Information & Analysis
Late last week, Federal District Judge Thomas Schroeder denied the North Carolina NAACP\'s motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought to prevent the implementation of a photo ID requirement in the state\'s March primary. A trial on the issue is set for later this month. The case is League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Howard.
In an opinion issued today, Federal District Judge Henry Hudson granted in part and denied in part the defendants\' motion to dismiss in a Virginia voting rights case. The judge dismissed claims related to long lines at voting precincts but left standing claims related to Virginia\'s voter identification law. The case is Lee v. Virginia State Board of Elections.
In an opinion issued yesterday, Federal District Judge James Peterson granted in part and denied in part the defendants\' motion to dimiss in a Wisconsin voting rights case. The judge dismissed claims related to Wisconsin\'s voter ID law but left standing claims involving disparate treatment and \"partisan fencing.\" The case is One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion yesterday in a Maryland redistricting case, determining that the petitioners were entitled under federal statutory procedures to bring their case before a three-judge panel. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Scalia, the Court held that because the petitioners\' non-frivolous claims were challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of Congressional districts, the District Judge was required by the relevant statute to refer the case to a three-judge panel. The case is Shapiro v. McManus.
Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman issued a decision and order dismissing the plaintiffs\' remaining claims in a Wisconsin voter ID case. Last year, the 7th Circuit reversed the judge\'s decision finding that Wisconsin\'s voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act and created an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining claims included whether not recognizing certain IDs violated Equal Protection and whether the law constituted a poll tax. The case is Frank v. Walker.
Election Law at Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law at Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law at Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.