Scribd

1 No. WD83962 _____________________________________________________________ IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT

_______________________________________________________________ BARBARA PIPPENS,

et al.

, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. JOHN R. ASHCROFT,

et al.

, Defendants-Appellants. _____________________________________________________________

AMICUS BRIEF OF FORMER MISSOURI LAWMAKERS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS AND AFFIRMANCE

_______________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, Case No. 20AC-CC _______________________________________________________________ Brian A. Sutherland (

of counsel

) REED SMITH LLP 101 Second St., Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 M. Patrick Yingling (

of counsel

) REED SMITH LLP 10 S. Wacker Dr., 40th Fl. Chicago, IL 60606 Manasi Venkatesh Missouri Bar # 61711 REED SMITH LLP 1301 K Street, N.W. Suite 1000, East Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 414-9478 Fax: (202) 414-9299 mvenkatesh@reedsmith.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

Former Missouri Lawmakers

E l e c t r oni c al l y F i l e d -WE S T E R N D I S T R I C T C T OF A P P E A L S -A u g u s t 2 5 ,2 0 2 0 - 0 2 : 3 9 P M

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

INTEREST OF

AMICI CURIAE

......................................................................................... 7 ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 8 I. Proposed Amendment 3 Would Repeal the Core Provisions of a Voter-Initiated Constitutional Amendment Enacted Just Two Years Ago ........................ 9 A. Amendment 1 (2018), introduced by Missouri voters, requires a nonpartisan state demographer to draw district lines in a manner that maximizes partisan fairness and competitiveness of elections ................... 10 B. Proposed Amendment 3 (2020), introduced by the General Assembly, would repeal Amendment 1’s key provisions ........................... 13 II. Legislators have a strong personal interest in proposed Amendment 3 ................. 15 III. Because legislators have a strong personal interest in proposed Amendment 3, the Court should closely scrutinize the summary statement ......... 17 IV. The circuit court properly certified alternative language to describe proposed Amendment 3 because the General Assembly’s summary statement was misleading and insufficient ............................................................. 23 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 23


3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases

AHI Metnall, L.P. by AHI Kansas, Inc. v. J.C. Nichols Co.

, 891 F. Supp. 1352 (W.D. Mo. 1995) ........................................................................... 20

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

, 576 U.S. 787 (2015) ..................................................................................................... 16

Barrett v. Foote

, 187 S.W. 67 (Mo. 1916) .............................................................................................. 20

Barrie v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis

, 119 S.W. 1020 (Mo. 1909) .......................................................................................... 20

Boeving v. Kander

, 493 S.W.3d 865 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) .................................................................... 18, 19

Buchanan v. Kirkpatrick

, 615 S.W.2d 6 (Mo. Banc 1981) ............................................................................. 18, 23

Buttram v. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Health & Welfare Fund

, 76 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 1996) ......................................................................................... 21

Dotson v. Kander

, 464 S.W.3d 190 (Mo. 2015) .................................................................................. 18, 19

Evans v. FirstFleet, Inc.

, 345 S.W.3d 297 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) ....................................................................... 20

Flanagan v. DeLapp

, 533 S.W.2d 592 (Mo. 1976) ........................................................................................ 21

Goodman v. Crader

, 227 S.W.2d 457 (Mo. 1950) ........................................................................................ 20

Hill v. Ashcroft

, 526 S.W.3d 299 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) ...................................................................... 18
