Tripp et al v. Smart et al

Filing 67

ORDER. The motion to submit additional authority (Doc. 66 ) is GRANTED; the unopposed motion to take judicial notice (Doc. 58 ) is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS short briefing as described herein. See attached for details. The cross-motions for summary judgment remain set for oral argument tomorrow. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 7/30/2015. (jls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TABITHA TRIPP,
GARY SHEPHERD,
FELICIA HOLLY,
VERA HOLLY,
RENEE COOK,
ILL. GREEN PARTY, and
CANDACE A. DAVIS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JESSE R. SMART, in his official
capacity,
CHARLES W. SCHOLZ, in his official
capacity,
BRYAN A. SCHNEIDER,
BETTY J. COFFRIN,
HAROLD D. BYERS,
CASSANDRA B. WATSON,
WILLIAM M. McGUFFAGE,
ERNEST L. GOWEN, and
RUPERT T. BORGSMILLER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14–cv–0890–MJR–PMF

ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
This case comes before the Court on several preliminary matters in advance of
tomorrow's motion hearing.
First, the Court GRANTS (Doc. 66) Plaintiffs' motion to submit additional
authority in a supplemental brief. The authority Plaintiffs wish to invoke is a July 23
(i.e., a week ago) decision from the U.S. District Court in E.D. Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs
1

shall limit their filing to a copy of the E.D. Pa. decision and one page of argument
discussing its relevance to the instant case. The Court intends to take the entire matter
under advisement after tomorrow's hearing, and so a delay in Defendants' written
response will not prejudice Defendants. Defendants' counterargument (also limited to
one page) regarding the E.D. Pa. case shall be due on or before next Thursday, August
6, 2015.
Secondly, the Court GRANTS the unopposed motion to take judicial notice
(Doc. 58) of the demographic and geographical information appended as exhibits to
Plaintiffs' response. To streamline oral argument tomorrow, the parties should be
armed with copies of the maps and tables that lay at the crux of their argument, and be
prepared to use the Court's ELMO during argument.
Thirdly, the Court ORDERS short briefing on the res judicata / collateral
estoppel effects of the cross-motions for summary judgment. There is some dispute as
to just how much of the 90-day petitioning period was utilized by Plaintiffs in their
efforts to get on the ballot. That issue was critical in denying Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction last year, and will likely be important in analyzing the pending
cross-motions. Given the possibility of a constitutional ruling based on Green Party
efforts that did not maximize the statutory time period, the parties shall, on or before
Thursday, August 13, 2015, file respective briefs (not to exceed three pages; three-page
response briefs due August 20) on the preclusive effect of any ruling here as to future
Green Party challenges to the constitutionality of election procedures in the 115th and
118th Representative Districts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: July 30, 2015

s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
Chief Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2