In an order released late Friday, U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten dismissed a lawsuit filed against Georgia\'s Secretary of State by the advocacy organization Common Cause, which alleged that Georgia unlawfully removed voters from registration lists preceding the 2016 Presidential election. The case is Common Cause v. Kemp.
In a 2-1 decision, a 3-judge district court panel determined that Texas legislators unlawfully drew some Congressional districts as part of the redistricting process. The court found that geographical boundaries of certain districts were the result of racial gerrymandering in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The case is Perez v. Abbott.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in a Virginia redistricting case, sending the case back to the district court to apply the proper standard for determining whether an unconstitutional racial gerrymander has occurred. According to the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional gerrymander can occur even when a redistricting plan follows traditional principles, if race is nevertheless the predominant consideration. The case is Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections.
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice withdrew a claim that Texas enacted voter ID legislation with discriminatory intent. This represents a reversal in stance from the Obama Administration to the Trump Administration. Private plaintiffs in the case continue to assert this claim, on which the court will eventually issue a decision. The case is Veasey v. Abbott.
A U.S. District Judge issued an opinion finding that the Ohio Secretary of State\'s voter services website violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it is not accessible to visually impaired Ohio voters. Judge George C. Smith ordered Secretary of State John Husted to make the site more accessible by September 29, 2017. As discussed in the opinion, the information on the voter services site does not meet established standards of accessibility for visually impaired voters who use screen reading software. The case is Hindel v. Husted.
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.