Paul Bender | |
---|---|
Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation | |
Assumed office 1998 | |
Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States | |
In office 1993–1996 | |
Appointed by | Drew S. Days III |
Preceded by | John Roberts |
Succeeded by | Seth P. Waxman |
Personal details | |
Born | 1933 (age 90–91) Brooklyn,New York,U.S. |
Education | Harvard University (BA,JD) |
Paul Bender is an American legal scholar and former dean of the Arizona State University college of law. He was formerly a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Over his career Bender has argued more than 20 cases before the United States Supreme Court. He is often cited as an expert in constitutional law. [1] [2] [3]
Bender attended James Madison High School in Brooklyn,New York,where he was a high school classmate with future Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. [4] Bender received both his bachelors and J.D. degrees from Harvard University. After law school Bender clerked for Judge Learned Hand of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,then for Justice Felix Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1959 Term.
After his clerkships Bender was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School before becoming dean of the Arizona State University college of law in 1984. In 1965 Bender served as Assistant to U.S. Solicitors General Archibald Cox where he defended the United States in Brenner v. Manson . He later worked as General Counsel to the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography from 1968 until 1970. Bender served as dean of the ASU law school until 1989. In 1993,during the Bill Clinton administration,Bender was appointed Deputy Solicitor General by Drew Days. Bender continues to teach courses in constitutional law at ASU.
Bender has been the Chief Judge of the court of appeals of the San Carlos Apache Tribe since 2005,and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation since 1998.
While Deputy Solicitor General,Bender argued several notable cases,including:
Other notable case Bender has argued before the Court include:
Bender was a vocal opponent of Miguel Estrada,who worked under Bender at the Solicitor General's office,when Estrada was nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals [10] [11] [12]
Bender was part of the team that drafted Arizona's Proposition 106,which created the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission in 2000. [13] Bender subsequently sought one of the five seats on the commission. [14] [15] His nomination was opposed by Republicans in the state legislature [16] and was the subject of an Arizona Supreme Court case:Adams v. Commission on Appellate Court Appointment. [17] The court held that members of tribal courts are not "public officials" for the purpose of the redistricting commission. [18]
Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001), is an appeal of the United States Supreme Court case Hunt v Cromartie. The case defendant is Mike Easley, who became North Carolina governor following Jim Hunt. The court's ruling on April 18, 2001, stated that redistricting for political reasons did not violate Federal Civil Rights Law banning race-based gerrymandering..
North Carolina is currently divided into 14 congressional districts, each represented by a member of the United States House of Representatives. After the 2000 census, the number of North Carolina's seats was increased from 12 to 13 due to the state's increase in population. In the 2022 elections, per the 2020 United States census, North Carolina gained one new congressional seat for a total of 14.
Charles J. "Chuck" Cooper is an appellate attorney and litigator in Washington, D.C., where he is a founding member and chairman of the law firm Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. He was named by The National Law Journal as one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington. The New York Times described him as "one of Washington’s best-known lawyers." He has represented prominent American political figures, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in response to the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections; Attorney General John Ashcroft; and former National Security Adviser and United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner in order to create a "majority-minority" Black district. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued to challenge this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the clause of equal protection. In contrast, Reno, the Attorney General, argued that the district would allow for minority groups to have a voice in elections. In the decision, the court ruled in a 5–4 majority that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause and on the basis that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it was drawn solely based on race.
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.
In the United States, a redistricting commission is a body, other than the usual state legislative bodies, established to draw electoral district boundaries. Generally the intent is to avoid gerrymandering, or at least the appearance of gerrymandering, by specifying a nonpartisan or bipartisan body to comprise the commission drawing district boundaries.
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that was significant in the area of partisan redistricting and political gerrymandering. The court, in a plurality opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, with Justice Anthony Kennedy concurring in the judgment, upheld the ruling of the District Court in favor of the appellees that the alleged political gerrymandering was not unconstitutional. Subsequent to the ruling, partisan bias in redistricting increased dramatically in the 2010 redistricting round.
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the limits of Constitutional due process in criminal law.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that Article III required standing for each stage of litigation, rather than just when a complaint is filed.
Gerrymandering is the practice of setting boundaries of electoral districts to favor specific political interests within legislative bodies, often resulting in districts with convoluted, winding boundaries rather than compact areas. The term "gerrymandering" was coined after a review of Massachusetts's redistricting maps of 1812 set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a mythical salamander.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court upheld the right of Arizona voters to remove the authority to draw election districts from the Arizona State Legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting commission. In doing so, the Court expressly rejected a nascent version of the independent state legislature theory.
The 2020 United States redistricting cycle is in progress following the completion of the 2020 United States census. In all fifty states, various bodies are re-drawing state legislative districts. States that are apportioned more than one seat in the United States House of Representatives are also drawing new districts for that legislative body.
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the one person, one vote principle under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows a state's redistricting commission slight variances in drawing of legislative districts provided that the variance does not exceed 10 percent. The Court found that the map, created by a bipartisan commission on the basis of the 2010 census, was constitutional.
Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering. Other forms of gerrymandering based on racial or ethnic grounds had been deemed unconstitutional, and while the Supreme Court had identified that extreme partisan gerrymandering could also be unconstitutional, the Court had not agreed on how this could be defined, leaving the question to lower courts to decide. That issue was later resolved in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Court decided that partisan gerrymanders presented a nonjusticiable political question.
Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), and Lamone v. Benisek, 588 U.S. ____ (2019), were a pair of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case dealing with the topic of partisan gerrymandering arising from the 2011 Democratic party-favored redistricting of Maryland. At the center of the cases was Maryland's 6th district which historically favored Republicans and which was redrawn in 2011 to shift the political majority to become Democratic via vote dilution. Affected voters filed suit, stating that the redistricting violated their right of representation under Article One, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution and freedom of association of the First Amendment.
Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving a governor's power to veto a congressional redistricting proposal passed by a state's legislature. In an opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, the Court unanimously held that the U.S. Constitution did not prohibit Minnesota's governor from vetoing that state's redistricting map.
The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) is a judicially rejected legal theory that posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state constitutions, state courts, governors, ballot initiatives, or other bodies with legislative power. In June 2023, in the case Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not give state legislatures sole power over elections and rejected the ISL.
Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that rejected the independent state legislature theory (ISL), a theory that asserts state legislatures have sole authority to establish election laws for federal elections within their respective states without judicial review by state courts, without presentment to state governors, and without constraint by state constitutions. The case arose from the redistricting of North Carolina's districts by its legislature after the 2020 United States census, which the state courts found to be too artificial and partisan, and an extreme case of gerrymandering in favor of the Republican Party.
Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning redistricting and racial gerrymandering. This case and its predecessor, Shaw v. Reno, concerned North Carolina's congressional redistricting plans. The Court ruled in Shaw v. Hunt that the redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
'The people of the country are saying, 'Hey, we don't want legislators drawing their own districts,' Bender says. 'We don't want them gerrymandering the state in order to increase the political power of the people who happen to be in the majority. That's not democracy.'