^ : io2 c:i^»4^02Obloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/dailyprogress.com/...Case 3:16-cv-00467-REP Document 1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 14 PageID# 2 sional District Republican Committee,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

Carroll Boston Correll, Jr., on behalf

ofhimself and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

V.

Mark R. Herring, in his official capacity

as Attorney General of the CommonwealthofVirginia,

Marc Abrams, in his official capacity as

Commonwealth Attorney for the City of

Winchester,

James B. Alcorn, in his official capacity

as Chairman of the Virginia State Board ofElections,

Clara Belle Wheeler, in her official ca

pacity as Vice Chairman ofthe VirginiaState Board ofElections,

Singleton McAllister, in her official

capacity as Secretary of the Virginia StateBoard ofElections, and

Edgardo Cortez, m his official capacity

as Commissioner of the Virginia Depart

ment ofElections,

Defendants.

Civil No.

p 3r\ I

IMS! 4 20IGzl

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURTRICHMOND, VA

^ : io2_c:i^»4^02O

VERIFIED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

PlaintiflF Carroll Boston Correll, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similar situat

ed, alleges as follows:

Case 3:16-cv-00467-REP Document 1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID# 1

Nature of the Action

1. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees delegates

to the Republican Party's and Democratic Party's national conventions the right to vote

their conscience, free from government compulsion, when participating in the selection of

their party's presidential nominee. Nonetheless, Virginia law acts to strip them of that right,

imposing criminal penalties on delegates who vote for anyone other than the primary win

ner on the first ballot at a national convention. That law cannot be sustained under the First

Amendment or as a legitimate exercise of Virginia's authority under the United States Con

stitution.

2. Carroll Boston Correll, Jr., a delegate to the Republican Party's national con

vention, brings this action on behalf of himself and other delegates to obtain emergency in-

junctive relief that allows all Virginia delegates to vote their consciences at the parties' na

tional conventions free from the threat of criminal sanction.

Jurisdiction and Venue

3. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution; the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the doctrine recognized

in Ex Pane Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908); and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.

§§ 2201 and 2202. Jurisdiction of the Court is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343 be

cause the Plaintiffs claims arise under the United States Constitution.

4. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is a prop

er federal venue for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because aU the Defendants are

residents ofVirginia and at least one Defendant resides in the Eastern District ofVirginia.

Parties

5. Plaintiff Carroll Boston Correll, Jr. ("Correll"), is a delegate from the Tenth

Congressional District of Virginia to the 2016 Republican National Convention. He resides

in Winchester, Virginia, and is a registered voter. CorreU has been elected twice as Chair

man of the Winchester Republican Committee, served as a member of the Tenth Congres-


sional District Republican Committee, and has participated in campaigns for federal,

statewide, and local RepubUcan candidates.

6. Defendant Mark R. Herring is the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of

Virginia. He is responsible, inter alia, for defending the constitutionality of Virginia legisla

tive enactments. He is named in his official capacity,

7. Defendant Marc Abrams is the Commonwealth Attomey for Winchester,

Virginia. As a Commonwealth Attomey, he is responsible for prosecuting violations of the

Code ofVirginia, including the provision at issue in this action. Va. Code § 15.2-1627(b). He

is named in his official capacity.

8. Defendants James B. Alcom, Clara Belle Wheeler and Singleton McAllister

are the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the Virginia State Board of

Elections ("the Board"). They are charged with the responsibility to "make rules and regula

tions and issue instructions...to promote the proper administration of election laws," and

"may petition a circuit court or the Supreme Court, whichever is appropriate, for a writ of

mandamus or prohibition, or other available legal relief, for the purpose of ensuring that

elections are conducted as provided by law." Va. Code § 24.2-103. They are named in their

official capacities.

9. Defendant Edgardo Cortez is the Commissioner of the Virginia Department

of Elections, which is an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia that is charged with the

responsibility to conduct the Board's operations and discharge the Board's duties, consistent

with delegated authority. Mr. Cortez is named in his official capacity.

Facts

10. Under Virginia law, a political party may choose to select its delegates to the

national convention to choose the party's nominees for President and Vice President of the

United States through a method that includes a primary election. Va. Code § 24.2-545(A).

11. If such a primary election is used to select delegates and altemates, Section

545(D) of Title 24.2 of the Virginia Code ("Section 545(D)") provides "the slate of delegates


and alternates of the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary shall be deemed

elected by the state party unless the party has determined another method for allocation of

delegates and alternates." Va. Code § 24.2-545(D).

12. If a party employing such a primary election chooses to select delegates

through some other means, including conventions, "those delegates and alternates shall be

bound to vote on the first ballot at the national convention for the candidate receiving the

most votes in the primary unless that candidate releases those delegates and alternates from

such vote." Va. Code § 24.2-545(D).

13. Accordingly, if a Virginia political party holds a presidential primary to de

termine the preferences of its members and then selects delegates through conventions,

those delegates are required by Virginia law to vote, on the first ballot of the national con

vention, for the candidate who received the most votes in the primary.

14. Those delegates are not free to vote their conscience.

15. Violations of Section 545(D) are Class 1 misdemeanors subject to prosecution

and criminal punishment. Va. Code § 24.2-1017; Va. Code § 24.2-1001. Under Virginia law,

a Class 1 misdemeanor is subject to "confinement in jail for not more than twelve months

and a fine ofnot more than $2,500, either or both." Va. Code § 18.2-11(a).

16. In the 2016 presidential election cycle, the Republican Party of Virginia and

the Democratic Party of Virginia both held presidential primaries, but neither party deter

mined that its delegates and alternatives would be selected pursuant to the primary.

17. Instead, each selected delegates and alternatives through another method. The

Republican Party of Virginia selected delegates and alternates through conventions, and the

Democratic Party ofVirginia selected delegates through a "caucus/convention process."

18. The 2016 Virginia presidential primaries were held on March 1, 2016. Donald

J. Trump received the most votes in the Republican primary, with 34.7 percent of votes. Hil

lary Clinton received the most votes in the Democratic primary, with 64.3 percent ofvotes.


19. Section 545(D) Code therefore obUgates both Republican Party and Demo

cratic Party delegates from Virginia to vote, on the first national convention ballot, for Don

ald Trump and Hillary Clinton, respectively.

20. In particular. Section 545(D) obhgates Correll, as a delegate to the Republican

National Convention, to vote for Donald Trump on the first ballot of the convention.

21. Correll believes that Donald Trump is unfit to serve as President of the United

States and that voting for Donald Trump would therefore violate Correll's conscience. Ac

cordingly, Correll will not vote for Donald Trump on the first ballot, or any other ballot, at

the national convention. He will cast his vote on the first ballot, and on any additional bal

lots, for a candidate whom he believes is fit to serve as President, thereby violating Section

545(D).

22. The Republican Party of Virginia's rules, as required by the rules of the na

tional party but in apparent conflict with Virginia law, allocate delegates proportionally. Be

cause Donald Trump won far less than a majority of the votes in the Virginia primary, Re

publican Party of Virginia's rules allocate him only 17 of 49 delegates. Accordingly, if Cor

rell were to cast his first-ballot vote at the convention in accordance with the Republican

Party of Virginia's rules, there is a substantial likelihood (greater than 65 percent) that he

would have to vote for a candidate other than Mr. Trump, thereby violating Section 545(D).

23. The rules governing voting at the Republican National Convention will not be

set in their final form until shortly before the first ballot. In general, previous Republican

National Convention rules have provided that state delegations subject to binding require

ments other than those authorized by the rules would be penahzed. For example, the 2012

Republican National Convention Rules provided that a state delegation that was required

(under the Rules) to observe proportional allocation but instead used a "winner-take-all"

allocation would lose half its delegate seats at the Convention. Accordingly, Section

545(D)'s "winner-take-all" allocation, in violation of party rules, may prevent Correll and


other Virginia delegates from being seated at all at the 2016 Republican National Conven

tion.

24. In general, previousRepubhcan National Convention rules have not required

delegates to vote in accordance with state party rules, including those purporting to bind a

delegate to vote for a particular candidate. In general, previous Republican National Con

vention rules have not independently prevented delegates from voting their consciences, ir

respective of state party rules. See generally Curly Haugland & Sean Pamell, Unbound, v-vi

(2016)^; id. at Appendix C (listing dozens of invocations of conscience protections at previ

ous Republican National Conventions).

25. Concerned that he could face criminal penalties if he cast his first-ballot con

vention vote for a candidate other than Donald Trump, on May 25, 2016, Correll contacted

Brooks Braun, a policy analyst at the Virginia Department of Elections, to request an advi

sory opinion regarding the appUcation of Section 545(D). Braun referred the request to the

Commonwealth Attorney for the city ofWinchester, Defendant Marc Abrams.

26. On June 2, 2016, Correll contacted Abrams to request an advisory opinion on

the apphcation of Section 545(D) and a statement on how Abrams would respond if Correll

were to vote for a candidate other than Donald Trump on the first convention ballot.

27. On June 8, 2016, Abrams responded via email to Correll's inquiry: "[T]he

first rule of statutory construction dictates that we are to interpret words of a statute use the

ordinary meaning of the language.... The plain meaning of...Va. Code §24.2-545(D) would

appear clear." Correll understood Abrams's response to indicate that voting for a candidate

other than Donald Trump on the fiirst ballot at the Republican National Convention would

constitute a violation ofVirginia law.

Âvailable at http://thisiscommonsense.com/pdf/Unbound_online.pdf.


28. On June 8, 2016, Correll contacted the William Steele, Chairman of the Elec

toral Board for the City of Winchester to request an advisory opinion on the application of

Section 545(D). Steele instructed Correll to contact the Department ofElections.

29. On June 8, 2016, Correll again contacted the Virginia Department of Elec

tions, to request an advisory opinion regarding the application of Section 545(D). The De

partment has yet to respond.

30. On June 19, 2016, Donald Trump stated that, with respect to the prospect

that delegates such as Correll would vote for a candidate other than Donald Trump at the

Convention, "they can't do it legally."

31. Donald Trump is known to be litigious and has been, according to news re

ports, involved in at least 3,500 legal actions. According to news reports, Trump has

brought lawsuits of questionable legal merit against persons for the apparent purpose of har

assing or punishing them. Based on these reports, Correll is concerned that voting against

Trump at the convention may subject him to retaliatory litigation by Trump, Trump's cam

paign, or other persons or entities associated with Trump, based in part on Section 545(D).

32. The 2016 Republican National Convention will be held in Cleveland, Ohio,

on July 18-21. The 2016 Democratic National Convention will be held in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, on July 25-28.

33. With less than one month to go before the 2016 Republican National Conven

tion, Correll stands in jeopardy of criminal prosecution and punishment for exercising his

First Amendment rights of speech and association to vote for a candidate other than Donald

Trump on the first ballot at the Convention will subject him to criminal prosecution.

34. That threat, inherent in Section 545(D), subjects Correll to impending irrepa

rable injury, through either prosecution or loss of his ability to exercise his First Amend

ment rights at a time ofparamount importance in our Nation's political life.

35. Because any attempt under color of law to enforce Section 545(D) would vio

late Correll's rights under the United States Constitution, and exceed the Commonwealth of


Virginia's powers, Correll is entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court's equitable

authority, and the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Class Allegations

36. Correll brings this action on his own behalf and pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) on behalf of the Class ofall Virginia delegates to the 2016 Republi

can Party and Democratic Party national conventions.

37. The Class consists of49 Republican and 110 Democratic delegates, for a total

of 159 class members. Joinder of so many parties is impractical due to their numerosity, as

wen as the need to obtain relief in a relative short order of time, before the national party

conventions, so that Class members' rights can be vindicated in a meaningful fashion.

38. This case involves only questions oflaw common to all Class members—

specifically regarding the lawfulness ofSection 545(D)—and no questions of fact unique to

any Class member. In short, every Class member faces precisely the same legal injury based

on the same threatened application of the same statutory provision.

39. For that reason, Correll's claims are typical of those ofother Class members,

making him an appropriate representative of the Class. Indeed, his claims are identical to

those ofother Class members, and are not antagonistic to those ofany Class member, as the

reliefsoughtherein would not preventany Class member from votingfor any candidate.

40. Defendants have acted or refiised to act on grounds generally applicable to the

Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive reliefor corresponding declaratoryrelief

with respect to the Class as a whole.

41. Correll and his counsel wiU fairly and adequately protect the interests ofab

sent class members. There are no conflicts between Correll's claims and those of absent

Class members that would make Class certification inappropriate. Counsel for the Plaintiff

are highly experienced in constitutional litigation, including First Amendment and federal

ism issues, and will vigorously assert the claims of all Class members.


Coimt I;

Section 545(D) the Freedom of Speech Protected

by the First and Fourteenth Amendment

42. PlaintifF repeats and re-alleges the allegations ofParagraphs 1-41.

43. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the right to free speech, including political

speech.

44. An individual's vote for a presidential nominee at a party's nominating con

vention constitutes political speech protected by the First Amendment.

45. Section 545(D) abridges that right by stripping delegates to a party's nominat

ing convention of their freedom to vote their conscience, or to vote consistent with party

rules, when selecting a presidential nominee and mandating that they vote for a particular

candidate.

46. Violation ofSection 545(D) is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment

under Virginia law.

47. Section 545(D) is not narrowly tailored and is unsupported by any compelling

govemment interest.

48. Section 545(D) therefore violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Count n;

Section 545rD) Violates the Freedom ofAssociation Protected

bv the First and Fourteenth Amendment

49. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations ofParagraphs 1-41.

50. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the

states by the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the right to freedom of association, including

association for political purposes.

51. Participating in a party convention and choosing party leaders and nominees

are exercises of the right to freedom of association protected by the First Amendment.


52. Section 545(D) abridges that right by stripping delegates to a party's nominat

ing convention of their freedom to vote their conscience, or to vote consistent with party

rules, when selecting a presidential nominee and mandating that they vote for a particular

candidate,

53. Violation of Section 545(D) is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment

under Virginia law.

54. Section 545(D) is not narrowly tailored and is unsupported by any compelling

govemment interest.

55. Section 545(D) therefore violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Comit ni;

Section 545rD) Exceeds Virdma^s Anthoritv Under the Constitation


57. The United States Constitution preempts the States from regulating in certain

areas that impUcate exclusively federal interests.

58. "The States themselves have no constitutionally mandated role in the great

task of the selection ofPresidential and Vice-Presidential candidates." Cousins v. Wigoda, 419

U.S. 477,489-90 (1975).

59. Section 545(D) exceeds the powers retained by the Commonwealth of Virgin

ia under the United States Constitution.

60. Accordingly, Section 545(D) is preempted by the United States Constitution

and cannot be lawfully enforced.

ConntlV;

Section 545(D) Violates the Right To Vote


62. "The right to vote freely for the candidate ofone's choice is of the essence of a

democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative

govemment." Reynolds v. Sims, 2>11 U.S. 533, 554 (1964).

10


63. By dictating for whom delegates must vote, Section 545(D) violates the right

to vote protected the Fourteenth Amendment.

Connt V;

Declaratory Jpdêiit Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. SS 2201 and 2202

64. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations ofParagraphs 1^1.

65. An actual controversy exists between Defendants and Plaintiff regarding the

constitutionality of Section 545(D).

66. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Class members, is entitled to a declaration

of rights under the United States Constitution and any further necessary or proper relief

against Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202.

Coimt VI;

Temporary^ Preliminary, and Permanent Innmctive Relief


68. Plaintiffs' and Class members' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights are

well established under case law of the Supreme Court and courts of appeals. See, e.g., Kusper

V. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973); Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975); United States v. Wis

consinex rel La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981); Eu v. San FranciscoDemocratic Central Committee,

489 U.S. 214 (1989). Accordingly, Plaintiff has a strong likelihood of success on the merits

of this action.

69. Plaintiff and other Class members will imminently suffer irreparable injury as

a result of Defendants' application and enforcement of Section 545(D) to restrict Plaintiff

and Class members from fully and freely exercising their core constitutional rights of politi

cal speech and association at a time of urgent need. "The loss of First Amendment free

doms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." El-

rod v. Bums, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976).

11


70. Defendants will sufiferno injury at all if they are enjoined from enforcing Sec

tion 545(D), Enforcement of that provision does not further public safety or any other sub

stantial interest of the Commonwealth ofVirginia.

71. An injunction would serve the public interest, as the public interest favors the

exercise of First Amendment rights and is not harmed by the injunction of government ac

tion that is likely unconstitutional. ACLU ofIII v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 589-90 (7th Cir.

2012).

12


Prayer for Relief

Plaintiff Carroll Boston Correll, Jr., respectfully requests that the Court grant the fol

lowing relief:

a) A temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, entered prior to July 8,

2016, enjoining Defendants, their agents, officers, employees, successors, and all per

sons acting in concert with each or any of them from implementing, enforcing, or

giving any effect to Section 545(D) of Title 24.2 of the Virginia Code;

b) An order determining that this action may be maintained as a class action under

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

c) An order declaring that Section 545(D) ofTitle 24.2 of the Virginia Code to be facial

ly unconstitutional and entering judgment for Plaintiff and members of the Class;

d) A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their agents, officers, employees, suc

cessors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them from implement

ing, enforcing, or giving any effect to Section 545(D) of Title 24.2 of the Virginia

Code;

e) Costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or any applicable statute or

authority; and

f) Such other relief as this Court determines is just and proper.

13


Dated: June 24,2016

Respectfully submitted,

/0irDavid B. Rtvkin, Jr. (pro hac vice appli

cation forthcoming)

Andrew M. Grossman (pro hac vice ap-

phcation forthcoming)

Mark W. DeLaquil (Va. Bar # 68088)

Richard B. Raile (Va. Bar # 84340)

Baker & Hostetler LLP

1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Suite 1100

Washington, D.C. 20036

Phone: (202) 861-1527

Facsimile: (202) 861-1783

[email protected]

Attorneysfor Plaintiffand theProposed Class

Verification

I hereby state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing complaint is true and cor

rect to the best ofmy knowledge and belief.

Executed on thK/MWay ofJune, 2016.th^jLttf?

rrell, Jr.

14


JS44 (Rev. 11/15) CIVIL COVER SHEETPcoyi

TheJS 44 civilcoversheetand the information containedhereinneitherrraiace norsupplement the filingand serviceof pleadingsor other papersas requiredby law, exceptiprovided W localrulesof court. This form, approvedby the JudicialConference of the UnitedStatesin &ptember 1974,is requiredfor the useof the Clerkof Courtfor thepurpose ofinitiatingthecivildocketsheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ONNEXT PAGE OFTHIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFSCorrell, Jr., Carroll B., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated

rt)) CountyofResidence of First Listed Plaintiff Winchester

DEFENDANTSOffice of Attorney General of Virginia, Herring, Mark R., AttorneyGeneral et al. (see attachment)

Coimtyof Residenceof First ListedDefendant Richmond

(EXCEPT IN U.S PLAINTIFF CASES)

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, andTelephone Number)(see attachment)

(IN U.S PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OFTHE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

11. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X"inOne Box Only)

• 1 U.S. Government ^ 3 Federal QuestionPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party)

D 2 U.S. Government • 4 Diversity

Defendant (Indicate Citizenship ofParties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES on"X"inOneBoxforPlaintiff(For DiversityCases Only) and One Boxfor Defendant)

FTP DEF PTF DEF

Citizen of This State • 1 • I Incorporated or Principal Place O 4 D4

ofBusiness In This State

Citizenof AnotherState D 2 O 2 Incorporatedone/PrincipalPlace 0 5 G 5ofBusiness In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a G 3 G 3 Foreign Nation G 6 0 6

Foreifm Country

rv. NATURE OF SUIT (Placean "X"inOneBoxOnJv}CONTRACT

• 110 Insurance

• 120 Marine

• 130MiUerAct

• 140 Negotiable Instimnent

• 150Reeoveiy of Overpayment& Enforcement ofJudgment

• 151 Medicare Act

• 152Reeoveiy of DefaultedStudent Loans

(Excludes Veterans)

• 1S3Reeoveiy of Overpayment

ofVeteran's Benefits

• 160 Stockholders' Suits

• 190 Other Contract

• 195Contract Product Liability• 196 Franchise

I REALPROPERTV

• 210 Land Condemnation

• 220 Foreclosure

D 230 Rent Lease & EjectmentO 240 Torts to Land

• 245 Tort Product Liability

O 290 All Other Real Property

torts

PERSONAL INJURY

• 310 Aiiplane• 315 Airplane Product

Liability

• 320 Assault, Libel &

Slander

• 330 Federal Employers'Liability

• 340 Marine

• 345 Marine Product

Liability

• 350 Motor Vehicle

• 355 Motor Vehicle

Product Liability• 360 Other Peisonal

Injury

• 362 PersonalInjuiy -Medical Malpractice

ÔyiLTOGHTS

• 440 Other Civil Rights

• 441 Voting

• 442 Employment

• 443 Housing/

Accommodations

• 445 Amer. w/Disabilities

Employment• 446 Amer. w/Disabilities

Other

• 448 Education

PERSONAL INJURY

• 365 Personal Injuiy -

Product Liability

• 367 Health Care/

Phannaceutical

Personal Injuiy

Product Liability

• 368 Asbestos Personal

Injury Product

Liability

PERSONAL PROPERTY

• 370 Other Fraud

• 371 Truth in Lending• 380 Other Personal

Property Damage

• 385 Property Damage

Produa Liability

PRISONER PETmONS

Habeas Corpus:

• 463 Alien Detainee

• 510 Motions to Vacate

Sentence

O 530 General

O 535 Death Penalty

Other:

O 540 Mandamus & Other

• 550 Civil Rights

• 555 Prison Condition

• 560 Civil Detainee-

Conditions of

Confmement

TOIRFEmiREff'ENAI.TY

• 625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881• 690 Other

• 710 Fair Labor Standards

Act

• 720 Labor/ManagementRelations

• 740 Railway Labor Act

• 751 Family and Medical

Leave Act

• 790 Other Labor Litigation

• 791 Employee Retirement

Income Security Act

IMMKaunON

• 462 NaturalizationApplication• 465 Other Immigration

Actions

• 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

• 423 Withdrawal

28 USC 157

rROrERTYRICHTS• 820 Copyrights• 830 Patent

• 840 Trademark

SOCIAT, SECMRITY

• 861 HIA (I395H)

• 862 Black Lung (923)

• 863 DIWODIWW(405(g))• 864 SSID Title XVI

• 865 RSI (405(g))

FEPERAl^TAXSUITS

• 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

or Defendant)

• 871 IRS—ThirdParty26 USC 7609

OTHERSTATlriES I

• 375 False Claims Act

• 376QuiTam(31USC

3729(a))

• 400 State ReapportionmentG 410 Antitrust

• 430 Banksand Banking• 450 Commerce

460 Deportation

470 Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations

480 Consumer Credit

490 Cable/Sat TV

850 Securities/Commodities/

Exchange• 890 Other Statutoiy Actions• 891 Agricultural Acts

893 Environmental Matters

895 Freedom of Infonnation

Act

896 Arbitration

899 Administrative Procedure

Act/Review or Appeal of

Agency DecisionCS 950Constitutionality of

State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" inOne Box Only)

a 1 Original • 2 Removed from • 3 Remanded from • 4 Reinstated or OS Transferred from • 6 MultidistrictProceeding StateCourt Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litiption

(specif)

VL CAUSE OF ACTION^^§^fiVl(^tetUte '̂J^l!ISl5'̂ liS^^ diversixyy.]êfdescription ofcayse:State statute binding delegates to primary results is unconstitutional

Vn. REQUESTED IN

COMPLAINT:

0 CHECKIFTfflSISACLASSACnON DEMANDS CHECK YES only ifdemanded incomplaint:UNDER RULE 23, FRCv P. Preliminary Injunction jury demand: • Yes ^no

Vm. RELATED CASE(S)

IF ANY

1

(ê instructions):JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE - , , ,

^ It^l ICrFOR OFFICE USE ONLY

signatureOF ATTORNEY OF I^3oRDy

RECEIPTS AMOUNT APPLMNG IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-00467-REP Document 1-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 15

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE PROPOSED CLASS

David B. Rivkin, Jr.

Andrew M. Grossman

Mark W. DeLaquil

Richard B. Raile

Baker & Hostetier LLP

1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Suite 1100

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 861-1527


DEFENDANTS

Office of Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Herring, Mark R., AttorneyGeneral of the Commonwealth ofVirginia,

City ofWinchester, Abrams, Marc, Commonwealth Attorney for the City ofWinchester,

Virginia State Board of Elections, Alcom, James B., Chairman of the Virginia State BoardofElections,

Virginia State Board of Elections, Wheeler, Clara Belle, Vice Chairman of the Virginia State

Board ofElections,

Virginia State Board of Elections, McAUister, Singleton, Secretary of the Virginia State

Bocird ofElections, and

Virginia Department of Elections, Cortez, Edgardo, Commissioner of the Virginia

Department ofElections


Court Naies UHITED STfilES DISTRICT COURT V.

Receipt Huffll)eP4 :34&63@33540Casttier IDs IgaWettTransaction Dates 86/84/2016PayeT fer JOSEPH pROCRI, ESfi ,

CIMIL FILING FEE ' '•Fors JOSEPH.HftyROCKI, ESQ.toounti i40@»00 -

• CfiESiT CAR® :ftftt Tendereds . $400.88 .

Total Dues $400.00Total Tenderedi $40@o00Chîiê flrt; $0=0S

3.IL FILING FEE;3tl6:CV467

16-cv-00467-REP Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/16 Page

Documents

^ : io2 c:i^»4^02Obloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/dailyprogress.com/...Case 3:16-cv-00467-REP Document 1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 14 PageID# 2 sional District Republican Committee,