Moritz College of Law | Page not found
HTTP 404 Not Found

OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama

Case Information

Date Filed: August 10, 2012
State: Alabama
Issue: Redistricting
Current Court: United States District Court Middle District of Alabama (Case 12-CV-691)

Issue:

Whether Alabama’s effort to redraw the lines of each majority-black district to have the same black population as it would have using 2010 census data as applied to the former district lines, when combined with the state's new goal of significantly reducing population deviation among districts, amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; and whether these plaintiffs have standing to bring such a constitutional claim.

Status:

Appellees' Motion to Dismiss or Affirm filed in U.S. Supreme Court 4/21/14. Appellants' Reply filed 5/5/14. Appellees' Brief filed 10/9/14. Appellants' Reply Brief filed 10/28/14. U.S. Supreme Court Opinion filed 3/25/15. Judgment filed 4/27/15. District Court order denying summary judgment filed 4/28/15. Plaintiffs' post-remand brief filed 6/12/15. Defendants' post-remand brief filed 7/24/15. Order for plaintiffs to file new statewide redistricting plan 8/28/15. Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority (U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission) filed 4/22/16.

U.S. Supreme Court case decided with Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, No. 13-1138.

Supreme Court Documents

 

District Court Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral Fix We Really Need

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral College winner should be the majority choice in each state that counts towards that Electoral College victory.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Anti-Trumpersí Most Futile Effort Yet to Stop Trump from Being Sworn In

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in Law Newz about efforts to persuade Chief Justice John Roberts to decline conducting Donald Trump’s Oath of Office on Inauguration Day. Even though the U.S. Constitution requires the President to take an oath of office, the the Chief Justice is not required to administer it. It is unlikely that such attempts will prevent Trump from being sworn in, Foley said.

“I think the main point is that the oath doesn’t need to be administered by the Chief Justice,” he said. “After Kennedy’s assassination, a federal district judge in Texas administered the oath to Johnson.”
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Fourth Circuit Upholds Virginia Voter ID Law

Today, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court upholding Virginia\'s voter ID law. The court disagreed with assertions that the law imposed an undue burden on minority voters or was enacted with racially discriminatory intent. The case is Lee v. Virginia Board of Elections.

more info & analysis...