You can find the Jackson Plaintiffs/Democratic Intervenors brief here (see also the accompanying declaration) and the state’s brief here. (I will post other briefs if I receive them electronically.) Simultaneous reply briefs are due later this month.
The question is what Vieth means, given Justice Kennedy’s concurrence. The Jackson/Democratic Party brief says that upon careful examination of the opinions in Vieth, it has uncovered a standard: five Justices (the four dissenters plus Kennedy) agree that an unconstitutional political gerrymander occurs when three conditions are met:
- 1. That the map-drawing decisions made in at least some districts cannot be explained as springing from efforts to obey legal mandates or to follow traditional nonpartisan districting principles like compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions and natural barriers, or other neutral state traditions;
2. That the departures from traditional districting principles can be explained as driven by an agenda of achieving partisan advantage because they serve to maximize the impact of votes cast for the favored party