63 results for 'nos:"Voting - Civil Rights"'.
J. Biggs orders that the NAACP in North Carolina cannot use five witnesses it proposed in this ongoing voting rights suit against the state’s board of elections. The NAACP moves for clarification, but the magistrate judge’s order clearly stated who is and is not allowed to be considered as a witness, and these five are either specifically named or inferred in that list. Thus, the NAACP objects to the order and is not seeking clarification. Adding or replacing any witnesses would prejudice the process.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Biggs, Filed On: May 4, 2024, Case #: 1:18cv1034, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Elections, Government, Experts
J. Auld partially strikes certain witnesses and evidence from being brought by the NAACP against North Carolina and its Board of Elections, whose photo ID requirements for voters are allegedly racially discriminatory. The court says the NAACP failed to properly identify certain witnesses, such as some people who are said to have assisted voters with provisional votes due to the photo ID laws, so those witnesses may not be brought to testify at trial, nor may some of the documents relating to the implementation of those laws.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Auld, Filed On: April 29, 2024, Case #: 1:18cv1034, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Elections, Evidence
J. Dick grants a request by the state to dismiss as moot a voting rights suit by black litigants that preceded legislative enactment of a new congressional map containing two first-ever majority-black districts. The litigants do not oppose the new congressional map but argue their case is not moot due to pending legislation in the Western District of Louisiana. State officials have sufficiently shown the earlier redistricting conduct challenged by litigants will not recur with the state’s voluntary enactment of a new congressional map with two black-majority districts.
Court: USDC Middle District of Louisiana, Judge: Dick, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv211, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Constitution, Government
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Biggs partially sustains a civil rights advocacy organization’s rejection of a magistrate judge’s memorandum opinion and recommendation in this ongoing voting rights suit. The judge incorrectly employed the moot doctrine because, although an amendment to a bill — which would prosecute anyone convicted of a crime if they vote — included a scienter requirement, the organization still has a concrete interest in the outcome of this litigation. The scienter requirement is still not specific enough about how someone convicted of a crime would restore the rights of their citizenship, so it is too vague and violates equal protection and due process rights. Thus, the organization still has a demonstrable interest, which the judge should have recognized, and the organization can proceed on a summary judgment motion.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Biggs, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv876, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Constitution, Elections
J. Campbell grants in part the Tennessee NAACP's motion for summary judgment as to certain counts in this lawsuit concerning the state's voter registration forms and its processing of those forms, particularly as it relates to individuals convicted of a felony. The court concludes that the forms at issue fail to comply with the National Voter Registration Act requirement to inform "applicants of voter eligibility requirements." The court cannot establish the "level of specificity" required, however, based on the parties' insufficient briefing.
Court: USDC Middle District of Tennessee , Judge: Campbell, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv1039, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Elections
J. Dever partially grants the North Carolina Green Party’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs in ongoing litigation against the state’s board of elections after it initially failed to qualify the party and allow candidates to run in the 2022 election. The North Carolina Democratic Party and affiliates became intervenors for the board. The party correctly accuses them of frivolously hampering its efforts to get the required number of signatures for its candidates to run and is awarded partial fees and costs based on this action alone.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Dever, Filed On: April 2, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv276, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Elections, Government, Attorney Fees
[Consolidated.] J. Schroeder denies the North Carolina Board of Elections’ motion to dismiss several voter advocacy groups’ complaint that a particular bill allegedly threatens voter protections. Currently, North Carolina practices non-forwardable voter registration verification, meaning when someone registers to vote and votes on the same day, they are sent a card to the address under which they registered. Then, if the state board of elections does not receive said card, the voter’s ballot is removed from the official count. The advocacy groups have shown here, and in other recent litigation, plausible evidence that the potential harm caused to voters by continuing this process without giving them notice and a chance to prove their residency is likely more harmful than the possible injury to the government if the process remains the same.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Schroeder, Filed On: April 2, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv878, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Elections, Government
J. Gibney denies the state officials' motion to dismiss a count asking the court to use its equitable powers to enjoin the officials from enforcing a felony voter disenfranchisement provision that violates the Virginia Readmission Act. When Virginia sought to rejoin the Union in 1870, congress created an act that said that Virginia could never alter its constitution to disenfranchise citizens who could vote under Virginia's then-controlling constitution. The Act came with the exception that Virginia could amend its constitution to disenfranchise those convicted of crimes that, in 1870, were common law felonies, including murder, rape, and arson. Two former felons convicted of felonies not included as common law felonies properly alleged that Virginia is engaging in an ongoing violation of federal law.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Virginia, Judge: Gibney, Filed On: March 18, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv48, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Constitution, Elections
J. Lasnik orders Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs to conduct future elections according to a new remedial map, following a dispute over district boundaries that allegedly diluted the Latino community's voting power. The new map "provides Latino voters with an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice to the state legislature" and "keeps the vast majority of the lands that are of interest to the Yakama Nation together."
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Lasnik, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv5035, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Elections
[Consolidated.] J. Biggs denies the state board of elections’ motion for summary judgment in an ongoing suit brought by the NAACP for alleged voting rights violations. While the board argues that the NAACP fails to demonstrate that things like requiring voters to have photo identification has racially discriminatory intent, the NAACP is correct that such requirements have historically been dsicriminatory. This and other genuine disputes of fact still exist.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Biggs, Filed On: March 13, 2024, Case #: 1:18cv1034, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Elections, Government
J. DeGravelles orders the state of Louisiana to pay intervenors in a black voting rights suit, including several voters and a candidate for a state Supreme Court seat, the amount of $36,000 in reasonable attorney fees. The intervenors prevailed in their request to lift a stay of all Louisiana Supreme Court elections, pending reapportionment. The black plaintiffs were not "the driving force" behind the opposition to lifting the stay; state officials were, notably the state Attorney General who has since been elected Governor of Louisiana, along with its Secretary of State, who did not seek reelection. Both officials were heavily involved in the litigation surrounding whether the stay order would be lifted, and thus should have
known the intervenors would request attorney fees.
Court: USDC Middle District of Louisiana, Judge: DeGravelles, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: 3:19cv479, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Government, Attorney Fees
J. Richardson grants the state defendants' dismissal motion in this voter lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of certain statutes, alleging that the statutes "deter voting" and chill "freedom of political speech." The voter plaintiffs contend that the sections at issue, which are meant to prevent "cross-over voting" in the primary elections, are void for vagueness. But the court finds that the plaintiffs lack standing.
Court: USDC Middle District of Tennessee , Judge: Richardson, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv1256, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Elections, Jurisdiction
J. Biggs overrules the North Carolina NAACP’s objection to a magistrate judge’s order denying the NAACP’s motion to reopen discovery in this case challenging a state Senate bill regarding voter identification requirements. The NAACP claims the bill is unconstitutional and discriminatory and made a motion for a brief period in which to reopen and update discovery in light of newly admitted parties. The magistrate judge necessarily denied the motion after allowing the NAACP to propose it to the state board parties first, who denied it. Also, the NAACP claims that the state board parties are obligated to present all public records concerning the Senate bill, the decision about which is given back to the magistrate judge.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Biggs, Filed On: February 12, 2024, Case #: 1:18cv1034, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Constitution, Elections, Government
J. Dick, ruling in a 91-page decision after a seven-day nonjury trial in December 2023, finds the state House and Senate electoral maps enacted by the Louisiana legislature violates the federal Voting Rights Act. Black litigants satisfied their burden of proving the electoral maps drawn by state legislators unlawfully dilutes black voting strength.
Court: USDC Middle District of Louisiana, Judge: Dick, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv178, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Elections, Government
J. Dever denies two voters from a majority-Black Senate district in northeast North Carolina their motion for an extraordinary, mandatory preliminary injunction, which they claim is necessary to then establish a racially gerrymandered district in order to abide by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The voters allege that the General Assembly violated the Act precisely because it did not engage in race-based district creation, disadvantaging Black voters in majority-white state. However, as the 2024 elections are already under way, the two voters fail to show that the Voting Rights Act needs this injunction to initiate race-based grouping of voters, and doing so would likely confuse voters and create chaos that could compromise election integrity.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Dever, Filed On: January 26, 2024, Case #: 4:23cv193, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Elections, Government
J. Schroeder partially grants motions for preliminary injunction put forth by the Democratic National Committee and other groups and individuals across two identical, but not consolidated, cases in the interest of protecting same-day voter registrations. Currently, North Carolina practices non-forwardable voter registration verification, meaning when someone registers to vote and votes on the same day, they are sent a card to the address under which they registered. Then, if the state board of elections does not receive said card, the voter’s ballot is removed from the official count. The verification process is essential to protecting legitimate elections. However, the national committee has shown that the potential harm caused to voters by continuing this process without giving them notice and a chance to prove their residency is likely more egregious than the possible harm to the government if the process remains the same. Therefore, the state is enjoined from removing same-day voters’ ballots until they have been given notice and have a chance to verify their addresses.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Schroeder, Filed On: January 21, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv862, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Elections, Government, Injunction
J. Peterson partially denies the elections commission and Wisconsin Legislature's motions to dismiss the voters' lawsuit claiming that Wisconsin law's absentee-voting witness requirement violates the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. In light of two state-court lawsuits dealing with substantially similar issues, the merits of the voters' claims will not be decided at this time, and a partial stay is enacted which will allow parties to continue briefing for summary judgment. The elections commission itself is dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds, but the commission's individual commissioners will remain as parties to both of the voters' claims.
Court: USDC Western District of Wisconsin, Judge: Peterson, Filed On: January 17, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv672, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Elections, Immunity
J. Tuchi grants the No Labels Party of Arizona's motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin certain potential candidates from running for office in the 2024 Presidential Preference Election. The No Labels Party sufficiently showed in court that they are entitled to nominate potential candidates of the offices of the President and Vice President exclusively, and not candidates who run for other offices.
Court: USDC Arizona, Judge: Tuchi, Filed On: January 16, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv2172, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Elections, Injunction
J. Boulee denies the organizations' motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin provisions of Georgia's election law relating to runoff election procedures which allegedly discriminate against Black voters. The two provisions say runoffs will be held four weeks after the general election and mandate that advance voting for runoffs begin no later than the second Monday immediately prior to the runoff and end on the Friday before the runoff. The organizations have not shown that eliminating the registration period before a runoff or shortening the early voting window disproportionately impacts Black voters. The officials presented legitimate justifications for the provisions, including creating a more efficient runoff schedule. The lead-up to the law's passage may show a motivation to curtail new Democratic voters but it does not show a racially discriminatory motivation.
Court: USDC Northern District of Georgia, Judge: Boulee, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 1:21mi55555, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Elections
J. Welte orders a new joint North Dakota legislative district be drafted for the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and Spirit Lake Tribe which claimed a prior 2021 redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act and diluted the tribes’ voting strength. The court previously gave the North Dakota Secretary of State until 22nd of December, 2023 to remedy the violation, but the Secretary did not propose a district correction.
Court: USDC North Dakota , Judge: Welte, Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv22, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Elections, Native Americans
J. Nugent grants the Ohio Secretary of State's motion for summary judgment, ruling all of the changes to election procedures contained in House Bill 458 are minor in nature and, therefore, do not constitute an undue burden on voters that would render the bill unconstitutional. Although only photo IDs may be used for in-person voting moving forward, evidence indicates the majority of registered voters already have a valid driver's license. Furthermore, the elimination of early, in-person voting the Monday before Election Day does not impact a large number of voters, especially considering the voting hours were reallocated elsewhere.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Nugent, Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv26, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Constitution, Elections, Government
J. Webster denies two voting rights organizations their motion for summary judgment after the state board of elections passed a bill upholding an old statute that the organizations say is racist. They argue that the statute violates equal protection rights because it was initially written in 1877 to be racially discriminatory toward the voting populace and that since then, the statute’s discrimination has not fundamentally changed. They argue that this law continues to disproportionately effect Black voters and that it also violates due process. A bill from 2023 altered the statute to include a scienter requirement, meaning only people charged with felonies who vote knowing they have violated the statute can be prosecuted, but the organizations say this does little to change their stance. However, because anyone who votes inappropriately but doesn’t know that they have done so will not be considered to have broken the voting law, the organizations’ motion for summary judgment is denied as moot.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Webster, Filed On: January 2, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv876, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Elections, Government, Prisoners' Rights
J. Jones rules in favor of the conservative group in a civil rights action brought by the voting rights nonprofit alleging that the group violated the Voting Rights Act by challenging the eligibility of individual voters during Georgia's 2021 Senate runoff election under a statute known as Section 230. Although the list of potentially ineligible voters compiled by the group "utterly lacked reliability," there is no evidence connecting the list to a voter who submitted challenges. Insufficient evidence was presented to show voter intimidation or attempted voter intimidation by the group against the voters. A challenge to one voter's eligibility was not unreasonable because there was a question about her residency. The nonprofit failed to show that the alleged election-related activities engaged in by the group, including paying whistleblowers and recruiting military veterans to intimidate voters at polls, reached or impacted any voter.
Court: USDC Northern District of Georgia, Judge: Jones, Filed On: January 2, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv302, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Elections
J. Flanagan grants the U.S. Attorney General’smotion to dismiss allegations of voter suppression brought by a citizen who claims the attorney’s appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel undermined her right to vote for Donald Trump. The citizen also requests an injunction to stop the attorney from appointing any other special counsel who would prosecute Donald Trump. However, the citizen has failed to draw a connection between the attorney’s appointment and any concrete injury to herself. Also, she cannot sue one party in defense of the legal rights of someone other than herself.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Flanagan, Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: 5:23cv372, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Elections, Government, Jurisdiction
J. Smith compels certain testimony in a sprawling lawsuit stemming from the latest round of legislative redistricting in Texas, which the United States and private plaintiffs argue improperly diluted the votes of Latino voters in Texas. Texas lawmakers have asserted legislative privilege in this case in an effort to avoid turning over documents, and while this privilege is sometimes valid, lawmakers have in some cases "waived their privilege" by communicating with outside third parties.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Smith, Filed On: December 21, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv259, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Elections, Discovery, Privilege
[Consolidated.] J. Haikala grants, in part, the county commission and its individual commissioners’ motions to dismiss claims brought by group of voters alleging the redistricting plan constitutes racial gerrymandering. The commissioners argue they should be dismissed in their official capacities because “local government units can be sued directly.” Therefore, the commissioners in their official capacities are dismissed because a jury could find the action redundant and confusing. The voters’ motion for preliminary injunction is denied and the claims against the commission will proceed. The parties are ordered to meet and confer before the scheduling conference.
Court: USDC Northern District of Alabama , Judge: Haikala, Filed On: December 19, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv443, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Elections, Government