2012 WL 824858
E.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are New York voters challenging congressional and state legislative redistricting as unconstitutional under population changes from the 2010 census.
- LATFOR is the bipartisan/redistricting body responsible for drawing maps; its independence is disputed by Gov. Cuomo.
- New York will lose two U.S. House seats after the 2010 census, risking disenfranchisement if no new districts are enacted.
- As of early 2012, LATFOR had not produced a congressional map; Governor Cuomo publicly stated he would veto LATFOR plans.
- The districting deadline pressures increased due to federal election scheduling and petitioning timelines, prompting the court to consider interim relief.
- Plaintiffs seek a court-drawn redistricting plan for Congress and state legislatures if the legislative process remains at an impasse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is ripe for federal adjudication. | Plaintiffs: no timely legislative action; risk of unconstitutional elections requires court intervention. | Moving Defendants: ripeness requires further legislative action; four-month pre-election rule argued by some. | The court held the action is ripe and properly within its jurisdiction. |
| Whether Plaintiffs have standing to sue. | Plaintiffs maintain injury-in-fact from overpopulated districts and potential loss of congressional representation. | Defendants contend lack of concrete injury until primary elections. | Plaintiffs have standing; injuries are concrete and traceable, not merely speculative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962) (voters have standing to challenge apportionment; injury to voting power)
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (U.S. 1999) (standing for voting rights)
- Arrington v. Elections Bd., 173 F. Supp. 2d 856 (E.D. Wis. 2001) (ripe redistricting challenges amid election timing)
- Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (court intervention in redistricting before plan adoption)
- Flateau v. Anderson, 537 F. Supp. 257 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (premature redistricting challenges addressed timely)
- Montano v. Suffolk Cnty. Legislature, 263 F. Supp. 2d 644 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (ripe when parties face practical election consequences)
- Perry v. Perez, 132 S. Ct. 934 (U.S. 2012) (courts defer to enacted redistricting plans but may intervene in impasse)