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 complaint 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 decree 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 consent decree, 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.