Moritz College of Law | Page not found
HTTP 404 Not Found

OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama

Case Information

Date Filed: August 10, 2012
State: Alabama
Issue: Redistricting
Courts that Heard this Case: United States Supreme Court (Case 13-1138 ); United States District Court Middle District of Alabama (Case 12-CV-691)

Issue:

Whether Alabama’s effort to redraw the lines of each majority-black district to have the same black population as it would have using 2010 census data as applied to the former district lines, when combined with the state's new goal of significantly reducing population deviation among districts, amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; and whether these plaintiffs have standing to bring such a constitutional claim.

Status:

Appellees' Motion to Dismiss or Affirm filed in U.S. Supreme Court 4/21/14. Appellants' Reply filed 5/5/14. Appellees' Brief filed 10/9/14. Appellants' Reply Brief filed 10/28/14. U.S. Supreme Court Opinion filed 3/25/15. Judgment filed 4/27/15. District Court order denying summary judgment filed 4/28/15. Plaintiffs' post-remand brief filed 6/12/15. Defendants' post-remand brief filed 7/24/15. Order for plaintiffs to file new statewide redistricting plan 8/28/15. Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority (U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission) filed 4/22/16. District Court opinion on remand striking down 12 Alabama districts as unconstitutional gerrymanders filed 1/20/17. Opinion and Order on objections to remedial redistricting plan filed 10/12/17. Final Judgment filed 10/23/17. Order on Costs and Attorney Fees filed 11/8/17.

Supreme Court Documents

 

District Court Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

Filibusters are not for shutdowns

Edward B. Foley

The minority party must win elections, not derail the government, to prevail on policy.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Ohio voters may change way Congress lines are drawn

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in the Dayton Daily News about the potential outcomes of several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court that will address partisan gerrymandering.

“One direction is the court basically abandoning any role to try to police excessive partisanship in these maps,” Foley said. “The other fork in the road would take the federal judiciary down the path of being something of a police officer on this issue.”
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Federal Court Finds Unconstitutional Partisan Gerrymandering in North Carolina

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina released a lengthy opinion Tuesday finding that North Carolina\'s 2016 Congressional Redistricting Plan was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The case is Common Cause v. Rucho.

more info & analysis...