Rucho V Common Cause Motion To Affirm by The Common Cause Appellees 11-2-18
Rucho V Common Cause Motion To Affirm by The Common Cause Appellees 11-2-18
18-422
d IN THE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED........................................ i
INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................... 4
A. Factual Background .............................. 4
1. The 2011 Plan............................. 4
2. Creation Of The 2016 Plan......... 5
3. Effect Of The 2016 Plan ............. 7
B. Proceedings Below............................... 10
1. Trial and Appeal ....................... 10
2. Remand ..................................... 13
ARGUMENT ............................................................. 16
I. COMMON CAUSE APPELLEES HAVE
STANDING .................................................... 16
A. The Common Cause Appellees
Proved Dilutionary Injury-in-Fact ..... 16
B. Common Cause Appellees Also
Proved Non-Dilutionary Injury-
in-Fact.................................................. 20
II. COMMON CAUSE APPELLEES’ CLAIMS
ARE JUSTICIABLE ...................................... 23
A. Appellants’ Constitutional Violation
Is Manifest Under Any Standard ....... 25
B. Appellants Conflate Mere Politics
With Invidious Discrimination ........... 28
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Anderson v. Celebrezze,
460 U.S. 780 (1983) .............................................. 21
Baker v. Carr,
369 U.S. 186 (1962) .......................................passim
Burdick v. Takushi,
504 U.S. 428 (1992) .............................................. 34
Castaneda v. Partida,
430 U.S. 482 (1977) ........................................ 31, 32
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)
Clingman v. Beaver,
544 U.S. 581 (2005) .............................................. 40
Cook v. Gralike,
531 U.S. 510 (2001) .................................. 24, 38, 39
Cooper v. Harris,
137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017) ...................................passim
Davis v. Bandemer,
478 U.S. 109 (1986) .................................. 23, 24, 37
Elrod v. Burns,
427 U.S. 347 (1976) .............................................. 35
Gaffney v. Cummings,
412 U.S. 735 (1973) .............................................. 29
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)
Gill v. Whitford,
138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) ...................................passim
Hunt v. Cromartie,
526 U.S. 541 (1999) .............................................. 28
Karcher v. Daggett,
462 U.S. 725 (1983) .............................................. 29
Kusper v. Pontikes,
414 U.S. 51 (1973) ................................................ 22
McConnell v. FEC,
540 U.S. 93 (2003) ................................................ 40
McCutcheon v. FEC,
572 U.S. 185 (2014) .................................... 2, 33, 35
Mobile v. Bolden,
446 U.S. 55 (1980) ................................................ 29
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)
Reynolds v. Sims,
377 U.S. 533 (1964) .............................................. 19
Terry v. Adams,
345 U.S. 461 (1953) .............................................. 22
USDA v. Moreno,
413 U.S. 528 (1973) .............................................. 28
Vieth v. Jubelirer,
541 U.S. 267 (2004) .......................................passim
Wesberry v. Sanders,
376 U.S. 1 (1964) .................................................. 24
Williams v. Rhodes,
393 U.S. 23 (1968) ................................................ 33
Zivotofsky v. Clinton,
566 U.S. 189 (2012) .............................................. 23
viii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page(s)
Constitutional Provisions
Other Authorities
A. Factual Background
B. Proceedings Below
2. Remand
ARGUMENT
* * *
“The first instinct of power is the retention of
power.” McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 263-65 (2003)
(Scalia, J., dissenting), overruled in part by Citizens
United, 558 U.S. 310. Because “the State is itself con-
trolled by the political party … in power,” the courts
play an “important role” in ensuring “that those in
power [are not] using electoral rules” as a “pretext”
for suppressing “electoral competition.” Clingman v.
Beaver, 544 U.S. 581, 603 (2005) (O’Connor, J., con-
curring). Here, there was no “pretext” at all: Appel-
lants openly and unabashedly used State power to
engage in facially invidious discrimination, for the
admitted purpose of destroying meaningful electoral
competition. Appellees have standing; such a case is
justiciable; and Appellants have no colorable defense
on the merits. This Court should therefore affirm.
41
CONCLUSION
Respectfully submitted,
November 2, 2018