G O Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury rendered its verdict. Decision by Court. This action came to hearing before the Court. The issues have been heard and a decision has been rendered. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendants motion to dismiss amended complaint is granted. Accordingly, plaintiff s amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court Date: 10/28/2011 /s/ Mathew P. John, Deputy Clerk

16 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: #: Filed: 12/06/11 11/16/11 Page 16 1 of 131 PageID #:156 #:176 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Northern District of Illinois CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 Eastern Division League of Women Voters of Illinois Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 1:11 cv Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo Pat Quinn, et al. Defendant. NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, November 16, 2011: MINUTE entry before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo:Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [36] is denied.mailed notice(mpj, ) ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information. For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at

17 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 1 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 17 of 31 PageID #:177 APPEAL, SCHENKIER, TERMED United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 (Chicago) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv Internal Use Only League of Women Voters of Illinois v. Quinn, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois et al Assigned to: Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo related Case: 1:11-cv Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Illinois Date Filed: 08/16/2011 Date Terminated: 10/28/2011 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question represented by Michael Paul Persoon Despres Schwartz & Geoghegan 77 W. Washington Street Chicago, IL mike.persoon@gmail.com Thomas Howard Geoghegan Despres Schwartz & Geoghegan 77 West Washington Street Suite 711 Chicago, IL (312) Fax: (312) admin@dsgchicago.com V. Defendant Pat Quinn in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois represented by Brent Douglas Stratton Office of the Illinois Attorney General 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, IL (312) bstratton@atg.state.il.us Carl Thomas Bergetz Chief, Special Litigation Bureau. Office of the Illinois Attorney General 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60601

18 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 2 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 18 of 31 PageID #:178 (312) cbergetz@atg.state.il.us Deborah Morgan Beltran Illinois Office of the Attorney General 100 West Randolph Street 13th Floor Chicago, IL dbeltran@atg.state.il.us Jennifer Marie Zlotow Office of the Illinois Attorney General Special Litigation Bureau 100 West Randolph Street 11th Floor Chicago, IL jzlotow@atg.state.il.us Jonathan A. Rosenblatt Office of the Illinois Attorney General 100 West Randolph Steet 11th Floor Chicago, IL (312) Fax: (312) jrosenblatt@atg.state.il.us Michael James Kasper Fletcher Topol & O'Brien 222 North LaSalle Suite 300 Chicago, IL (312) mjkasper60@mac.com Richard J. Prendergast Richard J. Prendergast, Ltd. 111 West Washington Street Suite 1100 Chicago, IL (312) rprendergast@rjpltd.com

19 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 3 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 19 of 31 PageID #:179 Defendant William M McGuffage represented by Michael Thomas Layden Richard J. Prendergast, Ltd. 111 West Washington Street Suite 1100 Chicago, IL (312) mlayden@rjpltd.com Richard J. Prendergast Brent Douglas Stratton Carl Thomas Bergetz David W. Ellis Special Assistant Attorney General 402 Capitol Building Springfield, IL Fax: dellis@hds.ilga.gov Deborah Morgan Beltran Eric Michael Madiar Chief Legal Counsel Office of the Senate President State House Room 605 Springfield, IL (217) emadiar@senatedem.ilga.gov Jennifer Marie Zlotow

20 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 4 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 20 of 31 PageID #:180 Joan M. Mannix William J. Harte, Ltd. 135 South LaSalle Street Suite 2200 Chicago, IL Fax: jmannix@williamharteltd.com Jonathan A. Rosenblatt Michael James Kasper William J. Harte William J. Harte 135 South LaSalle Street Suite 2200 Chicago, IL (312) wharte@williamharteltd.com Defendant Judith C. Rice represented by Michael Thomas Layden Richard J. Prendergast Brent Douglas Stratton Carl Thomas Bergetz David W. Ellis

21 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 5 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 21 of 31 PageID #:181 Deborah Morgan Beltran Eric Michael Madiar Jennifer Marie Zlotow Joan M. Mannix Jonathan A. Rosenblatt Michael James Kasper William J. Harte Defendant Bryan A. Schneider represented by Michael Thomas Layden Richard J. Prendergast Brent Douglas Stratton Carl Thomas Bergetz David W. Ellis

22 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 6 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 22 of 31 PageID #:182 Deborah Morgan Beltran Eric Michael Madiar Jennifer Marie Zlotow Joan M. Mannix Jonathan A. Rosenblatt Michael James Kasper William J. Harte Defendant Charles W. Scholz represented by Michael Thomas Layden Richard J. Prendergast Brent Douglas Stratton Carl Thomas Bergetz David W. Ellis

23 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 7 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 23 of 31 PageID #:183 Deborah Morgan Beltran Eric Michael Madiar Jennifer Marie Zlotow Joan M. Mannix Jonathan A. Rosenblatt Michael James Kasper William J. Harte Defendant Jesse R. Smart represented by Michael Thomas Layden Richard J. Prendergast Brent Douglas Stratton Carl Thomas Bergetz

24 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 8 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 24 of 31 PageID #:184 David W. Ellis Deborah Morgan Beltran Eric Michael Madiar Jennifer Marie Zlotow Joan M. Mannix Jonathan A. Rosenblatt Michael James Kasper William J. Harte Defendant Harold D. Byers represented by Michael Thomas Layden Richard J. Prendergast Brent Douglas Stratton Carl Thomas Bergetz

25 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 9 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 25 of 31 PageID #:185 David W. Ellis Deborah Morgan Beltran Eric Michael Madiar Jennifer Marie Zlotow Joan M. Mannix Jonathan A. Rosenblatt Michael James Kasper William J. Harte Defendant Ernest C. Gowen represented by Michael Thomas Layden Richard J. Prendergast Brent Douglas Stratton Carl Thomas Bergetz

26 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 10 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 26 of 31 PageID #:186 David W. Ellis Deborah Morgan Beltran Eric Michael Madiar Jennifer Marie Zlotow Joan M. Mannix Jonathan A. Rosenblatt Michael James Kasper William J. Harte Defendant Betty J. Coffrin in their Official capacities as Members of the Illinois State Board of Elections represented by Michael Thomas Layden Richard J. Prendergast Brent Douglas Stratton Carl Thomas Bergetz

27 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 11 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 27 of 31 PageID #:187 David W. Ellis Deborah Morgan Beltran Eric Michael Madiar Jennifer Marie Zlotow Joan M. Mannix Jonathan A. Rosenblatt Michael James Kasper William J. Harte Date Filed # Docket Text 08/16/ COMPLAINT filed by League of Women Voters of Illinois; Filing fee $ 350, receipt number (Geoghegan, Thomas) (Entered: 08/16/2011) 08/16/ CIVIL Cover Sheet (Geoghegan, Thomas) (Entered: 08/16/2011) 08/16/2011 CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Ruben Castillo. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. (nsf, ) (Entered: 08/16/2011) 08/17/2011 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Harold D. Byers (jn, ) (Entered: 08/17/2011) 08/17/2011 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Ernest C. Gowen (jn, ) (Entered: 08/17/2011)

28 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 12 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 28 of 31 PageID #:188 08/17/2011 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants William M McGuffage, Pat Quinn, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart (jn, ) (Entered: 08/17/2011) 08/17/ MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo:The parties are requested to meet and confer and prepare and file a joint status report on or before 8/30/2011 which specifically addresses the following topics: (1) whether this case should be related to a lower number congressional redistricting case pending before Judge Lefkow; and (2) whether this Court should consider recusing itself because of this judge's prior involvement in the Hastert, et al. v. State Board of Elections, et al. congressional redistricting case No. 91 C 4028.Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 08/17/2011) 08/18/ SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Ernest C. Gowen (jh, ) (No document to scan) Modified on 8/23/2011 (pjg, ). (Entered: 08/18/2011) 08/19/ SUMMONS Returned Executed by League of Women Voters of Illinois as to All Defendants served on 8/19/11 answer due on 9/8/11. (Geoghegan, Thomas) (Docket Text Modified by the Clerks Office.) Modified on 8/22/2011 (ea, ). (Entered: 08/19/2011) 08/24/ ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Pat Quinn, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart by Brent Douglas Stratton (Stratton, Brent) (Entered: 08/24/2011) 08/25/ ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Illinois by Michael Paul Persoon (Persoon, Michael) (Entered: 08/25/2011) 08/30/ STATUS Report by Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, League of Women Voters of Illinois, William M McGuffage, Pat Quinn, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart (Persoon, Michael) (Entered: 08/30/2011) 08/30/ NOTICE by All Parties re status report 8 (Persoon, Michael) (Entered: 08/30/2011) 08/30/ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo for all further proceedings pursuant to provisions of Local Rule Signed by Executive Committee on 8/30/11.(ea, ) (Entered: 08/31/2011) 08/30/2011 (Court only) Related cases: Create association to 1:11-cv (ea, ) (Entered: 08/31/2011) 09/01/ First AMENDED complaint by League of Women Voters of Illinois against All Defendants (Persoon, Michael) (Entered: 09/01/2011) 09/01/ NOTICE by League of Women Voters of Illinois re amended complaint 11 (Persoon, Michael) (Entered: 09/01/2011) 09/07/ ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart by David W. Ellis (Ellis, David) (Entered:

29 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 13 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 29 of 31 PageID #:189 09/07/2011) 09/07/ ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Pat Quinn, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart by Michael James Kasper (Kasper, Michael) (Entered: 09/07/2011) 09/08/ ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart by Richard J. Prendergast (Prendergast, Richard) (Entered: 09/08/2011) 09/08/ ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart by Michael Thomas Layden (Layden, Michael) (Entered: 09/08/2011) 09/08/ MOTION by Defendants Charles W. Scholz, William M McGuffage, Jesse R. Smart, Ernest C. Gowen, Pat Quinn, Harold D. Byers, Judith C. Rice, Betty J. Coffrin, Bryan A. Schneider to dismiss (Prendergast, Richard) (Entered: 09/08/2011) 09/08/ NOTICE of Motion by Richard J. Prendergast for presentment of motion to dismiss 17 before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 9/12/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Prendergast, Richard) (Entered: 09/08/2011) 09/08/ MEMORANDUM by Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Pat Quinn, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart in support of motion to dismiss 17 (Prendergast, Richard) (Entered: 09/08/2011) 09/08/ ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, and Jesse R. Smart by Eric Michael Madiar. (tlm) (Entered: 09/09/2011) 09/09/ MINUTE entry before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo:Defendants' motion to dismiss 17 is entered and continued. Set deadlines/hearing as to motion to dismiss 17 : Responses due by 9/23/2011. Replies due by 9/30/2011. No appearance will be needed in court on 9/12/11.Mailed notice (mpj, ) (Entered: 09/09/2011) 09/22/ ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Pat Quinn, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart by Carl Thomas Bergetz (Bergetz, Carl) (Entered: 09/22/2011) 09/22/ ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Pat Quinn, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart by Jonathan A. Rosenblatt (Rosenblatt, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/22/2011) 09/22/ ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Pat Quinn, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A.

30 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 14 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 30 of 31 PageID #:190 Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart by Jennifer Marie Zlotow (Zlotow, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/22/2011) 09/22/ ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Pat Quinn, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart by Deborah Morgan Beltran (Beltran, Deborah) (Entered: 09/22/2011) 09/23/ RESPONSE by League of Women Voters of Illinoisin Opposition to MOTION by Defendants Charles W. Scholz, William M McGuffage, Jesse R. Smart, Ernest C. Gowen, Pat Quinn, Harold D. Byers, Judith C. Rice, Betty J. Coffrin, Bryan A. Schneider to dismiss 17 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Janice Dorner)(Geoghegan, Thomas) (Entered: 09/23/2011) 09/23/ MOTION by Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Illinois for leave to file excess pages In opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Instanter (Geoghegan, Thomas) (Entered: 09/23/2011) 09/23/ NOTICE of Motion by Thomas Howard Geoghegan for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages 27 before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 9/28/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Geoghegan, Thomas) (Entered: 09/23/2011) 09/26/ MINUTE entry before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo:Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages 27 is granted. No appearance will be needed in court on 9/28/11.Mailed notice (mpj, ) (Entered: 09/26/2011) 09/30/ REPLY by Defendants Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Pat Quinn, Judith C. Rice, Jesse R. Smart to memorandum in support of motion 19, motion to dismiss 17 (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Prendergast, Richard) (Entered: 09/30/2011) 10/25/ ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart by William J. Harte (Harte, William) (Entered: 10/25/2011) 10/25/ ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Harold D. Byers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest C. Gowen, William M McGuffage, Judith C. Rice, Bryan A. Schneider, Charles W. Scholz, Jesse R. Smart by Joan M. Mannix (Mannix, Joan) (Entered: 10/25/2011) 10/28/ MINUTE entry before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo:Defendants' motion (17) to Dismiss Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See Opinion and Order for details. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (mpj, ) (Entered: 10/28/2011) 10/28/ OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Judge Elaine E. Bucklo, Judge Diane S. Sykes and Judge Philip P. Simon on 10/28/2011:Mailed notice(mpj, ) (Entered: 10/28/2011) 10/28/ ENTERED JUDGMENT Signed by the courtroom deputy on 10/28/2011:Mailed notice(mpj, ) (Entered: 10/28/2011) 11/10/ MOTION by Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Illinois for reconsideration

31 12/6/2011 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 15 of 15 Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 42 Filed: 12/06/11 Page 31 of 31 PageID #:191 regarding memorandum opinion and order 34 (Geoghegan, Thomas) (Entered: 11/10/2011) 11/10/ NOTICE of Motion by Thomas Howard Geoghegan for presentment of motion for reconsideration, motion for relief 36 before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 11/15/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Geoghegan, Thomas) (Entered: 11/10/2011) 11/14/ MINUTE entry before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo:Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration 36 is taken under advisement. Ruling will be made by mail. No appearance will be needed in court tomorrow.mailed notice (mpj, ) (Entered: 11/14/2011) 11/16/ MINUTE entry before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo:Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 36 is denied.mailed notice (mpj, ) (Entered: 11/16/2011) 11/28/ NOTICE of appeal by League of Women Voters of Illinois regarding orders 39, 34 Filing fee $ 455, receipt number (Geoghegan, Thomas) (Entered: 11/28/2011) 11/29/ NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record (dj, ) (Entered: 12/06/2011)