Case Summary
On May 8, 2017, Citizens for Fair Representation, among other organizations, political parties, and voters filed suit against Alex Padilla, in his role as Secretary of State of California, challenging the constitutionality of the numerical caps on the amount of state legislators laid out in Article IV, Section 2 of the California constitution. The plaintiffs contended that by failing to increase the number of state legislators to better reflect the increasing populations of California's legislative districts, the numerical cap provision impairs California citizens' right to self governance in violation of the Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and First Amendment. The District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing, a ruling that was appealed and affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 13, 2020, the plaintiffs appealed the Ninth Circuit's dismissal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On December 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby letting stand the Ninth Circuit's dismissal of the case.
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