The federal claims are legislative vote dilution, breach of the voters right to undiluted representation, nullification of the right to vote for a constitutional amendment, all in violation of the Equal Protection and/or Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment; plus a Republican Guarantee clause claim.
The complaint, TRO, and brief, plus the court's order, are available on the Claremont Institute's web site, http://claremont.org/projects/jurisprudence/0030714nevada.html Disclosure: I'm counsel of record for the plaintiffs in the case. A parallel suit, naming the Nevada Supreme Court and its Justices as defendants, was also filed by another attorney, on his own behalf. That complaint is available on-line as well, but I don't have the URL at the moment. John C. Eastman Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence -----Original Message----- From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 4:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Very odd development in the Nevada Supreme Court decision (1) Does anyone have any idea of the specific federal change that's being made here? (2) I've never heard of any "en banc hearing with all district judges" before -- can anyone help me out on this? Thanks, Eugene http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jul-14-Mon-2003/news/filing. html Filing challenges high court ruling REVIEW-JOURNAL U.S. District Judge Philip Pro temporarily restrained the action by which the Nevada Assembly passed a tax bill with less than a two-thirds vote. He ordered an en banc hearing with all district judges for 9 a.m. Wednesday in Reno and Las Vegas. The Assembly voted 26-16 Sunday for a bill that would increase taxes by a record $788 million over the next two years. Today, Republican lawmakers, citizens and business groups -- upset with Thursday's decision by the state Supreme Court rejecting the two-thirds vote requirement to pass taxes -- filed an action in U.S. District Court seeking to block the court's ruling. Assembly Minority Leader Lynn Hettrick, R-Gardnerville, said the federal action is necessary because the 6-1 Supreme Court ruling allowing only a simple majority to raise taxes is unconstitutional. "We don't believe the court's decision that we can ignore the constitution is legal," he said.
