Defendant-Intervenors' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Defendat-Intervenor concludes that South Carolina has failed to carry its burden as to both discriminatory effect and purpose, and preclearance must be denied.

South Carolina’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. South Carolina argues that the Court should preclear Sections 4, 5, 7, and 8 of Act R54 under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.

United States’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The United States argue that because South Carolina cannot meet its required burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to show that these changes will not have a discriminatory effect and were not enacted with any discriminatory purpose, the United States respectfully requests that the Court deny the state’s request for judicial preclearance of R54.

A petition for a writ of certiorari. 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 Fifteenth Amendment and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.

The morning transcript for July 10, 2012, before Circuit Judge Tatel, and District Judges Collyer and Wilkins.

The afternoon transcript for July 10, 2012, before Circuit Judge Tatel, and District Judges Collyer and Wilkins.

The afternoon transcript for July 12, 2012, before Circuit Judge Tatel, and District Judges Collyer and Wilkins.

The morning transcript for July 12, 2012, before Circuit Judge Tatel, and District Judges Collyer and Wilkins.

The afternoon transcript for July 11, 2012, before Circuit Judge Tatel, and District Judges Collyer and Wilkins.

The morning transcript for July 11, 2012, before Circuit Judge Tatel, and District Judges Collyer and Wilkins.

A transcript of the closing argument before circuit Judge Tatel and District Judges Collyer and Wilkins on July 13, 2012. 

The afternoon transcript for July 9, 2012, before Circuit Judge Tatel, and District Judges Collyer and Wilkins.

The morning transcript for July 9, 2012, before Circuit Judge Tatel, and District Judges Collyer and Wilkins.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by plaintiff, State of Texas. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

This analysis finds that the work of the Office of Congressional Ethics has had a dramatic impact on the activity and accountability of the House Ethics Committee. As shown below, the number of disciplinary actions taken by the House Ethics Committee – though certainly not large in overall numbers – increased drastically in the six short years that OCE has been operating as compared to the full previous decade of the Committee’s history. From 1997 through 2005, the House Ethics Committee issued only five recorded disciplinary actions against Members or staff of the House. From 2006 through 2008, the three years highlighted by the Abramoff scandal that resulted in nearly two dozen convictions or guilty pleas by the Department of Justice,2 the House Ethics Committee again issued only five disciplinary actions. But the House Ethics Committee has issued 20 disciplinary actions between 2009 and 2014, largely done with the help of the investigations and transparency of OCE. [See Appendix A, “Congressional Ethics Enforcement: From Decade of Inaction to OCE Period of Accountability.”]