DANIEL GUSTAFSON ET AL. v. ADRIAN JOHNS ET AL.

No. 05-532

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama Southern Division

Decided June 24 , 2005

 

Nature of the Case

1.

This is an action challenging the constitutionality and thus, the validity, of the current electoral representational plans for the Alabama Senate and the Alabama House of Representatives (individually, "the House redistricting plan" and "the Senate redistricting plan" and collectively, "the state legislative redistricting plans"). Plaintiffs' challenge is brought under Article IV, 2 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

2.

Under 42 U.S.C. §1983, Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the districts contained in the state legislative redistricting plans violate Article IV, 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that (1) the disproportionate sizes of the districts and regional discrimination found in the state legislature redistricting plans violate the constitutional principle of "one person, one vote", and (2) the state legislature redistricting plans constitute illegal partisan gerrymandering. Plaintiffs further seek declaratory judgment that the state legislature redistricting plans unconstitutional impinge upon their freedom of association rights, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that the plans penalize Republican voters and Representatives solely because of their party affiliation and political beliefs. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that continued use of the districts in the state legislative redistricting plans cannot be justified as furthering any legitimate, consistently applied state interest, and therefore, such continued use is unconstitutional. Upon, such declarations, Plaintiffs request that the Court grant injunctive relief, prohibiting Defendants from conducting any further election or election-related activities, including candidate qualifying, under the state legislative redistricting plans. Plaintiffs further request that, in the event that the constitutional plans are not enacted, precleared under 42 U.S.C. §1973 and in place in sufficient time for 2006 elections and election-related activities (including candidate qualifying) to proceed accordingly to the statutory schedule, the Court formulate and implement interim redistricting plans for Alabama's state legislative districts which comport with constitutional and statutory requirements. Finally, Plaintiffs seek their costs and attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C §1988.

 

Full Case Text