Text of Democratic Motion in TX Redistricting (Balderas vs. Texas)

[goobergunch]

1
MOTION TO PROHIBIT
MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION OF INJUNCTION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Plaintiffs Mayfield, Stanley, Cottle, Lee, and Woods (“the Mayfield Plaintiffs”) respectfully move this Court for an order (1) prohibiting the Defendants from implementing Plan 1374C, the congressional edistricting plan passed by the Texas Legislature on October 12, 2003 (House Bill No. 3, 78th Legislature, 3rd Called Session, 2003), nless and until they have sought and won an order from this Court lifting its 2001 injunction requiring use of Plan 1151C, and (2) establishing an orderly process for consideration of such a modification request.

In support of that motion, we make four basic points. First, there is an injunction currently in place requiring use of the 2001 Court-drawn map (Plan 1151C), and Defendants would have to seek relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to implement the new plan. Second, in assessing such a motion, the Court would be called upon not only to determine the legality of the new map but also to weigh equitable considerations in which the public interest plays a significant role. In particular, Defendants should be required to show some public benefit produced by use of the proposed Plan 1374C that outweighs the disruption caused by using a radically new districting plan for the third election in a row, especially if there is some chance that legal developments will require yet another map before 2006. Proposed Plan 1374C would be particularly disruptive, as it moves more than 8.1 million Texans into new districts. Moreover, as the State has now conceded, Plan 1374C can only be implemented by moving the primary elections – including the presidential primary – from March 2, 2004 (“Super Tuesday”), back to March 9, by which time the Democratic presidential nomination contest will likely have been resolved by primaries held in other States (including California and New York). Third, there are very strong arguments that the new map violates federal law – arguments that would be impossible to resolve without a full evidentiary hearing. Fourth, the Court has been presented with this complex set of questions only weeks before the commencement of the electoral process for 2004, leaving little time for appropriate consideration.

For these reasons, the Mayfield Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that the Court leave the current map in place for the 2004 election cycle and adopt a schedule allowing for orderly consideration of the possibility of putting the Legislature’s new map into effect thereafter. Alternatively, it will be necessary to litigate the relevant issues on a very expedited basis. Under no circumstances, we submit, should the Court allow the new map to take effect without a prior determination that it is lawful and that the balance of relevant equitable considerations justifies a new map at this point in the decade.

more...http://www.txdemocrats.org/IssuesPlatforms/fedlawsuit.pdf