Diamond v. Torres

Note: The Brennan Center is not a participant in this case.

Case Background

A group of Pennsylvania residents who are Democrats filed a suit against state elections officials, contending that the state’s 2011 congressional map is a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Elections Clause, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs allege the Republican legislature drew the map with the intent of maximizing Republican power by cracking and packing Democratic-affiliated voters into specific districts to dilute their voting power and deny them a realistic opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

The plaintiffs have asked the court to expeditiously declare the congressional plan invalid and an injunction prohibiting the legislature from administering any elections processes under the plan for 2018.

The court directed the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint by January 5. The district court held a scheduling conference on January 11.

On January 11, the legislative defendants filed a motion to dismiss and motion to stay or abstain. On January 23, the court granted the legislative defendants’ motion to stay. 

On April 9, the court dismissed the case on stipulation of the parties. 

Documents

District Court

• Complaint (November 9, 2017) 
• Motion for Expedited Pretrial Scheduling Order (November 13, 2017)
• Proposed Intervenors’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Pretrial Scheduling Order (November 20, 2017) 
• Motion to Intervene by Michael C. Turzai, Pennsylvania Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Joseph Scarnati III, Pennsylvania Senate President Pro Tempore (November 20, 2017)
• Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Legislators’ Motion to Intervene (November 20, 2017)
• Defendants’ Response to Motion to Intervene (November 22, 2017)
• Defendants’ Response to Proposed Intervenors’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Pretrial Scheduling Order (November 22, 2017)
• Order (November 22, 2017) 
• Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (November 22, 2017)
• Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (November 28, 2017) 
• Proposed Intervenors’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (December 4, 2017)
• Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (December 4, 2017)
• Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsideration (December 5, 2017)
• Order (December 7, 2017)
• Order (December 21, 2017) 
• Notice (January 2, 2018) 
• Defendants’ Reply in Further Support of Motion to Intervene (January 4, 2018)
• Corrected Notice (January 4, 2018)
• Answer of Acting Secretary Torres and Commissioner Marks to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses (January 5, 2018) 
• Legislative Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss (January 11, 2018)
• Legislative Defendants’ Motion to Stay or Abstain and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Stay or Abstain (January 11, 2018) 
• Scheduling Order (January 11, 2018)
• Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Legislative Defendants’ Motion to Stay or Abstain (January 17, 2018)
• Executive Branch Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Legislative Defendants’ Motion to Stay or Abstain (January 18, 2018) 
• Executive Branch Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Legislative Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (January 18, 2018)
• Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Legislative Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (January 18, 2018)
• Legislative Defendants’ Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss (January 22, 2018) 
• Legislative Defendants’ Reply in Further Support of Motion to Stay or Abstain (January 22, 2018) 
• Order (January 23, 2018) 
• Stipulation of Dismissal (April 9, 2018)