In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the District Court, finding that North Carolina\'s Congressional redistricting plan violated the U.S. Constitution. The Court determined that racial considerations unlawfully predominated the designing of the contested districts. The case is Cooper v. Harris.
Judge Orders Georgia to Re-Open Voter Registration for Georgia Special Congressional Election RunoffPosted on May 4, 2017, 5:43 pm
A U.S. District Judge today ordered the state of Georgia to re-open voter registration until at least May 21st ahead of the June 20th runoff for the seat in Georgia\'s Sixth Congressional District. According to Judge Timothy Batten, the plaintiffs could likely succeed in showing that Georgia\'s reduction in the time its citizens had to register was pre-empted by federal law. The case is Georgia NAACP v. Georgia.
Three-Judge Panel Finds Voting Rights Act and Constitutional Violations in Creation of Texas House of Representatives DistrictsPosted on April 21, 2017, 1:30 pm
A little over a month after ruling that Texas\' Congressional redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Consistution, a three-judge panel similarly ruled (2-1) with regard to the creation of Texas\' state-level House of Representatives districts. The court issued a 171-page order in which it ruled for the state on some claims. The court also made separate findings of fact. The case is Perez v. Abbott.
On remand from the Fifth Circuit, a U.S. District Judge again determined that Texas\' voter ID law was passed with discriminatory purpose in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The case is Veasey v. Abbott.
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.
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.