Court grants plaintiffs’ motion to shorten the time on the preliminary injunction motion and requires defendants disclose to counsel for plaintiffs a list of all voter applications previously purged or denied based on convictions for the past two years on or before July 21, 2017, or show cause on or before July 13, 2017, why they should not be required to do so.   

The Supreme Court ordered a stay in Gill v. Whitford.

U.S. Supreme Court affirms North Carolina’s 2011 Congressional maps are an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Judge Ramos found that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conclusion that the Texas voter ID bill was passed with discriminatory purpose.

The Department of Justice, lead by Jeff Sessions, had their motion to dismiss accepted by the District Court in the Texas voter ID case.

A full panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled in a 9 – 6 decision that Texas’ discriminatory voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act and cannot be enforced in the upcoming presidential election.

The Campaign Legal Center represents plaintiffs Congressman Marc Veasey, LULAC and a group of Texas voters challenging Texas voter ID in Veasey v. Abbott. 

The Florida Supreme Court orders that boundaries of eight of the state’s congressional districts be redrawn. The 5-2 ruling found the map in violation of the Florida State Constitution which was amended by Florida voters in 2010 to prohibit partisan gerrymanders.  

Courts vacates the district court’s judgment that SB 14 was passed with a racially discriminatory purpose and remands for further consideration of Plaintiffs’ discriminatory purpose claims, using the proper legal standards and evidence. Court vacates the district court’s holding that SB 14 is a poll tax under the Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments and renders judgment for the State on this issue. Court does not address whether SB 14 unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; therefore, Court vacates the district court’s judgment on that issue and dismisses those claims. Court affirms the district court’s finding that SB 14 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through its discriminatory effects and remands for consideration of the appropriate remedy. Finally, on remand, the district court should: (1) give further consideration to its discriminatory purpose findings as specified herein; and (2) if the district court does not find that SB 14 was imposed with a discriminatory purpose, consider what remedy it should grant due to SB 14’s discriminatory problematic.”). Court does not further opine on this issue at this time, leaving it to the district court in the first instance on remand. Case: 14-41127 Document: 00513142615 Page: 50 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 No. 14-41127 49 effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, taking account of any impact of SB 983 and this opinion. It is left to the district court in the first instance to decide whether any additional evidence may be proffered on the matters remanded.

Ginsburg, delivered the opinion of the court, in which Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined. Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas  joined. Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia joined. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona is affirmed.