CASES RAISING CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
United States v. The City of Calera, AL (N.D. Ala. 2008)
On October 24, 2008, the Department simultaneously filed a
and proposed consent decree against the City of Calera, AL alleging violations of Section
5 of the Voting Rights Act. On August 25, the Department interposed a Section 5 objection against the
City regarding numerous annexations and the 2008 redistricting plan.
The consent decree
, which was entered by the court on October 9,
will stop implementation of the new voting districts until Section 5 preclearance is obtained.
On October 23, 2009, the Court entered a order modifying the consent decree
to enable the City of Calera to adopt an interim at-large limited voting system and to adopt a new
system of voting for city council members.
United States v. Waller County, TX (S.D. Tex. 2008)
On October 9, 2008, the Department simultaneously filed a complaint
and consent decree against Waller County, TX regarding the County's voter registration practices and
procedures that violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42. U.S.C. § 1971(a)(2)(B). The violations primarily affected students at Prairie View A&M
University, an historically black college. On October 17, the court entered a consent
which enjoins the County from further implementation of unprecleared registration practices
and requires it to reprocess those applications that were wrongly rejected, develop a training program
for voluntary deputy registrars, and initiate voter registration programs on the Priarie A&M campus.
United States v. North Harris Montgomery Community College District
(S.D. Tex. 2006)
On July 27, 2006, the United States filed a complaint
against the North Harris Montgomery Community College District in Harris and Montgomery
Counties, Texas, alleging a violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint
alleged that the district attempted to reschedule its trustee and bond election without
obtaining the requisite determination under Section 5 that the change would be free of a
retrogressive purpose and effect prior to implementing the change. The
, which was entered by a three judge court on August 4, 2006, required
the district to refrain from implementing any voting change without first obtaining either
administrative or judicial preclearance pursuant to Section 5. The decree also required
defendants to reschedule the cancelled election to November 7, 2006.