Sec. 5006. Civil enforcement
1,698 words·~8 min read·
/bill/117/hr/5746/eah/section-5006A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
The Attorney General may bring a civil action for such relief as may be appropriate to carry out this title. Any person residing or domiciled in a State who is aggrieved by the failure of the State to meet the requirements of the Constitution or Federal law, including this title, with respect to the State's congressional redistricting, may bring a civil action in the United States district court for the applicable venue for such relief as may be appropriate to remedy the failure.
For purposes of subparagraph (A), a person who is aggrieved by the failure of a State to meet the requirements of section 5003(c) may include— any political party or committee in the State; and any registered voter in the State who resides in a congressional district that the voter alleges was drawn in a manner that contributes to a violation of such section. Except for an award of attorney’s fees under subsection (d), a court in a civil action under this section shall not award the prevailing party any monetary damages, compensatory, punitive, or otherwise.
In any action brought under this section, a copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine claims asserting that a congressional redistricting plan violates the requirements of the Constitution or Federal law, including this title. The applicable venue for such an action shall be the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or for the judicial district in which the capital of the State is located, as selected by the person bringing the action.
In a civil action that includes a claim that a redistricting plan is in violation of section 5003(b) or (c), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction over any defendant who has been served in any United States judicial district in which the defendant resides, is found, or has an agent, or in the United States judicial district in which the capital of the State is located. Process may be served in any United States judicial district where a defendant resides, is found, or has an agent, or in the United States judicial district in which the capital of the State is located.
If an action under this section raises statewide claims under the Constitution or this title, the action shall be heard by a 3-judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code. A final decision in an action brought under this section shall be reviewable on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which shall hear the matter sitting en banc. There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings to any other court of appeals.
Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal within 10 days of the entry of the final decision. A final decision by the Court of Appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of certiorari. In any action brought under this section, it shall be the duty of the district court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States (if it chooses to hear the action) to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.
If the district court in an action under this section finds that the congressional redistricting plan of a State violates, in whole or in part, the requirements of this title— the court shall adopt a replacement congressional redistricting plan for the State in accordance with the process set forth in section 5005; or if circumstances warrant and no delay to an upcoming regularly scheduled election for the House of Representatives in the State would result, the district court, in its discretion, may allow a State to develop and propose a remedial congressional redistricting plan for review by the court to determine whether the plan is in compliance with this title, except that— the State may not develop and propose a remedial plan under this clause if the court determines that the congressional redistricting plan of the State was enacted with discriminatory intent in violation of the Constitution or section 5003(b); and nothing in this clause may be construed to permit a State to use such a remedial plan which has not been approved by the court.
No court shall order a State to use a congressional redistricting plan which violates, in whole or in part, the requirements of this title, or to conduct an election under terms and conditions which violate, in whole or in part, the requirements of this title. If final adjudication of an action under this section is not reasonably expected to be completed at least 3 months prior to the next regularly scheduled primary election for the House of Representatives in the State, the district court shall— develop, adopt, and order the use of an interim congressional redistricting plan in accordance with section 5005(f) to address any claims under this title for which a party seeking relief has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success; or order adjustments to the timing of primary elections for the House of Representatives and other related deadlines, as needed, to allow sufficient opportunity for adjudication of the matter and adoption of a remedial or replacement plan for use in the next regularly scheduled general elections for the House of Representatives.
The court may not refuse to take any action described in clause
(i)on the grounds of the pendency of the next election held in the State or the potential for disruption, confusion, or additional burdens with respect to the administration of the election in the State. Notwithstanding the appeal of an order finding that a congressional redistricting plan of a State violates, in whole or in part, the requirements of this title, no stay shall issue which shall bar the development or adoption of a replacement or remedial plan under this subsection, as may be directed by the district court, pending such appeal. If such a replacement or remedial plan has been adopted, no appellate court may stay or otherwise enjoin the use of such plan during the pendency of an appeal, except upon an order holding, based on the record, that adoption of such plan was an abuse of discretion. If, upon consideration of an appeal under this title, the Court of Appeals determines that a plan does not comply with the requirements of this title, it shall direct that the District Court promptly develop a new remedial plan with assistance of a special master for consideration by the Court of Appeals. If, at any point during the pendency of an action under this section, the District Court fails to take action necessary to permit resolution of the case prior to the next regularly scheduled election for the House of Representatives in the State or fails to grant the relief described in paragraph (1)(C), any party may seek a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals shall have jurisdiction over the motion for a writ of mandamus and shall establish an expedited briefing and hearing schedule for resolution of the motion. If the Court of Appeals determines that a writ should be granted, the Court of Appeals shall take any action necessary, including developing a congressional redistricting plan with assistance of a special master to ensure that a remedial plan is adopted in time for use in the next regularly scheduled election for the House of Representatives in the State. A State’s enactment of a redistricting plan which replaces a plan which is the subject of an action under this section shall not be construed to limit or otherwise affect the authority of the court to adjudicate or grant relief with respect to any claims or issues not addressed by the replacement plan, including claims that the plan which is the subject of the action was enacted, in whole or in part, with discriminatory intent, or claims to consider whether relief should be granted under section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ( 52 U.S.C. 10302(c) ) based on the plan which is the subject of the action. In a civil action under this section, the court may allow the prevailing party (other than the United States) reasonable attorney fees, including litigation expenses, and costs. The rights and remedies established by this section are in addition to all other rights and remedies provided by law, and neither the rights and remedies established by this section nor any other provision of this title shall supersede, restrict, or limit the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ( 52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq. ). Nothing in this title authorizes or requires conduct that is prohibited by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ( 52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq. ). 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 redistricting plan enacted under this title. At any time, a civil action brought in a State court which asserts a claim for which the district courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction under this title may be removed by any party in the case, including an intervenor, by filing, in the district court for an applicable venue under this section, a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal. Consent of parties shall not be required for removal. If a civil action removed in accordance with paragraph
(1)contains claims not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court, the district court shall sever all such claims and remand them to the State court from which the action was removed.
Connectionstraces to 2
Citation graph
cites case law
Cites 2Cited by 0 across 0 sources