Declaration of Richard Delheim in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Attorney General’s consolidated response to Motions to Intervene. The Attorney General does not oppose permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1). Because there is no statute that confers a right to intervene, and because there is no indication that the Attorney General will not adequately represent the interests of movant-intervenors in this litigation, the conditions are not met for intervention as of right under Rules 24(a)(1) or 24(a)(2).

NAACP/ACLU’s motion for leave to intervene as a defendant. 

Plaintiff moves the Court for entry of an Order granting summary judgment to Plaintiff. In particular, Plaintiff moves for summary judgment that Section 4(b) and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, are unconstitutional. Plaintiff further requests that the Court issue a permanent injunction against Defendant Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., enjoining the enforcement of Section 4(b) and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiff files a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, a Statement of Material Facts, the Declaration of Frank C. Ellis, Jr., a Proposed Order, and Exhibits in support of this Motion. Plaintiff also requests oral argument on this Motion.

Affidavit of Frank Ellis in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 

A statement made by Campaign Legal Center's Meredith McGehee arguing that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is intentionally structured to be ineffective. In that sense, it is the most successful agency in Washington -- but to the detriment of the American people. 

Testimony of Campaign Legal Center & Democracy 21 submitted to the Committee on House Administration and Subcommittee on Elections.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff Shelby County requests that the Court declare Section 4(b) and Section 5 of the VRA unconstitutional; issue a permanent injunction against Defendant Attorney General Eric Holder, enjoining the enforcement of Section 4(b) and Section 5 of the VRA; award Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for bringing this action; and order such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

Petitioner's merits brief for the Supreme Court. The question presented is whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.

Opinion of the three-judge court, with the Court Opinion filed by Circuit Judge Kavanaugh. The Court concludes that the new South Carolina law does not have a discriminatory retrogressive effect, as compared to the benchmark of South Carolina’s pre-existing law. They also conclude that Act R54 was not enacted for a discriminatory purpose.

Solicitor General's opposition to the petition for certiorari. The question presented is whether Congress acted within its authority to enforce the constitutional prohibition against discrimination in voting when it reauthorized Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c (Section 5), in 2006, on the basis of an extensive record demonstrating that, despite considerable progress under Section 5’s remedial framework, discrimination against minority voters continues to be a serious problem in covered jurisdictions and that Section 5 remains a valuable tool in preventing, remedying, and deterring such discrimination.

Defendant-Intervenors’ reply to the State’s response to Intervenors’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

United States' reply to South Carolina's responses to its proposed findings and conclusions. For the reasons outlined in the document, the United States argues that the Court should deny preclearance of Act R54.

South Carolina’s reply in support of its proposed findings fact and conclusions of law. South Carolin argues that for the reasons set forth in the document, and for the reasons set forth in the State proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law, the Court should preclear R54 under VRA § 5, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.

United States’ responses to South Carolina’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The United States argue that South Carolina’s request for judicial preclearance of Act R54 should be denied.

South Carolina’s reply in support of its proposed findings fact and conclusions of law. For the reasons set forth in the document, and for the reasons set forth in the State proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law, South Carolina concludes the Court should preclear R54 under VRA § 5, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.