Graves Garrett partners Eddie Greim and Lucinda Luetkemeyer recently filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the National Republican Redistricting Trust in support of the North Carolina legislature in Rucho v. Common Cause. The case is widely anticipated because of the potential that the high court will settle a decades-long controversy over whether courts should accept partisan gerrymandering claims.

Oral arguments are expected to be heard in less than two weeks.

The brief takes the plaintiffs at their word, that they have an individual right to avoid gerrymandering, and explores the theoretical basis of their claim. It shows that it actually derives from a claimed right to enjoy equal representational weight with all other voters, but that this claim cannot be adjudicated because there is no way for courts to equalize citizens’ representational weight.

The brief next shows that even a plaintiff asserting an individual rights-based claim must ultimately fall back on a showing that his or her political party or group has a right to a certain proportion of seats — precisely the type of claimed right that the Supreme Court has already held is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. Implementing the group’s collective right, in turn, will necessarily end up sacrificing the claims of some voters to “equal” political weight — the antithesis of the individual rights-based claim.

Greim’s recent legal experience in Missouri shows recognizing a political group’s right to a certain number of seats has another unfortunate effect: it requires subordinating traditional redistricting principles.

“Legislators either represent a district that’s a community of citizens, or they represent a political party. They can’t represent both,” Greim said.

Graves Garrett’s involvement in the Supreme Court case received coverage in a recent article from The Missouri Times. The full article can be read at this link.

Greim focuses his practice at Graves Garrett on free speech and election law, complex commercial litigation, internal investigations and whistleblower claims. His free speech and election law experience has included numerous constitutional challenges to election and campaign finance laws; representation of clients in state and federal ethics and campaign finance enforcement actions and investigations; initiative petition drafting and litigation; litigation and advice regarding First Amendment protections for petition circulation; representation of not-for-profit clients before state regulators; and advice on campaign and election law compliance.

Luetkemeyer represents clients in a wide range of litigation, including complex commercial litigation, white collar criminal defense, professional liability and government enforcement matters. With experience representing elected officials, candidates, committees, and nonprofit groups, she counsels clients on compliance with ethics and campaign finance laws and also represents clients facing civil and criminal enforcement actions brought by state and federal officials.