Skip to main content
Home
Campaign Legal Center
Main Menu

Header

  • The Latest
  • Issues
    • Campaign Finance
    • Ethics
    • Redistricting
    • Voting Rights
  • Cases & Actions
  • About
    • Staff
    • Trustees & Advisors
    • Careers
    • Support Our Work

Header Secondary

  • Contact CLC
  • Media Center
  • Get Updates
  • Search
  • Donate

Filter by Type

  • (-) Article (350)
  • Case / Action (70)
  • (-) Document (635)
  • Media Mention (0)
  • (-) Press Release (213)

Filter by Issue Area

  • Campaign Finance (2477)
  • Ethics (476)
  • Redistricting (624)
  • (-) Voting Rights (1198)

Filter by Document Type

  • Decision (65)
  • Document (570)

Filter by Case/Action Status

Displaying 1181 - 1198 of 1198 Results

Shelby County, AL v. Holder: Opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

Decision
Case
Shelby County, AL v. Holder

Opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals before Judges Tatel and Griffith and Senior Circuit Judge Williams. Judge Tatel filed the opinion with Judge Williams filing a dissenting opinion.

Texas v. Holder: Attorney General Holder's answer

Document
Case
Texas v. Holder

Defendant Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States in his official capacity, answers each paragraph of the First Amended Expedited Complaint for Declaratory Judgment.

Texas v. Holder: Amended complaint filed by State of Texas

Document
Case
Texas v. Holder

The State of Texas brings this suit under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. and under 28 U.S.C. and seeks declaratory judgment that its recently enacted Voter-ID Law, also known as Senate Bill 14, neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, nor will it deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote because he is a member of a language minority group. 

Shelby County, AL v. Holder: Solicitor General's Merits Brief

Document
Case
Shelby County, AL v. Holder

Answers the question as to whether Congress’s decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973c, under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. 1973b(b), exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.

Veasey v. Abbott: Veasey-LULAC Appellee Brief

Document
Case
Veasey v. Abbott

Based on voluminous evidence, mostly uncontradicted, the district court made findings of fact supporting judgment for Plaintiffs on all four challenges to S.B. 14: (1) discriminatory purpose, (2) discriminatory results, (3) poll tax, and (4) undue burden on the right to vote. The district court made its findings with care, applied the correct legal standards, faithfully followed procedural rules, issued an appropriate remedy, and should be affirmed. 

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Gonzales District Court’s opinion (May 30, 2008)

Decision
Case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("NAMUDNO") v. Holder

Northwest Austin MUD v. Gonzales: Defendant’s memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment (May 15, 2007)

Document
Case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("NAMUDNO") v. Holder

Northwest Austin MUD v. Gonzales: Complaint reply brief by the Department of Justice (October 16, 2006)

Document
Case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("NAMUDNO") v. Holder

Northwest Austin MUD v. Gonzales: Brennan Center's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (May 15, 2007)

Document
Case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("NAMUDNO") v. Holder

Northwest Austin MUD v. Gonzales:Travis County’s motion for summary judgment with accompanying memorandum (May 15, 2007)

Document
Case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("NAMUDNO") v. Holder

Northwest Austin MUD v. Gonzales: MALDEF's memorandum in support of motion for summary judgment (May 15, 2007)

Document
Case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("NAMUDNO") v. Holder

Northwest Austin MUD v. Gonzales: NAACP's memorandum in support of motion for summary judgment (May 15, 2007)

Document
Case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("NAMUDNO") v. Holder

Northwest Austin MUD v. Gonzales: Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment with memorandum (May 15, 2007)

Document
Case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("NAMUDNO") v. Holder

Northwest Austin MUD v. Gonzales: Plaintiffs amended complaint (February 1, 2007)

Document
Case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("NAMUDNO") v. Holder

Northwest Austin MUD v. Gonzales: Plaintiffs motion for leave to file amended complaint (February 1, 2007)

Document
Case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("NAMUDNO") v. Holder

Northwest Austin MUD v. Gonzales: Complaint filed by the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District seeking bailout from Voting Rights Act (August 4, 2006)

Document
Case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("NAMUDNO") v. Holder

Northwest Austin MUD v. Gonzales: Jurisdictional statement filed by the petitioners (July 7, 2008)

Document
Case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("NAMUDNO") v. Holder

Pagination

  • First page «
  • Previous page ‹
  • …
  • Page 56
  • Page 57
  • Page 58
  • Page 59
  • Current page 60

Footer menu

  • About CLC
    • Staff
    • Board & Advisors
    • Careers
  • Support Our Work
    • Our Donors
    • Financials
  • Toolkits and Resources
    • DemocracyU
    • Stop Secret Spending
    • Restore Your Vote

Footer Social

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Footer Secondary

  • Contact CLC
  • The Latest
  • Media Center
© Campaign Legal Center 2020

Footer Legal

  • Privacy Policy