Case Summary
On May 8, 2017, a coalition of voting rights organizations, political parties, and voters filed a federal lawsuit against California’s Secretary of State challenging the California Constitution’s limit on the number of state legislators as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued that failing to increase the number of representatives to reflect California’s increasing populations impaired California voters’ right to self-governance in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 1st Amendment, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. They sought a declaratory judgment that California’s legislative apportionment scheme was unconstitutional and an injunction establishing a reformed legislative districting scheme.
- On November 29, 2018, the federal district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on December 27, 2018.
- On May 15, 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on October 13, 2020.
- On December 14, 2020, SCOTUS denied certiorari.
Case Library
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California - 2:17-cv-00973
- A Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for Misapportionment and Unconstitutional Vote Dilution & Abridgment in the California Assembly & State Senate - 5/8/17
- Defendant Alex Padilla's Notice of Motion & Motion to Dismiss: Memorandum of Points and Authorities - 5/30/17
- Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss - 8/8/17
- Joint Status Report - 9/1/17
- Order - 1/31/18
- Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for Unconstitutional Vote Dilution in the California Assembly & Senate - 3/19/18
- Defendant Alex Padilla's Notice of Motion & Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities - 4/16/18
- Notice of Motion and Motion to Convene a 3 Judge Court - 4/30/18
- Defendant Secretary of State's Opposition to Motion to Convene 3-Judge Court - 5/17/18
- Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - 5/24/18
- Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Convene Three-Judge Court - 5/24/18
- Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - 6/1/18
- Defendant Secretary of State's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss - 6/8/18
- Defendant's Opposition to Ex Parte Application to File Briefing - 6/26/18
- Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Request for Stay of Proceedings in District Court Due to New Supreme Court Cases that Impact the 6/14/18 Hearing with Rulings Under Submission/Pending and Sue to a Pending Writ of Mandamus in the United States Supreme Court Re Appointment of 3-Judge Court; Memo of Points & Authorities; Declaration of Gary L. Zerman in Support - 6/26/18
- Defendant's Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Stay - 6/29/18
- Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Opposition for Ex Parte Order to Stay - 7/3/18
- Order - 8/1/18
- Order - 8/1/18
- Order - 11/28/18
- Judgment in a Civil Case - 11/29/18
- Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 12/27/18
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 18-17458
- Appellants' Reply Brief - 10/25/19
- Docketing Letter - 12/31/18
- Order - 6/3/19
- Answering Brief of Defendant-Appellee - 8/7/19
- Memorandum - 5/15/20
- Mandate - 6/8/20
- Supreme Court Case Info - 10/22/20
- Denial of Petition for Writ of Certiorari - 12/15/20
Supreme Court of the United States - 20-521
- Petition for Writ of Certiorari - 10/13/20
- Certiorari Petition Denied - 12/14/20