LINKContact: Jill Farrell, Judicial Watch,
202-646-5188
WASHINGTON, Aug. 28, 2015 /Standard Newswire/ --
Judicial Watch
announced today that it filed an
amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking
the court to affirm the
Three-Judge Court Act, a law requiring three federal
judges to be empaneled to hear key federal lawsuits concerning redistricting,
voting rights, and other key constitutional issues. In contravention of the
Three-Judge Court Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit allowed
a single judge to rule on a critical Maryland gerrymandering case (
Stephen M. Shapiro, et al., v. David J. McManus, Jr.,
Chairman, Maryland State Board of Elections, et al. (No. 14-990)). Judicial
Watch filed the amicus brief on August 14, 2015.
The Three-Judge Court
Act requires that three-judge panels must hear all constitutional challenges to
legislative redistricting unless, according past Supreme Court rulings, a case
is "obviously frivolous," "essentially fictitious," "wholly insubstantial," or
"obviously without merit."
In 2013, the Fourth Circuit departed from this
precedent, determining that a single judge could decide not to convene a
three-judge panel if he determined the case was not "plausible." The Fourth
Circuit applied the same standard in its 2014 ruling against Shapiro and fellow
plaintiffs John Benisek, and Maria Pycha.
In November 2013, Shapiro,
Benisek, and Pycha sued Maryland state officials alleging that the 2011
congressional districts established by the Maryland General Assembly violated
their constitutional rights. When the District Court dismissed the suit, the
plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In
October 2014, a single Fourth Circuit Court judge upheld the District Court
ruling, denying the plaintiffs an oral hearing before a three-judge panel. In
February 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
U.S. Supreme Court which the Supreme Court granted in June 2015.
Judicial
Watch has particular interest, as it represents several Maryland voters in a
lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Maryland's gerrymandered
congressional district maps. Judicial Watch's amicus brief argues
that:
(T)he Fourth Circuit's ruling violates the Three-Judge Court Act
and will allow states to delay judicial review of gerrymandered redistricting
plans that disenfranchise voters and violate the Constitution. Moreover, on June
24, 2015, Judicial Watch filed a new constitutional challenge to Maryland's
redistricting plan on behalf of several plaintiffs. See Parrott v. McManus, No.
1:15-cv-01849 (D. Md.). The plaintiffs have asked for a three-judge panel in
Parrott, but no such panel has been convened yet, and a motion to dismiss is
currently pending before the single judge initially assigned to the
case.
MORE:
www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-amicus-brief-asking-supreme-court-to-require-fourth-circuit-to-follow-three-judge-court-act-in-maryland-gerrymandering-challenge/Amicus CuriaeJudicial Watch Files Amicus
Brief Asking Supreme Court To Require Fourth Circuit to Follow Three-Judge Court
Act in Maryland Gerrymandering ChallengeAUGUST 28,
2015
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed an
amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking
the court to affirm the Three-Judge Court Act, a law requiring three federal
judges to be empaneled to hear key federal lawsuits concerning redistricting,
voting rights, and other key constitutional issues. In contravention of the
Three-Judge Court Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit allowed
a single judge to rule on a critical Maryland gerrymandering case (
Stephen M. Shapiro, et al. v. David J. McManus, Jr.,
Chairman, Maryland State Board of Elections, et al. (No. 14-990)). Judicial
Watch filed the amicus brief on August 14, 2015.
The Three-Judge Court
Act requires that three-judge panels must hear all constitutional challenges to
legislative redistricting unless, according past Supreme Court rulings, a case
is “obviously frivolous,” “essentially fictitious,” “wholly insubstantial,” or
“obviously without merit.”
In 2013, the Fourth Circuit departed from this
precedent, determining that a single judge could decide not to convene a
three-judge panel if he determined the case was not “plausible.” The Fourth
Circuit applied the same standard in its 2014 ruling against Shapiro and fellow
plaintiffs John Benisek, and Maria Pycha.
In November 2013, Shapiro,
Benisek, and Pycha sued Maryland state officials alleging that the 2011
congressional districts established by the Maryland General Assembly violated
their constitutional rights. When the
District Court dismissed the suit, the plaintiffs
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In October 2014, a
single Fourth Circuit Court judge upheld the District Court
ruling, denying the plaintiffs an oral hearing before a three-judge panel.
In February 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme
Court, which the
Supreme Court granted in June 2015.
Judicial
Watch has a particular interest, as it represents several Maryland voters in
a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of
Maryland’s gerrymandered congressional district maps. Judicial Watch’s amicus
brief argues that:
The Fourth Circuit’s ruling violates the Three-Judge
Court Act and will allow states to delay judicial review of gerrymandered
redistricting plans that disenfranchise voters and violate the Constitution.
Moreover, on June 24, 2015, Judicial Watch filed a new constitutional challenge
to Maryland’s redistricting plan on behalf of several plaintiffs. See Parrott v.
McManus, No. 1:15-cv-01849 (D. Md.). The plaintiffs have asked for a three-judge
panel in Parrott, but no such panel has been convened yet, and a motion to
dismiss is currently pending before the single judge initially assigned to the
case.
Judicial Watch points out that the Fourth Circuit’s circumvention
of federal law results in “an allocation of authority” to one federal court
judge that “cannot be squared with Congress’s judgment—recognized by this Court
and others—that apportionment challenges and other types of three-judge cases
are too important to be decided in the first instance by a single judge. Nor is
the difference between one and three judges merely a formality.”
Congress
intended redistricting and other constitutional challenges under laws such as
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be heard under the “exceptional procedure” of a
special three-judge panel. In 1976, Congress specifically tried to ensure that
redistricting cases were handled by such panels in order “to assure more weight
and greater deliberation by not leaving the fate of such litigation to a single
judge. By instead using motions to dismiss to limit access to three-judge
courts, the Fourth Circuit has turned the Three-Judge Court Act’s purpose and
framework on its head.”
The Three-Judge Court Act allows appeals from the
three judge panels to go directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the federal
Circuit Courts of Appeals. This statute assures a more speedy resolution to this
important class of cases, which is undermined by the Fourth Circuit’s rule,
especially in redistricting cases (which impact both federal and state
elections):
And when the clock is always counting down towards the next
election, such a delay can control whether the alleged constitutional violation
can be remedied or if it is something that a state’s voters simply must
swallow.
The 2013 lawsuit by Shapiro, Benisek, and Pycha came in response
to a Congressional Districting Plan signed into law by then-Gov. Martin O’Malley
in October 2011. Critics at the time charged that the new congressional map was
specifically designed to enhance the power of select incumbents while minimizing
the voting power of minorities, rural voters and Republicans. The
Washington Post editorialized: “The map, drafted under
Mr. O’Malley’s watchful eye, mocks the idea that voting districts should be
compact or easily navigable. The eight districts respect neither jurisdictional
boundaries nor communities of interest. To protect incumbents and for partisan
advantage, the map has been sliced, diced, shuffled and shattered, making
districts resemble studies in cubism.”
Earlier this year, when the
Supreme Court was deciding whether to take up the Three-Judge Court Act
challenge, Judicial Watch filed the only amicus brief. The Supreme Court agreed
with Judicial Watch and the petitioners and granted cert. on June 8,
2015.
“The Supreme Court should affirm the Three-Judge Court Act and
remind the Fourth Circuit that the federal courts are not above the law,” said
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Fourth Circuit subverts the law by
allowing one judge inordinate power to effectively decide whether voters can
challenge how a state draws congressional and state legislative districts. The
Supreme Court should now check this judicial legislating that makes it harder
for voters to vindicate their constitutional rights.”
Judicial Watch is
working with attorneys
Meir Feder and
Rajeev Muttreja
of the
Jones Day
law firm, who prepared and filed this amicus brief on Judicial Watch’s
behalf.
Judicial Watch first entered the Maryland redistricting battle on
August 10, 2012, when it represented MDPetitions.com and Delegate Neil Parrott
in
its successful lawsuit to block a move by the state’s
Democrat party to have an Election Day voter referendum on the state’s
controversial gerrymandering plan removed from the ballot. Three weeks later,
Judicial Watch again represented Delegate Parrott in
filing a complaint against Maryland Secretary of State
John McDonough and the State Board of Elections challenging the misleading
language of the wording of the ballot question. The current constitutional
challenge to the Maryland gerrymander is pending in federal court (
Parrott, et al, v. Lamone, et al (No.
1:15-cv-01849).Read more about
gerrymandering,
Maryland,
Maryland redistricting
