OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Texas v. Holder

Case Information

Date Filed: January 24, 2012
State: Texas
Issues: Voting Rights Act, Voter ID
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Case 1:12-cv-00128); United States Supreme Court (Case 12-1028)

Issue:

Whether Texas' voter ID law should be granted preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Status:

Complaint Filed 1/24/12. Answer filed 4/9/12. Trial commenced 7/10/12. Opinion Denying Texas' Request for a Declaratory Judgment on Count One issued 8/30/12. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed 10/1/12. Order entering final judgment on claim one filed 12/17/12. Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court filed 12/19/12. Lawyer's Committee Motion to Affirm filed 5/9/13. DOJ's Motion to Affirm filed 5/9/13. Rodriguez Intervenor's Motion to Affirm filed 5/9/13. Judgment Vacated and Remanded in light of Shelby County v. Holder filed 6/27/13. Case dismissed on 8/27/13. Order denying Kennie-Intervenros' Motion for Attorney's Fees filed 8/11/14.

Supreme Court Documents

District Court Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

A Special Master for the Cohen Case?

Edward B. Foley

There should be a strong presumption against special treatment just because the president is involved. 

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Columbus City Council Will See Some Reforms, But Not For Another Six Years

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in WOSU about changes to Columbus City Council that will stem from the passage of Issue 3.

 

“In a city where one political party is dominant, it makes sense to think about the citizen's commission to take it out of the hands of the politicians,” Foley said. “Because if you leave it in the hands of the politicians, it’s hard to get balance between the two parties.”


more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court Decides Wisconsin and Maryland Gerrymandering Cases on Procedural Grounds

In opinions issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two gerrymandering cases on procedural grounds. In an opinion in the Wisconsin case of Gill v. Whitford, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the legislature\'s redistricting plan. In an opinion in the Maryland case of Benisek v. Lamone, the Court determined that the District Court was within its discretion in denying preliminary relief to the plaintiffs challenging the legislature\'s redistricting plan.

more info & analysis...