The United States Department of Justice Department of Justice Seal The United States Department of Justice
Search The Site
 

Appellate Briefs and Opinions Banner

Voting

  • United States v. State of Georgia (11th Cir.) - Appellee
    • The district court correctly determined that Section 102(a)(8)(A) applies to runoff elections, the State's use of a SWAB does not comply with that provision, and, alternatively, even if the "sufficient time" standard in Section 102(a)(9) applies instead, Georgia's federal runoff election scheme does not comply with that standard
    • Georgia has not established either a sufficient likelihood of prevailing on the merits or the irreparable harm necessary to warrant a stay, and that the public interest lies in ensuring UOCAVA voters are not disenfranchised in federal runoff elections

     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Appellee 12/09/13
    Court of Appeals Order 01/06/14
    Opposition to Motion to Stay 11/21/13
  • Disabled in Action v. Board of Elections in the City of New York (2d Cir.) – Amicus
    • The injunctive relief ordered in this case was proper and unremarkable as a remedy to a systematic civil rights violation
    • Provisions of New York law permitting individuals with disabilities to apply for absentee ballots or alternative polling places are not adequate substitutes for accessible primary polling places
    • Plaintiffs were not required to identify individuals actually unable to vote to succeed on their disability discrimination claims
    • After giving the Board of Elections repeated opportunities to comment on the plaintiffs' proposed remedies and submit an alternative of its own, the district court properly entered injunctive relief without waiting longer for the City to submit a plan

     
    Document Date 
    Supplemental Letter Brief 01/14/14
    Brief as Amicus 08/14/13
  • Scott v. Schedler (5th Cir.) – Amicus
    • An unanswered question on the voter registration preference form does not satisfy Section 7's requirement that a declination to register be "in writing"
    • Section 7 requires state agencies to offer voter registration services to patrons who contact them remotely, via telephone, mail, or internet

     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 05/28/13
  • Texas v. Holder (S. Ct.) – Appellee
    • The Court should hold the case pending a decision in Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96 (S. Ct.)
    • If the Court upholds Sections 4(b) and 5 of the VRA, it should summarily affirm the district court's decision because the court properly applied Section 5 and correctly concluded that S.B. 14 would have a retrogressive effect

     
    Document Date 
    Granted, vacated, and remanded for further consideration in light of Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96 (133 S. Ct. 2612 (June 25, 2013)), 133 S. Ct. 2886 06/27/13
    Motion to Affirm 05/09/13
  • Wandering Medicine v. McCulloch (9th Cir.) – Amicus
    • The district court erred as a matter of law in requiring a plaintiff who brings a vote denial claim under Section 2 to establish an inability to elect candidates of choice

     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, 2013 WL 5815365 10/30/13
    Brief as Amicus 03/26/13
  • Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (S. Ct.) – Amicus
    • NVRA preempts Arizona's proof-of-citizenship requirements, and that allowing Arizona to graft a proof-of-citizenship requirement onto the Federal Form used for voter registration would displace the Election Assistance Commission's authority to determine the contents of that form and upset the NVRA's streamlined registration process
    • The Ninth Circuit properly applied an Elections Clause, rather than a Supremacy Clause, analysis to this case

     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, 133 S. Ct. 2247 06/17/13
    Brief as Amicus 01/22/13
  • United States v. Louisiana (5th Cir.) – Plaintiff
    • The court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeals because the defendants had not filed notices of appeal in the district court, and the district court had not certified the question to the court of appeals for review

     
    Document Date 
    Letter Brief 01/25/13
    Motion to Dismiss 01/07/13
  • Texas v. United States (S. Ct.) – Appellee
    • The Court should note probable jurisdiction and affirm the district court's holding that Texas's congressional plan is discriminatory in effect and purpose, in violation of Section 5 of the VRA; summarily affirm the district court's holding that the State House plan is discriminatory in effect; and remand for further factual findings on whether the State Senate plan has a discriminatory purpose

     
    Document Date 
    Granted, vacated, and remanded for further consideration in light of Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96 (133 S. Ct. 2612 (June 25, 2013)), 133 S. Ct. 2885 06/27/13
    Motion to Affirm 12/07/12
  • Colon-Marrero v. Conty-Perez (1st Cir.) – Amicus
    • The district court correctly construed the NVRA, which defines the "States" subject to the requirement at issue here to include only States and the District of Columbia and therefore does not cover the territories
    • Congress's decision not to include Puerto Rico within the NVRA's coverage was rational and therefore does not violate the Equal Protection Clause

     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, 703 F.3d 134 11/02/12
    Brief as Amicus in Response to Court's Invitation 10/10/12
  • Nix v. Holder (S. Ct.) – Respondent
    • This case is moot
    • Any further merits review is not warranted
    • This case is a poor vehicle for resolving the constitutional claim
    • The district court's merits judgment is correct

     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari denied, 133 S. Ct. 610 11/13/12
    Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari 09/24/12
  • State of Florida v. United States (D.D.C.) – Defendant
    • Shelby County upheld the 2006 Reauthorization of Sections 4(B) and 5 as a valid exercise of Congress's enforcement authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
    • The protection of language minorities under Section 5 was a valid exercise of Congress's Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment enforcement authority and remains so today
    • Requiring preclearance as to each of Section 5's protected groups is a congruent and proportional response to the harm targeted in covered jurisdictions
    • The 2006 amendments to Section 5 are constitutional
    • Requiring covered jurisdictions in non-covered states to obtain preclearance for statewide voting changes does not exceed Congress's enforcement authority

     
    Document Date 
    District Court Order 10/16/12
    District Court Decision, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299 08/16/12
    Reply Brief 07/20/12
    Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and In Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 06/25/12
    Motion for Summary Judgment 06/25/12
  • 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
  • Perez v. Perry (W.D. Tex.) – Amicus
    • The court was required to set aside the legislatively enacted maps, because the problematic aspects of them could not be excised, and generate new ones based on the previous precleared maps
    • District 23 in Texas's proposed House of Representatives redistricting did not comply with the State's obligations under Section 2 because it did not provide the requisite opportunity for minority voters to elect a candidate of their choice
    • Plaintiffs were entitled to bring a Section 2 claim premised on the State's failure to create a minority opportunity district comprised of two aligned minority groups

     
    Document Date 
    District Court Supplemental Opinion 12/02/11
    District Court Order 11/23/11
    District Court Order 11/23/11
    Reply to Response 11/16/11
    Statement of Interest (Section 2) 11/07/11
    Statement of Interest (Section 5) 10/28/11
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 682 F.3d 331 06/15/12
    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, reported at 676 F.3d 935 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, reported at 677 F.3d 383 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, 453 F. App'x 522 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, 425 F. App'x 73 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, reported at 679 F.3d 905 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
  • 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 Appellee [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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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


Browse Briefs by Category

Affirmative Action
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Constitutionality of Federal Statutes
Criminal
Education
Employment Discrimination (Race, National Origin, Sex, and Religion)
Equal Access to Justice Act
Equal Credit Opportunity Act
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
Housing
Immigration
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Institutionalized Persons
Police Misconduct (Civil Cases)
Religion Cases
Servicemember Cases
Third Party Intervention in Civil Rights Cases
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting
Other
General Information Appellate Section
 
Leadership
Diana K. Flynn
Chief
Contact
Appellate Section
(202) 514-2195
FAX - (202) 514-8490
Email:
General Appellate Contact:
crt.appellate@usdoj.gov

Amicus curiae suggestions may be submitted to crt.amicus@usdoj.gov. Submissions should include case name, docket number, circuit/district court name, a brief description of the case and issue, and the current status if known.

Stay Connected YouTube MySpace Twitter Facebook Sign Up for E-Mail Updates Subscribe to News Feeds