printable page

NW Austin Municipal Utility Dist. No. 1 v. Holder (formerly v. Mukasey, v. Gonzales)

March 25, 2009

Supreme Court Filings

Merits Briefs:

Merits Brief of Rodney and Nicole Louis, et al. (308 KB)
The merits brief of Rodney and Nicole Louis, et al. argues that resolution of Appellant's constitutional challenge turns in large part on the gravity of the harm Congress addressed through Section 5. To that end, the brief discuss the extensive legislative record developed before Congress in 2006. That record revealed invidious and persistent discrimination in the covered jurisdictions, as well as Section 5's imperative role in turning the promise of inclusive democracy into a reality. The brief concludes that Section 5 is well within Congress's authority to remedy and deter core violations of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund's Brief was joined by MALDEF, Texas Rural LegalAid Society and PFAW.
Merits Brief of US Attorney General Eric H. Holder (220 KB)
The Merits Brief of the United States, among other things, observes that "Congress maintained all of the features of Section 5 that this Court has singled out as demonstrating its remedial nature, including its limited application to those jurisdictions with the worst histories of racial discrimination in voting, a sunset date for the provision as a whole, and a mechanism by which States or political subdivisions that have fully complied with Congress's remedy can terminate the provision's coverage." The brief concludes that "The immense record amassed by Congress provides ample evidence that Section 5 has played, and continues to play, a critical role in preventing and deterring discriminatory electoral changes. It has, moreover, helped to preserve the hard won progress minority voters have achieved over recent decades in having their electoral voices heard."

Merits Brief for NAACP and Lesane parties (190 KB)
This Court should reaffirm the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, as it has done on four prior occasions. Section 5's track record of progress does not mean that in those parts of the country, such as Appellant's home state of Texas, where discrimination has been most difficult to uproot, official racial discrimination in voting is now a thing of the past. Nor does it mean that there would no longer be a serious risk of backsliding in the absence of Section 5. To the contrary, the record before Congress in 2006 revealed that racial discrimination remains an ongoing and serious problem for minority voters in the covered jurisdictions. Congress acted well within its enforcement powers in reauthorizing Section 5 to preserve gains made thus far and to complete the task, set forth by the Fifteenth Amendment,of eliminating race discrimination in voting.

Merits Brief of Travis County (106 KB)
Travis County focuses on the local impact of the 2006 VRA Reauthorization and provides a narrower statement of the case and its context than the briefs of other appellees. The district court rejected the claim that Section 5 of the Act imposes undue burdens on the local government challenger. J.S. App. 150-53. The County addresses why the district court is correct, and the challenger wrong, about the continuing salience and viability of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.

Amicus Briefs in Support of Appellees:

Amicus Brief of Six Covered Jurisdictions
(115 KB)
Brief for the covered states of North Carolina, Arizona, California, Louisiana, Mississippi and New York. Here, the Amici States recognize that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has allowed our Nation to make substantial progress toward eliminating voting discrimination. The Amici States urge the Court to uphold the constitutionality of the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act by arguing that Section 5 does not constitute an undue intrusion on state sovereignty and finding that Section 5 does not place an onerous burden on States. The brief also notes that States have been able to comply with Section 5 without undue costs or expense.

Amicus Brief of Reps. Conyers, Sensenbrenner, Watt & Nadler, former Rep. Chabot (133 KB)
Amicus Brief on behalf of Representatives Conyers, Sensenbrenner, Watt, and Nadler and former Representative Chabot in support of the appellees. The brief argues that the record before Congress demonstrates the VRA's unique success in rolling back a century of disenfranchisement. However, the record also demonstrates the continued need for Section 5 to block covered jurisdictions' implementation of new discriminatory voting rules. The brief concludes that the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress acts at the height of its powers when it legislates to regulate the political process, to prevent or remedy racial discrimination, or to protect fundamental rights, such as the right to vote. When Congress exercises its powers at the intersection of these three concerns – as it did here – this Court should defer to Congress's considered judgment.

Amicus Brief of the Honorable John Lewis (108 KB)
Cong. Lewis provides a personal testament to the high price we paid for the enactment of the Voting Rights Act and the still higher cost we might yet bear if we made the mistake of discarding now one of the most vital tools of our democracy.

Brief of Former Republican Officeholders (137 KB)
Amici curiae are Republican legislators and executive officials who formerly served at the highest levels of federal and state government. Amici include William S. Cohen, former Secretary of Defense and Member of the U.S. Congress; Robert "Bob" Dole, former Senate Majority Leader and 1996 Republican Presidential Nominee; former U.S. Representative Amory "Amo" Houghton, Jr.; Richard Lewis "Dick" Thornburgh, former Governor of Pennsylvania and U.S. Attorney General; and former Governor of Massachusetts, William F. Weld.2 Amici support Congress's decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Amicus Brief of Former DOJ Officials
(168 KB)
Brief of Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Drew S. Days, John Dunne, Brian Landsberg, Bill Lann Lee, J. Stanley Pottinger, and James Turner is submitted to the Court principally to respond to brief filed on behalf of Abigail Thernstrom and others. Amici argue that the Thernstrom argument that DOJ administers Section 5 in a way that violates the constitution is without merit.

Amicus Brief Focusing on Inadequacy of Section 2 Litigation (171 KB)
This amicus brief refutes appellants' argument that private litigation under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can provide an adequate substitute for the protection offered by Section 5 preclearance. For individual minority voters, the cost and effort required to pursue Section 2 cases are insurmountable barriers to private enforcement, a problem made more acute by the small number of practitioners in covered jurisdictions who are willing and able to take such cases. This creates a perverse incentive - all too often realized - for officials to continue suspect practices because they know most voters cannot challenge them. In contrast, Section 5 deters such practices. Amici have seen Section 2 and Section 5 operate in the complementary fashion that Congress intended. Where minority voters in covered jurisdictions cannot find a lawyer or afford to pay one, Section 5 provides the means to redress new violations of their rights. And where minority voters are able to get their day in court, Section 5 provides the assurance that their hard-won and expensive battles will not be in vain if a jurisdiction repeats similar violations. Thus, Amici's experience confirms the determination of Congress that there is a persistent need for timely enforcement capable of deterring illegal voting schemes before they are implemented--a task for which case-by-case litigation under Section 2 is ill-suited, but for which Section 5 was designed.

Amicus Brief of the Constitutional Accountability Center (355 KB)
The brief of the Constitutional Accountability Center argues that the text and history of the Reconstruction Amendments show that these Amendments were intended to provide Congress with the tools to effectively protect fundamental rights, including the right to vote secured by Congress's extension of the Voting Rights Act. The Reconstruction Framers made their intent to vest Congress with broad power to enact "appropriate legislation" abundantly clear in the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, which was written to provide Americans with a "shield of national protection." Particularly when Congress is legislating to enforce a right--such as the right to vote free from racial discrimination--that is at the core of the liberty and equality guaranteed by the Reconstruction Amendments, Congress has broad power and discretion to fashion appropriate legislative protections.

Amicus Brief of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF)
(291 KB)
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund's (AALDEF) amicus brief is on behalf of 41 Asian American groups and provides specific examples of how Section 5 has protected Asian American voters with regard to school board elections, poll site changes, and compliance with Section 203, the language assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The brief details how Section 5 was used to ensure fully-translated ballots and language assistance at more polling places in growing Asian American neighborhoods. Many of these examples are from New York City, in which three counties--New York, Kings and Bronx--are covered under Section 5. AALDEF's pro bono counsel is Proskauer Rose LLP.

Amicus Brief of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (245 KB)
LCCR, LCCREF and the other supporting amici believe Congress's decision in 2006 to extend § 5 of the Voting Rights Act for 25 years was a reasonable and appropriate exercise of Congress's enforcement authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. While the United States has made substantial progress toward eliminating racial discrimination in voting since 1965, the problems that initially prompted Congress to adopt § 5 have not been solved.

Amicus Brief of Brennan Center for Justice (139 KB)
This brief demonstrates that the history of the Fifteenth Amendment both confirms that its framers intended to give Congress broad authority to protect the fundamental right to vote from racial discrimination and fully justifies the giving of special deference to Congress's judgments in exercising that authority. The law firm of Jenner & Block is co-counsel on this brief.

Brief of the Howard School of Law Civil Rights Clinic (162 KB)
Argues that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act represents a partial fulfillment of United States treaty obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Brief of the Navajo Nation, Anthony Wounded Head, et al. (174 KB)
Amici are concerned that if the Court declares that the reauthorization of Section 5 is unconstitutional, American Indian voting rights will be significantly impacted and result in a reversal of the strides made in recent years to ensure greater Indian voter participation. This would negatively impact many American Indian voters who only recently secured the right to vote, continue to face discrimination in voting, and who cannot shoulder the financial burden to bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA.

Amicus Brief of Asian American Justice Center (214 KB)
AAJC and Amici highlight continuing disparities faced by Asian American populations in Section 5-covered jurisdictions with respect to voter registration and turnout, electoral representation, and racial discrimination in voting, thereby demonstrating that Section 5 is essential to ensuring access to the polls by Asian Americans, particularly as Asian American populations continue to rapidly grow in Section 5-covered jurisdictions.

Amicus Brief of the American Bar Association (146 KB)
As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA has taken on a an active voice in promoting full and equal access to our nation's electoral process and has adopted a number of policies opposing discrimination against minorities, including at the ballot box, argues that without Section 5, the dedicated lawyers who seek to vindicate voting rights in this Nation would face an even more difficult time when challenging discriminatory practices.

Amicus Brief of Alaska Native Voters and Tribes (201 KB)
Amici are individual Alaska Natives and Alaska Native tribes whose Section 5 enforcement action against Alaska has been stayed pending the outcome of NAMUDNO. Their Brief describes how Alaska continues to evade Section 5, routinely makes and then withdraws discriminatory voting changes, and makes polling place changes that disenfranchise Native voters. Preclearance protects the right to vote of Alaska Natives without costly and protracted litigation against a recalcitrant jurisdiction, such as amici's case against Alaska.

Amicus Brief of Congressional Tri-Caucus (258 KB)
This brief, written on behalf of members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus and Asian Pacific American Caucus notes that steadfast enforcement of the Voting Rights Act has led to greater diversity in Congress along with many state and local legislative bodies. The brief noted that "while the advancements for minority voters are rightly lauded, the lesson of America's difficult history of race and politics teaches that these gains are often fragile."

Amicus Brief on Behalf of Bailed Out Jurisdictions (123 KB)
This brief was filed on behalf of seven Virginia jurisdictions that have "bailed out" of preclearance, and argues that the conditions for bailing out are not cumbersome or complicated. An important brief that establishes that eligible jurisdictions are able to terminate their Section 5 covered status, contrary to the views of the Appellants.

Amicus Brief of Texas Mexican-American Legislative Caucus (272 KB)
Amici are 44 members of the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus (MALC) which is committed to addressing the issues that Latinos face across the state of Texas. The brief focuses on landscape of local power in Texas which is largely shaped by special purpose districts. These districts are pervasive and powerful. They can be created by a few private citizens with relative ease. The brief cautions that these districts concentrate authority in local government officials in an environment still struggling with a history of oppression and discrimination which creates a susceptibility to abuse. Thus, the importance of Section 5 to help ensure the fairness and integrity of the electoral process cannot be overstated.

                               # # #

ABOUT LDF
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) is America's legal counsel on issues of race. Through advocacy and litigation, LDF focuses on issues of education, voter protection, economic justice and criminal justice. We encourage students to embark on careers in the public interest through scholarships and internship programs. LDF pursues racial justice to move our nation toward a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all.