Voting

• Perry v. Perez (S. Ct.) – Amicus
  • The three-judge court correctly concluded that Texas's enacted plans cannot be implemented until they have been precleared
  
   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court Decision, 132 S.Ct. 934	01/20/12
  Brief as Amicus	12/28/11

• Project Vote/Voting for America, Inc. v. Long, et al. (4th Cir.) – Amicus
  • The district court correctly held that the language, structure, and purpose of the NVRA support public disclosure of voter registration applications, and that the release of such information does not conflict with either HAVA or the MOVE Act
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus	10/18/11

• Valdez v. Squier (10th Cir.) – Amicus
  • New Mexico's approach that it may withhold a voter registration form based on an applicant's oral response to a query with a temporal limitation or based on an applicant's failure to indicate in writing that he wants a registration form violates the language of Section 7 of the NVRA
  • Section 7 states that an applicant must receive a registration form unless the applicant "in writing, declines to register to vote"
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, 2012 WL 547404	02/21/12
  Brief as Amicus	09/23/11

• Gonzalez v. Arizona (9th Cir.) (en banc) – Amicus
  • The proof-of-citizenship requirement contained in Arizona Proposition 200 conflicts with the NVRA and therefore is invalid
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, 2012 WL 1293149	04/17/12
  Brief as Amicus	06/03/11

• Lepak v. City of Irving (5th Cir.) – Amicus
  • The district court applied the correct legal standard in apportionments for measuring compliance with the one-person, one-vote principle
  • No court has ever required a jurisdiction to use citizen voting age population in apportionment instead of total population
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision, 2011 WL 6217946	12/14/11
  Brief as Amicus	05/23/11

• Forjone v. California (2d Cir.) – Appellee
  • Plaintiffs waived their HAVA-based claim by failing to develop it sufficiently in their brief
  • HAVA is a constitutional exercise of Congress' authority under the Elections Clause
  • Plaintiffs lack standing
  
   

  Document	Date
  Summary Order	07/06/11
  Brief as Appellee	03/29/11

• LaRoque v. Holder (D.C. Cir.) – Appellee
  • Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Section 5(c)
  • The district court correctly upheld the constitutionality of the Amendments and of the 2006 Reauthorization
  • Lack of jurisdiction
  • Plaintiffs lacked standing and that they failed to state a viable cause of action
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	05/18/12
  Brief as Appellee	02/13/12
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 650 F.3d 777	07/08/11
  Brief as Appellee	03/07/11

• Shelby County v. Holder (D.C. Cir.) – Defendant
  • The district court's judgment is correct; ruling that the Reauthorization is a congruent and proportional remedy for unconstitutional voting discrimination in the covered jurisdictions
  • Congress acted within its authority under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment when it reauthorized Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act in 2006
  • Preservation of the existing coverage formula is rational in both practice and theory
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision	05/18/12
  Brief as Appellee	12/01/11
  District Court Decision , 811 F. Supp. 2d 424	09/21/11
  Supplemental Brief	02/16/11
  Reply Brief in Support of Cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment	01/14/11
  Cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment	11/15/10

• Simmons v. Galvin (S. Ct.) – Amicus
  • Given the circumstances of incarceration, Section 2 of the VRA cannot be read to apply to claims brought by currently incarcerated felons
  • A different analysis applies to claims brought by persons who have been released from incarceration, and that Section 2 may apply to such claims
  • The Massachusetts statute does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause
  
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari denied, 131 S. Ct. 412	10/18/10
  Brief as amicus in response to Court’s invitation	09/15/10

• Loeber v. Spargo (2d Cir.) – Appellee
  • Plaintiffs waived their HAVA-based claim by failing to develop it sufficiently in their brief
  • HAVA is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s broad authority under the Elections Clause
  
   

  Document	Date
  Certiorari denied, 131 S.Ct. 2934 (Mem), United States waived response to petition for writ of certiorari)	05/31/11
  Court of Appeals Decision, 391 F. App'x 55 (unpublished)	08/27/10
  Brief as Appellee [PDF]	05/06/10

• Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder (S. Ct.) – Appellee
  • The district court correctly held that the plaintiff is not eligible to bail out of coverage and that Congress acted within its constitutional authority when it reauthorized Section 5 in 2006
  
   

  Document	Date
  Supreme Court decision, 129 S. Ct. 2504	06/22/09
  Brief as Appellee	03/18/09

• United States v. New York Board of Elections & Nassau County Board of Elections (2d Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court was well within its discretion in denying the County intervention and that the new facts that arose following the United States’ motion to enforce did not establish that the County has a cognizable interest in the litigation or that the State cannot adequately represent those interests
  • Nassau County has not met the four factors required to obtain a stay pending appeal
  • Nassau is bound by the district court’s finding and Nassau’s previous position that HAVA requires the replacement of New York State’s lever machines
  • HAVA clearly prohibits the type of lever voting machine Nassau County wants to use
  
   

  Document	Date
  Order Denying Stay, Affirming Injunction, and Disposing Appeal	09/07/10
  Brief as Appellee	08/16/10
  Response opposing motion for stay	07/01/10
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], (unpublished) available at 312 F. App'x 353	04/15/08
  Letter Brief as Appellee [PDF]	02/06/08

• Morales-Garza v. Lorenzo-Giguere (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court properly dismissed the case because Morales’ allegations were wholly insubstantial, did not to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and failed to establish standing
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], (unpublished) available at 277 F. App'x 444	02/27/09
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	03/12/08

• United States v. Brown (5th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The district court’s finding of discriminatory intent is not clearly erroneous
  • Defendants forfeited their arguments that the remedial order violates their constitutional rights by failing to raise them before the district court
  • The remedial order’s requirements do not violate defendants’ First or Fourteenth Amendment rights
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 561 F.3d 420	02/27/09
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	05/16/08

• Harkless v. Brunner (6th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • The head of a state agency designated as a VRA is liable for NVRA violations resulting from failures by the agency’s local offices
  • Ohio’s secretary of state is a proper defendant in this action
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 545 F.3d 445	10/28/08
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	11/06/07

• United States v. Missouri (8th Cir.) -- Appellant
  • The district court erred in holding that the State of Missouri cannot be held liable for NVRA violations committed by its local election authorities
  • The district court abused its discretion in concluding that survey responses by Missouri’s local election authorities were inadmissible hearsay
  • The NVRA’s language, structure, and legislative history make clear that a State that assigns voter-registration duties for federal elections to its local election authorities will be liable if those local officials violate Section 8 of the NVRA
  • The State’s interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(b), (c), & (d) directly conflicts with the NVRA’s language
  • The “plain statement” rule does not apply in construing the NVRA
  • The United States’ interpretation of the NVRA does not violate the anti-commandeering rule of New York v. United States
  • The United States is challenging, in its entirety, the district court’s finding of no liability, including its ruling that Missouri conducted a list-maintenance program in compliance with 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)(4)
  • The district court abused its discretion in excluding as hearsay the survey responses that Missouri used in preparing its report to the federal government
  
   

  Document	Date
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 535 F.3d 844	07/29/08
  Brief as Appellant [PDF]	07/26/07
  Reply Brief as Appellant [PDF]	10/18/07

• Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Gonzales (D.D.C.) -- Defendant
  • Plaintiff is not eligible to seek bailout under Section 4(a)
  • The 2006 reauthorization of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was a valid exercise of Congress’s authority to enforce the protections of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
  • Plaintiff’s alleged as-applied challenge must fail because plaintiff has not identified any individual right transgressed by Section 5 coverage
  • Plaintiff mischaracterizes the Boerne test and the United States’ position
  
   

  Document	Date
  Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [PDF]	05/15/07
  Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [PDF]	06/15/07
  Reply Memorandum [PDF]	07/06/07

• Large v. Fremont County (D. Wy.) -- Intervenor
  • The Supreme Court has previously rejected a similar constitutional challenge to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
  • Congress has broad powers to enact prophylactic and remedial legislation prohibiting some constitutional conduct when the legislation is congruent and proportional to the constitutional injury to be prevented or remedied
  • Section 2 is a valid exercise of Congress’s constitutional authority to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
  • Courts of appeals have rejected similar constitutional challenges to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Intervenor [PDF]	01/16/07
  District Court Order	01/26/07

• Muntaqim v. Coombe; Hayden v. Pataki (2d Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not apply to New York Election Law § 5-106(2)
  • Extending the Voting Rights Act to reach New York's felon disenfranchisement law, which was not enacted with an invidious, racially discriminatory purpose, raises serious constitutional questions
  • The clear statement rule precludes application of Section 2 to New York Election Law § 5-106(2)
  • A statistical disparity alone, particularly in an area external to voting, cannot establish vote denial on account of race as Section 2 requires
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendants-Appellees (Muntaqim v. Coombe) [PDF]	03/04/05
  Letter Brief as Amicus Curiae (Hayden v. Pataki) [PDF]	04/26/05
  Court of Appeals Decision (Muntaqim v. Coombe) [PDF], reported at 449 F.3d 371	05/04/06
  Court of Appeals Decision (Hayden v. Pataki) [PDF], reported at 449 F.3d 305	05/04/06

• Bay County Democratic Party v. Land (6th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Neither HAVA in general nor the provisional ballot provision in particular may be enforced through private litigation
  • HAVA does not preempt precinct-based election systems
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendants-Appellants [PDF]	10/26/04
  Court of Appeals Decision, unpublished	10/26/04

• Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Blackwell (6th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Neither HAVA in general nor the provisional ballot provision in particular may be enforced through private litigation
  • HAVA does not preempt precinct-based election systems
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellant and Urging Reversal [PDF]	10/22/04
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 387 F.3d 565	10/26/04

• United States v. Charleston County (4th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • The United States satisfied the three Gingles preconditions, establishing that the at-large method of electing the Charleston County Council is presumed to violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
  • The district court correctly found under the totality of circumstances that the Charleston County's at-large voting scheme violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
  • The district court correctly weighed the issue of causation in its totality analysis and properly found that racially polarized voting patterns in Charleston County could not be explained by partisanship
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee [PDF]	12/02/03
  Response to Appellants' Motion to Stay [PDF]	01/09/04
  Motion to Stay Denied	01/29/04
  Motion to Stay Denied	04/02/04
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 365 F.3d 341	04/29/04
  Opposition to Petition for Certiorari [PDF]	10/29/04
  Certiorari denied, reported at 125 S. Ct. 606	11/29/04

• United States v. Blaine County (9th Cir.) -- Appellee
  • Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is appropriate enforcement legislation under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution
  • The county's at-large method of electing commissioners violates § 2
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on the United States' expert testimony and exhibits
  • The panel correctly relied on the Supreme Court's summary affirmance in Mississippi Republican v. Brooks
  • Section 2 does not require plaintiffs to produce evidence of intentional discrimination
  • The panel properly assessed American Indian cohesion
  • The panel gave appropriate weight to county elections
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellee [PDF]	03/19/03
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 363 F.3d 897	04/07/04
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 363 F.3d 897	04/07/04
  Answer to Petition for Rehearing En Banc [PDF]	07/26/04
  Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied	09/07/04

• Johnson v. Bush (11th Cir.) -- Amicus Curiae
  • District court correctly entered summary judgment for defendants on plaintiffs' claim that the Florida constitutional provision that bars felons from voting was discriminatorily motivated
  • District court correctly entered summary judgment for defendants on plaintiffs' claim that the Florida constitutional provision that bars felons from voting violates the results test of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	11/26/02
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 353 F.3d 1287	12/19/03
  Court of Appeals Decision En Banc[PDF], reported at 405 F.3d 1214	04/12/05

• Old Person v. Brown (9th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • District court erred in granting the defendants summary judgment on Section 2 claim on the ground that even if violation was shown no remedy should be implemented until state redistricting process was completed
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	03/26/02
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 312 F.3d 1036	12/04/02

• Johnson v. Hamrick (11th Cir.) -- Intervenor
  • Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is valid legislation to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
  • Defendants' challenge to the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is barred by law of the case
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Intervenor [PDF]	01/28/02
  Court of Appeals Decision [PDF], reported at 296 F.3d 1065	07/05/02

• Legarreta v. Nelson (5th Cir.) -- Amicus
  • Plaintiffs challenging failure to preclear election change under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act need not allege that the change is motivated by racial discrimination
  • District court should have empaneled a three-judge court to hear plaintiffs' Section 5 claim
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [PDF]	08/03/01
  Court of Appeals decision, unpublished	03/07/02

• Singer v. City of Alabaster (Sup. Ct. Alabama) -- Amicus
  • When a proposed change affecting voting has not been precleared by the Attorney General, city may not implement change and state court may not review failure to preclear
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Amicus [HTML]	12/28/00
  State Supreme Court decision, unpublished	11/09/01

• Wilson v. Jones (11th Cir.) -- Appellant
  • Application of Holder v. Hall to court-ordered remedy to correct violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
  
   

  Document	Date
  Brief as Appellant [HTML] [PDF]	07/26/99
  Reply Brief [HTML]  [PDF]	09/28/99
  Court of Appeals decision [HTML], reported at 220 F.3d 1297	08/04/00

---

Browse Briefs by Category

Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Religion Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other

---