OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

NAACP v. Billups

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: September 19, 2005 / June 8, 2009
State: Georgia
Issue: Voter ID
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Rome) (Case 4:05-cv-00201-HLM); U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit (Case 05-15784, 06-11927, 07-14664, 08-10432); U.S. Supreme Court (Case 08-1231)

Issue:

Whether Georgia's Voter ID Statue, which requires a state-issued photo ID, is unconstitutional or violative of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Status:

11th Circuit opinion vacating, rendering and affirming entered 1/14. Motion to Stay Mandate filed 2/10.  Petition for Writ of Cert filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on 4/1.  Brief in Opposition filed 5/6. Reply Brief filed 5/19.  Petition denied on 6/8.

Summary: Read Detailed Summary

U.S. Supreme Court Documents

U.S. Court of Appeals Documents

District Court Documents

Related Cases

Related Links

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

Federal District Court Panel Finds Unconstitutional Gerrymandering in Alabama

In an opinion released today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama found unconstitutional gerrymandering in 12 Alabama districts. In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, one judge on the panel would have found more districts unconstitutionally drawn. The case is Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama.

more info & analysis...