- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
Federal court dismisses lawsuit over Va. congressional redistricting
Question of the Day
RICHMOND — A federal court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit brought by six Virginia residents asking the court to step in and draw new lines for the state’s 11 congressional districts.
The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, was dismissed in part because the General Assembly’s passing a new redistricting plan rendered it moot, according to the office of Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II.
“We are pleased that the court has granted the Motion to Dismiss,” he said in a statement. “Both the United States Constitution and the Virginia Constitution provide that redistricting should be handled by the General Assembly. Because the General Assembly has now completed the required redistricting, it was appropriate for the court to decline to become involved.”
The lawsuit is similar to another one brought by six different residents in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. That lawsuit argues the new map approved last month by the assembly and signed by Gov. Bob McDonnell is invalid, since the state Constitution says the General Assembly is to pass a new map in years following the decennial census, which would have been 2011.
Judge Richard D. Taylor Jr. declined to dismiss the case, ruling that the legislature was obligated to reapportion the state’s congressional districts in 2011. He declined to rule, however, on whether the obligation to pass new districts in 2011 bars the assembly from reapportioning districts in 2012.
Mr. Cuccinelli’s office claimed the court did not have jurisdiction over the case, and filed a petition for a “writ of prohibition,” asking the state Supreme Court to stop the lower court from acting because it lacked jurisdiction. That petition, however, was denied.
After a months-long impasse last year, the state House and Senate recently passed a new redistricting plan that largely shores up the state’s current incumbents, likely preserving an 8-3 Republican advantage in the Virginia congressional delegation. With little fanfare, Mr. McDonnell recently signed into law the new map, which must still be pre-cleared with the U.S. Department of Justice.
Senate Democrats had pushed for a plan that would create a second minority-influence district by decreasing the black population in Democratic Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott’s meandering 3rd District and increasing it in Republican Rep. J. Randy Forbes’ southeastern 4th District. But after retaking control of the upper chamber after the November elections, the GOP quickly muscled through the House version less than two weeks into the 2012 session.
Any redistricting plan in Virginia must be pre-cleared with the U.S. Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Cuccinelli has filed a suit for pre-clearance in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and has sought administrative pre-clearance through the DOJ to expedite the process.
The Virginia House of Delegates has also approved emergency legislation that would move the state’s congressional primaries from June to August if new lines are not adopted by April 3.
“We will continue to defend the law passed by the General Assembly and signed by Governor McDonnell,” Mr. Cuccinelli said. “We continue to work with the U.S. Department of Justice for its pre-clearance of the new districts under the Voting Rights Act and are prepared to litigate that question, if necessary. Our goal is that the will of the people, as evidenced by the votes of their elected representatives, be enforced and that orderly elections occur in November.”
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
David Sherfinski covers politics for The Washington Times. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Half can't name political party of their member of Congress, poll finds
- Mich. congressman returns Commerce award after group endorses opponent
- Rep. Henry Cuellar on border crisis: 'Playing defense on the one-yard line'
- Rep. Luis Gutierrez: Senate Dems wary of immigration politics
- Senators: Cease-fire must allow Israel to defend against rockets, tunnels
Latest Blog Entries
- Dick Cheney: Hillary Clinton 'clearly bears responsibility' on Benghazi
- Holder vows to press ahead on gun control fight
- Seven of 10 prefer that Obama work with Congress, not go around it: Poll
- Schumer: Tea party hasn't let Obama put his policies into effect
- GOP official: Black not running for Wolf's House seat
TWT Video Picks
Second- and third-stringers eye 2016 if front-runner stumbles
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Russia shipping sophisticated weapons systems to Ukraine separatists
- EDITORIAL: Detroit's water 'spigot bigots'
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- Ted Nugent loses second casino gig for 'racist remarks'
- Ohio university quiz implies atheists are naturally smarter than Christians
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq