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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTION PRESENTED…………………………………………………….
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………...
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITES…………………………………………………...
iii
SUMMARY OF REPLY ARGUMENT………………………………………
1
APPELLANT’S POINTS IN REPLY:
I. Debate at the Federal Constitutional Convention and State Ratifying
Conventions, along with Contemporary Evidence at the Time the Elections
Clause Adopted, provides evidence that the Framers, the General Electorate,
and at least one State Governing Body, Believed Election of Representatives
in most States would be Regulated by Districts, and that Once Districts were
Validly Established, such Districts, in the Absence of a Neutral Regulatory
Purpose, could not Constitutionally be Altered by State Legislatures until
after the next Federal census and Apportionment.
………………...
2
II. Contrary to the State’s Contention, Both the Plain Meaning and
Legislative History of Section 2c Reflect Congressional Intent that
Congressional Redistricting, in the Absence of a Neutral Regulatory
Purpose, be Performed Only Once after each Decennial Enumeration and
Federal apportionment.
………………..
10
III. The State of Texas has no “Constitutional Right” under a “State’s
Rights” Theory to Engage in Intra-Decennial Congressional Redistricting.
The First Congress of the United States Rejected a Proposed Constitutional
Amendment that would have “Broadened” the Power of State Legislatures
to include Precisely the Power Claimed by the State of Texas in the Present
Case.
…………………………………………………………..
15
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………
20
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Page:
Balderas v. Texas, No. 6:01CV158 (E.D. Tex.), aff’d. memo. 536 U.S.
919 (2002)………………………………………………………………….
2, 20
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986)……………………………………
19
Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254 (2003)……………………………………...
13, 15, 20
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989)……………………………
19
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)…………………………………….
6
Session v. Perry, 298 F.Supp.2d 451 (E.D.Tex. 2004)……………………...
passim
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. ___, No. 02-1580, (slip op.)(April 28, 2004)….
6
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)……………………………………
3
Statutes, Codes, Rules and Constitutional Provisions:
5 Stat. 491 (1842)…………………………………………………………...
12
H.R. 5505, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)…………………………………….
13
H.R. 2275, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1967)…………………………………….
14, 15
H.R. 2508, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1967)…………………………………….
12-15
Title 2, U.S.C. Section 2c…………………………………………………..
passim
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution……………
passim
Miscellaneous:
1 Annals of Cong., (Gales ed. 1789)……………………………………….
17-19
11 Annals of Cong., (1802)………………………………………………...
11
25 Annals of Cong., (1813)………………………………………………...
11
iv
Page:
29 Annals of Cong., (1816)…………………………………………………
11, 12
33 Annals of Cong., (1819)…………………………………………………
11
40 Annals of Cong., (1823)…………………………………………………
11
41 Annals of Cong., (1823)…………………………………………………
11
Cong.Globe, 27th Cong., 2d Sess. App. (1842)…………….……………….
12
13 Cong.Rec., 1228 (1882)………………………………………………….
20
Senate Journal, January 20, 1813, 12th Cong., 2d Sess.(1813)……………..
11
Senate Journal, November 25, 1818, 15th Cong., 2d Sess., (1818)…………
11
H.R. Rep. No. 89-140 ( March 5, 1965)…………...………………………..
13
H.R. Rep. No. 90-191 (April 13, 1967)…………………………………….
13
S.Rep. No. 90-291 (June 1, 1967)…………………………………………..
13, 14
H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 90-435 (June 27, 1967)………………………………..
14
H.R.Conf.Rep.No. 90-795 (Oct. 19, 1967)…………………………………
14
113 Cong.Rec. 14, 779-80 (June 6, 1967)………………………………….
13, 14
113 Cong.Rec. 14, 791 (June 6, 1967)…………………….……………….
14
113 Cong.Rec. 15, 243 (June 8, 1967)……………….…………………….
13
113 Cong. Rec. 31, 703 (Nov. 8, 1967)…………………………………….
13
113 Cong. Rec. 31, 710 (Nov. 8, 1967)…………………………………….
14
113 Cong.Rec. 31, 719 ( Nov. 8, 1967)……………………………………
20
113 Cong.Rec. 34,367 (Nov. 30, 1967)…………………………………….
15
Carter & Stone, Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the [New
York] Convention of 1821, (1821)
………………………………………….
9, 10
Griffith, The Rise and Development of the Gerrymander, (1907)…………
6
v
Page:
Kent, Commentaries on American Law, (1826)……………………………
8
Street, The Council of Revision of New York, (1859)……………………..
8
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)
…………………………………….
6, 9, 16-19
The New-York Herald (April 27, 1808)…………………………………….
6-8
The Records of the Federal Constitution of 1787 (M. Farrand rev. ed. 1937)
………………………….
4, 9
Thorpe, The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other
Organic Laws, 3081 (1909)
………………………………………………...
4-6, 8-10