Plaintiffs in Common Cause v. Rucho have filed a new brief before the three-judge district court addressing Gill‘s impact on both standing and the merits of their constitutional claims. The brief and exhibits along with a press release are available here. An excerpt from Common Cause plaintiffs’ response to four questions posed by the court:
1. Gill has no impact on this Court’s prior holdings that the 2016 Plan violates both
the First Amendment and Article I, §§ 2 and 4 of the Constitution….
2. The existing factual record is adequate to support this Court’s previous finding of
fact that the Common Cause Plaintiffs’ votes were diluted under the 2016 Plan and its
holding that they have standing ….
3. No supplementation of the record is required to establish the Common Cause
Plaintiffs’ standing …. Nevertheless, in light of the remand by the Supreme Court, this
Court can and should make supplemental findings based on the already-existing record in
… further support of its previous holding that the Common Cause Plaintiffs have established
4. Under Gill, the Common Cause Plaintiffs have standing to assert district-specific
vote dilution claims under the Equal Protection Clause challenging the apportionment of
their respective individual districts [and standing to assert associational and structural claims].
Update: The League of Women Voters plaintiffs’ brief is here on CLC’s site (along with Appendices 1, 2 & 3). The last appendix nicely shows how the packed districts in the enacted plan compare to hypothetical alternatives.