9th Circuit Rejects en Banc Consideration of Poway Case Against California Voting Rights Act, for Now

Order from the 9th Circuit:

Filed order and amended memorandum (SUSAN P. GRABER, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN). Movants-Appellants petition for panel rehearing filed in case No. 18-55506 is GRANTED in part. The memorandum disposition filed June 14, 2018, is amended by the memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this order, as follows: On page 3, at the end of paragraph 1, insert the following: See, e.g., Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254 (2003) (considering on the merits a challenge to a redistricting plan by individual voters in the affected geographic area). We, of course, express no view on the merits of any of Plaintiffs theories. See Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Independent Redistricting Commn, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2663 (2015) (holding that the state legislature had standing to challenge redistricting and cautioning that courts must not conflate the potential weakness of a claim on the merits with an absence of Article III standing). With this amendment, Judges Graber and M. Smith have voted to deny Movants-Appellants petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Hellerstein has so recommended. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. Movants-Appellants petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. Movants-Appellants “Motion for Designation as Party-Respondents” in case No. 18-55455 is DENIED and “Motion to Recall the Mandate” in case No. 18-55455 is GRANTED only for the limited purpose of filing this order to amend the memorandum disposition filed June 14, 2018. No further petitions for panel rehearing or for rehearing en banc may be filed. The mandates in these cases shall issue forthwith.; Amending Disposition Memorandum REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

The case is back before the district court, and there is no question to me it will be back before the 9th Circuit (and perhaps the Supreme Court) at some point down the line.


Comments are closed.