Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Share

Last Updated: September 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Powell v. Alabama

Case Information

Date Filed / Ended: July 29, 2008 / September 5, 2008
State: Alabama
Issue: Voting Rights Act
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District for the Northern District of Alabama (Case 2:08-cv-01345)

Issue:

Whether a 2007 change in Alabama election law (changing the rules of succession for the Jefferson County Commission) violates the preclearance provision Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Status:

Complaint filed 7/29/08. Motion for Rule 16 Hearing filed 7/31/08. Answer, Motion to Dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction, and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed on 8/18/08. Voluntary Motion to Dismiss filed on 9/5/08 and granted on 9/5/08. Case dismissed without prejudice on 9/5/08.

District Court Documents

Complaint (filed 7/29/08)
ORDER (entered 7/31/08) The undersigned hereby recuses himself in this case and directs the clerk to cause case to be reassigned; Case reassigned to Judge Judge L Scott Coogler for all further proceedings.
MOTION for Rule 16 Conference (filed 7/31/08)
ORDER SETTING STATUS HEARING (entered 8/1/08)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge L Scott Coogler: Status Conference held on 8/6/2008. (Entered: 08/06/2008)
ORDER--Designation of Three-Judge Court; Judge Susan H. Black and Judge Inge P. Johnson to serve with L. Scott Coogler as members of the panel (entered 8/15/08)
ORDER that any defendant wishing to file a motion to dismiss in this matter must do so by 1:00 p.m., August 19, 2008. (entered 8/18/08)
ANSWER to Complaint (filed 8/18/08)
MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (filed 8/18/08)
ANSWER to Complaint and Affirmative Defense (filed 8/19/08)
ORDER establishing briefing schedule (entered 8/19/08)
MOTION to Intervene of Right or, Alternatively, by Permission (filed 8/19/08)
ANSWER to Complaint (filed 8/19/08)
MOTION to Dismiss in Part (filed 8/19/08)
UNIFORM INITIAL ORDER (entered 8/20/08)
ORDER after consultation with the other judges on this panel, it is hereby ORDERED that the United States Attorney General, or his delegate, is invited to participate in this litigation (entered 8/20/08)
ANSWER to Complaint by Jefferson County Election Commission (filed 8/21/08)
RESPONSE to Order filed by Alabama (filed 8/22/08)
RESPONSE to Order filed by Plaintiff (filed 8/22/08)
RESPONSE to the 8/19/08 Order of the Court (filed 8/22/08)
Brief regarding Order & Motion to Dismiss (filed 8/22/08)
RESPONSE by Plaintiff (filed 8/26/08)
RESPONSE by Defendant (filed 8/26/08)
Order (entered 8/27/08)
MOTION to Substitute Party (filed 9/2/08)
- Proposed Complaint
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge L Scott Coogler: Scheduling/ Status Hearing held on 9/3/2008 (filed 9/3/08)
Transcript of Proceedings held on 9/3/2008 (filed 9/3/08)
ORDER DENYING Motion to Substitute Party (entered 9/4/08)
MOTION to Dismiss (filed 9/5/08)
RESPONSE to MOTION to Dismiss (filed 9/5/08)
ORDER granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss (entered 9/5/08)

Commentary

Arizona: Voter Registration and the Road Ahead

Justin Levitt

June arrived with two election law cases at the Supreme Court. One is still pending: a highly anticipated decision on section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The other, more frequently overlooked, was decided yesterday. And there are some quirks of the opinion that seem to depart from the swiftly congealing conventional wisdom that the states might actually have "won," and now need only run out the clock.

more commentary...

In the News

Johnson: Disenfranchising felons hits minorities hardest

Professor Michelle Alexander was quoted in an Athens Banner-Herald article from her book "The New Jim Crow." The article focuses on the disenfranchisement of felons in states like Virginia, where more than seven percent of the adult population cannot vote due to felony charges. In Virginia, Gov. Robert McDonnell is taking steps to restore the right to vote to nonviolent felons.

Alexander's book calls on the idea that disenfranchising felons affects minorities most. She calls voting-rights restoration processes a “bureaucratic maze” that is “cumbersome, confusing and onerous.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Supreme Court: NVRA Pre-empts Arizona's Proof of Citizenship Law

In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the NVRA preempts an Arizona law requiring documentation of citizenship to accompany voter registration forms. The case is Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

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