Plaintiffs have pled a claim for violation of Section Two of the Voting Rights Act sufficient for this Court to find it both substantial and well-pled. 1 Defendants’ attack rests on an 1 Plaintiffs note that the Section 2 Count of its complaint is not relevant to the consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2284 for the purposes of convening the three-judge panel. A Section 2 claim alone, even when brought to challenge the legality of a statewide redistricting plan, does not give jurisdiction to a three judge panel.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(1). Subsection (b)(1) of 28 U.S.C. § 2284 authorizes a district court to forgo a three-judge panel “‘[i]f it appears to the single district judge that the complaint does not state a substantial claim for injunctive relief. . . .’” Simkins v. Gressette, 631 F.2d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 1980) (citation omitted). The proposed intervenors cannot meet this standard.

Case No. 1:11-cv-05065 ) ) Hon. John D. Tinder ) Hon. Joan H. Lefkow ) Hon. Robert L. Miller, Jr. ) (3-judge court convened pursuant ) to 28 U.S.C. § 2284) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFFS’ SURREPLY IN RESPONSE TO NEW ARGUMENTS IN DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS Tyrone C. Fahner John A. Janicik Lori E. Lightfoot Joshua D. Yount Dana S. Douglas Thomas V. Panoff MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 782-0600 (312) 701-7711 – fax Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case: 1:11-cv-05065 Document #: 83 Filed: 10/17/11 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:822 1 Defendants’ reply brief reaffirms the feebleness of their motion to dismiss, even making arguments that this Court effectively disposed of in its recent discovery order. See 10/12/11 Opinion and Order [Doc.

eral 605 State House Springfield, IL 62706 (217) 782-2156 Michael J. Kasper Special Asst. Attorney General 222 N. LaSalle St., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60601-1013 (312) 405-3292
Case: 1:11-cv-05569 Document #: 19 Filed: 09/08/11 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:76 16 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Brent D. Stratton One of the Attorneys for Defendant Pat Quinn
Brent D. Stratton Chief Deputy Attorney General Office of the Illinois Attorney General 100 W. Randolph, 12th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 814-4499 Case: 1:11-cv-05569 Document #: 19 Filed: 09/08/11 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:77 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ) ILLINOIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case. No. 11-cv-5569 ) v. ) Judges Sykes, Bucklo and Simon ) PAT QUINN, in his official capacity as Governor ) (3-judge court convened pursuant of the State of Illinois, and WILLIAM M. ) to 28 U.S.C. § 2284) McGUFFAGE, JUDITH C. RICE, BRYAN A. ) SCHNEIDER, CHARLES W. SCHOLZ, JESSE R. ) SMART, HAROLD D. BYERS, ERNEST C. ) GOWEN and BETTY J. COFFRIN in their ) Official capacities as members of the ) Illinois State Board of Elections, ) ) Defendants. ) NOTICE OF FILING TO: SERVICE LIST PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday, September 8, 2011, I caused to be filed with the Clerk of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, a copy of which is served upon you.

As required by § 403 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 116 Stat. 113-14, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), the Court determines that three judges are required and will “immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit” who “shall designate two other judges, at least one of whom shall be a circuit judge.” SO ORDERED this ____ day of ________________2007.

Shipping Fin. Servs. 2 In its Memorandum-Decision and Order, the Court ordered additional letter briefing on the applicability of Shapiro v. McManus, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 450, 455-56 (2015), to Plaintiff’s request for a three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. § 2284. While the United States intends to submit such additional briefing within the time provided by the Court on whether Strunk has raised a “substantial federal question” within the meaning of Shapiro, it should be noted that, by its terms, Shapiro has no effect upon the ability of the Court to dismiss the Complaint on any of the Rule 12(b)(1) grounds discussed below because “[a] three-judge court is not required where the district court itself lacks jurisdiction of the complaint[.]”

YES NO 6. Is this case required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges pursuant to title 28 USC §2284? YES NO 7.

(citing Nelson v. New York City, 352 U.S. 103, 110-111 (1956). Moreover, Balthazar was decided by a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2284, and was directly appealed to the Supreme Court and summarily affirmed. 301 F. Supp. at 104, aff’d, 396 U.S. 114 (1969).

nois House of Representatives, ADAM BROWN, in his official capacity as a state representative from the 101st Representative District and individually as a registered voter, VERONICA VERA, ANGEL GARCIA, and EDWIN TOLENTINO, and THE ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN PARTY (Intervening Plaintiff), Plaintiffs, vs ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, RUPERT BORGSMILLER, Executive Director of the Illinois State Board of Elections, HAROLD D. BYERS, BRYAN A. SCHNEIDER, BETTY J. COFFRIN, ERNEST C. GOWEN, WILLIAM F. McGUFFAGE, JUDITH C. RICE, CHARLES W. SCHOLZ, and JESSE R. SMART, all named in their official capacities as members of the Illinois State Board of Elections, AFRICAN AMERICANS FOR LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING (Intervening Defendant), UNITED NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION (Intervening Defendant), Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:11-cv-04884 Judges Sykes, Bucklo and Simon (3-judge court convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284) PLAINTIFFS’ L.R. 56.1(b)(3) RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 56.

Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:11-cv-04884 Judges Sykes, Bucklo and Simon (3-judge court convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284) DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 2, 3 AND 4 OF PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case: 1:11-cv-04884 Document #: 79 Filed: 11/15/11 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:2354 1 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint contained two claims that the State adopted Redistricting Plan discriminates against Republican voters through the manipulation of district lines to such a degree as to run afoul of the Constitution. On October 21, 2011, this Court dismissed Count 3 (First Amendment) with prejudice and dismissed Count 4 (Fourteenth Amendment) providing Plaintiffs “leave to amend Count 4 of their Amended Complaint in order to attempt to provide a ‘workable test’ or a ‘reliable standard’ for judging partisan gerrymanders.”