|
Environmental Gerrymandering: Oppose the Ninth Circuit split!
Because anti-environmental special interests in Congress have not been able to weaken key environmental laws, they are now trying to change the pool of judges who decide the fate of those laws in western states.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider a misguided scheme to gerrymander the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (S. 1845) as soon as August. By creating new circuits that would be dominated by judges who are more likely to rule against efforts to uphold and enforce environmental laws, these interests are trying to let partisan politics get in the way of enforcing the environmental laws that protect us.
We cannot allow the timber, grazing, mining, and oil industries to judge-shop by splitting the Ninth Circuit into two or three new circuits. Please email your senators today to oppose this attack on the fairness and independence of our courts!
(Are you having trouble with this page? Click here.)
| Sample Letter for Campaign |
Subject: Oppose the Ninth Circuit Split (S. 1845): Keep our courts fair
Dear [ Decision Maker ] ,
As a constituent who cares deeply about keeping our nation's courts fair, I am writing to request that you oppose S. 1845 and any other efforts to split the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Splitting the court would gerrymander the Ninth Circuit in an attempt to fix future court decisions and would allow partisan politics to get in the way of enforcing laws like the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
A Ninth Circuit split would not only be bad for the environment, but would also be fiscally irresponsible. With a cost of $130 million, the proposal would only worsen the federal judiciary's virtually unprecedented fiscal crisis. In addition, the majority of judges within the Ninth Circuit oppose this proposal, including at least three Ninth Circuit judges nominated by President Bush.
Splitting the Ninth Circuit is unnecessary, and would be irresponsible. I urge you to do everything in your power to stop those who want to "judge shop" to weaken our environmental laws. Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
|
Campaign Launched:
June 22, 2006
|
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a critically important court for the environment. The Ninth Circuit decides whether to uphold or strike down federal environmental and other safeguards in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Hawai`i and Alaska. Those states contain roughly two-thirds of the National Forest System and contain almost 485 million acres of parks and other national heritage lands. The court decides the fate of safeguards for millions of Americans whose health depends on clean air and water, for hundreds of species protected by the Endangered Species Act, and for the entire Pacific coastline of the United States.
 Proposals to split the court unfairly attempt to change the identity of the judges who decide whether to uphold and enforce clean water, clean air, and other laws in western and Pacific states. Claims that the Ninth Circuit is too large and inefficient are refuted by opposition from those who know the court best, the overwhelming majority of Ninth Circuit judges (including at least three Bush appointees), and the Federal Bar Association, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, the state bars of Arizona, Hawai`i, Montana, Washington, and numerous bar associations in California.
In late 2005, Earthjustice and the conservation community worked with key senators to defeat an attempt to split the Ninth Circuit through a rider on the budget reconciliation bill. The Senate refused to go along with the House-approved plan, and the rider was stripped from the budget bill before it passed on December 19, 2005.
 The Senate Judiciary Committee is now scheduled to consider another misguided scheme to gerrymander the Ninth Circuit (S. 1845). Efforts to split the court continue despite bi-partisan opposition, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), Sens. Feinstein (D-CA), and Patty Murray (D-WA), and a wide range of conservation and other public interest groups. Pete Wilson, as a Republican U.S. senator from California (he later served two-terms as governor) condemned previous efforts to split the Ninth Circuit as "environmental gerrymandering" by those who had been angered by rulings upholding and enforcing environmental laws.
"You'd have to believe in the tooth fairy to say this has nothing to do with politics," said Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, a conservative who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan. "You would be breaking up what is essentially a very good, well-working machine" for something smaller and less efficient, he said, testifying against the split in Senate hearings. Read Judge Kozinski’s testimony here.
Splitting the Ninth Circuit would not only be bad for the environment, but would be fiscally irresponsible as well. With a cost of $130 million, the current proposal would only exacerbate the federal judiciary’s virtually unprecedented fiscal crisis, which has led to suspension of new court construction and layoffs of court employees.
For more information, including editorials and commentary, statements by senators and other elected officials, and opposition from bar associations, prominent lawyers and conservation and other public interest groups, please visit Earthjustice’s Judging the Environment website.
|
