SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA **************************************



Similar documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SUGGESTION OF SUBSEQUENTLY DECIDED AUTHORITY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 1312 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Pauline Rowl P. O. Box Charlotte, NC 28222

Case 5:10-cv OLG Document 150 Filed 11/12/12 Page 1 of 6

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION 5:13-CV-633-BO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 5:14-cv BO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

Case 3:11-cv RBD-JBT Document 16 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID 52

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

If You Paid Overdraft Fees to Capital One, Hibernia, or North Fork, You May Be Eligible for a Payment from a Class Action Settlement.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Consolidated Case Nos. 04SA396 and 05SA22, State of Colorado v. City and County of Denver and Sternberg v. City and County of Denver.

Connecticut Sentencing Commission Members

Case 2:13-cv AWA-LRL Document 111 Filed 01/24/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 864

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION. CASE NO. 3:01-cv-1275-J-25 HTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT re~ ~ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

William S. Mills. Curriculum Vitae EMPLOYMENT

TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT DIVISION LOCAL RULES AND CONTINUANCE POLICIES FOR DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL/INFRACTION CASES

Case 8:11-ap KRM Doc 14 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

scc Doc 390 Filed 08/20/12 Entered 08/20/12 15:04:34 Main Document Pg 1 of 6

Case Doc 4960 Filed 11/04/15 Entered 11/04/15 16:49:23 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6

Misc. Docket No. Il Appointment of a District Judge to Preside in a State Bar Disciplinary Action

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 34 Filed 10/19/11 Page 1 of 6

(Filed 5 July 2000) Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 22 February 1999 by. Judge Wiley F. Bowen in Orange County Superior Court.

Case 3:14-cv H-JMA Document 1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 1 of 11. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. V. No. 07 CR 0220 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL UNDER THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

CAUSE NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS

NOW COMES Defendant, Daniel W. Tuttle ( Mr. Tuttle ), by and through counsel, and

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Case 2:09-cv WBS -DAD Document 87 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 3

. ' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE NO Shelby County

If You Paid Overdraft Fees to M&T Bank, You May Be Eligible for a Payment from a Class Action Settlement.

ER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

RDER OF THE SUP R EME COURT OF TEXAS

JOINT MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUSLY-FILED AMICUS BRIEFS

Motion to Consolidate Hearings on Preliminary Injunction and Merits & Brief In Support. Motion. Brief in Support

Seminar Presenters Gale M. Adams: James M. Ayers, II: Amy Baron-Evans: Kelly C. Boyle:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TIMELY COMPLETE THIS PROCESS IF WE DO NOT RECEIVE THIS INFORMATON AT LEAST TWO (2) DAYS BEFORE YOUR SCHEDULED COURT APPEARANCE.

Case 5:09-cv TJC-JRK Document 30 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 5. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Ocala Division

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE APPEALS

Case 1:13-cv LG-RHW Document 17 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 November Appeal by Plaintiff from order entered 15 September 2009 by

Case 3:15-cv N Document 65 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2193 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Court of Appeals, State of Colorado 2 East 14th Ave, Denver, CO 80203

RANDOLPH M. MCLAUGHLIN 78 North Broadway. White Plains, New York (914)

Case 1:13-cv RBJ Document 12 Filed 03/18/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

In the SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA. CASE #: SC Emma Murray LT CASE #: 1D06-475

Misc Docket No

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 February 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

DEFENDANT DEBRA JOHNSON S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Rule 12(c) and 12(h)(2))

Ecug!2<25.ex TDY!!!Fqewogpv!9!!!Hkngf! !!!Rcig!2!qh!6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:03-cv WMH Document 388 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 8

ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS H053. Misc. Docket No Appointment of a District Judge to Preside in a State Bar Disciplinary Action

Misc Docket No. 99- (3005

Supreme Court of Florida

If You Paid Overdraft Fees on Debit Card Transactions to Bank of America, You May Be Eligible for a Payment from a Class Action Settlement.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION II ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:94-cv LKK-GGH Document 1119 Filed 09/17/2004 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

NO SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, vs. JIM CARR HOMEBUILDER, LLC, PAT JOHNSON, THOMAS JOHNSON, Appellees.

Case 3:08-cv JM-CAB Document 9 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA, NORTHERN DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2014 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 536 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2014

Distinguished Professor of Judicial Studies, Washington and Lee University School of Law, 2007 present)

ROBERT A. CHAISSON JUDGE Panel composed of Judges Marion F. Edwards, Clarence E. McManus, and Robert A. Chaisson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE DIVISION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:13-cv MSK-MJW Document 89 Filed 10/24/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 September Bail and Pretrial Release bond forfeiture motion to set aside bail agent

MOTION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICI CURIAE

Case 1:12-cv RMB-AMD Document 40 Filed 03/14/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 497 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY VINCINAGE OF CAMDEN

Case 6:10-cv DNH-ATB Document 76-1 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Master Clerks Academy II Thursday, January 21, 2016 Agenda

Notice of Class Action Lawsuit and Proposed Settlement. You May be Entitled to Receive a Settlement Payment.

Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RICHARD VAN HOUTEN, JR.; STEPHEN HALL,

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

EMERGENCY NOTICE OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No.

Misc Docket No

Transcription:

No. 201PA12-2 TENTH DISTRICT SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA ************************************** MARGARET DICKSON, et al., Plaintiffs, From Wake County v. 11 CVS 16896 11 CVS 16940 ROBERT RUCHO, et al., (Consolidated Defendants. NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF THE NAACP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Defendants. ****************************************************************** PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ****************************************************************** Plaintiffs-Appellants in these consolidated cases respectfully move the Court to apply the precedent established by this Court s Order entered in Stephenson v Bartlett, 355 N.C. 281, 561 S.E.2d 888 (2002, and issue a similar order delaying the 2014 election cycle for the North Carolina General Assembly and the United

- 2 - States House of Representatives until this Court has had sufficient time to properly resolve this appeal. In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs-Appellants respectfully show the Court: 1. The appeal in these cases presents substantial legal questions arising under the United States and North Carolina Constitutions as to the constitutionality of the legislative and congressional redistricting plans enacted by the General Assembly in 2011. One measure of the substantiality of these issues is the amicus curiae briefs filed by legal scholars in North Carolina and from around the nation advising the Court that the trial court order upholding those plans conflicts with established precedent and that those plans are unconstitutional. 2. Oral argument on these questions is scheduled for 6 January 2014. 3. This Court has established the fundamental importance of conducting elections under constitutionally-enacted districting plans so important that in Stephenson v Bartlett, the Court halted the 2002 on-going election process even after candidates had filed and begun campaigning in order to ensure that North Carolina State Senators and Representatives were elected from lawfully-drawn districts. On 7 March 2002, while an appeal was pending regarding the constitutionality of the 2001 redistricting plans and before briefing and oral argument and even after the end of the filing period for those offices, this Court entered an order enjoining the 7 May 2002 primaries to allow sufficient time to

- 3 - resolve the then-pending constitutional issues. See Order at 355 N.C. 281, 561 S.E.2d 888 (2002 (copy attached. 4. Sufficient time may not now exist for this Court to properly resolve the significant federal and state constitutional questions presented in this appeal prior to the 10 February 2014 opening of the filing period for the 2014 elections to the North Carolina General Assembly and United States House of Representatives. The filing period is scheduled to end on 28 February 2014 with primary elections scheduled for 6 May 2014. See N.C.G.S. 163-106. Temporarily delaying the impending 2014 filing period and the 6 May 2014 primaries until prospective candidates and election officials know with certainty the configuration of the election districts would be significantly less disruptive to candidates and election officials and less confusing to the public than in 2002 in Stephenson v. Bartlett where this Court stayed the May primary elections after the filing period had already closed and the campaigns had begun. 5. Delaying the 2014 filing period and primaries to the extent necessary to allow the Court adequate time to resolve the constitutional validity of the 2011 legislative and congressional redistricting plans will have significantly less impact on the 2014 elections process than did this Court s Order in 2002 not only because the 2002 order halted the process after it began, but also because an order entered now will allow significantly more time for redistricting if necessary than in 2002.

- 4 - Oral arguments in Stephenson were held on 4 April 2002, about three months later in the elections process than the 6 January 2014 arguments in these cases. Additionally, in 2002, the Defendants were forbidden to implement any change in the legislative redistricting plans without obtaining prior federal approval, a process that often required as much as three additional months, a requirement that no longer applies to the 2014 elections as a consequence of the United States Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v Holder, 570 U.S., 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013. Thus, there is considerably more time now as compared to 2002 and consequently substantially less disruption if an order is entered now staying the filing period and primary elections. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs-Appellants respectfully move the Court to enjoin the 10 February 2014 through 28 February 2014 filing period and the 6 May 2014 primaries for election to the North Carolina General Assembly and the United States House of Representatives until the Court has resolved the issues presented in the appeal of these cases.

This the 2nd day of January, 2014. - 5 - POYNER SPRUILL LLP By: /s/ Edwin M. Speas, Jr. Edwin M. Speas, Jr. N.C. State Bar No. 4112 espeas@poynerspruill.com P.O. Box 1801 Raleigh, NC 27602-1801 Telephone: 919.783.6400 Facsimile: 919.783.1075 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS- APPELLANTS THE DICKSON PLAINTIFFS N.C. R. App. P. 33(b Certification: I certify that all of the attorneys listed below have authorized me to list their names on this document as if they had personally signed it.

- 6 - POYNER SPRUILL LLP By: /s/ John W. O Hale John W. O Hale N.C. State Bar No. 35895 johale@poynerspruill.com By: /s/ Caroline P. Mackie Caroline P. Mackie N.C. State Bar No. 41512 cmackie@poynerspruill.com P.O. Box 1801 Raleigh, NC 27602-1801 Telephone: 919.783.6400 Facsimile: 919.783.1075 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS- APPELLANTS THE DICKSON PLAINTIFFS

- 7 - SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE By: /s/ Anita S. Earls Anita S. Earls N.C. State Bar No. 15597 anita@southerncoalition.org By: /s/ Allison Riggs Allison Riggs N.C. State Bar No. 40028 AllisonRiggs@southerncoalition.org 1415 Highway 54, Suite 101 Durham, NC 27707 Telephone: (919 323-3380 Facsimile: (919 323-3942 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS- APPELLANTS THE NAACP PLAINTIFFS TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN, PLLC By: /s/ Adam Stein Adam Stein N.C. State Bar No. 4145 astein@tinfulton.com 312 West Franklin Street Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Telephone: (919 240-7089 Facsimile: (919 240-7822 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS- APPELLANTS THE NAACP PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that this day a copy of the foregoing MOTION has been duly served by e-mail and by depositing a copy thereof in an envelope bearing sufficient postage in the United States mail, addressed to the following persons at the following addresses, which are the last addresses known to me: Alexander M. Peters Special Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 apeters@ncdoj.gov snichols@ncdoj.gov Counsel for Defendants John A. Bussian The Bussian Law Firm Suite 1600 150 Fayetteville Street Mall Raleigh, NC 27601 jbussian@bellsouth.net Counsel for Amicus - NC Press Association, Inc., et al. Thomas A. Farr Phillip J. Strach Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27602 thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com phillip.strach@ogletreedeakins.com Counsel for Legislative Defendants Rucho, Lewis, Dollar, Dockham, Berger, and Tillis Mark A. Finkelstein Matthew Nis Leerberg Smith Moore Leatherwood, LLP P.O. Box 27525 Raleigh, NC 27611 mark.finkelstein@smithmoorelaw.com matt.leerberg@smithmoorelaw.com Counsel for Amicus - Election Law Professors

Hugh Stevens Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych, PLLC 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27604 hugh@smvt.com Counsel for Amicus - N.C. Open Government Coalition, Inc. Paul M. Smith Jessica Ring Amunson Leah J. Tulin Michelle R. Singer Jenner & Block LLP 1099 New York Avenue NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 psmith@jenner.com jamunson@jenner.com ltulin@jenner.com msinger@jenner.com Counsel for Amicus - Election Law Professors Kareem Crayton UNC School of Law 160 Ridge Road Chapel Hill, NC 27599 kcrayton@unc.edu Counsel for Amicus - N.C. Legislative Black Caucus Victor Goode NAACP 4805 Mount Hope Drive Baltimore, MD 21215 vgoode@naacpnet.org Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant - North Carolina State Conference of Branches of The NAACP H. Jefferson Powell Duke University School of Law 210 Science Drive Box 90360 Durham, NC 27708-0360 Counsel for Amicus Curiae NC Law Professors Terry Smith DePaul College of Law 25 E. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312362-5760 Tsmith81@depaul.edu Geraldine Sumter Ferguson, Chambers & Sumter, P.A. 741 Kenilworth Avenue, Suite 300 Charlotte, NC 28204 Counsel for Amicus Curiae N.C. Legislative Black Caucus This the 2nd day of January, 2014 /s/ Edwin M. Speas, Jr. Edwin M. Speas, Jr.

Page 1 ASHLEY STEPHENSON, individually, and as a resident and registered voter of Beaufort County, North Carolina; LEO DAUGHTRY, individually, and as Representative for the 95th District, North Carolina House of Representatives; PATRICK BALLENTINE, individually, and as Senator for the 4th District, North Carolina Senate; ART POPE, individually, and as Representative for the 61st District, North Carolina House of Representatives, and BILL COBEY, individually, and as Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party and on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. GARY BARTLETT, as Executive Director of the State Board of Elections; LARRY LEAKE, ROSE VAUGHN WILLIAMS, GENEVIEVE C. SIMS, LORRAINE G. SHINN, and CHARLES WINFREE, as members of the State Board of Elections; JAMES B. BLACK, as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives; MARC BASNIGHT, as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate; MICHAEL EASLEY, as Governor of the State of North Carolina; and ROY COOPER, as Attorney General of the State of North Carolina; Defendants. No. 94P02 SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 355 N.C. 281; 561 S.E.2d 888; 2002 N.C. LEXIS 310 March 7, 2002, Decided NOTICE: [***1] DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION PRIOR HISTORY: From: Johnston County 1 CV 02885. Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 279, 560 S.E.2d 550, 2002 N.C. LEXIS 318 (2002 DISPOSITION: Injunction granted COUNSEL: Mr. Thomas A. Farr, Attorney at Law, For Stephenson et al. Mr. James C. Dever, III, Attorney at Law, for Stephenson et al. Mr. Terence D. Friedman, Attorney at Law, for Stephenson et al. Mr. Phillip J. Strach, Attorney at Law, for Stephenson et al. Mr. Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Chief Deputy Attorney General, for Bartlett et al. Ms. Tiare B. Smiley, Special Deputy Attorney General, For Bartlett et al. Ms. Norma S. Harrell, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Bartlett et al. Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Bartlett et al. Ms. Susan K. Nichols, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Bartlett et al. OPINION

355 N.C. 281, *; 561 S.E.2d 888, **; 2002 N.C. LEXIS 310, ***1 Page 2 [**888] [*281] ORDER The trial court, by order entered in this case on 20 February 2002, concluded that the legislative redistricting plans enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly in November 2001 violate the North Carolina Constitution. On 5 March 2002, Defendants filed notice of appeal in this Court. The principal legal question raised by the present case, arising under the North Carolina Constitution, is a matter of first impression [*282] for this Court. [***2] Notwithstanding the Court's entry of an expedited scheduling order for resolution of this appeal, which provides for oral argument on 4 April 2002, the possibility exists that insufficient time will remain after proper resolution of this appeal by written decision for legislative primary elections, scheduled for 7 May 2002, to proceed in an orderly manner. In light of the extraordinary nature of this case and the exigency of the circumstances for the legislative candidates and the citizens of this State, Defendants are hereby enjoined from conducting primary elections for the office of Senator in the North Carolina Senate and the office of Representative in the North Carolina House of Representatives, scheduled for 7 May 2002. Nothing in this order shall limit or preclude the North Carolina General Assembly, consistent with applicable [**889] law, from enacting legislation to reschedule primary elections for other offices now scheduled for 7 May 2002. This injunction shall remain in effect until further order of this Court. By unanimous order of the Court in Conference, this 7th day of March, 2002. /s/signature For the Court