KING v. STATE BD. OF ELECTIONS
979 F.Supp. 619 (1997)
James R. KING, Plaintiff,
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, David E. Murray, Lawrence E. Johnson, Hannelore Huisman, Judith Jones, Langdon D. Neal, Theresa M. Petrone, Wanda Rednour, Defendants,
Bobby Rush, Timuel Black, Al Johnson, Elvira Carrizales, Neomi Hernandez, and the Chicago Urban League, and the United States of America, Defendant-Intervenors.
No. 95 C 827.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
August 5, 1997.
Douglas Edward Markham, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.
Joan Cagen Laser, United States Atty's Office, Chicago, IL, Judson H. Miner, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, Chicago, IL, Maria Valdez, Mexican Amer.Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, Chicago, IL, Clyde Murphy, Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, Chicago, IL, Martha J. Avery, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Chicago, IL, Brenda Wright, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, Washington, DC, Mark Stephen Grotefeld, Provizer, Phillips, Grotefeld & Denenberg, P.C., Charles Frank Marino, David M. Marino, Chicago, IL, for Intervenors.
Limo T. Cherian, Mitchell Bruce Katten, O'Rourke & Griffin, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.
Before KANNE, Circuit Judge, and NORGLE, District Judge and COAR, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996) (hereinafter "Shaw II"), and Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 116 S.Ct. 1941, 135 L.Ed.2d 248 (1996) (hereinafter "Bush"). King v. Illinois Bd. of Elections, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 429, 136 L.Ed.2d 328 (1996). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), the undersigned three-judge panel was appointed to preside over this litigation.
Upon remand, plaintiff filed a motion for an additional evidentiary hearing. This court denied the requested relief by order of April 4, 1997. Plaintiff has since moved this court to reconsider its ruling on that issue. Briefs have been filed both on the remand and on plaintiff's motion for an additional evidentiary hearing. Thus, this case is before the court on both issues. Having carefully examined Shaw II and Bush and the memoranda and arguments presented by the parties, this court finds both cases supportive of its analysis and accordingly affirms its previous decision in King v. State Bd. of Elections, No. 95-C827, 1996 WL 913660, ___ F.Supp. ___ (N.D.Ill. Mar. 6, 1996) (hereinafter "King I"). Moreover, for the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion, plaintiff's motion to reconsider is denied.
It is important to note at the outset, however, that this opinion merely supplements the subject of the remand and its purpose is to determine what impact, if any, Shaw II and Bush have on this court's prior analyses. Hopefully, this opinion will provide a road-map of King I that illustrates that King I is in accord with Shaw II and Bush. To this end, this opinion will discuss the relevant holdings of each of those opinions.Discussion
Since this court issued its ruling in King I, the Supreme Court has further developed its constitutional jurisprudence with respect to voting rights in two pivotal decisions: Shaw II and Bush. These decisions of even date have markedly changed and elucidated the landscape of voting rights litigation and legislation. As a result, this court has undertaken a full review of the underlying record as well as the briefs filed upon this remand. The court has likewise carefully considered the evidence submitted upon the plaintiff's offer of proof in support of his motion to reopen the evidence.1 Nothing in this restudy of the
record has revealed any error in the statement of facts set forth in King I. Rather, the court remains of the view that the facts, other than those to be inferred, are correctly set forth in its prior opinion.
Notwithstanding the accuracy of the factual record, certain comments upon the law are in order. Indeed, the necessity for or the propriety of reopening the record can better be judged following some analysis of both the legal and factual issues involved in this remand. Moreover, such analysis affirms this court's earlier conclusion that the Fourth Congressional District (hereinafter the "Fourth District") is constitutionally sound.