843 F. Supp. 2d 584
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Pennsylvania constitution requires reapportionment every ten years and establishes a five-member Legislative Reapportionment Commission (LRC) with timelines for preliminary/final plans and appeals.
- The 2011 LRC plan was found unconstitutional by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and remanded to the LRC; the 2001 Plan remained in effect pending a corrected final plan.
- The 2012 primary election was scheduled for April 24, 2012, with numerous statutory deadlines and election procedures activated; the election process was already underway.
- Plaintiffs (Pileggi, Turzai, Kupperman; Garcia, Quiles, Rivera Matías; Smith) allege violations of federal and state Equal Protection/VRA provisions and seek to block use of the 2001 Plan for 2012.
- Intervenors (Costa, Dermody) moved to intervene and to dismiss; the Court held hearings on February 6, 2012.
- The court ultimately denied the motions, concluding the 2001 Plan could be used under Reynolds v. Sims given the imminent election and ongoing election machinery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a TRO should be granted given imminent elections. | Plaintiffs argue 2001 Plan is unconstitutional and relief is needed. | Defendant argues Reynolds allows proceeding under 2001 Plan to maintain orderly elections. | TRO denied; Reynolds framework applied. |
| Whether a three-judge panel must be convened. | Plaintiffs seek three-judge panel review. | Denying immediate relief and proceedings under 2001 Plan render three-judge panel unnecessary. | Three-judge panel not convened; panel not required. |
| Whether proceeding under the 2001 Plan serves the public interest. | Delaying elections safeguards constitutional requirements. | Delaying would disrupt elections and disenfranchise voters; proceed under 2001 Plan. | Proceed with 2001 Plan; denial of TRO serves public interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (establishes Reynolds framework for timing of relief in apportionment cases)
- Maryland Citizens for a Representative General Assembly v. Governor of Maryland, 429 F.2d 606 (4th Cir. 1970) (considerations of election disruption in Reynolds context)
- Mac Govern v. Connolly, 637 F. Supp. 111 (D. Mass. 1986) (stay hand when relief would cause more disruption than clarity)
- Graves v. City of Montgomery, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (dismissing claims where imminent election impacts relief)
- Donatelli v. Mitchell, 2 F.3d 508 (3d Cir. 1993) (court not to determine plan merits when election timing dictates restraint)
- Cardona v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 785 F. Supp. 837 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (denying preliminary injunction where timing/disruption risk)