LaRoque v. Holder: Appellant LaRoque’s Merits Brief

It is argued that the Court should reverse the District Court's judgment based on: (1) Just as the taxpayers had Article III injury to challenge the legality of the line-item-veto procedure that retained a substantively lawful tax liability, candidate Nix has Article III injury to challenge the legality of the Section 5 procedure that is retaining substantively lawful electoral burdens; (2) Just as the President’s unconstitutional cancellation of the Medicaid funding law did not “nullify” that law, the unconstitutional Section 5 cannot “nullify” Kinston’s referendum; and (3) Just as the taxpayers brought a facial challenge to the line-item veto even though the President’s cancellation discretion was non-reviewable, Plaintiffs can bring a facial challenge to Section 5 even though the Attorney General’s preclearance discretion is non-reviewable.