Case 3:13-cv REP-LO-AD Document 222 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 5133

Similar documents
Case 3:13-cv REP-LO-AD Document 197 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 4928

Personhuballah v. Alcorn, No. 3: 13-cv-678

Case 3:13-cv REP-LO-AKD Document 37 Filed 12/20/13 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 440

Case 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 328 Filed 12/14/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 10764

Case 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 146 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID# 5723

Case 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 208 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 7264

Supreme Court of the United States

Case 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 157 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 5908

Case 3:13-cv REP-LO-AKD Document 145 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 21 PageID# 4206

Summary of the Fair Congressional Districts for Ohio Initiative Proposal

Case 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 127 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3209

Case 3:13-cv REP-LO-AD Document Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 23 PageID# APPENDIX A: Richmond First Plan. Dem Lt. Dem Atty.

GIS in Redistricting Jack Dohrman, GIS Analyst Nebraska Legislature Legislative Research Office

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division. v. Civil Action No. 3:14cv852 MEMORANDUM OPINION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

Citizens Union and the League of Women Voters of New York State

CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION PROPOSAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION. v. Civil Case No. 1:17-CV TCB

Citizens Union and the League of Women Voters of New York State

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

WHERE WE STAND.. ON REDISTRICTING REFORM

Redistricting Virginia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 9893

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED QUESTIONS FOR THE SPECIAL MASTER

William & Mary Law School 2011 Virginia Redistricting Competition

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 25

Case 3:13-cv REP-LO-AD Document 257 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 30 PageID# 5798

ST. TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD 2010 CENSUS/2014 ELECTION REDISTRICTING DECEMBER 1, Presentation by REDISTRICTING L.L.C.

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 664 Filed 02/20/12 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) 1:15-CV-399 ) ) ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division. v. Civil Action No. 3:14cv852 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. (2017).

ILLINOIS (status quo)

ALBC PLAINTIFFS EXPLANATORY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO AUGUST 28, 2015, ORDER

Case 3:15-cv HEH-RCY Document 102 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 1030

v. Civil Action No. 3:13cv678

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 S 1 SENATE BILL 702. Short Title: Independent Redistricting Commission. (Public)

Case 3:15-cv HEH Document 34 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 134

Case 5:12-cv KHV-JWL- Document 229 Filed 05/29/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 3:15-cv HEH Document 64 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 445

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Redistricting in Virginia: the Current Scene

Case 5:12-cv KHV-JWL- Document 223 Filed 05/28/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 1:15-cv LMB-JFA Document 37 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 374

Case 1:11-cv RMC-TBG-BAH Document 214 Filed 03/01/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 5:12-cv KHV-JWL- Document 231 Filed 05/29/12 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ILLINOIS (status quo)

Case 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 256 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 9901

Case 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 9479

Received 12/11/2017 1:09:09 AM Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Petitioners, ) Respondents. ) PROPOSED ORDER

In the Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Case 1:11-cv RMC-TBG-BAH Document 224 Filed 07/05/12 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 3:12-cv REP Document 191 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID# 3471

Case 3:16-cv REP Document 24 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 447

2009 Election Uniformity Workshop

Michigan Redistricting Ballot Proposal (VNP)

Supreme Court of the United States

Case 5:13-cv MFU Document 13 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 5 Pageid#: 53

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

Submitted by: ASSEMBLY MEMBERS HALL, TRAIN!

Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 182 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 2214

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2005 H 1 HOUSE BILL 1448

DRAWING LINES: RACIAL GERRYMANDERING IN BETHUNE- HILL V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 HOUSE BILL DRH10050-BK-2 (02/13) Short Title: Nonpartisan Redistricting Commission.

Case 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 177 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 6428

Redistricting Reform in Virginia: Why It's Needed, Why We Should Care 1

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 649 Filed 02/13/12 Page 1 of 9

Redistricting Matters

Colorado Secretary of State Toni Larson League of Women Voters of Colorado 1410 Grant, Suite B204, Denver, Co Toni.Larsongmail.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

3 2fl17 (0:9901. Colorado Secretary of State Be it Enacted by the People ofthe State ofcolorado:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:13-CV-00949

Special Master s Recommended Plan for the North Carolina Senate and House of Representatives

APPENDIX A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION. Plaintiffs,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

Case 1:11-cv AJT-MSN Document 188 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 2278

Case 0:16-cv WPD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2017 Page 1 of 4

CITIZEN ADVOCACY CENTER

Redistricting 101 Why Redistrict?

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 95 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 11

REDISTRICTING REDISTRICTING 50 STATE GUIDE TO 50 STATE GUIDE TO HOUSE SEATS SEATS SENATE SEATS SEATS WHO DRAWS THE DISTRICTS?

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:16-CV-1026 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION

IUSD ELECTORAL PROCESS UNDER CONSIDERATION. March 27, 2018

Case 1:14-cv CMH-TRJ Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 83

Case 3:13-cv REP-LO-AD Document 227 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID# 5307

IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR CARSON CITY

As Introduced. 132nd General Assembly Regular Session S. J. R. No A J O I N T R E S O L U T I O N

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:15-cv-00399

Case 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 331 Filed 12/28/18 Page 1 of 47 PageID# 10784

Case 3:15-cv MHL Document 69 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 1055

AN AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS CITIZENS' REDISTRICTING COMMISSION

H.B. 69 Feb 13, 2019 HOUSE PRINCIPAL CLERK

Case 1:17-cv TCB-WSD-BBM Document 44 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM DIVISION

Case 5:12-cv KHV-JWL- Document 53 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA THIRD EXTRA SESSION 2016 HOUSE BILL DRH30015-LU-3 (12/13)

Transcription:

Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AD Document 222 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 5133 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division GLORIA PERSONHUBALLA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 3:13-cv-678 REP/LO/AD ) JAMES B. ALCORN, et al. ) Defendants. ) BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF REMEDIAL PLAN ON BEHALF OF BULL ELEPHANT MEDIA LLC Bull Elephant Media LLC TBE ] hereby submits the following brief in support Of remedial Plan A [ TBE Plan A ] and remedial Plan B [ TBE Plan B ] [collectively the TBE Plans ]. This Brief and the TBE Plans are being submitted pursuant to the authority granted to non-parties under paragraph 3 of the Court s Order of September 3, 2015. All information includible in PDF form as Exhibits A and B, and the underlying data for the Plans, are being submitted via physical delivery to Judge s chambers for Judge Robert E. Payne in Richmond. About Bull Elephant Media, LLC TBE was founded in 2013 as the holding company for an online news outlet, TheBullElephant.com, to provide unique coverage of politics and policy in Virginia and elsewhere, giving particular emphasis to those issues and concerns important to conservative and libertarian grassroots Republicans. TBE s equity holders and contributors are not political professionals. Although each TBE contributor is responsible for his or her own content, writers at TBE have been publicly critical of the Virginia redistricting process and actions (or inactions) taken by relevant parties and non-parties leading up to the order requiring the appointment of a

Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AD Document 222 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 5134 Special Master. 1 Among TBE s contributors are three Virginia licensed attorneys with election law experience. I. Overview The TBE Plans were created with the idea that the deficiencies of the Third Congressional District as found by the Court are capable of remedy without entirely ignoring the formal preference as stated by the General Assembly in the 2012 plan. TBE looked at a handful of factors routinely utilized in performing a redistricting analysis and sought to make modifications to the existing Congressional redistricting plan. TBE Plan A focuses on the problems inherent in and around the 3rd Congressional District. Only the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th Districts are affected. TBE Plan B is a more comprehensive statewide approach. II. Standards for Redistricting Having reviewed the Brief of nonparty OneVirginia2021 (Document No. 214) TBE concurs with the legal standards as stated on page four with a substantial caveat. It is true that if a legislature fails to pass a redistricting plan the Court has broad powers of revision. The preference of the General Assembly as stated in the existing plan should still be given deference and the remedial plan enacted by the Court should be tailored to the problem at issue. Given this analysis the TBE Plans were created with the following standards. 1. Preservation of the Political Desires of the General Assembly through its one and only formally enacted plan following the 2010 decennial census. 2. Equalization of voting strength. 1 This point is made to emphasize that although TBE may be viewed as partisan in nature, TBE does not serve the interests of incumbents for purely partisan purposes. TBE encourages the Court to look on the TBE Plans with a fresh perspective understanding that they have not been adjusted with the input of any Virginia member of Congress or member of the General Assembly. For examples of critical writings of TBE contributors please see: http://thebullelephant.com/?s=redistricting http://northernvirginialawyer.blogspot.com/p/road-to-redistricting-litigation-in.html 1

Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AD Document 222 Filed 09/17/15 Page 3 of 7 PageID# 5135 3. Preservation of political divisions and precincts. 4. Contiguity. 5. Compactness. 6. Preservation of a majority-minority district in the 3rd Congressional District with a Black Voting Age Population [ BVAP ] as close to the BVAP of the 3rd Congressional District for the 2002 plan (53.1%), to avoid the twin problems of minority cramming and minority vote dilution. III. TBE Plan A As previously indicated, TBE Plan A fixes the problems in and around the 3rd Congressional District that led to the Court s adverse ruling, namely an emphasis on racial division that yielded a super majority minority district, a lack of contiguity, and a lack of compactness. 1. The existing redistricting plan was used as a baseline. 2. The Congressional Districts have been equalized so that each district is less than 1,000 people different than the ideal population of 727,366. 2 3. Areas of Norfolk, Hampton, Newport News and Richmond are far less balkanized than under the existing plan, and no precincts are split. 4. The 3rd Congressional district can be traveled entirely by motor vehicle without crossing into any other districts. Similarly, there are no narrow landbridges connecting adjacent precincts to maintain the bare appearance of contiguity. 2 The software program utilized by TBE does not allow for precinct splits. Although this necessitates the benefit of unified precincts, it also results in two potential issues. 1. The districts in both plans have not been equalized down to the single person level. 2. The 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Congressional Districts appear not to be perfectly equalized in TBE Plan A. As long as only those modifications to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th are accepted from TBE Plan A there should be no serious equalization problems with the remaining districts. 2

Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AD Document 222 Filed 09/17/15 Page 4 of 7 PageID# 5136 5. All of the affected districts now have fewer protuberances and no tangentially attached precincts. 6. The Third Congressional District has a BVAP of 52.1% under TBE Plan A. This is four percentage points fewer than the current redistricting plan, and only one percentage point less than the 2002 plan. TBE Plan A can be seen and understood in the attached PDF Maps (Exhibit A), and the two data sets submitted to Judge s Chambers on CD ( TBE Plan A CD Demographics, and TBE Plan A Precinct Demographics ). IV. TBE Plan B In the event the Court is inclined to look at a more wholesale adjustment to Virginia s Congressional Districts despite the absence of any readily identifiable racial considerations throughout the rest of the Commonwealth, there are serious issues with compactness that could be addressed. TBE Plan B is designed to address some of these additional issues of compactness and to avoid division of political boundaries and precincts, while still adhering largely to the preferences of the General Assembly, as expressed in the 2012 plan. 1. The existing redistricting plan was used as a baseline. 2. The Congressional Districts have been equalized so that each district is less than 1,000 people different than the ideal population of 727,366. 3 3. Areas of Norfolk, Hampton, Newport News, Richmond, and northern Virginia are far less balkanized than under the existing plan, and no precincts are split. 3 The software program utilized by TBE does not allow for precinct splits. Although this necessitates the benefit of unified precincts, it also results in two potential issues. 1. The districts in both plans have not been equalized down to the single person level. 2. The 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Congressional Districts appear not to be perfectly equalized in TBE Plan A. As long as only those modifications to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th are accepted from TBE Plan A there should be no serious equalization problems with the remaining districts. 3

Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AD Document 222 Filed 09/17/15 Page 5 of 7 PageID# 5137 4. The 3rd Congressional district can be traveled entirely by motor vehicle without crossing into any other districts. Similarly, there are no narrow landbridges connecting adjacent precincts to maintain the bare appearance of contiguity. 5. All of the districts now have fewer protuberances and no tangentially attached precincts. 6. The Third Congressional District has a BVAP of 52.1% under TBE Plan A. This is four percentage points fewer than the current redistricting plan, and only one percentage point less than the 2002 plan. TBE Plan B can be seen and understood in the attached PDF Maps (Exhibit B), and the two data sets submitted to Judge s Chambers on CD ( TBE Plan B CD Demographics, and TBE Plan B Precinct Demographics ). Dated: September 17, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, Bull Elephant Media LLC, By Counsel BY: /s/ Paul A. Prados Virginia State Bar No. 71374 Attorney for Bull Elephant Media LLC Prados Law, PLLC 1900 Campus Commons Dr., Ste. 100 Reston, VA 20191 703.766.6575 703.342.0367 pprados@pradoslaw.com 4

Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AD Document 222 Filed 09/17/15 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 5138 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on this 17th day of September, 2015, I will electronically file the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the Court s CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to the following: Mike Melis Office of the Attorney General 900 East Main Street Richmond Virginia 23219 Attorneys for Defendants in their official capacities Frederick W. Chockley, III Baker and Hostetler LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Attorneys for Movants Robert B. Bell, Christopher Marston, and William Janis John K. Roche Perkins Coie LLP 700 13th St., NW, Ste. 600 Washington, DC 20005 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael Anthony Garvin Jones Day 51 Louisiana Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendants Virginia Representatives. Cullen Dennis Seltzer Sands Anderson PC 1111 East Main Street 24th Floor Richmond, VA 23218 Attorneys for Interested Parties Gregory E. Lucyk 300 Seneca Road Richmond, VA 23226 Counsel for OneVirginia2021 5

Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AD Document 222 Filed 09/17/15 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 5139 BY: /s/ Paul A. Prados Virginia State Bar No. 71374 Attorney for Bull Elephant Media LLC Prados Law, PLLC 1900 Campus Commons Dr., Ste. 100 Reston, VA 20191 703.766.6575 703.342.0367 pprados@pradoslaw.com 6