Last Updated: May 16, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder
Case Information
Date Filed: April 27, 2010
State: Alabama
Issue: Voting Rights Act
Current Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Case 11-5256)
Issue:
Whether Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional. Amicus Brief of New York Law School Racial Justice Project filed 12/7/11. Reply Brief of Appellant
Status:
Appellee Attorney General Holder brief filed 12/1/11. Appellant Shelby County, Alabama filed 12/15/11.
District Court Documents
- Complaint
(filed 4/27/10) - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 6/8/10)
- Declaration of Frank C. Ellis Jr.
- Exhibits A, B
- Declaration of Frank C. Ellis Jr.
- Motion to Intervene as Defendants (filed 6/11/10)
- Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 6/22/10)
- Response to Motion to Intervene (filed 6/24/10)
- Exhibit 1
- Exhibit 1
- Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Intervene (filed 6/25/10)
- Answer (filed 6/28/10)
- Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 7/1/10)
- Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Intervene (filed 7/2/10)
- Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Intervene (filed 7/13/10)
- Attorney General's Response to Motion to Intervene (filed 7/13/10)
- Reply to Opposition to Motion to Intervene (filed 7/21/10)
- Applicants for Intervention's Answer (filed 7/28/10)
- Order Granting All Pending Motions to Intervene
(entered 8/25/10) - Answer (filed 8/25/10)
- Minute Order that the Court will hold a status conference in this action on September 10, 2010 [Text only entry] (entered 9/1/10)
- Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 9/8/10)
- Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 9/10/10)
- Memorandum Order and Opinion Denying Defendant's request for Discovery (entered 9/16/10)
- Transcript of Proceedings (entered 10/27/10)
- Order setting deadlines and motions hearing (entered 10/29/10)
- Defendant-Intervenors Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 11/6/10)
- Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Facts (filed 11/15/10)
- Defendant Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 11/15/10)
- Statement of Facts (filed 11/15/10)
- McCrary Declaration (filed 11/15/10)
- Berman Declaration (filed 11/15/10)
- Statement of Facts
- Holder's Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 11/15/10)
- Harris Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 11/15/10)
- Memorandum in Opposition to Harris Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 11/15/10)
- Joint Statement of Uncontested Material Facts (filed 11/15/10)
- Defendant Intervenors Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 11/15/10)
- Amicus Brief filed by Constitutionally Accountability Center (filed 11/22/10)
- Plaintiff's Reply in Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment (filed 12/13/10)
- Holder's Reply to Motion in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 1/14/11)
- Defendant-Intervenors' Reply Memorandum in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 1/14/11)
- Reply in Support of Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 1/19/11)
- Motion Hearing Held (2/2/11)
- Memorandum of Intervenor Harris on Issue Ordered for Briefing (Voting Rights Act) (filed 2/16/11)
- Consolidated Memorandum of Defendant Intervenors in Support of Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 2/16/11)
- Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to the Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 2/16/11)
- Eric Holder's Supplemental Memorandum of Law (filed 2/16/11)
- Attorney General's Notice of Supplemental Information (filed 6/16/11)
- Notice of Filing (filed 7/15/11)
- Attorney General's Second Notice of Supplimental Information (filed 9/09/11)
- Memorandum Opinion Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 9/21/11)
- Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 9/21/11)
- Notice of Appeal (filed 9/23/11)
- Transmission of Appeal (filed 9/26/11)
Court of Appeals Documents
- Statement of Issues (filed 10/4/11)
- Appellant's Unopposed Motion to Expedite (filed 10/4/11)
- Brief of Appellant Shelby County (filed 11/1/11)
- Joint Appendix (filed 11/1/11)
- Amicus Brief of States of Arizona and Georgia (filed 11/8/11)
- Amicus Brief of State of Alabama (filed 11/8/11)
- Amicus Brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation (filed 11/8/11)
- Brief of Appellee Attorney General Holder (filed 12/1/11)
- Amicus Brief of New York Law School Racial Justice Project (filed 12/7/11)
- Amicus Brief of Constitutional Accountability Center (filed 12/8/11)
- Amicus Brief of States of New York, Mississippi, and California (filed 12/9/11)
- Amicus Brief of Alabama NAACP et al (filed 12/9/11)
- Reply Brief of Appellant Shelby County (filed 12/15/11)
Commentary
Provisional Ballots, Consent Decrees, and the Balance Between the Federal and State Governments
Owen Wolfe
A recent mandamus action filed by the Ohio Senate President and House Speaker Pro Tempore to require the Ohio Secretary of State to rescind directives issued in response to a consent decree issued in a federal case dealing with counting provisional ballots raises questions about the mechanics of state election law, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the relationship between federal and state courts, the law of consent decrees, and more. I have attempted in this article to grapple with these issues in a fair and unbiased manner. Given the complexity of this problem, however, these matters are open to a variety of interpretations and this is just one approach. I hope, however, that this article can provide a useful starting point for a discussion about the future of provisional voting in Ohio and in the nation at large.
This paper is a first look by a student member of the Election Law @ Moritz team and reflects one possible perspective on the issue. Stay tuned, as more analysis from the team will follow as the litigation develops. Owen Wolfe is affiliated with the Ohio Democratic Party and the Obama ’12 campaign, but is not in any way associated with any litigation team working on this case. EL@M has posted the document because we believe it has public value and adds to the discourse on this topic.
more commentary...