Skip to main content

Briefs and Opinions

Appellate Section - Voting

Briefs and Opinions

  • Pendergrass v. Secretary, State of Georgia (11th Cir.) - Amicus
    • The district court’s “new evidence” rule was improper
    • This Court should remand for reconsideration of both standing and the merits
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 05/10/24
  • Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity v. Secretary, State of Georgia (11th Cir.) - Appellee
    • Plaintiffs do not need to prove racial animus to establish a Section 2 vote-dilution claim
    • Neither the passage of time nor the Secretary’s claims about conditions in Georgia renders Section 2 unconstitutional
    • Both the VRA and 42 U.S.C. 1983 provide private plaintiffs a right of action to sue under Section 2
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Appellee 04/08/24
  • Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (8th Cir.) - Amicus
    • The district court correctly held that Section 2 is privately enforceable under Section 1983
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 03/25/24
  • Disability Rights Florida v. Secretary, State of Florida (11th Cir.) - Amicus
    • Private plaintiffs may enforce the Materiality Provision
    • The Materiality Provision prohibits acts beyond racial discrimination
    • This Court should decline defendants’ attempts to restrict the Materiality Provision
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 01/30/24
  • Disability Rights Mississippi v. Fitch (5th Cir.) - Amicus
    • Section 208 entitles persons with disabilities to receive assistance from any person of their choice when returning their absentee ballot
    • Section 208 preempts Mississippi’s more restrictive law limiting who can collect absentee ballots from persons with disabilities
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 01/23/24
  • Pennsylvania State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (3d Cir.) - Amicus
    • Private plaintiffs may enforce the Materiality Provision
    • The Materiality Provision extends beyond voter registration
    • Pennsylvania’s date requirement must be analyzed separately from the State’s signature requirement, and no deference is warranted to the state legislature’s supposed view of the date requirement’s importance
    • The district court appropriately ordered officials to count the individual plaintiffs’ ballots
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2024 WL 1298903 03/27/24
    Brief as Amicus 01/12/24
  • Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (7th Cir.) - Amicus
    • State laws that extend receipt deadlines for mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day comport with the Federal Election Day Statutes
    • Illinois’s ballot receipt deadline protects military and overseas voters
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 12/06/23
  • Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Secretary of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (3d Cir.) - Amicus
    • The NVRA requires the Secretary to disclose records related to efforts to find and remove noncitizens from Pennsylvania’s voter rolls
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 11/06/23
  • Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Bellows (1st Cir.) - Amicus
    • The NVRA requires the Secretary to disclose the voter file
    • This court should certify the question of Exception J’s scope to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court
    • If the district court correctly interpreted the use and dissemination bans, the NVRA partially preempts them
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2024 WL 396134 02/02/24
    Brief as Amicus 07/25/23
  • Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • The district court’s factual finding of racial predominance was neither clearly erroneous nor infected by legal error
    • The district court failed to apply the correct legal standards in holding that CD1’s lines reflect intentional vote dilution
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 07/14/23
  • Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Secretary of State for the State of Alabama (11th Cir.) - Amicus
    • Section 8(i) requires release of records responsive to the felony records request
    • Section 8(i) requires electronic release of electronic records when needed to facilitate meaningful public disclosure
     
    Document Date 
    Brief as Amicus 03/20/23
  • Vote.org v. Paxton (5th Cir.) - Amicus
    • Private plaintiffs may enforce the Materiality Provision
    • The Materiality Provision prohibits acts beyond racial discrimination
    • This court should decline intervenors’ attempts to restrict the Materiality Provision
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 2023 WL 8664636 12/15/23
    Brief as Amicus 11/02/22
  • Moore v. Harper (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • State legislation regulating federal elections is subject to judicial review by state courts for compliance with the state constitution
    • At a minimum, nothing in the Elections Clause prohibited the North Carolina general assembly from authorizing judicial review of its congressional districting maps
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 143 S. Ct. 2065 06/27/23
    Second Supplemental Letter Brief 05/11/23
    Supplemental Letter Brief 03/20/23
    Brief as Amicus 10/26/22
  • Rose v. Georgia Secretary of State (11th Cir.) - Amicus
    • Evidence that racially polarized voting patterns are correlated with partisan preferences does not defeat a Section 2 vote-dilution claim
    • Single-member districting is an appropriate remedy in this case
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 87 F.4th 469 11/24/23
    Brief as Amicus 10/26/22
  • Chisom v. State of Louisiana (5th Cir.) - Intervenor-Appellee
    • The State did not show that the Consent Judgment has been satisfied
    • The State did not show that continued enforcement of the Consent Judgment is no longer equitable
    • The purpose of the Consent Judgment is to correct and guard against the dilution of Black voting strength in Orleans Parish
    • The State did not show substantial compliance with the Consent Judgment’s purpose
    • The district court’s consideration of factors identified in a school desegregation case was not error
     
    Document Date 
    Supplemental En Banc Brief as Intervenor-Appellee 03/29/24
    Petition for Rehearing En Banc Granted 01/29/24
    Opposition to Petition for Rehearing En Banc 11/30/23
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 85 F.4th 288 (VACATED) 10/25/23
    Brief as Intervenor-Appellee 10/24/22
  • Campaign Legal Center v. Scott (5th Cir.) - Intervenor
    • The district court correctly held that the NVRA’s public disclosure provision does not violate the anticommandeering doctrine
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 49 F.4th 931 09/29/22
    Brief as Intervenor 08/24/22
  • League of Women Voters of Florida v. Florida Secretary of State (11th Cir.) - Amicus
    • This court should affirm the district court’s findings that racially discriminatory intent motivated the enactment of three SB 90 provisions
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 66 F.4th 905 04/27/23
    Brief as Amicus 08/17/22
  • United States v. Texas (5th Cir.) - Appellee
    • The Legislators are unlikely to succeed on the merits
    • The Legislators will not be irreparably injured absent a stay
    • The Legislators do not meet their burden on the final two stay factors because delaying production will harm the plaintiffs and the public interest
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Order (Motion for Stay GRANTED) 09/15/22
    Opposition to Motion for Stay Pending Appeal 07/28/22
  • Merrill v. Milligan and Merrill v. Caster (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • The district court correctly interpreted and applied Section 2
    • This Court should reject Alabama’s novel interpretation of Section 2
    • Section 2 applies to single-member districting
    • Section 2 is constitutional as applied to single-member districting
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 143 S. Ct. 1487 06/08/23
    Brief as Amicus 07/18/22
  • La Union Del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott and LULAC Texas v. Hughes (5th Cir.) - Appellee
    • This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal
    • The district court properly rejected the Legislators’ assertions of state legislative privilege
    • The district court properly rejected the Legislators’ assertions of attorney-client privilege
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 68 F.4th 228 05/17/23
    Brief as Appellee 07/18/22
  • League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Abbott (5th Cir.) - Appellee
    • The court should deny the legislators’ motion for a stay pending appeal
    • The court should deny the legislators’ alternative request for a stay pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Merrill
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Order 05/20/22
    Opposition to Motion for Stay Pending Appeal 05/20/22
  • Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment (8th Cir.) - Amicus
    • The district court erred in dismissing this case, both because the existence of a cause of action is not jurisdictional and because private plaintiffs can enforce Section 2 of the VRA
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 86 F.4th 1204 11/20/23
    Brief as Amicus 04/22/22
  • Migliori v. Lehigh County Board of Elections (3d Cir.) - Amicus
    • Private plaintiffs have a right of action to enforce the Materiality Provision
    • This court should reject Ritter’s attempt to restrict the Materiality Provision’s reach
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Order 11/16/22
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 36 F.4th 153 05/27/22
    Brief as Amicus 04/01/22
  • Brnovich v. DNC and Arizona Republican Party v. DNC (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • The previously filed brief does not represent the current views of the United States
    • Neither Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy nor its ballot-collection restriction violates Section 2’s results test
    • The court of appeals erred in rejecting the district court’s factual finding that H.B. 2023 was not motivated by discriminatory intent
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 141 S. Ct. 2321 07/01/21
    Letter Updating United States' Position 02/16/21
    Brief as Amicus 12/07/20
  • Democratic National Committee v. Hobbs (9th Cir.) - Amicus
    • Section 2 prohibits voting practices that, in the totality of circumstances, result in less opportunity, on account of race or color, for protected voters to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice
    • The district court correctly concluded that H.B. 2023 and Arizona’s in-precinct voting requirement do not violate Section 2’s results test
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals En Banc Decision, reported at 948 F.3d 989 01/27/20
    Brief as Amicus 02/15/19
  • Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • The House lacks standing to appeal
    • The district court applied an improper legal standard for racial predominance
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 139 S. Ct. 2715 06/17/19
    Brief as Amicus 01/04/19
  • Abbott v. Perez (S. Ct.) - Appellee
    • This Court may exercise jurisdiction over these appeals
    • Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the 2013 Legislature engaged in intentional vote dilution
    • Congressional District 35 is not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 138 S. Ct. 2305 06/25/18
    Reply Brief 04/17/18
    Brief as Appellee Supporting Appellants 02/26/18
  • Davis v. Guam (9th Cir.) - Amicus
    • Guam’s plebiscite law violates the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Amendments
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 932 F.3d 822 07/29/19
    Brief as Amicus 11/28/17
  • OCA-Greater Houston v. Texas (5th Cir.) - Amicus
    • Section 208 applies to all aspects of the voting process, not simply to assistance within the voting booth
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 867 F.3d 604 08/16/17
    Brief as Amicus 02/06/17
  • Cooper (McCrory) v. Harris (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • Racial predominance is a demanding standard, but a finding of racial predominance is subject to clear error review
    • The district court did not clearly err in finding that Congressional District 1 was racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause
    • The district court did not clearly err in finding that race predominated in Congressional District 12
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 137 S. Ct. 1455 05/22/17
    Brief as Amicus 10/19/16
  • Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • The district court correctly refused to equate a racial target with predominance but erred in requiring proof of a conflict with traditional redistricting principles and in failing to conduct the necessary holistic inquiry
    • The district court properly concluded that District 75 satisfies strict scrutiny
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 137 S. Ct. 788 03/01/17
    Brief as Amicus 09/14/16
  • North Carolina v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (S. Ct.) - Respondent
    • The court of appeals correctly held, based largely on undisputed evidence, that the challenged provisions of HB 589 were enacted at least in part for a discriminatory purpose, and that the district court’s contrary finding was clearly erroneous
    • In reaching that conclusion, the court faithfully followed well-settled precedent, and its fact-bound conclusion does not warrant this Court’s review
    • Contrary to petitioners’ assertions, the decision below does not conflict with any decision of this Court or of another court of appeals
    • North Carolina has already begun complying with the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, and there is no basis for relieving the State of its obligation to conduct elections free from the taint of racial discrimination
     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 137 S. Ct. 1399 05/15/17
    Brief in Opposition 01/19/17
    Application Denied 08/31/16
    Opposition to Application to Recall and Stay Mandate 08/25/16
  • Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Husted (6th Cir.) - Amicus
    • The NVRA and HAVA prohibit states from using failure to vote alone to trigger the Section 8(d) confirmation process for removing voters from registration rolls based on a change of residence
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 838 F.3d 699 09/23/16
    Brief as Amicus 07/18/16
  • United States v. North Carolina (4th Cir.) - Appellant
    • Granting the request for a stay will preserve the status quo by keeping in place the injunction that this Court previously ordered the district court to enter
    • That injunction has prohibited North Carolina from implementing the portions of HB 589 that would eliminate same-day voter registration and ban the counting of out-of-precinct provisional ballots
    • The district court committed several errors of law in analyzing whether HB 589 was enacted with discriminatory intent
    • The district court failed to properly apply the Section 2 results test
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 831 F.3d 204 07/29/16
    Reply Brief 06/14/16
    Response in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Stay of Judgment and Injunction Pending Appeal 05/27/16
    Brief as Appellant 05/19/16
  • Wittman v. Personhuballah (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • Appellants lack standing to appeal because they do not have a legally protected interest
    • The district court did not clearly err or adopt an incorrect legal standard in holding that the legislature violated equal protection in drawing District 3
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 136 S. Ct. 1732 05/23/16
    Brief as Amicus 02/03/16
  • Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • The district court correctly rejected appellants’ equal protection claim
    • Appellants failed to establish a prima facie case that the minor population deviations in Arizona’s plan resulted from invidious partisan discrimination
    • The minor population deviations in Arizona’s plan were justified by the rational and legitimate goal of complying with Section 5 of the VRA
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 136 S. Ct. 1301 04/20/16
    Brief as Amicus 11/02/15
  • Evenwel v. Abbott (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • Appellants failed to state a claim of malapportionment under the Equal Protection Clause because they did not allege either that Texas’s senatorial redistricting plan resulted in more than ten percent deviation from the theoretical ideal total population per district or that the plan’s de minimis deviation was the result of an arbitrary or discriminatory state policy
    • Whatever metric a State uses to redistrict, the resulting districts cannot have a total population deviation of more than ten percent unless that deviation is necessary to achieve a legitimate and important state policy, that the Equal Protection Clause does not require States to equalize the number of voters across districts, and that adoption of the appellants’ proposed rule will undermine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 136 S. Ct. 1120 04/04/16
    Brief as Amicus 09/25/15
  • Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Redistricting Commission (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • Regardless of whether the Elections Clause itself would permit the people of Arizona to establish an independent redistricting commission, Congress's enactment of 2 U.S.C. 2a(c) authorizes the States to choose the method by which they redistrict, including by an independent redistricting commission
    • Section 2a(c) is a permissible exercise of Congress's authority under the Elections Clause
    • The district court lacked jurisdiction over this case because the Arizona legislature has not suffered an Article III injury and, in any event, that a federal district court is not the proper forum for this intramural state dispute, which should be addressed in state court, with a possibility of subsequent review in the Supreme Court
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 135 S. Ct. 2652 06/29/15
    Brief as Amicus 01/23/15
  • Abbott v. Veasey (S. Ct.) - Respondent
    • The court of appeals correctly held that a plaintiff who proves that a State has imposed a racially discriminatory obstacle to voting need not additionally show that minority registration or turnout has decreased. Texas’s proposed requirement of showing decreased registration/turnout is both atextual and arbitrary, and no court of appeals has adopted it.
    • The court of appeals also correctly followed established precedent in remanding the question of discriminatory intent to the district court. That fact-bound application of settled legal principles does not merit the Court’s interlocutory review.
    • The Fifth Circuit had clearly and demonstrably errer in issuing a stay pending appeal
    • The district court could properly enjoin S.B.14 for this election based on the facts and circumstances of this case
     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 137 S. Ct. 612 01/23/17
    Brief in Opposition 11/28/16
    Supreme Court Order, reported at 135 S. Ct. 9 10/18/14
    Emergency Application to Vacate the Stay of Final Judgment Pending Appeal 10/15/14
  • Ohio State Conference of the NAACP, et al. v. DeWine, et al. (6th Cir.) - Amicus
    • The district court correctly applied Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
    • Section 2 applies to voting practices that abridge minorities' opportunities to vote and to have their votes counted
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Order 10/01/14
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 768 F.3d 524 09/24/14
    Brief as Amicus 09/19/14
  • North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory; League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. North Carolina (4th Cir.) - Plaintiff-Appellant
    • Section 2 requires a jurisdiction-specific, totality-of-circumstances analysis
    • The district court committed at least three legal errors in analyzing the Section 2 claims
    • Because the district court's legal errors infected its analysis, this court should reverse the judgment below and remand for application of correct legal standards
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Order 10/08/14
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 769 F.3d 224 10/01/14
    Statement of Views 09/17/14
  • United States v. Alabama (11th Cir.) - Appellee
    • The district court correctly determined that Section 102(a)(8)(A) applies to runoff elections
    • The requirement for a State to create a written plan to provide for transmission of runoff ballots to UOCAVA voters in "sufficient time" does not establish an alternate standard to the 45-day rule absent a federally approved hardship waiver under Section 102(g)
     
    Document Date 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 778 F.3d 926 02/12/15
    Brief as Appellee 08/27/14
  • Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama (S. Ct.) - Amicus
    • The court erred in its analysis when it concluded that strict scrutiny does not apply to the redistricting plans because the court failed to scrutinize each challenged district to determine whether race predominated over traditional districting principles
    • The court further erred in concluding that, even assuming strict scrutiny applied, the legislature's consideration of race was justified by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, because the court misconstrued Section 5 as barring any districting change that reduces the percentage of minorities in a majority-minority district
    • If the district court on remand concludes that strict scrutiny should apply to a particular district, the court must determine whether the legislature's consideration of race in such district was narrowly tailored to achieve compliance with Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as properly interpreted
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 135 S. Ct. 1257 03/25/15
    Brief as Amicus 08/20/14
  • Frank v. Walker and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Wisconsin v. Deininger (7th Cir.) - Amicus
    • In evaluating plaintiffs' as-applied constitutional challenge, the district court correctly weighed the State's claimed interests in enacting Act 23 (Wisconsin's photographic voter identification law for in-person and absentee voters) against the serious burdens the law imposes on some voters
    • The district court properly determined that, under Act 23, minority voters have less opportunity relative to other voters to participate in the political process and to elect their candidates of choice, in violation of Section 2
     
    Document Date 
    Supreme Court Order 10/09/14
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 768 F.3d 744 10/06/14
    Brief as Amicus 07/30/14
  • Kobach v. United States Election Assistance Commission (S. Ct., 10th Cir.) - Respondent, Appellant
    • The court of appeals correctly held that under the Supreme Court's decision in ITCA, the EAC is not required to incorporate a state-law registration requirement into the Federal Form merely because a State requests that the Commission do so
    • Petitioners advance no sound basis for further review
    • The NVRA empowers the Commission to make an independent judgment as to whether proof requirements such as the ones at issue here are necessary, and that the Commission's determination that they are not satisfies arbitrary-and-capricious review
    • The Commission is likely to succeed on the merits
    • The other stay factors counsel in favor of staying the district court's order to preserve the status quo
     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied 06/29/15
    Opposition to Certiorari 05/26/15
    Court of Appeals Decision 11/07/14
    Reply Brief 07/17/14
    Brief as Appellant 05/21/14
    Motion for Expedited Consideration, Stay Pending Appeal, and Emergency Motion for Administrative Stay Pending Disposition of the Motion for Stay 05/08/14
  • United States v. State of Georgia (11th Cir.) - Appellee
    • The case is not moot under the voluntary cessation exception to mootness
    • 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 
    Court of Appeals Order 02/24/15
    Supplemental Letter Brief 01/26/15
    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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 752 F.3d 189 05/14/14
    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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 771 F.3d 831 11/05/14
    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 (reported at 133 S. Ct. 2612 (June 25, 2013)), reported at 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, available at 544 F. App'x 699 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, reported at 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 
    Court of Appeals Order 03/21/13
    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 (reported at 133 S. Ct. 2612 (June 25, 2013)), reported at 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, reported at 703 F.3d 134 11/02/12
    Brief as Amicus in Response to Court's Invitation 10/10/12
  • Shelby County v. Holder (S. Ct.) – Respondent
    • Review is unwarranted because there is no split of authority on the issue presented and because the decision in this case is not likely to have significant precedential effect outside the particular context of a constitutional challenge to the VRA
    • The court of appeals correctly ruled that Shelby County is neither eligible for nor entitled to attorney’s fees under Section 14(e)
    • The decision of the court of appeals is consistent with Northwest Austin and the Court's cases applying congruence and proportionality review
    • No further review of the ruling is warranted
     
    Document Date 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 136 S. Ct. 981 01/25/16
    Brief in Opposition 01/06/16
    Supreme Court Decision, reported at 133 S. Ct. 2612 06/25/13
    Brief for the Federal Respondent 01/25/13
    Certiorari Granted, reported at 133 S. Ct. 594 11/09/12
    Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari 09/24/12
  • 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, reported at 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, reported at 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, reported at 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, available at 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, available at 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, reported at 650 F.3d 777 07/08/11
    Brief as Appellee 03/07/11
  • Shelby County v. Holder (D.C. and D.C. Cir.) – Defendant and Appellee
    • Shelby County is not eligible for attorney's fees under Section 14(e) Shelby County's constitutional challenge was not, as that statute requires, "an action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment."
    • Shelby County's constitutional challenge was not, as that statute requires, "an action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment."
    • Even if this case were a fee-eligible action or proceeding, Shelby County would be entitled to attorney's fees only under a standard that requires a showing that its opponent's position was frivolous or unreasonable, a standard Shelby County has conceded it cannot meet here
    • 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, reported at 799 F.3d 1173 09/01/15
    Brief as Appellee 12/12/14
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 679 F.3d 848 05/18/12
    Brief as Appellee 12/01/11
    District Court Decision, reported at 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, reported at 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, reported at 131 S. Ct. 2934 (United States waived response to petition for writ of certiorari) 05/31/11
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 391 F. App'x 55 08/27/10
    Brief as Appellee 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, reported at 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, available at 312 F. App'x 353 04/15/08
    Letter Brief as Appellee 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, available at 277 F. App'x 444 02/27/09
    Brief as Amicus 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, reported at 561 F.3d 420 02/27/09
    Brief as Appellee 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, reported at 545 F.3d 445 10/28/08
    Brief as Amicus 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, reported at 535 F.3d 844 07/29/08
    Reply Brief as Appellant 10/18/07
    Brief as Appellant 07/26/07
  • 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 
    Reply Memorandum 07/06/07
    Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 06/15/07
    Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 05/15/07
  • 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 
    District Court Order 01/26/07
    Brief as Intervenor 01/16/07
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision (Hayden v. Pataki), reported at 449 F.3d 305 05/04/06
    Court of Appeals Decision (Muntaqim v. Coombe), reported at 449 F.3d 371 05/04/06
    Letter Brief as Amicus (Hayden v. Pataki) 04/26/05
    Brief as Amicus (Muntaqim v. Coombe) 03/04/05
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, unpublished 10/26/04
    Brief as Amicus 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 387 F.3d 565 10/26/04
    Brief as Amicus 10/22/04
  • 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 
    Certiorari Denied, reported at 125 S. Ct. 606 11/29/04
    Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari 10/29/04
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 365 F.3d 341 04/29/04
    Motion to Stay Denied 04/02/04
    Motion to Stay Denied 01/29/04
    Response to Appellants' Motion to Stay 01/09/04
    Brief as Appellee 12/02/03
  • 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 
    Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied 09/07/04
    Answer to Petition for Rehearing En Banc 07/26/04
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 363 F.3d 897 04/07/04
    Brief as Appellee 03/19/03
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision En Banc, reported at 405 F.3d 1214 04/12/05
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 353 F.3d 1287 12/19/03
    Brief as Amicus 11/26/02
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 312 F.3d 1036 12/04/02
    Brief as Amicus 03/26/02
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 296 F.3d 1065 07/05/02
    Brief as Intervenor 01/28/02
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, available at 33 F. App'x 705 03/07/02
    Brief as Amicus 08/03/01
  • 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 
    State Supreme Court Decision, reported at 821 So.2d 954 11/09/01
    Brief as Amicus 12/28/00
  • 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 
    Court of Appeals Decision, reported at 220 F.3d 1297 08/04/00
    Reply Brief 09/28/99
    Brief as Appellant 07/26/99

Browse Briefs by Category

Access to Justice
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 Credit Opportunity Act
Equal Protection Clause
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

Updated May 10, 2024