IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. MOLLY TEICHMAN, Relator, vs.

ROBIN CARNAHAN, in her capacity as Missouri Secretary of State, LISA WHITE HARDWICK, in her capacity as Chairwoman of the Appellate Apportionment Commission, ROY RICHTER, in his capacity as Vice Chairman of the Appellate Apportionment Commission, NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, in her capacity as Member of the Appellate Apportionment Commission, DON BURRELL, JR., in his capacity as Member of the Appellate Apportionment Commission, ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., in his capacity as Member of the Appellate Apportionment Commission, and JAMES WELSH, in his capacity as Member of the Appellate Apportionment Commission. Respondents. No. ______________________

WRIT SUMMARY Identity of parties and their attorneys in the underlying action, if any: None. Nature of underlying action, if any: Not applicable. Actions of Respondents being challenged, including date thereof: The secretary of state's acceptance of a successive reapportionment of the senate on December 9 ,2011; the reapportionment of the senate by the Appellate Apportionment Commission, filed December 9, 2011; and, if the matter is reached by the Court, the reapportionment of the senate by the Appellate Apportionment Commission, filed November 30, 2011. Relief sought by Relator: That the secretary of state be compelled to reject the reapportionment filed on December 9, 2011; that whichever reapportionment the Court deems to have been lawfully filed nevertheless be invalidated; and that the secretary of state be prohibited from making official use of any void or invalidated reapportionment. Date case set for trial, if set, and date of any other event bearing upon relief sought (e.g., date of deposition or motion hearing): Elections for the senate will be held November 6, 2012, with primary elections on August 7, 2012 and the filing period for the primary election open from February 28, 2012 to March 27, 2012. Date, court and disposition of any previous or pending writ proceeding concerning the action or related matter: None.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. MOLLY TEICHMAN, Relator, vs. ROBIN CARNAHAN, et al. Respondents. VERIFIED PETITION IN MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION Relator Molly Teichman states as follows. I. Statement of Facts The Parties 1. Relator Molly Teichman ("Teichman") is a citizen, taxpayer, and qualified No. _______________________

voter in the State of Missouri. 2. Respondent Robin Carnahan (the "secretary of state") is the Missouri

secretary of state. 3. Pursuant to Article III, Section 7 of Missouri Constitution, on September 8,

2011, this Court appointed a commission of six members from among the judges of the appellate courts for the purpose of apportioning the Missouri senate (the "Appellate Apportionment Commission" or the "Commission"). Relator asks that the Court take judicial notice of its order of appointment; a true and correct copy of the order is attached to this petition. See Exhibit A 05-06. 4. Respondent Lisa White Hardwick ("Hardwick") was appointed to the

Commission and served as its Chairwoman. See Exhibit A 03 & 06.

5.

Respondent Roy Richter ("Richter") was appointed to the Commission and

served as its Vice Chairman. See Exhibit A 03 & 06. 6. Respondent Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer ("Rahmeyer") was appointed to the

Commission and served as a member. See Exhibit A 03 & 06. 7. Respondent Don Burrell, Jr., ("Burrell") was appointed to the Commission

and served as a member. See Exhibit A 03 & 06. 8. Respondent Robert G. Dowd, Jr., ("Dowd") was appointed to the

Commission and served as a member. See Exhibit A 03 & 06. 9. Respondent James Welsh ("Welsh") was appointed to the Commission and

served as a member. See Exhibit A 03 & 06. 10. At all times mentioned in this petition, Hardwick, Richter, Rahmeyer,

Burrell, Dowd, and Welsh (the "Respondent Commissioners") acted jointly as the Appellate Apportionment Commission. 11. When a separate commission appointed by the governor failed to file a final

statement apportioning the senate by September 18, 2011, constitutional authority to apportion the senate vested in the Appellate Apportionment Commission. See Exhibit A 05. The First Reapportionment Plan 12. On November 30, 2011, the Relator Commissioners unanimously approved

a plan and map reapportioning the senate (the "First Reapportionment Plan"). See Exhibit A 03. A true and correct copy of the First Reapportionment Plan is attached to this petition as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference into this petition.

13.

The First Reapportionment Plan ignores and disregards the requirements of

Article III, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution in that the line of Jackson County is unnecessarily crossed and crossed to complete more than one district. See Exhibit A 15 & 17. 14. The First Reapportionment Plan ignores and disregards the requirements of

Article III, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution in that the line of Greene County is unnecessarily crossed and crossed to complete more than one district. See Exhibit A 15 & 18. 15. The First Reapportionment Plan ignores and disregards the requirements of

Article III, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution in that the line of St. Louis County is unnecessarily crossed and crossed to complete more than one district. See Exhibit A 15 & 16. 16. On or about November 30, 2011, the Relator Commissioners filed the First

Reapportionment Plan with the secretary of state. See Exhibit A 03 & 07. 17. Pursuant to Article III, Section 7 of Missouri Constitution, the secretary of

state had a ministerial duty to accept the filing of the First Reapportionment Plan, and (on information and belief) on November 30, 2011, the secretary of state accepted the filing of the First Reapportionment Plan. 18. Pursuant to Article III, Section 7 of Missouri Constitution, upon the filing

of the First Reapportionment Plan, the Missouri senate was reapportioned, and senators shall now be elected according to such districts until a successive reapportionment occurs

as a result of either the 2020 decennial census or notification by the governor that the First Reapportionment Plan has been invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction. 19. 20. The 2020 decennial census has not yet occurred. The First Reapportionment Plan has yet to be invalidated by a court of

competent jurisdiction. The Second Reapportionment Plan 21. On December 9, 2011, a majority of the Relator Commissioners approved a

plan and map (the "Second Reapportionment Plan") that is distinct from the First Reapportionment Plan. See Exhibit B 21. A true and correct copy of the Second Reapportionment Plan is attached to this petition as Exhibit B and is incorporated into this petition by reference. 22. The Second Reapportionment Plan apportions the senate into districts that

are different from the districts in the First Reapportionment Plan. 23. The Second Reapportionment Plan ignores and disregards the requirements

of Article III, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution in that the line of St. Louis County is unnecessarily crossed and crossed to complete more than one district. See Exhibit B 33 & 34. 24. Due to the staggering of senate elections by even and odd numbered

districts (see Article III, Section 11 of the Missouri Constitution), only odd-numbered districts will elect senators in the 2012 general election. 25. The Second Reapportionment Plan ignores and disregards the requirements

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and of Article I, Section

2 of the Missouri Constitution in that it unnecessarily combines parts of the previous District 8 and the previous District 10 such that there is no presently elected senator residing in the reapportioned District 8, there are two presently elected senators residing in the reapportioned District 10, anddue to the staggering of senate electionsthis situation will not be rectified until the general election in 2014. This unnecessarily deprives all voters in the reapportioned District 8 of senate representation until 2015. It also affords two senators (and two representative votes in the Senate) to District 10 until 2015, which offends the equal protection rights of all voters in every other district. 26. On or about December 9, 2011, the Relator Commissioners filed a

statement with the secretary of state purporting to "withdraw" the First Reapportionment Plan and file in its place the Second Reapportionment Plan. See Exhibit B 21 & 25. 27. The Relator Commissioners had no constitutional authority to reconsider or

withdraw the First Reapportionment Plan. 28. The Relator Commissioners had no constitutional authority to approve or

file the Second Reapportionment Plan. 29. 30. The Second Reapportionment Plan is void ab initio The secretary of state had no lawful authority to accept the filing of the

Second Reapportionment Plan, but (on information and belief) on December 9, 2011, the secretary of state nonetheless accepted the filing. 31. The Second Reapportionment Plan did not reapportion the senate.

II. Relief Sought A. Waiver of Rule 84.22 Given the subject matter of this action, and in light of the time constraints imposed by the 2012 election cycle, Relator asks that the Court waive Rule 84.22 and allow this action to be brought directly in this Court. See State ex rel. Nixon v. Blunt, 135 S.W.3d 416, 420 (Mo. 2004)(holding in an election-related case that "[i]f any further relief is required, Rule 84.22 will be waived, and the action can be brought directly in this Court"). B. Preliminary Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition Relator seeks a preliminary writ of mandamus and prohibition commanding Respondents to file an answer directed to this petition. C. Permanent Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition Relator seeks permanent writs of mandamus and prohibition: 1. Compelling the secretary of state to deny the Commission's

unauthorized withdrawal of the First Reapportionment Plan; 2. Compelling the secretary of state to deny the Commission's

unauthorized filing of the Second Reapportionment Plan; 3. Undoing the Commission's unconstitutional reapportionment of the

senate by invalidating the First Reapportionment Plan; or, in the alternative, by invalidating the Second Reapportionment Plan.

4.

Prohibiting the secretary of state from using the First

Reapportionment Plan or the Second Reapportionment Plan for any purpose related to the nomination or election of any senator; and 5. Compelling the secretary of state to continue to use, for all purposes

related to the nomination and election of senators, the valid apportionment of the senate that was in effect prior to the events described in this petition. III. Statement of Reasons Why the Writs Should Issue The writs should issue because: A. Pursuant to Article III, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution, the

filing of an apportionment plan and map by the Appellate Apportionment Commission effects an immediate reapportionment of the senate that is not subject to reconsideration or invalidation by the Appellate Apportionment Commission, that can only be invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that governs the election of senators until a successive reapportionment is completed as a result of either the next decennial census or notification by the governor that the reapportionment has been invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction. B. The First Reapportionment Plan is unconstitutional because it

ignores and disregards the requirements of Article III, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution by unnecessarily crossing county lines and crossing county lines to complete more than one district. C. In the alternative, the Second Reapportionment Plan is

unconstitutional:

1.

Because it ignores and disregards the requirements of Article

III, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution by unnecessarily crossing a county line and crossing a county line to complete more than one district; and 2. Because it ignores and disregards the requirements of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution in that it unnecessarily deprives certain voters of senate representation until 2015, and it affords two senators (and two representative votes in the senate) to certain other voters until 2015. IV. Prayer for Relief Relator prays that the Court: A. this Court; B. C. Dispense with the time limits of Rule 84; Issue a preliminary writ of mandamus and prohibition commanding Waive Rule 84.22 so as to allow this action to be brought directly in

Respondents to file an answer directed to this petition; and D. Issue permanent writs of prohibition and mandamus granting the

specific relief sought above.

Dated: January 3, 2011

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ David G. Brown DAVID G. BROWN #42559 Brown Law Office LC 501 Cherry Street, Suite 100 Columbia, MO 65201 Tel: (573) 814-2375 Fax: (800) 906-6199