- Feb 19, 2009
Brief on behalf of the Appellant. The questions presented are whether §4(a) of the Voting Rights Act, which permits “political subdivisions” of a State covered by §5’s requirement that certain jurisdictions preclear changes affecting voting with the federal government to bail out of §5 coverage if they can establish a ten-year history of compliance with the VRA, must be available to any political subunit of a covered State when the Court’s precedent requires “political subdivision” to be given its ordinary meaning throughout most of the VRA and no statutory text abrogates that interpretation with respect to §4(a); and whether, under the Court’s consistent jurisprudence requiring that remedial legislation be congruent and proportional to substantive constitutional guarantees, the 2006 enactment of the §5 preclearance requirement can be applied as a valid exercise of Congress’s remedial powers under the Reconstruction Amendments when that enactment was founded on a congressional record demonstrating no evidence of a persisting pattern of attempts to evade court enforcement of voting-rights guarantees in jurisdictions covered only on the basis of data 35 or more years old, or even when considered under a purportedly less stringent rational-basis standard. It is argued that the Court should reverse the judgment of the district court and render judgment that the district is entitled to use the bailout procedure or, in the alternative, that §5 cannot be constitutionally applied to the district.
- Apr 1, 2009
Appellants' reply brief. Appellant argues that the Court should reverse the judgment of the district court and render judgment that the district is entitled to use the bailout procedure or, alternatively, that §5 cannot be constitutionally applied to the district.
- Apr 14, 2009
Appellant's brief. Appellant argues that the challenged provisions should be declared unconstitutional facially in addition to being struck as applied to groups like HLW. Appellant also requests that the Court reverse the district court on all counts and remand this case for entry of judgment for HLW.
- Feb 16, 2010
Defendant-appellants’ opening brief for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Defendants argue that the district court’s summary judgment rulings should be reversed. Also, because the Act’s matching-funds provisions are sufficiently tailored to satisfy even strict scrutiny, and certainly intermediate scrutiny, summary judgment should be granted to Defendants. Alternatively, the Defendants submit that the case be remanded for further consideration by the district court in light of the appropriate level of scrutiny; or, at the very least, the case should be remanded for trial of any disputed issues of material fact that remain.
- Mar 12, 2010
Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cao. Plaintiffs-Appellants request that the Court find the Party Expenditure Provision limits unconstitutional as applied to RNC’s “own speech,” and find that the $5,000 contribution limit is unconstitutional in that it imposes the same limits on political parties as on PACs and is not adjusted for inflation. Plaintiffs-Appellants also request that the Court consider the non-certified questions on the merits and find that the Party Expenditure Provision limits and Coordination-Contribution Provision are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and that the $5,000 contribution limit at 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(2)(A), standing alone, is unconstitutionally low.
- Apr 2, 2010
Appellant’s/Cross-Appellee’s principal brief. Appellants argue that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction allowing unlimited contributions from individuals and nonindividual entities to independent expenditure committees in City candidate elections. Also, that the court further abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring the City to allow political parties to make direct contributions to candidates. Thus, the court should reverse the district court on these two aspects of its preliminary injunction orders.
- Apr 23, 2010
Appellant-Plaintiff RNC’s jurisdictional statement. The question presented is whether the prohibition on political parties’ solicitation and expenditure of “nonfederal money” imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is unconstitutional as applied to political activities that, when funded by nonfederal money, do not create a risk of actual or apparent quid pro quo corruption of federal officeholders. Appellant argues that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
United States v. O'Donnell: Plaintiff-appellant’s brief opposing defendant-appellee’s petition for a panel and en banc rehearingOct 1, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellant, United States', opposition to Defendant’s Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing en banc. Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny defendant’s petition.
- Feb 4, 2011
It is argued that the Court should reverse the District Court's judgement based on: (1) Just as the taxpayers had Article III injury to challenge the legality of the line-item-veto procedure that retained a substantively lawful tax liability, candidate Nix has Article III injury to challenge the legality of the Section 5 procedure that is retaining substantively lawful electoral burdens; (2) Just as the President’s unconstitutional cancellation of the Medicaid funding law did not “nullify” that law, the unconstitutional Section 5 cannot “nullify” Kinston’s referendum; and (3) Just as the taxpayers brought a facial challenge to the line-item veto even though the President’s cancellation discretion was non-reviewable, Plaintiffs can bring a facial challenge to Section 5 even though the Attorney General’s preclearance discretion is non-reviewable.
- Apr 15, 2011
Defendants-appellants' opening brief. The issue presented is whether the requirement that corporations make candidate campaign expenditures through individual funds voluntarily raised, first enacted as the Corrupt Practices Act of 1912 and now codified at Mont. Code Ann. § 13-35-227, abridges the freedom of speech guaranteed by U.S. Const. amends. I and XIV, or impairs the freedom of speech guaranteed by Mont. Const. art. II, § 7.
- Nov 17, 2011
Opening brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants. The issues addressed in the brief include whether the district court reached an erroneous legal conclusion and so erred when it declined to preliminarily enjoin the corporate independent expenditure ban; whether the district court reached an erroneous legal conclusion and so erred when it declined to preliminarily enjoin the corporate contribution ban; and whether the district court reached an erroneous legal conclusion and so erred when it declined to preliminarily enjoin application of the independent expenditure definition.
- Jun 28, 2012
Appellants', King Street Patriots, brief. Counter-Plaintiffs-Appellants request oral argument. An opportunity to hear all sides and allow them to respond to questions the Court may have would further the cause of justice in this action.
- Jul 30, 2012
Plaintiffs-appellants', A-1 A-Lectrician, merits brief.
- Oct 26, 2012
Jurisdictional statement filed by Appellants Shaun McCutcheon and Republic National Committee. The statement answers the questions of whether the biennial limit on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest as applied to contributions to nationalparty committees; whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), are unconstitutional facially for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest; whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees are unconstitutionally too low, as applied and facially; whether the biennial limit on contributions to candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest; and whether the biennial limit on contributions to candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutionally too low.
- Jan 16, 2013
Answers question of whether 2 U.S.C. § 441c, as applied to individuals such as plaintiffs, but not to others similarly situated, violate the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Also, whether 2 U.S.C. § 441c, as applied to individuals such as plaintiffs, violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
- May 6, 2013
Brief in which McCutcheon discussed whether the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s aggregate limits on the total amount that an individual may contribute to all federal candidates, political party committees, and other political committees during a two-year federal election cycle, 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(3)(A)-(B), violate the First Amendment.
- May 6, 2013
Brief in which the RNC discussed whether the $74,600 aggregate limit on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3) (B), is unconstitutional as applied to contributions to national party committees; whether the $74,600 aggregate limit on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3) (B), is unconstitutional facially; whether the $48,600 aggregate sub-limit on contributions to non-national party committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), is severable; and whether the $48,600 aggregate limit on contributions to candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutional.
- May 5, 2014
This appeal arises from the district court’s denial of True the Vote’s motion to intervene as a matter of right. (ROA.1357) (Ex. A). The United States brought this lawsuit to enjoin and invalidate Texas’ Voter ID law, SB 14, under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. (ROA.6055) TEX. ELEC. CODE § 630101. The case was consolidated with other lawsuits brought by individuals, organizations, and public interest groups who also seek the same result under the Constitution as well as the Voting Rights Act. (ROA.165, 1300).
- Jun 2, 2014
The brief examines whether the district court erred in holding that the Delaware Elections Disclosure Act was likely unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff-Appellee Delaware Strong Families’ General Election Values Voter Guide because the Voter Guide is a “presumably neutral” communication published by a “presumably neutral” organization “by reason of [Delaware Strong Families’] 501(c)(3) status.” Also, Whether the district court erred in holding that Appellee Delaware Strong Families established the non-merits factors required for issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Delaware Strong Families v.Denn: Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Defendants-Appellants’ Opening BriefJun 2, 2014
It is argued that the District Court ruling should be reversed.
Delaware Strong Families v. Denn: Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Defendants-Appellants’ Reply BriefJul 21, 2014
It is argued that the district court’s order should be reversed.
- Dec 8, 2014
Appellants respectfully move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tenth Circuit Local Rule 27.3, for an order to revise the case caption to identify Luis Roberto Vera, Jr., Phillip G. Sapien, and Antonio Maestas as Appellants in this case and to lodge Appellants’ Brief (attached as Exhibit A) on their behalf. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants’ Motion should be granted.
- Feb 17, 2015
As the district court found, Plaintiffs and their former attorneys filed this civil rights suit in good faith, alleging violations of the federal and state constitutions and the Voting Rights Act. Only five-and-a-half months later, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss this case without prejudice, and the district court agreed that the record at that time did not support a dismissal with prejudice. This case barely left the starting block before both parties agreed it should be dismissed, and the fact that two years later it is still the subject of court proceedings leaves one wondering “how did we get here?”