1
2
3
4
5
6
BARIC TRAN & MINESINGER
Steven D. Baric (State Bar # 200066)
2603 Main Street, Suite 1050
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: 949.468.1047
Fax:
949-251-1886
Email:
sbaric@bamlawyers.com
9
10
SULLIVAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
Paul Sullivan, SBN 088138 - DCSB 488382
601 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone:
202-434-8263
Email:
paul@psullivanlaw.com
11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
8
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
13
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT
COURT
OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
16
GEORGE RADANOVICH, CHARLES
PATRICK, GWEN PATRICK, OMAR
NAVARRO, TRUNG PRAN
17
Plaintiffs
18
19
20
v.
21
22
DEBRA BOWEN, in her official capacity
23
as SECRETARY OF STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; THE CITIZENS
REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
24
27
28
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
25
26
)
Defendants
)
)
1--------------------------)
Case#:
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1
INTRODUCTION
2
1.
This is a redistricting lawsuit. This complaint challenges certified maps for
3
the California Congressional maps that were adopted on August 15,2011 by the Citizens
4
Redistricting
5
under Article XXI, §2 of the California Constitution to redistrict California following the
6
decennial census of 2010.
7
State not to make use of those certain certified Congressional maps. Three of the
8
Congressional Districts (37th, 43rd, and 44th) are drawn in violation of the Equal
9
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in violation of
10
the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973 (a). These numerous violations have resulted in
11
depriving African-American, Latino and Asian voters the opportunity to elect candidates
12
of choice.
13
2.
Commission ("Commission"),
pursuant to the Commission's
mandate
Plaintiffs seek relief directing the California Secretary of
On information
and belief, unless this Court issues injunctive relief,
14
defendant Secretary of State will soon implement the Commission's unconstitutional or
15
otherwise illegal Congressional map as set forth more particularly herein.
16
17
3.
Pursuant to the California Constitution, Plaintiffs sought relief for state and
federal claims in the California Supreme Court. Plaintiffs were denied in state court.
18
JURISDICTION
19
4.
Plaintiff complaint arises under the United States Constitution and Federal
20
statutes.
21
1343(a)(3) and (4), and 1988.
This Court has jurisdiction
over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
22
5.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
23
6.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 USC §§220 1
24
and 2202.
25
7.
26
2284.
27
III
28
III
Plaintiff request the convening of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 USC §
2
1 II
2 II
PARTIES
8.
GEORGE RADANOVICH ("RADANOVICH")
is of majority age and is a
3 1156year resident of California, a qualified registered voter and a person who has voted in
4 II the California general elections for the last 38 years.
5 II Congress
He is a former member of
for sixteen years (retiring in 2010) and as such is familiar with the
6 II Congressional
Districts
and the make-up
of those
districts.
Any change
7 II Congressional District lines will have a ripple effect throughout California.
in
As such,
8 II any change in existing lines will impact Plaintiffs ability to vote for the candidate of his
9
10
choice.
9.
CHARLES N. PATRICK ("PARICK"), is an African-American of majority
11 II age and a resident of Gardena, California, and has been so since 1999. Mr. Patrick has
12 II been a resident of California for over 50 years. He is a qualified registered voter in the
13 II State of California and has voted in the California general elections for more than the
14 II past 20 years. Plaintiff resides in the areas covered by Congressional Districts 37, 43,
15 1144. As such, the illegal actions of Defendants have directly affected his ability to vote
16
17
for the candidates of his choice.
10.
GWEN PATRICK ("P ARICK"), is an African-American of majority age
18 II and a resident of Gardena, California, and has been so since 1999. Mrs. Patrick has been
19 II a resident of California for over 50 year. She is a qualified registered voter in the State of
20 II California and has voted in the California general election for more than the past 20
21 II years. Plaintiff resides in the areas covered by Congressional Districts 37, 43, 44. As
22 II such, the illegal actions of Defendants have directly affected his ability to vote for the
23
24
candidates of his choice.
11.
OMAR NAVARRO ("NA VARRO") is a Latino of majority age and a
25 II resident of Torrance, California and has been so for the last five years. He has been a
26
resident of the State of California for his entire life. He is a qualified registered voter
27
who has voted in all the California general elections since his 18th birthday. Plaintiff
28 II resides in the areas covered by Congressional Districts 37, 43, 44. As such, the illegal
3
1
actions of Defendants have directly affected his ability to vote for the candidates of his
2
choice.
3
12.
TRUNG PHAN ("PRAN') is an Asian-American and a qualified registered
4
voter of majority age; he is a resident of the State of California and he has voted in the
5
last several California general elections. Plaintiff resides in the areas covered by
6
Congressional Districts 37, 43, 44. As such, the illegal actions of Defendants have
7
directly affected his ability to vote for the candidates of his choice.
8
9
13.
DEBRA BOWEN ("RESPONDENT") is the Secretary of State of the State
of California and is sued in her official capacity.
Respondent is the chief elections
10
officer of the State of California and is responsible for certifying and implementing
11
statutes that pertain to California Congressional voting Districts and mandated mailing
12
of the state voting ballot pamphlet for each Congressional election, all of which are paid
13
for by taxpayer funds.
14
14.
CITIZENS
REDISTRICTING
COMMISSION
(referred
to
as "the
15
COMMISSION" and "REAL PARTY" herein) is the official governmental body
16
charged by Article XXI, §2(a) of the California Constitution with redistricting California
17
after the 2010 decennial census. The Commission is also responsible for the defense of
18
legal challenges concerning the constitutionality or legality of certified maps for the
19
Congressional District. (California Constitution Article XXI §3(a).) While the voters
20
removed redistricting from the Legislature's power, by virtue of enacted initiatives
21
referenced below, in this matter, the Commission is not entitled to the deference the
22
Courts have previously afforded the Legislature as a coordinate branch under separation
23
of powers principles.
24
25
26
FACTS
The Redistricting Process and Changes in California Law
15.
On November
4, 2008, California voters adopted Proposition
II.
27
Proposition 11 amended Article XXI of the California Constitution to substitute a newly-
28
created Citizens Redistricting Commission in the place of the Legislature to "adjust the
4
1
boundary lines" of State Legislative and Board of Equalization districts following each
2
decennial census (California Constitution Article XXI, §1) and provided that the
3
Commission
4
consideration of and comment on the drawing of district lines, draw district lines in
5
accordance with the criteria in this article, and conduct themselves with integrity and
6
fairness. " (California Constitution Article XXI, §2(b ).)
7
16.
shall "conduct an open and transparent
process enabling full public
Proposition 20, adopted by the voters of California on November 2, 2010,
8
and established a formula for composing the Citizens Redistricting Commission (Article.
9
XXI, §2(c) (2)-(6), and provided that the selection process for selecting Commissioners
10
"is designed to produce a Commission that is independent from legislative influence and
11
reasonably representative of the State's diversity." (California Constitution Article XXI,
12
§ 2(c) (1).)
13
17.
In addition, Proposition
11 amended
the Article XXI "criteria"
for
14
redistricting.
15
(1) the federal Constitution's
16
Constitution's reasonably equal population requirements, and (3)pursuant to the federal
17
Supremacy Clause, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended ("VRA"). After
18
these priority requirements, Proposition 11 supplemented and adopted almost verbatim
19
the criteria formulated by the California Supreme Court in Legislature v. Reinecke, 10
20
Cal. 3rd 396 (1973) ("Reinecke")
21
18.
Article XXI, §2(d)(1) provides that redistricting must first comply with,
equal population
requirements;
(2) the California
and Wilson v. Eu 1 Cal.4th 707 ("Wilson") decisions.
Proposition 11 left redistricting of Congressional districts to the Legislature.
22
However, on November 2,2010, after the proceedings to establish the Commission was
23
underway,
24
Commission also to adopt Congressional district maps following the decennial census.
the voters of California
adopted Proposition
20, which authorize the
25
19.The full 14-member Commission was selected according to the processes
26
set forth in Proposition 11 and established as of December 15, 2010. The Commission
27
was comprised of 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats and 4 Independents, also referenced by
28
the Commission as the "Do Not Declare Pool.
5
Once the maps are drawn by the
1
Commission, they must be approved by at least 9 of the 14 members. Those 9 must also
2
contain at least 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 3 who are not affiliated with either
3
political party.
4
20.
In the ensuing period from December 15, 2010 to August 15, 2011, the
5
Commission, as required by Proposition 20, hired an executive director and staff; hired
6
demographic/line-drawing
7
polarized voting" consultant, Dr. Barreto. The Commission also held public meetings to
8
hear comment and testimony from members of the public and groups and individuals
9
who submitted proposed district maps of their own, prior to June 10, 2011, when it
consultants, Voting Rights Act counsel and a special "racially
10
released
11
Equalization districts; held subsequent public meetings prior to releasing "preliminary
12
final maps" for these four types of districts on July 29, 2011; and adopted resolutions
13
certifying the "final maps" (which were unchanged from the "preliminary final maps"
14
that had been publicly-released on July 29, 2011) on August 15, 2011; issued, "State of
15
California Citizens Redistricting
16
August 15, 2011. (Exhibit A) The Final Report, at pp. 52-62 sets forth its findings and
17
reasons for adopting the certified Congressional maps, on a district-by-district basis.
18
Constitutional Violations
19
21.
the first draft maps for Congressional,
The African-American
state legislative
and Board of
Commission Final Report On 2011 Redistricting,
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) in LA
20
County has seen a steady decline during the last 30 years to the point where it currently
21
stands at 8.2 % and cannot currently justify 3 Congressional Districts.
22
African-American
23
County and Hispanics were at 27.6%. 1990 10.6% and 37.8% respectively; 2000 9.8%
24
and 44.6% respectively and 2010 8.3 and 47.7; absolute numbers for African-Americans
25
has dropped from 944,009 in 1980 to 856,874 in 2010; while Hispanic absolute numbers
26
have increased from 2,065,727 in 1980 to 4,687,899 in 2010.
27
28
22.
1980 Census
residents in Los Angeles County constituted 12.6 percent of the
The failure of the Commission to draw one or two Section 2 African-
American majority-minority district will in all likelihood be the direct cause for a non6
1 African-American representing each of the Los Angeles County Congressional Districts
2
during the next decade.
3
current standards of review to determine if there has been a violation of Section 2 of the
4
VRA. Accordingly, a Section 2 violation occurs where 'a contested electoral practice or
5
structure results in members of a protected group having less opportunity than other
6
members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect
7
representatives of their choice'. Importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has invoked
8
Section 2 to strike down legislative redistricting plans that result in minority vote
9
dilution as defmed by Section 2. (See LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. at pp 423-443).
10
11
23.
The Commission in its Final Report aptly summarizes the
Clearly the Voting Rights Act applies to Los Angeles County.
ethniclracial populations are very compact in Los Angeles County.
The
The minority
12 population concentration is in excess of the 50 percent of the CVAP. Also, the voters
13
have a long history of voting for and electing minority group candidates of choice.
14
15
24.
There is overwhelming evidence in the Commission's record that the LA
County area has a history of polarized voting. The Commission retained the services of
16 Dr. Matt A Barreto of the University of Washington for purposes of conducting a
17
racially polarized voting study. (Exhibit B) He issued an opinion to the Commission on
18
July 13, 2010 regarding voter polarization. After a review by Dr. Barreto of the 2006,
19
2008 and 2010 primary elections in Los Angeles, he concluded, "The fmdings have
20
demonstrated that polarized voting exist county wide throughout Los Angeles, as well as
21
in specific regions such as the city of Los Angeles, the eastern San Gabriel Valley area,
22
northern L.A. County and centrallsouthwest region of L.A. County". (Exhibit B)
23
25.
A similar conclusion was reach by the Commission's own legal counsel.
24
"We have concluded that racially polarized voting likely exist in Los Angeles County.
25
The evidence we have reviewed indicates that a significant number of Latinos vote
26
together for the same candidates, while non-Latinos vote in significant numbers for
27
different candidates." (Exhibit C).
28
III
7
1
26.
With this overwhelming level of evidence in its record, the Commission
2
had the obligation to comply with the mandates of the VRA and draw one or perhaps
3
two Section 2 African-American districts. In its attempt to maintain the three incumbent
4
Congressional Districts and disregard the evidence before it, the Commission looked
5
predominantly at the race/ethnic make-up of the district in drawing the lines for those 3
6
Congressional Districts. In doing so, its actions violated the provisions of Section 2 of
7
the VRA and on that basis the maps must be voided.
8
27.
For the Commission the composition of race in the district was the
9
predominate factor in drawing district lines in Congressional Districts 37, 43 and 44.
10
The Commission's records are replete with evidence that race was the predominate, if
11
not the sole reason for the three Congressional District's composition. In fact, when
12
discussing the creation of a VRA protected African American district that would keep
13
the African American community together Commissioner Parvenu stated
14
African American VRA protected district "doesn't really do the African American
15
community any justice ...it actually benefits the African American community to not
16
have those higher percentages." This is indicative of the predominate use of race for the
17
Commission's actions in the three L.A. County Congressional Districts.
18
28.
that, an
It is clear by simply looking at the 37th, 43rd and 44th Congressional
19
district lines that compactness was of no regard. In addition, there nothing contiguous
20
about the way the African American Community in the 37th and 43rd districts is cut in
21
half by the commission. The compactness and contiguity of that community has been
22
ignored. In that same vein, any respect for the African American community in these
23
districts as a political subdivision has also been ignored. Dividing the African American
24
community in this manner does nothing to forward or respect the historically traditional
25
criteria of districting and unconstitutionally
26
Congressional Districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the VRA
27
28
29.
dilutes the African American vote in the
In addition to these basic and traditional districting criteria the court should
also consider the manner in which these district lines exploit the detailed racial data of
8
1 these districts.
Creating three diluted African American districts was not simply a
2
consideration for the Commission, it was their foremost concern. In discussing the
3
creation of three diluted African American districts that purposefully separates the
4
African American community Commissioner Parvenu stated the following: "The net
5
result of this is exactly what I talked about earlier, that the core focus is not on the urban
6
core of Los Angeles. What this does is regionalize it into north, central and south. My
7
issue too is that I've been all over this state and I have patiently listened and advocated
8
for other ethnic groups and their ability to have districts where they could be elected and
9
keep their communities whole ...what this does is reduces the areas where African
10
American candidates can be elected from three to one packed into that one district. I see
11
the logic of the geographic logic and placement, but it effectively disenfranchises,
12
disengages, or makes opportunity district less available for African Americans to run
13
and be candidates at a congress level in this part of the city. Been all over this state and it
14
seems interesting to me that when it comes to this part of the city the VRA is now an
15
instrument to be used against the African American population."
16
30.
In discussing the Commission's decision to create three diluted African
17
American districts rather than one or two VRA protected districts, Commissioner
18
Gambos Malloy stated that "it's not just about §2 and §5...fair and effective
19
representation for minorities is not an option it is part of our job, it is what we were put
20
here to do." The use of this detailed racial data was purposefully exploited in the creation
21
of these district lines. Most importantly, when looking at all these considerations in the
22
aggregate it is clear that not only were the traditional districting criteria ignored, that
23
criteria clearly became subordinate to race in the form of the deliberate and conscious
24
separation of the African-American community all in violation of the Equal Protection
25
Clause and the VRA.
26
31.
Because race was the predominate factor in drawing these 3 Congressional
27
lines the court must review these lines under a strict scrutiny standard of review.
28
Because strict scrutiny is the standard of review, the court must fmd that it was
9
1 II necessary for the lines to be drawn in this way in order to further a compelling state
2
interest. Since the Commission did not consider these three districts to be VRA §2
3
districts, compliance with VRA is not a rational available for the Commission. Therefore
4 II the court must determine what exactly what is the compelling state interest.
5 II
32.
In order to determine what constitutes the Commission's
compelling state
6 II interest, this court should consider the entire record including the public input that
7 II clearly played
into the Commissions
determinations.
The Commission
received
8 II extensive testimony from the public to retain the 37th Congressional District as a diluted
9 II African American CVAP district. Testimony was received advocating spreading out and
10 II thereby diluting the African-American population between the three districts. Retaining
11 II these three African-American districts would prove to be problematic due to the decline
12 II of the African American population of Los Angeles County. In order to retain these
13 II three districts an awkward racial gerrymander of South and Southwestern Los Angeles
14 II County was required.
15 II
33.
16 II statements
It is evident from a review of the testimony and of the Commissioners' own
in the Commission's
17 II Commission's
record that the predominate
motive behind the
lines was to keep three diluted African-American
districts. Therefore
18 II race, not some compelling governmental interest, was the reason for the Commission's
19 II actions in drawing the 3 Congressional
the district lines. Because race was the
20 II predominate factor used in creating the District lines of the 37th, 43rd and the 44th
21 II Congressional districts and no compelling state interest was evidenced or cited to in the
22 II Commission's
record,
those lines were drawn in violation of the Equal Protection
23
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the VRA.
24
Commission
In addition, this action by the
was the direct cause of racial gerrymandering
in other communities
25 II throughout the state of California.
26 II
34.
The effect being to fracture the representation
of many cities and
27 II communities outside the African American population core. t also denied the creation of
28 II additional effective Latino Congressional districts.). The purpose of this was to preclude
10
1
the establishment of a single section two district which would have collapsed one or
2
possibly more incumbent member's districts. - Based upon that record it is abundantly
3
clear that the three districts with 30% African-American CVAP in each district was the
4
primary reason for the lines being drawn. The impact of this gerrymandering caused the
5
loss of an additional Latino majority district, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
6
and the VRA
7
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
8
Violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution
9
10
11
35.
Petitioners, and each of them, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 34.
36.
Petitioners, and each of them, allege, the Commission drew the 37th, 43rd
12
and 44th Congressional District based upon the predominate factor of race and for that
13
reason the Commission's
14
Amendment to the
15
16
37.
Constitution
actions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
u.s. Constitution.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
u.s.
states in part that, "no state shall ... deny to any person within its
17 jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In the Final Report, the Commission
18
correctly articulates this applicable standard. The Commission merely failed to follow
19
that standard as it applies to the three Los Angeles Congressional District's at issue.
20
38.
As applied to redistricting matters, the 14th Amendment prohibits the state
21
from using race as the sole or predominant factor in drawing district lines. The Court has
22
held that it will apply a strict scrutiny standard when the state makes use of race as the
23
sole or pre-dominate factor in developing district lines. The state will only be permitted
24
to use race as a sole or predominate factor when the state can evidence a compelling
25
state interest that is narrowly tailored. (Bush v Vera 517 U.S. 952, 958-59 (1996). The
26
Commission's records are replete with evidence that race was the predominant, if not the
27
sole reason, for the lines drawn for three Los Angeles County's Congressional District.
28
Yet, the Commission concluded these three districts were not to be considered VRA §2
11
1 II districts. Therefore the Commission does not have available to it at this stage of the
2 II proceedings, the defense that its race based actions were compelled by compliance with
3 II VRA. The Commission's actions were taken without a justified compelling state interest
4 II thus the maps are unconstitutionally
5
6
constructed in violation of the Equal Protection
Clause.
39.
In response to a rather unique factual situation pursued by the Commission,
7 II the Petitioners allege that the Commission intentionally diluted the African-American
8 II CVAP in each of the newly drawn aforementioned Los Angeles Congressional Districts,
9 II so as to maintain only a 28%-35% African-American CVAP in each District but refused
10 II to draw
one or even
two
African-American
majority-minority
districts.
Two
11 II Commissioners from the Independent group (the Do Not Declare pool) argued that they
12 II would not support any map for LA County Congressional District which included an
13 II African-American majority-minority district and would only support a 3 district format
14 II which maintained an evenly divided, albeit diluted minority level, of African-American
15 II CVAP.
The purpose for agreeing to this African-American
CVAP dilution was to
16 II construct three race based gerrymandered districts to protect the current incumbents in
17 II those Los Angeles County Congressional Districts, which is in violation of Article XXI,
18 II §2(e) of the California Constitution; "The place of residence of any incumbent or
19 II political candidate shall not be considered in the creation of a map. Districts shall not be
20 II drawn for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political
21 II candidate or political party".
The impact of this race based gerrymandering
is the
22
African-American
CVAP will in the near future be denied their ability to elect
23
candidates of their choice. Given the diluted level of the African-American CVAP, after
24
the current incumbents vacate their respective Congressional offices, it is highly unlikely
25 II due to the historical polarized voting in Los Angeles County that an African-American
26 II candidate will be able to be elected in those Congressional Districts.
27
28
40.
This race based
African-American
vote by the Commission also is the
direct cause for the loss of one or even two additional Latino majority-minority, which
12
1
would have been available to the Latino community under the CVA. But for the race
2
based vote by the Commission in the 3 Congressional Districts, an additional CVA
3
Latino majority-minority district would have been created - For these reasons, the
4
Congressional maps for Congressional Districts 37, 43 and 44, must be found to be
5
unconstitutionally constructed by the Commission in violation of the Equal Protection
6
Clause.
7
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
8
Section 2 42 USC, §1973 <Voting Rights Act)
9
10
41.
Petitioners, and each of them, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 41.
11
42.
Petitioners
and
each
of
them
allege,
the
Commission-certified
12
Congressional maps, in particular Congressional Districts 37, 43, and 44, were drawn in
13
a manner that denied or abridged the right to vote of affected African American minority
14
groups in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,42 USCA, §1973 (a)
15
and (b), as incorporated in Article XXI, §2(b) (1).
16
43.
Petitioner alleges that the Commission failed to comply with the mandates
17
of the VRA.
18
County, the Commission had an affirmative duty to create one or possibly two VRA
19
Section 2 African-American majority-minority districts and its failure to do so diluted
20
the African-American vote and constituted a violation of the VRA and the California
21
Constitution.
22
44.
Due to the dramatic drop off of African-American VAP in Los Angeles
The Commission had a corresponding obligation under VRA Section 2, to
23
draw one or two additional Latino majority-minority districts. It failed to fulfill this
24
obligation also due to its failure to consolidate one or two of the L.A. County
25
Congressional Districts into a VRA Section 2 district. Had they done so, it would have
26
made available the opportunity to enable the Commission to also create the required
27
additional Latino VRA Section 2 majority-minority district.
28
///
13
1
45.
An objective analysis of Los Angeles County could lead to only one
2
rational conclusion.
3
population, the fact that the Gingles preconditions (See Thornberg v. Gingles, 478 U.S.
4
30 (1986) were met and the polarized voting patterns of LA County, the Commission
5
had an affirmative obligation to create an African-American Section 2 VRA district and
6
to create one or two additional Latino districts.
7
46.
In light of the dramatic reduction in the African-American
The African-American
CVAP in LA County has seen a steady decline
8
during the last 30 years to the point where it currently stands at 8.2 % and cannot justify
9
three Los Angeles County Congressional Districts especially when compared to Latino
10
population
11
American residents in LA County constituted 12.6 percent of the County and Hispanics
12
were at 27.6%. 1990 10.6% and 37.8% respectively; 2000 9.8% and 44.6% respectively
13
and 2010 8.3 and 47.7; absolute numbers for African-American
14
944,009 in 1980 to 856,874 in 2010; while Hispanic absolute numbers have increased
15
from 2,065,727 in 1980 to 4,687,899 in 2010. There is no reason to believe that these 30
16
year trend lines will change and therefore, the failure of the Commission to draw a
17
Section 2 African-American majority-minority district will in all likelihood see a non-
18
African-American representing each of the Los Angeles County Congressional Districts
19
during the next decade.
20
47.
in the same geographic
vicinity. The 1980 Census revealed African-
s has dropped from
The Commission in its Final Report aptly summarizes the current standards
21
of review to determine if there has been a violation ofVRA Section 2. "Accordingly, a
22
Section 2 violation occurs where 'a contested electoral practice or structure results in
23
members of a protected group having less opportunity than other members of the
24
electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives
25
choice.
26
48.
of their
With this overwhelming level of evidence in its record, the Commission
27
had the obligation to comply with the mandates of the VRA and draw one or perhaps
28
two Section 2 African-American districts. In its attempt to maintain the three incumbent
14
1
Congressional Districts and disregard the evidence before it, the Commission looked
2
predominantly at the race/ethnic make-up of the district in drawing the lines for those 3
3
Congressional Districts. In doing so, its actions violated the provisions of Section 2 of
4
the VRA to the detriment of BOTH African-American
5
Commission-certified
6
and 44, were drawn in a manner that has the purpose or the effect of denying or
7
abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the
8
guarantees set forth in section 1973b (f) (2), in violation of Section 5 of the Voting
9
Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 USCA §1973 and on that basis the maps must be
10
Congressional maps, in particular Congressional Districts 37, 43,
voided.
11
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
12
Section 5 42 USC § 1973
13
(Voting Rights Act)
14
15
16
and Latino CVAP. The
49.
Petitioners, and each of them, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 50.
50.
The plan adopted by the California Redistricting
Commission has not
17
received the proper approval by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
18
retrogressive and if adopted would limit Latino opportunity districts and therefore is
19
unlikely to be approved pursuant to Section 5. Therefore this proposed congressional
20
plan violates Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
21
22
BASIS FOR EOIDTABLE
51.
The plan was
RELIEF
Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
23
course of law to redress the wrongs alleged herein and this suit for declaratory judgment
24
and injunctive relief is their only means of securing adequate redress from all of
25
Defendants unlawful practices.
26
52.
Plaintiffs
will continue to suffer irreparable
injury from all of the
27
Defendants intentional acts, policies, and practices set forth herein unless enjoined by
28
this court.
15
1
ATTORNEYS FEES COSTS AND EXPENSES
2
53.
This is an appropriate case for the assessment of fees costs and expenses.
3
4
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this court enter judgment as follows:
5
54.
A declaratory judgment that State Defendants' actions violate the rights of
6
Plaintiff as protected by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 USC§ 1973 et seq. and
7
the Defendants violated the rights of Plaintiffs as protected by the 14thAmendment to
8
the United States Constitution and 42 USC § 1983.
9
55.
Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring State Defendants,
10 their successors in office, agents, employees, attorneys and those persons acting in
11
concert with them and/or at their discretion to develop redistricting plans that do not
12
violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 USC§ 1973 et seq. and the 14th
13
Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 USC § 1983 and also enjoining and
14
forbidding the use of the current congressional redistricting plans.
15
56.
An order requiring all Defendants comply with Sections 2 and with the
16
Section 5 preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act and commanding
17
Defendant Debra Bowen, in her capacity as Secretary of State of the State of California,
18
to (a) refrain from Implementing the Citizens Redistricting Commission's certified
19
Congressional map for Southern California; (2) refrain from taking any other action to
20
hold, or to order county election officials to hold, an election using the Citizens
21
Redistricting Commission's certified Congressional maps, on the grounds that the
22
Congressional maps are unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful; and (3) appointing
23
Special Masters to advise the Court on the instant complaint and if the Court finds the
24
Commission's certified Congressional map is unconstitutional in any respect, directing
25
the Special Masters to draw new boundaries for the Congressional Districts at issue in
26
this complaint.
27
///
28
///
16
1
57.
On each and every cause of action, that this Court grant Plaintiffs' costs,
2
including out-of-pocket
3
reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 USC §§ 19731 (e) and 1988; and
4
5
6
7
8
9
lOin
58.
expenses, including expert witness fees and expenses
An order of this Court retaining jurisdiction
and
over this matter until all
Defendants have complied with all orders and mandates of the Court; and
59.
On each and every cause of action, that this Court grants such other,
different or further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
60.
On the All Causes of Action, that this Court immediately appoint Special
Masters to draw new boundaries for the California State Congressional Districts at issue
this Complaint and to report and recommend to this Court such new boundaries as
11
they shall deem constitutional under the federal and California Constitutions and the
12
federal Voting Rights Act; and upon approval of the boundaries proposed by the Special
13
Masters, or as modified by the Court, this Court shall direct the California Secretary of
14
State to implement those new boundaries for the June 5, 2012 primary election and the
15
November 6, 2012 general election.
16
17
18
DATED:
November 23,2011
BARICT
.~?"JI*~IGNER
19
20
21
Steven D. Baric, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
22
23
24
25
By2t ([/(....
Paul Sullivan, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
26
27
28
17