H.R. 10381: PSC Nonpartisan Congressional Uniformity and Oversight of Redistricting Trials Act

This bill would create a set of rules for lawsuits challenging a state’s congressional redistricting plan, meaning the maps that determine how congressional districts are drawn.

What it allows people to do

A state resident who believes their state’s congressional map violates the U.S. Constitution or federal law could sue in federal district court. The lawsuit would have to be filed within 30 days after the state adopts its final congressional redistricting plan.

Where these cases would be heard

The bill says federal district courts would have exclusive jurisdiction over these kinds of claims. In other words, these cases would have to be heard in federal court, not state court. The proper venue would be the federal district court located in the state capital.

3-judge court process

If a case raises statewide issues under the Constitution or this bill, it would be heard by a three-judge district court. One judge would receive the case first, and then the circuit’s chief judge would randomly assign two other district judges from within that state. The bill also says the state’s governor and attorney general must receive at least five days’ notice if the case is against the state or one of its agencies or officers.

What one judge can and cannot do

Before the full three-judge panel acts, a single judge could handle some preliminary matters and could issue a temporary restraining order only if there is evidence of immediate irreparable harm. But a single judge could not decide the main merits of the case, rule on preliminary or permanent injunctions, appoint a master, or enter final judgment.

Appeals and speed

The bill would require these cases to move as quickly as possible through the courts. Final decisions could be appealed to the relevant federal court of appeals, and then potentially reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Appeals would need to be filed within 10 days of the final decision.

What happens if a map is found unlawful

If a court finds that a state’s congressional map violates the Constitution or federal law, the state would first get a chance to create and submit a remedial map for the court to review. If the state does not act in time, the court would create and adopt a replacement map itself. If an appellate court agrees the map is unlawful, it would send the case back so the lower court can carry out that remedy process.

Relevant Companies

None found