Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Share

Last Updated: March 16, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Georgia v. Holder

Case Information

Date Filed: June 22, 2010
State: National
Issue: Voting Rights Act
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Case 1:10-cv-01062)

Issue:

Whether the process created by the State of Georgia pursuant to the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and the proposed procedures of the Secretary of State incidental to the verification process neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Status:

Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss entered 11/2/10.

District Court Documents

Complaint (filed 6/22/10)
- Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Motion for Three-Judge Panel (filed 6/22/10)
- Memorandum in Support of Motion
Order Granting Motion for Three-Judge Panel (entered 6/24/10)
Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Intervene (entered 7/7/10)
Answer of Intervenor-Defendants (filed 7/7/10)
Order Setting Discovery and Briefing Schedule (entered 7/12/10)
Motion to Intervene as a Defendant by GALEO (filed 7/14/10)
- Exhibit A
Response to Motion to Intervene by GALEO (filed 7/15/10)
- Unpublished Orders
Order, Granting Unopposed Motion to Intervene by GALEO (entered 7/28/10)
Answer from GALEO (filed 7/28/10)
Order granting Unopposed Motion to Intervene by Marvin Lim, the Organization of Chinese Americans Georgia Chapter, and the Asian American Legal Advocacy Center of Georgia as defendants (entered 7/29/10)
Order granting Unopposed Motion to Intervene by Concerned Black Clergy of Metropolitan Atlanta, the Southern Regional Office of the Rainbow Push Coalition, Michael B. Wright, Sr., and Janice Mathis as defendants (entered 8/3/10)
Answer of Concerned Black Clergy of Metropolitan Atlanta, the Southern Regional Office of the Rainbow Push Coalition, Michael B. Wright, Sr., and Janice Mathis as defendants (filed 8/3/10)
Order Announcing Judges that will serve on 3-Judge Panel (entered 8/6/10)
First Amended Complaint (filed 8/16/10)
- Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Answer (filed 8/16/10)
Amended Answer (filed 8/16/10)
Motion to Dismiss by Eric Holder and State of Georgia (filed 8/20/10)
- Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss
- Exhibits 1, 2
Notice by Defendants (filed 8/21/10)
- Exhibit A
Response to Motion to Dismiss (filed 9/7/10)
Response to Motion to Dismiss (filed 9/7/10)
Plaintiff's Reply to Intervenors' Response Motion to Dismiss (filed 10/8/10)
Defendant's Reply to Intervenors' Response to Motion to Dismiss (filed 10/8/10)
Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss (entered 11/2/10)

Commentary

A Poster Child for Dysfunctional Districting

Daniel P. Tokaji

Fifty years ago next month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Baker v. Carr (1962), inaugurating the “reapportionment revolution” which led to the redrawing of legislative districts across the country. This milestone provides the opportunity to reflect not only on what has been accomplished, but also on what still needs to be done.

more commentary...

In the News

This week: Bama voting rights case in DC courtroom on Thursday

Professor Daniel Tokaji, a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz, was quoted by The Birmingham News in an article about a local county's crusade to end 47 years of federal government oversight of its election returns.

Shelby County is hoping a federal appeals court will agree that the county no longer needs the U.S. Justice Department to approve changes in the ways elections are conducted because the area has progressed from its discriminatory past. It is unclear whether the case would be the vehicle with which justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would review the constitutionality of Section 5.

"I am reasonably confident they're going to take up the question of Section 5 constitutionality within the next few years," Tokaji said. "It could be Shelby County, it could be South Carolina, or some other."

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Federal Court Finds Equal Protection Violation

In the Hunter case, involving provisional ballots in a local Ohio election from 2010, the federal district court has ordered that ballots must be counted if they are otherwise eligible if they were miscast because of poll worker error.

more info & analysis...

Major Pending Cases

more litigation...

Election Law @ Moritz | The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law | electionlaw@osu.edu

Please note: Election Law @ Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law @ 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 @ 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.

PDF files in this site require Adobe Reader to view (link opens in NEW window). If you have trouble accessing this page or need to request an alternate format, please email the Moritz Law Webmaster.

OSU Navigation Bar