1 No. WD83962 _____________________________________________________________ IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DIVISION
_______________________________________________________________ BARBARA PIPPENS,
et al.
, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. JOHN R. ASHCROFT,
et al.
, Defendants-Appellants. _____________________________________________________________
AMICUS BRIEF OF NATIONAL AND MISSOURI-BASED CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, Case No. 20AC-CC00206 _______________________________________________________________ Robert A. Atkins Sidney S. Rosdeitcher Jonathan Silberstein-Loeb Melina Meneguin Layerenza Ethan C. Stern
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP
(of counsel)
1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Sharon Geuea Jones Missouri Bar # 64943
Jones Advocacy Group
910 W Broadway Columbia, MO 62503 Alicia Bannon Michael Li Yurij Rudensky
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
(of counsel)
120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271
Counsel for Amici Curiae
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
INTEREST OF
AMICI CURIAE
......................................................................................... 8 CONSENT OF THE PARTIES ......................................................................................... 13 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................. 13 STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 13 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 14 A. The Summary Statement’s Claim That Amendment 3 Provides Minority Protections Is Misleading Because It Does Not Disclose That Amendment 3 Would Weaken Protections for Missouri’s Communities of Color. ................................................................................ 15 B. The Summary Statement Does Not Disclose That Amendment 3 Would Undermine Partisan Fairness. .......................................................... 22 C. The Summary Statement Falsely Asserts That Amendment 3 Creates “Independent” and “Citizen-Led” Bipartisan Commissions and Does Not Disclose That It Eliminates the Non-Partisan State Demographer. .............................................................................................. 26 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 35
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) C
ASES
Badillo
v.
City of Stockton
, 956 F.2d 884 (9th Cir. 1992) ....................................................................................... 22
Bartlett
v.
Strickland
, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) ......................................................................................................... 22
Bridgeport Coal. for Fair Representation
v.
City of Bridgeport
, 26 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 1994),
vacated and remanded on other grounds
, 512 U.S. 1283 (1994) ................................................................................................... 22
Campos
v.
City of Baytown
, 840 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1988) ..................................................................................... 22
Common Cause
v.
Lewis
, No. 18-CVS-014001, 2019 WL 4569584 (N.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 3, 2019) ................. 26
Concerned Citizens of Hardee Cnty.
v.
Hardee Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs
, 906 F.2d 524 (11th Cir. 1990) ..................................................................................... 22
Gill
v.
Whitford
, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018), 2017 WL 3948432 ................................................................. 25
League of Women Voters
v.
Commonwealth
, 178 A.3d 737 (Pa. 2018) .............................................................................................. 25
Lieb
v.
Walsh
, 45 Misc. 3d 874 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014) ......................................................................... 30
Mo. State Conference of the NAACP
v.
Ferguson-Florissant Sch. Dist.
, 201 F. Supp. 3d 1006 (E.D. Mo. 2016),
aff’d
, 894 F.3d 924 (8th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................................................ 16
Nixon
v.
Kent Cnty.
, 76 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) ....................................................................................... 22
Rucho v. Common Cause
, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) ................................................................................................. 25
Shelby County
v.
Holder
, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) ..................................................................................................... 20