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- Unpublished Orders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

FAQ on social welfare organizations

Donald B. Tobin

The Frank E. and Virginia H. Bazler Designated Professor in Business Law and a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz explains the nuances of social welfare organizations and federal regulations related to them.

more commentary...

In the News

How Did The IRS Get The Job Of Vetting Political Activity?

Professor Donald Tobin was interviewed by the Boston NPR station on its show Here & Now about the Internal Revenue Service's investigation into groups classified as social welfare organizations (marked by the 501(c)(4) tax classification). The IRS was in search of groups that are not focusing primarly on the social welfare of the country, but have a strong political advocacy facet. Political advocacy groups might want to be classified as 501(c)(4) organizations because under that classification they do not have to disclose their donors.

"The key is if you going to be engaged in candidate-type advocacy, and if you're going to intervene in elections and engage in election advocacy, we want disclosure of who your donors are," Tobin said.

“What groups are trying to do here is avoid having to disclose,” Tobin continued. “By earning the classification of social welfare, they’re avoiding the campaign disclosure that’s required for political organizations. So that’s really the underpinning of why we have this mess of the IRS having to get in and investigate and figure out whether an organization is political or not.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Ohio House Committee Recommends Upholding Landis' Election Victory

Yesterday, an Ohio House of Representatives committee recommended 5-4 that the Ohio House uphold the election victory of Republican State Representative Al Landis over Democratic challenger Josh O'Farrell. In February, the Ohio Supreme Court sent the O'Farrell v. Landis record to the House for consideration. According to an article in the Canton Repository, committee chairman and State Representative Matt Huffman said he expects a vote by the full House later this month.

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