Mahan v. Howell

Background

Several lawsuits challenged an Act of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia that reapportioned the State Senate and House of Delegates. The cases were filed in different three-judge federal district courts, consolidated for trial in the Eastern District of Virginia, and the consolidated court found parts of the Act unconstitutional. The district court wrote a reapportionment plan that changed boundaries for about half of the House districts and decreased representational disparity from 16.4% to 7.2%. For the Senate, the court made one change to account for naval personnel residences in the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area. The motion here asks a Justice to stay that district-court order while an appeal proceeds.

Reasoning

The narrow question was whether to block the district court’s order while the case is appealed. The Acting Justice considered that the four judges below were substantially unanimous and that two judges declined to stay their own order. He noted prior decisions and the practice that a single Justice should grant a stay only if it seems reasonably probable that four Justices will vote to hear the appeal. After weighing the case’s difficulty, the district court’s clear findings, and the possibility that delay might postpone important state elections, he concluded four Justices were not likely to vote to hear the appeal and therefore declined to enter a stay.

Real world impact

Denying the stay leaves the district-court reapportionment in place while appeals proceed. That means the court-drawn House plan and the limited Senate boundary change take effect, altering many districts and reducing measured disparity. Granting a stay could have further postponed Virginia elections; by denying it, the Acting Justice left the lower-court order effective pending appeal.

Dissents or concurrances

Judge Lewis filed a separate concurring and dissenting opinion agreeing with the ruling except that he would have created a 10-member multi-member district in Fairfax County.