United States v. Town of Lake Park, FL (S.D. Fla. 2009)
On October 26, 2009, the Court entered a consent judgment and decree
replacing the current at-large method of election with a limited voting plan providing for the election
of four Commissioners with concurrent terms.
On March 31, 2009, the Department filed a complaint against the Town of Lake Park in Palm Beach County, FL for violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint alleges that the Town's at-large system of electing its Commissioners denies black voters an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Although black voting age citizens compose 38% of Lake Park's total citizen voting age population, no black candidate ever has been elected to office since the Town's founding in 1923.
United States v. Euclid City School District Board of
Education, OH, (N.D. Ohio 2008)
On December 2, 2008, the Department filed a
complaint and stipulations against the Euclid City School District Board of
Education in Ohio alleging violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint alleges that the at-large system of electing members of the school board dilutes the voting strength of African American citizens due to racially polarized voting.
United States v. Salem County and the Borough of Penns Grove, NJ, et al
(D.N.J. 2008)
On July 28, 2008, the Department simultaneously filed a
complaint and proposed consent decree against Salem County and the Borough of Penns Grove, NJ alleging that the parties violated the Voting Rights Act against Latino voters with disparate treatment, lack of Spanish-language materials and the denial to voters of the right to choose their assistor of choice.
On July 29, the court entered the settlement agreement.
United States v. The School Board of Osceola County
(M.D. Fla. 2008)
On April 23, 2008, the court approved a consent judgment
and decree in this suit challenging the districting plan for electing Osceola County's school
board under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The
complaint, filed on April 16, 2008 simultaneously with the agreement, alleged that the
boundaries of the existing single-member districts diluted Hispanic voting strength by dividing
the largest Hispanic population concentration between two districts such that none of the five
districts was majority Hispanic in eligible voters. The consent judgment and decree, in which
the parties stipulated that the existing districts violated Section 2, provides for a new plan
which includes one district with a Hispanic voter registration majority. Voters in the
Hispanic majority district will elect a school board member in 2008.
United States v. Georgetown County School District, et. al.(D.S.C. 2008)
On March 14, 2008, the United States filed a complaint
alleging violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that the at-large methods of electing
the Board dilutes the voting strength of African American citizens. On March 21, 2008, the Court enter the consent decree.
United States v. City of Philadelphia, PA (E.D. Pa. 2007)
On October 13, 2006, the United States filed a
complaint against the City of Philadelphia, PA, under Sections 203 and 208 of the Voting
Rights Act for failing to establish an effective Spanish bilingual program and for denying
limited-English proficient voters their assistor of choice. On April 26, 2007, the United States
filed an amended complaint, contemporaneously
with the signing of a settlement agreement. The amended complaint further alleged violations of
Sections 2 of the Voting Rights Act as the election system and procedures denied minority voters
equal access to the election process, and 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act for its failure to provide
election information to citizens educated in Spanish in American flag schools in Puerto Rico;
violations of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 for failing to provide alternative-language
information; and a violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 for
failing to remove deceased voters from the rolls. The settlement agreement, among other things,
requires the defendants to establish an effective bilingual program, including bilingual interpreters
and alternative-language information; to allow limited-English proficient voters to utilize
assistors of choice; to provide alternative-language information; and to undertake a program of
voter list maintenance. On June 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania entered an order retaining
jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement until July 1, 2009.
United States v. Village of Port Chester, NY (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
On January 17, 2008, the Court issued a decision and order for the United States in its Section 2 case against the Village of Port Chester, NY. On December 15, 2006, the Department filed a complaint against the Village of Port Chester, NY, alleging that Port Chester's at-large system of electing its governing board of trustees dilutes the voting strength of the Village's Hispanic citizens, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. On March 2, the Court granted the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the election of two trustees scheduled for March 20, 2007.
In recent years, Hispanics have consistently voted cohesively together, and their preferred
candidates for the Board of Trustees and other local offices, whether Hispanic or not, usually have
been defeated by white bloc voting.
United States v. City of Euclid, et al (N.D. Ohio 2006)
On July 10, the Department filed a complaint against
the City of Euclid, Ohio under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint alleges
that the mixed at-large/ward system of electing the city council dilutes the voting
strength of African-American citizens. In the course of the investigation, it was found
that while African-Americans compose nearly 30% of Euclid's electorate, and although
there have been eight recent African-American candidacies for the Euclid City
Council, not a single African-American candidate has ever been elected to that body.
Further, in seven recent elections for Euclid City Council, African-Americans voted
cohesively and white voters voted sufficiently as a bloc to defeat the African-American
voters' candidates of choice.
United States v. Long County, GA (S.D. Ga. 2006)
On February 8, 2006, the United States filed a complaint
against Long County, Georgia under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint alleged
that Long County officials required 45 Hispanic residents whose right to vote had been
challenged on the grounds that they were not U.S. citizens to attend a hearing and prove
their citizenship, even though there was no evidence calling into question their citizenship
and even though similarly situated non-Hispanics were not required to do so. According to
the complaint, the defendants' conduct had the effect of denying Hispanic voters an equal
opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice.
On February 10, 2006, the district court entered a consent decree
that requires defendants to train their election officials and poll workers on federal law,
to maintain uniform procedures for responding to voter challenges, and to notify Hispanic
voters who were challenged that no evidence was presented to support the challenges against
them and that they are free to vote.
United States v. City of Boston, MA (D. Mass. 2005)
On July 29, 2005, the United States filed a complaint
against the City of Boston under Sections 2 and 203 of the Voting Rights Act. The complaint
alleged that the City's election practices and procedures discriminate against members of
language-minority groups, specifically persons of Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese heritage, so
as to deny and abridge their right to vote in violation of Section 2. The suit also alleged
that the City has violated Section 203 by failing to make all election information available
in Spanish to voters who need it. On October 18, 2005, the three-judge court issued
an order authorizing federal examiners
through December 31, 2008; retaining the court’s jurisdiction through expiration of the
federal examiner designation and the agreement, both to occur on December 31, 2008; and
providing that either the Department or the City may petition to the court to resolve any
disputes during the life of the agreement.
United States v. Osceola County (M.D. Fla 2005)
This suit challenged the at-large system for electing the county's Board of Commissioners under
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Although Hispanics comprise more than one-third of the county's
electorate, the county never elected a Hispanic candidate to the Board under the at-large system
or to any county-wide office. The complaint, filed
July 18, 2005, alleged that the existing electoral system operated to dilute Hispanic voting
strength, and that Osceola County had adopted and maintained the at-large method of election
with a discriminatory purpose. On June 26, 2006, the court issued a ruling from the bench
granting the Department's motion for a preliminary injunction,
enjoining the scheduled 2006 county commission elections. On October 18, 2006, after a trial on the
merits, the Court issued a memorandum opinion ruling
that the at-large method of election violated Section 2. On December 8, 2006, the court entered its
remedial order rejecting the county's proposal of a
mixed system of five single-member districts and two at-large seats, and adopting the five
single-member district map submitted by the United States and agreed to by the parties.
The court ordered a special election in 2007 in two districts, including the majority Hispanic
district, under the court-approved plan.
United States v. Ike Brown and
Noxubee County (S.D. Miss. 2005)
On August 27, 2007, the Court entered a remedial order in
United States v. Brown (S.D. Miss). On June 29, 2007, the Court entered judgment
for the United States. The Court's 104 page opinion
held that the Voting Rights Act is a colorblind statute and protects all voters from racial
discrimination, regardless of the race of the voter. The Court then ruled that Defendants had
an illiegal discriminatory intent to discriminate against white voters. In
its complaint, the United States alleged that the
practices of local election and party officials discriminate against whites in violation of
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The United States entered in a consent
decree with the Noxubee County superintendent of general elections, administrator of absentee ballots,
registrar, and the county government. The consent decree prohibits a wide range of discriminatory
and illegal voting practices, and requires these officials to report such incidents if they
receive information that they are continuing. This consent decree was approved by the district
court and filed simultaneously with the filing of the complaint.
United States v. Berks County (E.D.
Pa. 2003)
The United States alleged in its complaint that the county
violated several sections of the Voting Rights Act. The facts showed that the county
discriminated against Hispanic individuals, primarily Puerto Rican voters, through hostile
treatment at the polls, failure to provide adequate language assistance, and by not
permitting Hispanic voters to bring assistors of their choice into the polling place.
These actions resulted in violations of Sections 2,
4(e), and 208 of the
Voting Rights Act. The court granted a preliminary injunction
on March 18, 2003, and permanent relief on August 20, 2003.
Both decisions resulted in increased protection for Hispanic voters. Since the court
entered its decision, the Department has monitored elections, utilizing federal observers
pursuant to a provision of the order, to ensure compliance with the court's order.
United States v. Osceola County (M.D. Fla. 2002)
The complaint filed by the United States in
this case alleged that the county violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by
discriminating against Hispanic voters through hostile treatment at the polls and the
failure to provide adequate language assistance. In addition, it alleged the county
violated Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act by not permitting Hispanic voters to bring
assistors of their choice into the polling places. On July 22, 2002, the parties entered
a consent decree remedying the violations.
United States v. Alamosa County (D. Colo. 2001)
In this case, the United States' complaint alleged
the at-large method of election of the Alamosa County Board of Commissioners violated
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it diluted the voting strength of Hispanic
voters in violation of Section 2. The case was tried in May 2003. On November 26, 2003,
the court found for Alamosa County, entering an opinion finding that a Section 2 violation
had not been proved.
United States v. Crockett County (W.D. Tenn. 2001)
The United States alleged in its complaint that the method of electing the county's board of
commissioners violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it diluted the voting strength
of African Amerian voters. This case was resolved with the filing of a consent
decree, filed simultaneously with the complaint.
United States v. Charleston County (D. S.C. 2001)
The United States alleged in its complaint that the
at-large method of electing members of the Charleston County Commission violated Section 2
of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of African American voters. Prior
to the beginning of trial, the court issued a ruling for the United States on its motion
for partial summary judgment that the residential patterns within the county were such
that a council district could be drawn in which minority voters would be a majority
of the population and that African American voters were politically cohesive. Following
trial, the court issued an opinion finding the county's method of election violated Section 2.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court's opinion.
The opinion of the court of appeals is reported at 365 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2004)
or on the Appellate Section's website.
The county appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, and a certiorari was denied
on November 29, 2004.
United States v. City of Hamtramck, Michigan (E.D. Mich. 2000)
In this complaint, the United States alleged that the city
violated 42 U.S.C. 1971 and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by implementing discriminatory,
race-based challenges at the polls directed at Arab Americans. The facts showed that
in the general election of November 2, 1999, city election officials required Arab-American
voters to take an oath as a condition to voting, without requiring a
factual basis for the challenges. On August 7, 2000, the court approved a
consent order and decree, which required the city to train election officials and poll
workers on the proper application of federal and state laws, including nondiscriminatory
challenge procedures, to appoint Arabic and Bengali-speaking election inspectors, and certified
the city for the assignment of federal observers through December 31, 2003. The court subsequently
approved two extensions of the order and decree, first amended
consent order and decree; second amended consent order and decree,
which extended the federal observer authority and bilingual election inspector provisions through
January 31, 2006.
United States v. Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
(C.D. Cal. 2000)
On July 21, 2000, the United States filed a complaint
against the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District in Ventura County, California,
challenging under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act the districting plan for the five election
divisions from which the Water District Board of Directors was elected. The complaint alleged
that the districting plan fragmented the Hispanic population concentration primarily by dividing
predominantly Hispanic areas and placing them in separate divisions, resulting in Hispanic citizens
being denied an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process and to elect candidates
of their choice. While Hispanic persons comprised 46.49 percent of the population of the Water
District according to the 1990 Census and nine Hispanic candidates had run for positions on the
Board of Directors, no Hispanic person had ever been elected to the Board in its 40 year history.
During the pendency of the lawsuit, the Water District adopted a new districting plan which did
not dilute Hispanic voting strength and under which elections were held in 2002. Consequently, on
June 13, 2003, the court entered a Stipulation and Order dismissing the case, which had become moot.
United States v. Morgan City, LA (W.D. La. 2000)
In this complaint filed June 27, 2000, the
United States alleged that the at-large method of electing city councilmembers in Morgan City, LA
violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of black voters. On
August 16, 2000, the court entered a consent decree,
filed simultaneously with the complaint which provided for a change in the method of election
from at-large to five single member districts, one of which provided black voters with an
opportunity to elect a representative of choice.
Greig v. City of St. Martinville, (W.D. La. 2000)
The United States' complaint alleged a
violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in this action initiated by private
plaintiffs against the City of St. Martinville over the city's failure to conduct two
consecutive city council elections. The United States alleged that the city’s action and
inaction with respect to its redistricting process in the 1990s (its adoption of three
retrogressive plans and the council members’ holding over in office) denied or abridged
black voters' right to vote on account of race. The case was resolved when the city adopted
a new redistricting plan prepared by the court's special master, which received Section 5
preclearance, and scheduled elections pursuant to the precleared plan. On July 19, 2001, the
suit was voluntarily dismissed.
United States v. City of Santa Paula, CA (C.D. Cal. 2000)
On April 6, 2000, the United States filed a complaint
against the City of Santa Paula, CA alleging that the city's at-large method of electing the
city council diluted Hispanic voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
On October 24, 2001, the court entered a settlement
agreement under which the City would conduct a proposition vote at the November 5, 2002
general election placing three district election options on the ballot. As part of the settlement
agreement, the parties also stipulated to facts establishing significant elements of the United
States' claim. Pursuant to the agreement,
the United States' complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
United States v. State of South Dakota (D.S.D. 2000)
The United States filed this complaint on
March 31, 2000, alleging that the at-large method of electing members for the South Dakota
House of Representatives from District 28 had the intent and the result of diluting American
Indian voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In 1991, the
state had created two single-member districts in House District 28, designated as District
No. 28A and District 28B. House District 28A had a majority-Indian total and voting-age
population. In 1996, after electoral successes by American Indian candidates in the 1994
primary elections, the state legislature eliminated the majority-Indian House district and
created an at-large, dual-member method of election for House District 28. Private intervenors
were allowed in this case, and they alleged both Section 2 claims and a state law claim based
on the contention that a provision of the South Dakota Constitution prohibited redistricting
during the middle of a decade. The federal district court certified this state law question
to the South Dakota Supreme Court, and that Court ruled that mid-decade redistricting was
not allowed under the State Constitution. The case then returned to the federal district
court which ordered a remedy that divided House District 28 into two districts, one of which
was majority-Indian. In the first election under this remedial plan, an American Indian candidate
was elected from the majority-Indian district.
United States v. Roosevelt County, MT (D. Mont. 2000)
On March 24, 2000, the United States filed a complaint
against Roosevelt County, Montana, alleging that the at-large method of election for the
Roosevelt County Commission diluted the voting strength of American Indian voters in violation
of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint the court
approved the parties' consent decree which provided
for the election of the three county commissioners from three single-member districts, one
of which is majority-Indian.
United States v. Town of Cicero, IL, (N.D. Ill. 2000)
On March 14, 2000, the United States obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining
the Town of Cicero from placing a referendum on the ballot to alter the residency requirements
to run for mayor. In its complaint, the United States alleged
that defendants sought the referendum with a discriminatory purpose of excluding two Hispanic
candidates from running for mayor in the 2001 municipal elections, in violation of Section 2
of the Voting Rights Act. On October 23, 2000, the court entered a stipulated order authorizing
the appointment of federal observers to monitor town elections through 2005.
United States v. Benson County, MT (D.N.D. 2000)
On March 6, 2000, the United States filed a complaint
against Benson County, North Dakota, alleging that the at-large method of election for the
Benson County Commissioners diluted American Indian voting strength in violation of the
discriminatory result standard of Section 2. On March 10, 2000, the court entered the parties'
consent decree, which changed the method of election
to the use of five single-member districts, one of which was majority-Indian.
United States v. Blaine County (D. Mont. 1999)
In its complaint, the United States alleged that the at-large method of election for the
Blaine County Commission violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it denied Native
American residents an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect
candidates of their choice. The district court first issued an opinion rejecting the county's
challenge to the constitutionality of Section 2. Following trial, the court issued a decision
holding that the plan violated Section 2 and ordered the county to adopt a remedial plan. The
county appealed the district court's decisions on the constitutionality of Section 2 as well as
its finding that the at-large election method violated federal law to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court of appeals decision, which affirmed both findings, can
be found at 363 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2004) or on the Appellate
Section's website.
United States v. City of Lawrence (D. Mass. 1998)
In this action, the United States' first complaint, filed in 1998, alleged that the city's
methods of electing its city council and school board violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act because both denied Hispanic citizens an equal opportunity to participate in the political
process and elect candidates of their chioce. The complaint also alleged violations of Section
203 and Section 2 of the Act based on the city's failure to provide Spanish-language minority
citizens with electoral information and assistance in Spanish and the refusal to appoint
Hispanic and Spanish-speaking poll workers. The United States and the city were able to resolve
all the claims except those related to the method of election with a consent decree. The city
subsequently agreed to change the method of electing its school committee from at-large to
single-member districts, and to adopt an election plan for its city council and school board
that complied with Section 2 upon release of the 2000 Census.
In 2001, the United States filed a supplemental complaint, which alleged that the post-2000
Census redistricting plans did not resolved the Section 2 violation. In a separate consent
decree, the city agreed in 2002 to revise the districting plans for both bodies to provide an
additional Hispanic-majority district. The consent decree also required the city to appoint
a person who is bilingual in English and Spanish to the board of registrars and to the staff
in the elections office.
United States v. Cibola County (D.N.M. 1993)
On January 31, 2007, the United States filed an
amended complaint against Cibola County, New Mexico, to add claims under the National
Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Simultaneous
with the filing of the amended complaint, the parties filed an amended joint stipulation in
which the County agreed to remedy the NVRA and HAVA violations, as well as to extend the
provisions of the prior joint stipulation. The court entered the
amended joint stipulation on March 19, 2007.
In the original complaint filed in 1993, the United States alleged that Cibola County had
violated Sections 2 and 203 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to ensure that American Indians
in the County have an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process, including those
who rely on Keres and Navajo, American Indian languages that are historically unwritten. The
parties initially resolved this case in 1994 through a stipulation and order that required
the County to establish an effective Native American Election Information Program. The federal
court had entered on May 3, 2004, an order approving a joint stipulation, which modified the
original one and extended it through December 31, 2006.
United States v. New Mexico and Sandoval County (D.N.M. 1988)
On November 28, 2007, a three-judge court entered an order and amended joint stipulation,
modifiying and extending the existing consent decree until January 31, 2009.
The United States filed a
complaint alleging that the State of New Mexico and Sandoval County had violated Sections 2
and 203 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to provide voting and election information in Keres
and Navajo, American Indian languages that are historically unwritten.
The parties initially resolved this case in 1990 through a settlement agreement
that required the State and County to implement a Native American Election Information Program (NAEIP).
Pursuant to the agreement, the case was dismissed against the state defendants on December 31,
1990. On September 9, 1994, the court entered a consent decree proposed by the County and the United States, which modified the original NAEIP and extended the modified program through
September 9, 2004. On November 8, 2004, the court entered an order approving a joint
stipulation between the County and the United States, which further modified the NAEIP and
extended its provisions through January 15, 2007. On april 3, 2007, the United States and the
County filed a joint motion seeking the current extension.
