# Amicus Curiae Brief — Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 52 (2017) (No. 16-1161)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0740%3A46

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2017

## Text

No. 16-1161 ae
————————r— EE C—O
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
BEVERLY R. GILL, ET AL.,
Appellants,
Vv.
WILLIAM WHITFORD, ET AL.,
Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin

BRIEF OF SENATORS JOHN McCAIN AND
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE IN SUPPORT

OF APPELLEES
Kathryn Cahoy Mark W. Mosier
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Counsel of Record
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Ryan Mowery
i ca 94065 Alec Webley

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
(G50) C88-4700 One CityCenter

850 Tenth Street, NW

KeAndra Barlow
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Washington, DC 20001
1999 Avenue of the Stars, mmosier@cov.com

Suite 3500 (202) 662-6000

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(424) 332-4800 Counsel for Amici Curiae

= pee an Ctamngliains

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .........................2....1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF

I. Partisan Gerrymandering Has Become A
Tool For Powerful Interests To Distort The

an cppucunauantoneeunsen ce 5
A. Vieth Opened The Door To Extreme
| Partisan Gerrymandering............................ 6
B. Dark Money Fuels Partisan
Gerrymandering On Both Sides Of
, SIRES Sl 5 eo il

C. Partisan Gerrymandering Produces
Uncompetitive And Unrepresentative
Districts That Have A Corrosive
Effect On Our Democracy. .........................16

II. The Court Should Curb The Rise Of
Partisan Gerrymandering By Affirming
The District Court’s Decision. .......................... 21

Se aiicrncsiienensssnsnsnstatdiiiniimnnsinenianinnes -aveses .25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases
Anderson v. Celebrezze,

i cscleseueaunans 23
Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep.

Redistricting Comm'n,

etiam 3, 22
Benisek v. Lamone,

2017 WL 3642928 (D. Md. Aug. 24,

ah de ERS ce 10, 11
Comm. for a Fair and Balanced Map v.

Ill. State Bd. of Elections,

835 F. Supp. 2d 563 (N.D. Dl. 2011).............0..... 10
Davis v. Bandemer,

I es ciciauianial 24
Gaffney v. Cummings,

Os scsuunsustepeanens 22
League of United Latin Am. Citizens v.

Perry (LULAC), 543 U.S. 399 (2006)................... 25
Obergefell v. Hodges,

ey ts PI. cccsscuasesiensemomnenenens 25
Powell v. McCormack,

RT a ee 17

Reynolds v. Sims,

Ce endian ERAnins: 21
Vieth v. Jubelirer,

EE
Other Authorities

Bill Allison & Sarah Harkins, Sunlight
Found., Fixed Fortunes: Biggest Corporate
Political Interests Spend Billions, Get
Trillions (Nov. 17, 2014),
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/11/17/
fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporate-political-
interests-spend-billions-get-trillions/....:............. 16

America Votes (last accessed Aug. 31, 2017),
https://americavotes.org/about/ ............-.........000 15

Americans Across Party Lines Oppose
Common Gerrymandering Practices, The
Harris Poll (Nov. 7, 2013),
http://www.theharrispoll.com/politics/Ame
ricans_Across_Party_Lines_Oppose_Com
mon_Gerrymandering_Practices.htm1].......... 19, 20

Emily Bazelon, The New Front in the Gerry-
mandering Wars: Democracy vs. Math, N.

Y. Times Mag. (Aug. 29, 2017) .................. 2, 11, 20
Richard Berman, The Democrats’ Dark Money
Hypocrisy, The Hill (May 5, 2016)....................... 15

iv

Nathan S. Catanese, Note, Gerrymandered
Gridlock: Addressing the Hazardous
Impact of Partisan Redistricting, 28 Notre
Dame J. L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y 323 (2014).....8,

Laurence Cockroft & Anne-Christine
Wegener, Unmasked (2017). .............ccccceccceceveeeees

Betsy Cooper, et al., PRRI, The Divide Over
America’s Future: 1950 or 2050? Findings
From the 2016 American Values Survey
(Oct. 25, 2016),
https://www.prri.org/research/poll-1950s-
2050-divided-nations-direction-post-

Dave Daley, How Democrats Gerrymandered
Their Way to Victory in Maryland, The At-
lantic (June 25, 2017), https://www.theat-
lantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/how-
deep-blue-maryland-shows-redistricting-
TA |

Fred Dews, A Primer on Gerrymandering and
Political Polarization, Brookings (July 6,
2017), https://www.brook-
ings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-

primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-

14

ER ERLE IRC 18, 20

Martin Gilens & Benjamin I. Page, Testing
Theories of American Politics: Elites, Inter-
est Groups, and Average Citizens, 12 Per-
spectives on Politics, no. 3, Sept. 2014................

19

Matea Gold, Wealthy Donors on Left Launch
New Plan to Wrest Back Control in the
States, Wash. Post (Apr. 12, 2015)......................15

J. Gerald Hebert, Paul M. Smith, Martina E.
Vandenberg, & Michael B. DeSanctis,
A.B.A., The Realist’s Guide to Redistrict-
ing: Avoiding the Legal Pitfalls (2d ed.

Andrew Jackson, Veto Message Regarding the
Bank of the United States (July 10, 1832),
available at
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/aj
i ee eiispetaminennd 5

Brian Klaas, The Despot’s Accomplice: How
the West is Aiding and Abetting the
Decline of Democracy (2016)...............-.... 18, 20, 21

Chisun Lee, et al., Brennan Ctr. for Justice,
Secret Spending in the States (June 26,
2016), https://www.brennancenter.org/pub-

lication/secret-spending-states ...................00-s000- 16
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince.................c2.00ccceeee000 5

Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History
of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the
TT LE 11

Anthony J. McGann, et al., Gerrymandering
in America; The House of Representatives,
the Supreme Court, and the Future of
Popular Sovereignty (2016)........................6, 7, 8, 9

vi

Members of the U.S. Congress, 115th
Congress,
https://www.congress.gov/members?q={%2
2congress%22:%22115%22,%22chamber%
ES

Stephen Ohlemacher, GOP Gerrymandering
Creates Uphill Fight for Dems in the
House, PBS NewsHour (Mar. 31, 2014),
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/run-
down/gop-gerrymandering-creates-uphill-
ra npadiiotitndnonestnenceses 7

Peter Overby, NPR News Investigations,
From Social Welfare Groups, a River of
Political Influence (Nov. 5, 2013),
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/05/242354030/
from-social-welfare-groups-a-river-of-
A 13

Olga Pierce, et al., How Dark Money Helped
Republicans Hold the House and Hurt Vot-
ers, ProPublica (Dec. 21, 2012),
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-
dark-money-helped-republicans-hold-the-

house-and-hurt-voters ....................0.-000005 12, 13, 14
Redistricting Majority Project,

http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.co

m/ (last visited Aug. 31, 2017)..........2......cccccecc0eee 12

Redistricting Majority Project, 2012
REDMAP Summary Report (Jan. 4, 2013),
http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.co

Karl Rove, The GOP Targets State Legisla-
tures, Wall St. J. (Mar. 4, 2010),
https://www.wsj.com/arti-
cles/SB10001424052748703862704575099

FID Scsesseercecctocseseveasiessnabapnbianinnmabients

Secret Donors Fuel Democratic Political
Powerhouse, Ctr. for Pub. Integrity (Nov.
18, 2015),
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/18
/18875/secret-donors-fuel-democratic-

political-powerhouse ................cccsseseeeeseeceeeeeeees

Peter H. Shuck, The Thickest Thicket:
Partisan Gerrymandering and Judicial
Regulation of Politics, 87 Colum. L. Rev.

SF QUE <ecccossssccovsscvinnesvninsssennmanianititeaininhaintl

Jeffrey Toobin, Drawing the Line, The New

ee Se Gi i anicecncctsecueancnredccceeiiedaaiitaiiiia nas

Views on Power and Influence in Washington,
Assoc. Press-NORC Ctr. for Pub. Affairs
Research (2017), http://www.ap-
nore. org/projects/Pages/Power-and- Influ-

Sheldon Whitehouse, Captured: The
Corporate Infiltration of American

BF ee ccarceccsesicinsciiivemitantaticusvaanaien

vill

Why Democrats are Taking Aim at Gerryman-
dering, The Economist (July 12, 2017),
https://www.economist.com/blogs/econo-
mist-explains/2017/07/economist-explains-
LE ant ee ae S)

ix

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici are U.S. Senator John McCain of Arizona
and U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Is-
land.}

As national political leaders, amici have a strong
interest in the proper functioning of our democracy,
and are witnesses to the symptoms and ill effects of
its distress. As active, democratically elected legisla-
tors of both major political parties, amici are deeply
concerned about the damage excessive partisan redis-
tricting inflicts on the American democratic process.

Amici see firsthand the concerns of constituents
who increasingly view politics as a game run by pow-
erful special interests that have changed the rules to
win the game. We also see why constituents believe
that. We see the age-old problem worsening of an “in-
fluencer class” that the public sees garnering dispro-
portionate rewards at the public’s expense, and we see
gerrymandering as a tool of the influencer class in
that effort.

Americans do not like gerrymandering. They see
its mischief, and absent a legal] remedy, their sense of
powerlessness and discouragement has increased,
deepening the crisis of confidence in our democracy.
We share this perspective. From our vantage point,

' Pursuant to Rule 37.6, amici affirm that no counsel for a party
authored this brief in whole or in part and that no person other
than amici, their members, or their counsel made any monetary
contributions intended to fund the preparation or submission of
this brief. The parties have filed Jetters with the Clerk consent-
ing to the filing of all amicus briefs in this case.

we see wasted votes and silenced voices. We see hid-
den power. And we see a correctable problem.

Amici hope that this bipartisan report from the
political front lines will aid the Court by providing
pragmatic, real-world input on the ways in which par-
tisan gerrymandering undermines our democracy.
These concerns should be central to the Court’s review
of whether the district court correctly held that Wis-
consin’s redistricting scheme constitutes an unconsti-

tutional partisan gerrymander.

INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case implicates the effective functioning of
American representative democracy. With roots trac-
ing to Patrick Henry and Massachusetts Governor E]1-
bridge Gerry, politically motivated redistricting has
long been a part of American politics. But what began
as a tactic to protect individual incumbencies and to
undercut adversaries has morphed into something
much different today. Partisan gerrymandering is
now accomplished by using sophisticated technol-
ogy—including mapping software, census data, and
voting algorithms—to redraw a state's district lines to
maximize partisan advantage across an entire state.”

This new breed of “bulk” partisan gerrymandering
distorts statewide votes, systematically diluting the
effect of votes based on political affiliation and leading

2 See Sheldon Whitehouse, Captured: The Corporate Infiltration
of American Democracy 83-86 (2017); Emily lon, The New
Front in the Gerrymandering Wars: Democracy vs. Math, N. Y.
Times Mag. (Aug. 29, 2017).

2

to the election of congressional and state legislative
delegations that do not represent the will of the vot-
ers. This practice violates “the core principle of repub-
lican government, namely, that the voters should
choose their representatives, not the other way
around.” Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Indep. Redis-
tricting Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2677 (2015) (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted).

I. A. The rise of extreme partisan gerrymandering
over the past decade can be traced directly to this
Court’s decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267
(2004). Although partisan gerrymandering existed
before Vieth, the threat of judicial review provided a
strong deterrent that kept states from adopting ex-
tremely gerrymandered districts. Vieth’s refusal to
treat partisan gerrymandering claims as justiciable
effectively removed this threat. State legislatures—
and political operatives seeking to gain and entrench
political power—have viewed this decision as an invi-
tation to redraw districts to push the limit of partisan
advantage. As the American Bar Association ob-
served, “[t]he Court’s recent decisions appear to give
legislators leeway to preserve partisan advantage as
zealously as they like when drawing district lines.”®

B. The increase in partisan gerrymandering in re-
cent years has been bolstered by the growing presence
of “dark money” in the American political system.‘

3 J. Gerald Hebert, Paul M. Smith, Martina E. Vandenberg, &
Michael B. DeSanctis, A.B.A., The Realist’s Guide to Redistrict-
ing: Avoiding the Legal Pitfalls 19 (2d ed. 2010).

4 By “dark money,” we mean money contributed to nonprofit or-
ganizations and used for political purposes without disclosure of
the donor's identity.

3

Special interest groups, fueled by hidden funders with
deep pockets and skin in the political game, are now
focused on influencing redistricting. The payoff for
these groups is obvious: By shaping the decennial re-
districting process, special interest groups can affect
the outcome of every Congressional race in a state for
the next decade. The role of dark money in this pro-
cess is a bipartisan concern, as both Republicans and
Democrats rely on this funding.

C. This Court has already acknowledged “the in-
compatibility of severe partisan gerrymanders with
democratic principles.” Vieth, 541 U.S. at 292. Severe
partisan gerrymandering undermines our democracy,
which is based on fair and open elections that accu-
rately reflect the will of the people and count every
vote equally. When the voters of a state vote one way,
the resulting congressional delegation is more than 2-
1 the opposite way, and the advantaged party inten-
tionally produced that undemocratic result, it should
be obvious that “one person, one vote” has been vio-

lated. This partisan gerrymandering leads voters to
perceive, rightly, that their votes do not matter. In-

deed, we have seen firsthand the growing concerns of
constituents who view politics as a game orchestrated
by powerful special interests whose victories come at
the expense of the American voter.

II. The Court should affirm the district court’s de-
cision. The district court’s test provides a workable
framework for distinguishing between district maps
drawn based on legitimate political considerations
and those constituting unlawful partisan gerryman-
dering. That test is more than sufficient to find an
unconstitutional gerrymander on the facts of this

4

case. The Court need not go beyond these facts and
attempt to create a comprehensive test that can re-
solve all potential partisan gerrymandering chal-
lenges. Beyond remedying the constitutional
violations present in this case, affirming the district
court’s decision will send a clear message that parti-
san gerrymandering will not be tolerated.

ARGUMENT

I. Partisan Gerrymandering Has Become A
Tool For Powerful Interests To Distort

The Democratic Process.

Democracy is not abstract or academic. It is a bat-
tleground on which competing interests exert all the
pressure they can muster. This battleground often
pits special interest groups against a general popula-
tion that wants only to be treated fairly.5

_ §Special interest groups have long influenced the
outcome of elections. But this Court’s decision in Vi-
eth made redistricting a particularly attractive tool for

® This is a long-observed conflict, reflected in the pages of history
from Niccolo Mechiavelli's writings to President Jackson's bank
veto measage. See, ¢.g., Niccolo "Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. IX
(1513) (speaking of “two distinct parties” in a governed society:
one, “the nobles [wha] wish to ie and oppress the people,” oa
two, “the people [who ates Saeco ae
the nobles”); Andrew Jackson, Veto Message

of the United States (July 10, on available at ~ on
lon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ajveto0l.asp (distinguishing be-
tween “the rich and powerful [who] too 7s bend the acts of
government to their selfish purposes” and the “humble members
of society—the farmers, mechanics, and jaborers—who have nei-
ther the time nor the means of securing like favors to them-

selves’).

these groups. No longer concerned about the prospect
of judicial review, state legislatures now push gerry-
mandering to its limits, and special interests, sup-
ported by dark money, help them do so. The result
has greatly undermined the public’s faith in our de-

mocracy.

A. Vieth Opened The Door To Extreme Par-
tisan Gerrymandering.

Justice Kennedy, in his concurring opinion in Vi-
eth, predicted that “if courts refuse to entertain any
claims of partisan gerrymandering, the temptation to
use partisan favoritism in districting in an unconsti-
tutional manner will grow.” 541 U.S. at 312. That
prediction has come true. The frequency and egre-
giousness of partisan gerrymandering has intensified
in the decade since Vieth, and absent this court’s in-
tervention, the problem is only likely to worsen. With-
out the threat of judicial review, political parties have
every incentive to engage in extreme partisan gerry-
mandering.

Vieth sent a clear signal that the Court was no
longer inclined to intervene in partisan gerrymander-
ing cases.° Vieth’s impact has been felt since 2010—
the first round of redistricting after the decision—as
state governments sought to redraw electoral maps
for partisan advantage more aggressively than ever

6 Anthony J. McGann, et a)., Gerrymandering in America: The
House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the Future of
Popular Sovereignty 6 (2016) (“[A}fter Vieth v. Jizbelirer (2004),
state legislatures were willing to district for partisan advantage
far more than they had previously.”).

6

before.’ Observers have recognized that “[(t}he world
changed with the 2010 redistricting. States were no
longer constrained by the threat of judicial challenge
of partisan gerrymanders, and where one party com-
pletely controlled the redistricting process, it often
took full advantage.”®

The redistricting plan in this case provides a good
example of post-Vieth partisan gerrymandering. The
Wisconsin plan ensured that “Republicans would
maintain a majority under any likely voting scenario;
indeed, they would maintain a 54 seat majority while
garnering oniy 48% of the statewide vote. The Demo-
crate, by contrast, would need 54% of the statewide
vote to capture a majority.” Jurisdictional Statement
App. 27a (emphasis added). The plan produced pre-
cisely this lopsided result in the 2012 election that fol-
lowed, in which Republicans won 60 of 99 General
Assembly seats despite receiving only 48.6% of the
statewide vote. Id. at 30a.

Congressional seats have also been subject to
more extreme partisan gerrymandering since Vieth.
In 2012, Republicans gained a 33-seat advantage in
the House, despite receiving more than one million
fewer votes than Democrats.’ Most of this advantage
can be attributed to Republicans successfully tilting

1 Id. at 3.

8 Id. at 17.

* Stephen Ohlemacher, GOP Gerrymandering Creates Uphill
Fight for Dems in the House, PBS NewsHour (Mar. 31, 2014),
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gop-gerrymandering-
creates-uphill-fight-dems-house/.

7

the electoral maps in key swing states. In Pennsylva-
nia, Ohio, and Michigan—states carried by President
Obama in 2008 and 2012—Republicans hold 34 out of
48 congressional seats in the wake of the 2010 redis-

tricting process. '°

Pennsylvania provides a good example of Vieth’s
effects. Following the 1990 Census, Pennsylvania's
congressional districts were relatively compact with
few oddly shaped districts, and had little or no parti-
san bias.'! After the 2000 Census, the redistricting
plan had a few more oddly shaped districts and indi-
cations of partisan bias, but the plan was approved by
the district court and affirmed by the Court in Vieth.!”

After the 2010 Census, Pennsylvania's districting
plan changed dramatically, pushing partisan gerry-
mandering to its limits. The previously compact dis-
tricts were largely replaced by districts that are
“either elongated or have tendrils that cut into the
surrounding districts.”!* From the Republicans’ per-
spective, these changes worked: In the 2012 House
elections, Democrats received more votes than Repub-
licans, but the state sent thirteen Republicans and
only five Democrats to Congress. '4

10 See Members of the U.S. Congress, 115th Congress,
https://www.congress.gov/members?q={%22con -
greas%22:%22115%22, %22chamber%22:%22Hous %22}.

1! McGann, supra note 6, at 9.
19 Td. at 11.
18 Jd. at 13.

4 Nathan 8. Catanese, Note, Gerrymandered Gridloch: Addreas-
ing the Hazardous Impact of Partisan Redistricting, 28 Notre
Dame J. L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 323, 329 (2014).

8

Scholars have concluded that this Court’s decision
in Vieth was the primary reason for Pennsylvania's
decision to further gerrymander its congressional dis-
tricts.'°5 When the post-2000 districts were drawn,
gerrymandering for political gain could still be mean-
ingfully challenged in the courte, which explains “why
the level of partisan gerrymandering was quite mod-
est in the post-2000 districts compared to the post-
2010 ones, even though the Republicans controlled the
governorship and state legislature in both cases.” !®
The congressional districts adopted after Vieth, in con-
trast, “show the full potential of partisan gerryman-
dering when there is no threat of judicial action.”'’

Republicans have certainly benefited from post-
Vieth gerrymandering, but they are hardly alone in
skewing district lines for political gain. As one com-
mentator noted, partisan gerrymandering is “a decen-
nial sin of every majority party.”'® Where Democrats
have been in control, they have drawn gerrymandered
maps just like their Republican counterparts.

‘6 McGann, supra note 6, at 3. The increase in partisan gerry-
mandering from the 2000 Census to the 2010 Census is clear
even if one controls for a variety of other factors, inchuding urban
concentration, changes in technology, and the requirements of
the Voting Rights Act. Jd. at 4-6, 12.

16 Td. at 12.

17 Id. at 18 ("In the previous round, the Pennsylvania state gov-
ernment had to consider the possibility that the courts would
strike down a blatantly gerrymand districting plan. After
Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004), this was no longer the case.”).

18 Why Democrats are Taking Aim at Gerrymandering, The Econ-
omist (July 12, 2017), bttps://www.economiat.com/blogs/econo-
mist-explains/2017/07/economist-explains-6.

9

Maryland illustrates as much. Following the 2010
Census, Democrats sought to redraw district lines to
improve upon the 6-2 advantage they already enjoyed
in the state’s congressional delegation. Democrats
took aim at Maryland’s sixth district, which had
elected a Republican representative for the previous
two decades. Working with hired data analysts using
sophisticated mapping software, Democrats success-
fully instituted the so-called “7-1 map,” reshaping the
sixth district into what one commentator compared to
a “fire-breathing dragon.”'® The plan shifted almost
70,000 Republicans out of the district in a nakedly
partisan, and successful, effort to unseat its ten-term
Republican incumbent.”

Democrats have also led successful partisan redis-
tricting efforts in Dlinois. In 20)0, Republicans held
11 of Illinois’ 19 House seats. Democrats redrew
the district lines in 2011, they took 12 of Illinois’ 18
seats in the 2012 election. Although challenged by Re-
publicans, a federal district court, relying heavily on
Vieth, upheld the gerrymander despite finding that it
was “a blatant political move to increase the number
of Democratic congressional seats.” Comm. for a Fair

19 Dave pee, How Democrats Gerrymandered Their Way to Vic-
tory in aryland, The Atlantic (@June 25, 2017),
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/20 1 7/06/how-deep-
blue-maryland-shows-redistricting-is-broken/531492/.

20 As Judge Niemeyer recently observed, “[{t|]his 2011 shuffle ac-
complished the single largest redistricting swing of one party to
another of any congressional district in the Nation.” Benisek v.
Lamone, 2017 WL 3642928, at *15 (D. Md. Aug. 24, 2017) (Nie-
meyer, J., dissenting).

10

and Balanced Map v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, 835 F.
Supp. 2d 563, 567 (N.D. Il. 2011).?!

In short, partisan gerrymandering has worsened
significantly since Vieth removed the threat of judicial
review. With the 2020 Census quickly approaching,
the Court should curb this pernicious practice.

B. Dark Money Fuels Partisan Gerryman-
dering On Both Sides Of The Aisle.

As state governments become more willing to en-
gage in partisan gerrymandering post-Vieth, a pre-
dictable result has occurred: Special interest groups,
funded by dark money, are playing an increasingly ac-
tive role in redistricting.

Drawing district lines that maximize partisan ad-
vantage is a complicated task. Legislators therefore
turn to outside consultants and organizations, which
offer detailed guidance on how to redraw district
maps. These groups rely on sophisticated mapmaking
software, census data, and partisan voting algorithms
to determine how best to maximize partisan gain.??
This expertise is expensive, but special interest
groups are willing to foot the bill because they recog-
nize the potential return on their investment. Spend-
ing money to help a House candidate in an election

2! See also Catanese, supra note 14, at 331 (discussing Illinois as
an example of a Democratic-controlled gerrymander).

2 See, eg., Benisek, 2017 WL, 8642928, at *19—20; Bazelon, supra
note 2; Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Bil-
lionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right 411 (2016) (“The
advent of computers had turned redistricting into an expensive,
cynical], and highly precise science.”).

1]

can change the occupant of that seat for the next two
years. But spending to support redistricting can
change every House race in the state for the next dec-
ade.

Financial support from groups accepting dark
money has been crucial to recent gerrymandering ef-
forte, and redistricting groups in most states can take
unlimited amounts of money without disclosing the
source, In early 2010, the Republican State Leader-
ship Committee created the Redistricting Majority
Project (“REDMAP”) with the goal of redrawing elec-
toral maps to benefit Republican candidates.”* In
2010, REDMAP raised more than $30 million—much
of it dark money—to elect majorities in state legisla-
tures in battleground states including Ohio, Michi-
gan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.”
After gaining control of state legislatures, REDMAP
then expanded its efforts to influence the redistricting
of those states’ congressional seats.*°

The Republicans’ redistricting efforts were largely
supported by “opaque nonprofits funded by dark
money, supposedly nonpartisan campaign outfits, and

23 See The Redistricting Majority Project, http://www.redistrict-
ingmajorityproject.com/ (last visited Aug. 31, 2017) (‘Republi-
cans have an sprermenty to create 20-25 new Republican
Congressional the redistricting process over
the next a election cyciea, solidifying a Republican House Ma-
jority.”); Olga Pierce, et al., How Dark Money Helped Republicans
Hol de I ouse and Hurt Voters, ProPublica ‘Den 1, 2012),
https://www. pro p a org/article/how-dark-money-he!ped-re-

publicans-hold-the-house-and-hurt- voters.
4 Pierce, et al., supra note 23.
a6 Jd.

12

millions in corporate donations to achieve Republican-
friendly maps throughout the country.”*® Among the
organizations funding REDMAP were groups with
such seemingly neutral names as American Justice
Partnership, Fair and Legal Redistricting for North
Carolina, and Michigan Redistricting Resource [nsti-
tute.27. The neutral names disguise these organiza-
tions’ underlying partisan agendas.”*

The strategy behind this effort was clear, and the
political intent unmistakable. In 2010, one of RED-
MAP’s early boosters wrote in the Wall Street Journal
that Republicans were targeting state legislatures be-
cause “[h]e who controls redistricting can control Con-
gress."29 REDMAP’s own 2012 Summary Report
highlighted how their “strategy of targeting state leg-
islative races in 2010 led to a Republican U.S. House

% Jd. (“Two tobacco giants, Altria and Reynolds, each 1 oo one in
more than $1 million to the main Republican redistrictin + group,
as did [Karl] Rove's my PAC, American Crossroads; Walma

and the pharmaceutica induatry alao contributed, Other donors,
who gave to the nonprofits Republicans created, may never have
to be disclosed.”).

a7 Id.

2 See, e.g., Peter Overby, NPR News Investigations, From Soc’
Welfare Groups, a River of Political Influence (Nov. 6, 2013),
http//www.npr.org/2019/) 1/05/242364030/from-social-welfare-
4 a-river-of-political-influence (describing American Jus-

artnership as an organization dedicated to legal reform
that has “target[ed) liberal judges for defeat”).

” Karl Rove, The GOP Targets State Legislatures, Wall St. J.
(Mar. 4, 2010), https://www.waj.com/arti-
cles/SB 1000 1424052 74870386270457 70689398044.

13

Majority in 2013.” REDMAP explained: “Drawing
new district lines in states with the most redistricting
activity presented the opportunity to solidify con-
servative policymaking at the state level and main-
tain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of
Representatives for the next decade.”®!

The Democratic Party has also supported its re-
districting efforts by accepting “secretive redistricting
funding.”82 For example, as noted above, Maryland
Democrats gerrymandered congressional! districts be-
hind closed doors to preserve their incumbencies
while taking aim at the state’s two remaining Repub-
lican seats. As former governor Martin O'Malley ex-
plained in a deposition: “Part of my intent was to
create a map that, all things being legal and equal,
would, nonetheless, be more likely to elect more Dem-
ocrats rather than less.”® To that end, Democrats
hired outside consultants to redraw the district lines.
Those consultants later testified that their job was to
“see[] if there was a way to get another Democratic
district in the state.”** They succeeded, and Mary-
land’s two Republican seats shrunk to one.

Democrats have also relied on nonprofit organiza-
tions, funded by dark money, for support in redistrict-
ing. Like the Republican groups, these groups have

% The Redistricting Majority Project, 2012 REDMAP Summary
Report @Jan. 4, 2013), http://www.redistrictingmajoritypro-

ject.com/.
81 Jd.

82 Pierce, et al., supra note 23.
38 Daley, supra note 19.
34 Jd.

14

nonpartisan-sounding names, such as Democracy Al-
liance, America Votes, and Patriot Majority USA, that
belie their political agendas.** Patriot Majority USA,
a 601(c)(4) social welfare group not required to pub-
licly disclose its donors, reportedly raised $30 million
in 2014 and “was a major player in the Democrats’
failed bid to retain control of the U.S. Senate” in
2014.36 Unions have reportedly donated to Patriot
Majority USA, as well as to “an array of ‘dark money’
liberal advocacy groups including the 501(c)(4) arms
of the Center for American Progress, National Em-
ployment Law Project, and Partnership for Working
Families—which aren’t required to report who funds
them.”

As troubling as these examples are, amici expect
that the influence of special interests groups and dark

38 See, e.g., About, America Votes (last accessed Aug. 31, 2017),
https://americavotes.org/about/ (describing America Votes as
“the coordination hub of the progressive community,” with “an

eye on redistricting”); Richard Berman, The Democrats’ Dark

Money Hypocrisy, The Hill (May 5, 2016),
pe oe pen a ogs/congress-blog/politica/27888 | -the-demo-
crate-dark-money-h Mateea Gold, Wealthy Donors on
Left Launch New Plan to Back Control in the , Wash.

Post (Apr. 12, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost. com/poli-
tics/wealthy-donors-on-left-launch-pew-plan-to-wrest-back-con-
trol-in-the-states/20 15/04/1 2/cced2fiee-dfd3- 1 1e4-a1b8-

2ed88bc 190d2_story.html?utm_term=.94e6ec28352c (describing
Democracy Alliance as “a cadre of wealthy liberal donors”).

% Michael Beckel, Secret Donors Fuel Democratic Political Pow-
erhouse, Ctr. for Pub. Integrity (Nov. 18, 2015), https://www.pub-
licintegrity.org/20 15/1 1/18/18875/secret-donors-fuel-democratic-

political-powerhouse.
37 Id.

38 Berman, supra note 35.
15

money in redistricting efforts will increase unless this
Court steps in. One recent study found that 38 times
more dark money was spent during the 2014 elections
than in 2006.29 And political groups are gearing up
for the next round of redistricting. Democrats are al-
ready planning for a 2020 redistricting campaign, in-
cluding through groups funded by “dark money,”*°
and Republicans will surely do the same.

This is just one of many ways in which dark
money plagues America’s elections, but it is a signifi-
cant one.

C. Partisan Gerrymandering Produces Un-
competitive And Unrepresentative Dis-
tricts That Have A Corrosive Effect On
Our Democracy.

“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,”
wrote Shakespeare to convey the notion of disease in
the body politic. Here too, there is a powerful sense
among Americans that something has gone awry.*!

3° Chisun Lee, et al., Brennan Ctr. for Justice, Secret Spending
in the States 3 (June 26, 2016), https://www.brennan-
center.org/publication/secret-spending-states.

#0 Td.

“1 These concerns are well-founded, with recent studies illustrat-
ing the high rewards (a return of nearly 1000-1 for lobbying ex-
penditures) and high stakes (over $700 billion per year for one
subsidy) for America’s influencer class. See Bill ‘Allison & Sarah
Harkins, Sunlight Found., Fixed Fortunes: Biggest Corporate Po
litical Interests Spend Billions, Get Trillions (Nov. 17, 2014),
https://sunlightfoundation.com/201 4/11/17/fixed-fortunes-big-
gest -corporate-political-interests-epend-billions-get-trillions/;
Laurence Cockroft & Anne-Christine Wegener, Unmasked 14

16

The increase in partisan gerrymandering follow-
ing Vieth, fueled by dark money contributions and ad-
vanced technology, distorts our representative
democracy and pollutes Americans’ faith in their po-
litical institutions. This Court has long recognized
that “[t/he true principle of a republic is[] that the peo-
ple should choose whom they please to govern them.”
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 540—41 (1969)
(quoting Alexander Hamilton in 2 Debates on the Fed-
eral Constitution 257 (J. Elliot ed. 1876)). The current
practice of partisan gerrymandering undermines that
principle. As one commentator recently observed, “[i]t
used to be that the idea was, once every two years vot-
ers elected their representatives, and now, instead,
it’s every ten years the representatives choose their
constituents.” 42

As Republicans and Democrats battle each other
to control redistricting, the real losers are the Ameri-
can people. Sending delegations to Congress that do
not conform to the results of elections :eads to disin-
terested and justifiably disillusioned voters. Ordinary
voters may not identify the dark money forces that
have separated a state delegation’s makeup from that
state’s election results, but they surely see that some
dark force is intermediating to create that anomalous

(2017) (showing a 750-1 ratio); see also http://priceofoil.org/fossil-
fuel-subsidies/.

42 See Jeffrey Toobin, Drawing the Line, The New Yorker, Mar.
6, 2006, at 35 (quoting Stanford Law School Professor Pamela
Karlan); see also Peter H. Shuck, The Thickest Thicket: Portisan

ring and Judicial Regulation of Politics, 87 Colum.
L.. Rev. 1826, 1329 (1987) (gerrymandering raises “profound is-
sues concerning the legitimacy of our representational struc-

tures”).
17

outcome. Realizing that their votes have been gerry-
mandered into near-meaninglessness, many Ameri-
cans are checking out of the process entirely, as
reflected by the lowest voter turnout in 2014 in any
election since 1942.4

When gerrymandering is used to establish safe
districts, the proliferation of those safe seats leads to
a more polarized and dysfunctional political climate.
In safe districts, an incumbent’s biggest threat is often
a primary challenge from a more extreme member of
his or her own party. This threat makes legislators
reluctant to work across the aisle and support bipar-
tisan legislation. Gerrymandering thus worsens “the
hyper-partisanship that paralyzes our politics and
governance.”“ |

Public trust in our democracy is further weakened
by the lack of transparency in how redistricting is
funded. The influx of dark money compounds this
concern, replacing the will of the people with the will
of anonymous special interests and wealthy donors.
Dark money also increases the risk that politicians be-
come beholden to the special interest groups funding
redistricting efforts, rather than to their constituents.
Recent surveys have shown that a significant majority
of Americans believe “it doesn’t matter if they vote,”
because politics and elections are controlled by

“3 Brian Klaas, The Despot’s Accomplice: How the West is Aiding
and Abetting the Decline of Democracy 184 (2016).

44 Fred Dews, A Primer on Gerrymandering and Political Polari-
cation, Brookings (July 6, 2017), https://www.brook-
ings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-
gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/.

18

wealthy interests.4° This sentiment is bipartisan:
“Democrats and Republicans generally agree that peo-
ple like them, working people, the poor, and small
businesses don’t have enough power in Washington,
and that political lobbyists, Wall Street, large busi-
nesses, and the wealthy have too much influence.”“6
And not without reason: studies have found that “the
preferences of the average American appear to have
only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-signifi-
cant impact upon public policy.”47

Americans are particularly troubled by how spe-
cial interest groups are helping to gerrymander state
and federal legislative districts. Across party lines,
64% of Americans believe that redistricting is a tactic
to take power away from voters.“* 71% of Americans
believe that “those who stand to benefit from redraw-
ing congressional districts should not have a say in

45 See, e.g., Betsy Cooper, et a)., PRRI, The Divide Quer America’s
Future: 1950 or 2050? Findings From the 2016 American Values
Survey (Oct. 25, 2016), https://www.prri.org/research/poll-1950s-
2050-divided-nations-direction-post-election/; Views on Power
and Influence in Washington, Assoc. Press-NORC Ctr. for Pub.
Affairs Research (2017), http://www.apnorce.org/pro-
jects/Pages/Power-and-Influence-in-Washi aspx [hereinaf-
ter AP-NORC Poll].

#6 AP-NORC Poll, supra note 45.

47 See Martin Gilens & Benjamin I. Page, Testing Theories of
American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,
12 Perspectives on Politics, no. 3, Sept. 2014, at 564, 675.

48 Americans Across Party Lines Oppose Common Gerrymander-
ing Practices, The Harris Poll (Nov. 7, 2013), http://www .thehar-
rispoll.com/politica/Americans_Across_Party_Lines_Oppose_Co
mmon_Gerrymandering_Practices. html.

19

how they are redrawn.”*9 One Wisconsin senator who
voted for the redistricting plan at issue recently ex-
pressed remorse for his vote, explaining, “When you
talk to people about our government, the thing they
tell you is it’s rigged.”™ Indeed, the process of redis-
tricting merits little faith because drawing district
lines is “among the most easily manipulated and least
transparent systems in democratic governance.”®!

Finally, Americans are not the only ones who have
observed how partisan gerrymandering has under-
mined our political system. America’s democracy has
long stood as a model to the world, a “city on a hill.”5?
Partisan gerrymandering now threatens that role. A
scholar of comparat.ie politics recently remarked that
“the American model is not the only viable one out
there, and .. . other nations may not be insane to look
at it with some sense of distaste.”55 Rooted in part in
our use of partisan gerrymandering, this view creates
“knock-on effects that damage the core of democ-
racy.” 54

That study of different democratic countries con-
cluded that America’s extreme gerrymandering
threatens the very fabric of our democracy and

49 Id.
5° Bazelon, supra note 2.

5! Dews, supra n. 44.

52 See Governor John Winthrop, A Model of Christian Charity
(1630); President Ronald Reagan, A Vision for America, Election
Eve Address (Nov. 3, 1980).

58 Klaas, supra note 43, at 188.
54 Td. at 183.

20

“mak{[es] a mockery of the one person, one vote princi-
ple that is the granite ridge to which democracy

should be anchored.”®° We agree.

II. The Court Should Curb The Rise Of Par-
tisan Gerrymandering By Affirming The
District Court’s Decision.

When it comes to partisan gerrymandering, this
Court can no longer remain on the sidelines. In Reyn-
olds v. Sims, the Court explained that “[a]e long as
ours is a representative form of government, and our
legislatures are those instruments of government
elected directly by and directly representative of the
people, the right to elect legislators in a free and un-
impaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system.”
377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964). The Court should reaffirm
this principle by holding that partisan gerrymander-
ing claims are justiciable and that Wisconsin’s plan
violates the Constitution.

The district court’s test—requiring evidence of
discriminatory intent, a large and durable discrimina-
tory effect, and a lack of a legitimate justification—
provides a clear roadmap for lower courts, grounded
in this Court’s precedents. The test addresses this
Court’s prior concerns by articulating a clear standard
that avoids sweeping in legitimate political conduct.
The district court’s test is manageable, and, more im-
portantly, will impose a needed threat of judicial ac-
countability to constrain future partisan
gerrymandering efforts.

56 Jd. at 186 (internal quotation marks omitted).
21

The first element of the district court’s test—dis-
criminatory intent—provides a workable standard
that addresses the concerns expressed in Vieth. The
district court required an intent “to place a severe im-
pediment on the effectiveness of... votes. ..on the
basis of . . . political affiliation.” Juriedictional State-
ment App. 109a—110a, Unlike the proposed intent re-
quirements addressed in Vieth, this test captures only
those political classifications “applied in an invidious
manner or in a way unrelated to any legitimate legis-
lative objective.” Id. 84a (quoting 541 U.S. at 307
(Kennedy, J., concurring)). The test is also a workable
one, allowing courts to consider different forms of in-
tent evidence including admissions, rejection of more
neutral p!ans for no apparent reason, secrecy and lack
of transparency surrounding the redistricting process,
and unwillingness to include minority party voices.
When politicians admit that their efforts to redraw
district lines were intended to create undemocratic
outcomes, courts should hold them accountable.™

5° A State ordinarily should find safe harbor against any allega-
tion that it acted with discriminatory intent when it entrusts re-
districting to an independent redistricting commiasion. See, ¢.g.,
Avis. State Legislature, 135 8. Ct. at 2652. As this Court recog-
nized implicitly in Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 762
(1973), safe harbors could also include districts designed by “a
three-[person] bipartisan Board” rather than a single-party-con-
trolled state legislature, or other processes that incorporate mi-
nority voices and promote public scrutiny and transparency
through openness and publication of proposed and revised mape.
When states teke steps like these to protect redistricting from
partisan influence, they ought rightly to insulate themselves
from cries of foul play.

22

The second element—discriminatory effect—also
addresses the concerns articulated in Vieth. The dis-
trict court required a showing that the redistricting
plan had the “effect” of diluting votes based on politi-
cal affiliation. See Jurisdictional Statement App.
107a—110a. Unlike in prior cases, plaintiffs here focus
on dilution of their votes due to their political affilia-
tions, rather than on any claim to proportional repre-
sentation. Cf. Vieth, 541 U.S. at 308 (Kennedy, J.,
concurring) (rejecting fairness principle based on a
proportionality theory). The Court has recognized
that “the right of qualified voters, regardless of their
political persuasion, to cast their votes effec-
tively .. . rank[s] among our most precious freedoms.”
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787 (1983). Vote
dilution is a firmly rooted constitutional injury and
provides a sound basis for the discriminatory effect
test. And as Appellees demonstrate, experts can now
readily measure the dilutive effects of partisan gerry-
mandering through election results, partisan bias, the
“efficiency gap,” and sensitivity testing. These are ex-
actly the sort of advancements Justice Kennedy envi-
sioned when he spoke of “new technologies [that] may
produce new methods of analysis that make more ev-
ident the precise nature of the burdens gerrymanders
impose.” Vieth, 541 U.S. at 312-13.

The final factor—lack of a legitimate justifica-
tion—also speaks to Vieth’s concerns. This part of the
test ensures that courts can distinguish between dis-
trict maps drawn to achieve legitimate objectives and
those based on impermissible partisan considerations.
For example, this element will defeat claims where a

23

non-partisan explanation, such as geographical distri-
bution of voters, accounts for the map’s alleged dis-
criminatory effect. Jurisdictional Statement App.
217a—218a. This element appropriately guarantees
that legitimate legislative decisions will not be
lumped in with nake?4 retaliation based on party affil-
iation.

The Court should affirm the district court's test.
But even if the Court concludes that the test has not
adequately resolved the concerns expressed in Vieth,
the Court should, at a minimum, hold that partisan
gerrymandering claims are justiciable. As discussed
above, the Vieth plurality’s retreat from Davis v.
Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), has resulted in more
frequent and extreme gerrymandering at the expense
of our democracy. See supra Part I.

Moreover, the plurality’s reasons for deeming par-
tisan gerrymandering claime non-justiciable are un-
persuasive. For example, the plurality relied in part
on Congress's power to make or alter redistricting
lines. Vieth, 541 U.S. at 275-77. But the Constitution
leaves room for both Congress and the courts to rem-
edy the problem of partisan gerrymandering. Nothing
in Article I, Section 4 provides Congress with exclusive
authority to modify congressional districts. And the
question for courts is not what districts should look
like, but whether partisan forces have manipulated
the process to dilute votes based on political affilia-
tion. ,

Even if the democratic process could prevent ex-
cess partisan gerrymandering in some cases, the
Court must still step in where, as here, the democratic
process has been used to violate citizens’ fundamental

24

rights. See League of United Latin Am. Citizens v.
Perry (LULAC), 543 U.S. 399, 415 (2006) (Kennedy,
J.) (“Our precedents recognize an important role for
the courts when a districting plan violates the Consti-
tution.”); Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2605
(2015) (“[T]he Constitution contemplates that democ-
racy is the appropriate process for change, so long as
that process does not abridge fundamental rights.”).

The Vieth plurality incorrectly suggested that
Congress alone can solve the problem of partisan ger-
rymandering. The facts on the ground since Vieth
demonstrate that the political process cannot provide
an adequate solution. Judicial review is a necessary
ingredient to restoring our democracy. This Court
should hold that partisan gerrymandering claims are
justiciable and that the Wisconsin redistricting plan
is unconstitutional.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and those in Appellees’
brief, the Court should affirm the district court’s deci-
sion.

25

Kathryn Ca

COVINGTON & G LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive,
Suite 700

Redwood Shores, CA 94065
(650) 632-4700

KeAndra Barlow
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars,
Suite 3500

Los Angeles, CA 90067
(424) 332-4800

September 2017

26

Respectfully submitted,

Mark W. Mosier

Counsel of Record
Ryan Mowery
Alec Webley
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
MMOSIER@COV.COM
(202) 662-6000

Counsel for Amici Curiae

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0740%3A46. Public record. Not legal advice.