i
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether, once a valid Congressional redistricting map has been ordered in a final
judgment by a three-judge Federal District Court in accordance with authority delegated
to it by Congress under Title 2, U.S.C. Section 2c (predicated upon the default of the
State Legislature to timely redistrict after being afforded a reasonable opportunity to do
so), a State Legislature, after Congressional elections are held under “districts so
established”, may “make or alter” Congressional district boundaries before the next
federal decennial enumeration and apportionment, in the absence of any substantial shift
in population, a politically neutral change in circumstances, or some other event evincing
a legitimate regulatory purpose?
ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
The sole Appellant on this Jurisdictional Statement is Frenchie Henderson. The
Appellees on this Jurisdictional Statement, who were adversary parties to the proceeding
in the court below whose judgment is sought to be reviewed in the Supreme Court, are:
RICK PERRY, in his Official Capacity
as Governor of the State of Texas;
TOM CRADDICK, in his Official Capacity
as Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives;
DAVID DEWHURST, in his Official Capacity
as Lieutenant Governor and Presiding Officer
Of the Texas Senate; and
GEOFFREY S. CONNOR, in his Official Capacity
as Texas Secretary of State.
The remaining parties to the proceeding in the court below are:
United States Congressmen Chris Bell, Gene Green, Nicholas Lampson, Lester Bellow,
Homer Guillory, John Bland, and Reverend Willie Davis; United States Congresswomen
Sheila Jackson Lee and Eddie Bernice Johnson; the League of United Latin American
Voters; the G.I. Forum; Cameron, Travis and Webb Counties, Texas; the City of Austin,
Texas; the Texas Coalition of Black Democrats; the Texas Chapter of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Charles Soechting, Chairman,
Texas Democratic
Party; Juanita Valdez-Cox, Leo Montalvo, and William R. Leo;
Eddie Jackson, Barbara Marshall, Gertrude “Traci” Fisher, Hargie Faye Jacob-Savoy,
Ealy Boyd, J.B. Mayfield, Roy Stanley, Phyllis Cottle, Molly Woods, Brian Manley,
Tommy Adkisson, Samuel T. Biscoe, David James Butts, Ronald Knowlton Davis,
Dorothy Dean, Wilhelmina R. Delco, Gustavo Luis “Gus” Garcia, Samuel Garcia, Lester
iii
Gibson, Eunice June Mitchell Givens, Margaret J. Gomez, Mack Ray Hernandez, Art
Murillo, Richard Raymond, Ernesto Silva, Louis Simms, Clint Smith, Connie Sonnen,
Alfred Thomas Stanley, Maria Lucina Ramirez Torres, Elisa Vasquez, Fernando
Villareal, William Wooten, Ana Yañez-Correa, and Mike Zuniga, Jr.
Walter Session and Morris Byers, who along with Appellant comprised the “Cherokee
County Plaintiffs” in the court below, have elected not to further participate in this
litigation, and therefore no longer have a legal interest in this proceeding. The Appellant
is the sole “Cherokee County Plaintiff” to prosecute this appeal.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTION PRESENTED…………………………………………………….
i
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING…………………………………………..
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………...
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITES…………………………………………………...
vi
OPINIONS BELOW……………………………………………………………
1
JURISDICTION………………………………………………………………..
2
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED…….
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………………………………..
3
THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIAL:
I. The Regulatory Power delegated by the Elections Clause is Only
Commensurate with the Need to Provide Valid Regulations for Holding
Congressional Elections after Each Enumeration. The District Court’s
Unprecedented Recognition of State Power under the Elections Clause to
“At Any Time” make or alter Congressional District Boundaries for an
Illegitimate Reason, or for No Reason at All, Invites Nationwide Chaos,
Constitutes a Unauthorized Expansion of Elections Clause Power in favor of
State legislatures, and is Contrary to Federal Statutory Law.
………………...
6
A) No Residual Power Exists Under the Election Clause to Dictate
Electoral Outcomes after Valid Congressional Districts have
been Implemented.
……………………………………………….
8
v
B) Legislative Authority to Revise Electoral Districts Has Widely
Been Recognized as Only Commensurate with the Need to
Provide Valid Districts.
…………………………………………..
9
C) The District Court Ignored a Fundamental Cannon of
Construction to Reach its Decision.
……………………………...
10
D) The Literal Text of the Elections Clause Supports the Conclusion
that the Power to Devise Congressional Districts is
Commensurate with the Need for Regulation.
…………………………………………………….
14
E) The Illegitimate Purpose that Motivated the Appellees to Engage
in Intra-Decennial Congressional Redistricting Directly Conflicts
with the Framer’s Original Intent when Adopting the Elections
Clause.
…………………………………………………
15
F) The Illegitimate Purpose that Motivated the Appellees to Engage
in Intra-Decennial Congressional Redistricting Violates Title II,
U.S.C. Section 2c, and Conflicts with the Legislative Intent of
that Statute.
……………………………………………………….
20
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………
23
APPENDICES:
Majority Opinion, and Judgment, Session v. Perry, 298 F.Supp.2d 451 (E.D.
Tex.2004).…………………………………………………………………….
1a
Dissenting Opinion, Session v. Perry, 298 F.Supp.2d 451, 515 (E.D.Tex.
2004)…………………………………………………………………………
1b
Appellant’s Notice of Appeal..………………………………………………
1c
Notice of Order Granting Extension of Time to File Jurisdictional Statement….
1d
Appellant’s Original Complaint……………………………………………..
1e
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Page:
Balderas v. Texas, No. 6:01CV158 (E.D. Tex.), aff’d. memo. 536 U.S.
919 (2002)………………………………………………………………….
3-6, 13, 17, 19
Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254 (2003)……………………………………...
13, 16, 17, 23
Cahill v. Leopold, 103 A.2d 818 (Conn. 1954)…………………………….
9
Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001)……………………………………...
8, 11
Denny v. Balser, 42 N.E. 929 (Ind. 1896)………………………………….
9, 10
Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879)……………………………………..
19
Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884)………………………………….
22
Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 627 (1997)………………………………………..
14
Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963)……………………………………...
11
Harmison v. Ballot Commissioners, 31 S.E. 394 (W.Va. 1898)…………...
9
Harris v. Shanahan, 387 P.2d 771 (Kan. 1963)…………………………….
9
Herbert v. Bricker, 41 N.E. 2d 377 (Ohio 1942)…………………………...
9
Jones v. Freeman, 146 P.2d 564 (Okla. 1944)……………………………...
9
Lanning v. Carpenter, 20 N.Y. 447 (N.Y.1859)……………………………
9
Legislature v. Deukmejian, 669 P.2d 17 (Cal. 1983)……………………….
10
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)………………………………….
14
Noecker v. Woods, 102 A. 507 (Pa. 1917)…………………………………
9
Opinion of the Judges, 246 N.W. 295 (S.D.1933)………………………….
9
Opinion of the Judges, 47 So.2d 714 (Ala.1950)…………………………...
9
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)…………………………………..
13
vii
Page:
People v. Hutchinson, 50 N.E. 599 (Ill. 1898)……………………………...
9-12
Salazar v. Davidson, 79 P.3d 1221 (Colo.2003)…………………………....
10
Session v. Perry, 289 F.Supp.2d 451 (E.D.Tex.2004)……………………...
passim
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)………………….
15, 18
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)……………………………………
16, 21
Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1 (1932)………………………………………...
9, 22
Statutes, Codes, Rules and Constitutional Provisions:
5 Stat. 491 (1842)…………………………………………………………...
21
Title 2, U.S.C. Section 2a(b)………………………………………………..
19
Title 2, U.S.C. Section 2c………………………………………………….. 2, 6, 12-14, 19,
20, 22, 23
Title 2, U.S.C. Section 7……………………………………………………
3, 12-14
Title 3, U.S.C. Section 1……………………………………………………
14
Title 28, U.S.C. Section 1253………………………………………………
2
Title 28, U.S.C. Section 2284(b)(1)………………………………………...
5
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)……………………………………...
3
Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution……………
16, 17
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution……………
7
Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution……………
16
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution……………
passim
viii
Page:
Other Sources:
Annot., Territorial Units; Districts and Precincts; Apportionment,18 Am.
Jur., Elections, § 14 (1958)
…………………………………………………
10
Celler, Congressional Apportionment—Past, Present, and Future, 17 Law
& Contemp Probs. 268 (Spring 1952)
……………………………………...
23
Cong.Globe, 27th Cong., 2d Sess. App. 343, 493, 513 (1842)……………...
21
Paschal, The House of Representatives: “Grand Depository of the
Democratic Principle”?, 17 Law & Contemp Probs 276 (Spring 1952)
………………………………………………………………………..
15, 21
T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, (5th ed. 1883)……………….……...
22
T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, (6th ed. 1890)………………….…...
11
Texas Attorney General Opinion, No. GA-0063 (April 23, 2003)…………
4
The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the
Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at
Philadelphia in 1787, (Elliott ed. 1937)
…………………………………….
17
The Federalist, No. 52 (Madison, Feb. 8, 1788)……………………………
18
The Federalist, No. 59 (Hamilton, Feb. 22, 1788)………………………….
15
The Records of the Federal Constitution of 1787 (M. Farrand rev. ed. 1937)
………………………….
16