Last Updated: September 10, 2010 at 1:40 PM
Chesnut v. Democratic Party of Nevada
Case Information
Date Filed / Ended: January 11, 2007 / March 19, 2008
State: Nevada
Issue: Selection of Presidential Electors
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court, District of Nevada (Case 2:08-cv-00046)
Issue:
Whether locating the nine at-large Democratic caucuses in casinos violates Nevada law.
Status:
Complaint filed January 11, 2008. Motion for TRO denied 1/17/08.
District Court Documents
- Complaint
(filed 1/11/08) - Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (filed 1/14/08)
- Submission of PROPOSED ORDER on Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (filed 1/15/08)
- MOTION to Intervene (filed 1/15/08)
- RESPONSE to Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Intervenor Defendant Democratic National Committee (filed 1/16/08)
- RESPONSE to Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Defendant Democratic Party of Nevada (filed 1/16/08)
- REPLY to Response to Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order (filed 1/16/08)
- Preliminary/Permanent Injunction Hearing held on 1/17/2008; The court made its findings: denying Motion for TRO; granting Motion to Intervene (entered 1/17/08) [non document]
- Submission of PROPOSED ORDER (filed 1/28/08)
- STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice (filed 3/17/08)
- ORDER DISMISSING CASE with Prejudice (entered 3/19/08)
Related Links
- Obama Questions Nevada Caucus Lawsuit, New York Times, 1/13/08
Commentary
A Poster Child for Dysfunctional Districting
Daniel P. Tokaji
Fifty years ago next month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Baker v. Carr (1962), inaugurating the “reapportionment revolution” which led to the redrawing of legislative districts across the country. This milestone provides the opportunity to reflect not only on what has been accomplished, but also on what still needs to be done.
more commentary...