by Steve Emmert
(Steve Emmert, who formerly published the Virginia Appellate News & Analysis blog, offered this legal perspective on Virginia’s redistricting debate. — JAB)
I continue to believe that the impetus for this new filing was a recognition by the plaintiffsโ lawyers that the judgeโs original order last month contained everything they wanted except specificity. (Iโm reading between the lines here, as I have no inside knowledge and have had no contact with any of the lawyers in the case. Iโm also inferring and therefore assuming that the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the two cases are the same, but I can’t be certain of that yet.) They could have gone back to the judge and asked for an amended injunction order in the original lawsuit, but that foreseeably would have snagged them in a procedural issue related to the appeal to the Supreme Court.
The cleaner approach would be to get a new set of plaintiffs and file a new lawsuit, ensuring that the matter fell into the fertile soil of a court that had already ruled their way, albeit imperfectly. And as weโve seen, that’s what they did. They filed the new suit on Wednesday and managed to get a lightning-fast hearing that convened yesterday at noon. From what I can see, that was some very effective lawyering.
I believe that this time, the lawyers โ assuredly the plaintiffsโ lawyers โ prepared a carefully worded order and simply handed it up to the judge at the close of the hearing. It contains language that distinguishes this suit from the previous one on the simple ground that the parties are different, so they arenโt stuck with proceedings in the original lawsuit.
(more…)










