Sec. 5. Enforcement and remedies
617 words·~3 min read·
/bill/116/s/1972/is/section-5A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
Any eligible voter of a State may bring a civil action before a 3-judge court convened in accordance with section 2284 of title 28, United States Code, for a violation of section 3 or 4. A court in a civil action under this subsection— may issue an order— invalidating the districting plan of such State on the grounds that the plan violates section 3 or 4; and enjoining the use of that districting plan and requiring the State to develop a remedial districting plan that does not violate section 3 or 4 in accordance with subsection (b); shall consider any violation of section 3 to be probative evidence that the districting plan has the purpose of unduly favoring or disfavoring a political party in contravention of section 4; and in connection with an asserted claim of a violation of section 4, may consider, among other things, statistical evidence of the extent and durability of partisan bias, electoral responsiveness, and the ability of each party to translate votes into seat share.
In remedying a violation of section 4, a court shall apply the following: If the court finds that the State has established a districting plan with the purpose of unduly favoring or disfavoring a political party, the court shall appoint a special master or panel of special masters to develop a remedial districting plan, which shall be approved by the court before taking effect. If the court finds that the State has established a districting plan that will have the effect, but does not have the purpose, of unduly favoring or disfavoring a political party, the court may, in its discretion— appoint a special master or panel of special masters to develop a remedial districting plan, which shall be approved by the court before taking effect; or allow the State the opportunity to develop a remedial districting plan, which shall be approved by the court before taking effect.
Any remedial districting plan shall comply with the requirements of section 3 and 4 and shall not become effective until approved by the court after an evidentiary hearing at which members of the public may appear and present evidence, including expert testimony with respect to the compliance of the remedial plan with all of the provisions of the Act. Notwithstanding the pendency of any appeal of an order finding a violation of section 3 or 4, no stay shall be issued which shall bar the development and adoption of a remedial districting plan, whether developed by the State or by the special master or panel of special masters (as the case may be), pending such appeal.
In the event that an upcoming Federal election requires an interim districting plan to be used in such election, nothing shall be construed to limit the authority of the court to modify such interim districting plan in the future or shall be interpreted as limiting the right of citizens of the State to obtain other or further relief in connection with the State’s enacted plan. The agreement of a State to interim relief or the adoption by a State of an alternative plan shall not— moot or invalidate a finding that a districting plan is the result of intentional discrimination against voters on the basis of race, ethnicity, or partisan affiliation; or impair the right of voters to seek other relief under applicable law for such discriminatory action, including under section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ( 52 U.S.C. 10302(c) ).
No person, legislature, or State may claim legislative privilege under either State or Federal law in a civil action brought under this section or in any other legal challenge, under either State or Federal law, to a districting plan.
Connectionstraces to 1
Traces to 1 document
Citation graph
cites case law
Sec. 5
Enforcement and remedies
Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources