The Defendant requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

Defendant asks Court to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims and, moreover, that Plaintiffs' claims are not authorized by Section 5, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

Defendant, Attorney General of the United States (“United States”), opposes the Plaintiffs’ Application for a Three-Judge Court. Because Congress has not authorized three-judge courts to hear the constitutional claims in this case, the Plaintiffs’ application should be denied. 

Intervenors-Appellees request that the Court affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant-intervenors’ motion to dismiss should be denied.

Intervenors-Appellees respectfully request that the Court affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Defendant reply in support of Motion for Sanctions. It is argued that the city and its attorneys came nowhere close to showing that the cross-appeal was non-frivolous and filed in good faith. Nor have they convincingly argued that Plaintiffs’ counsel seek an unreasonable amount of attorneys’ fees. The Court should therefore sanction the city and its attorneys under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and order them to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel the full amount requested.

Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellees Phillip Patrick Baca, Mary Molina Mescall, Bernadette Miera and Ron Romero (collectively the “Plaintiffs”) hereby move for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 in the amount of $66,980.651 against both the City of Albuquerque 2 and its attorneys, Luis G. Stelzner, Jamie L. Dawes, Sara N. Sanchez3 and Patrick J. Rogers. The city and its attorneys filed and pursued a frivolous cross-appeal in bad faith, forcing Plaintiffs to endure months of financial uncertainty and angst, Plaintiffs’ pro bono counsel to expend significant unnecessary time and money, and this Court to waste valuable judicial resources. 

Amicus brief on behalf of Pacific Legal Foundation, Center for Equal Opportunity, and Project 21 in support of Appellant. Amici argue that the Court should hold that the 2006 reauthorization of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not a valid exercise of Congress’s remedial powers under the Fifteenth Amendment. 

Appellants' reply brief. Appellant argues that the Court should reverse the judgment of the district court and render judgment that the district is entitled to use the bailout procedure or, alternatively, that §5 cannot be constitutionally applied to the district.

Amici are forty-four Members of the Texas House of Representatives. They are also all members of the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus (MALC), an identified caucus of the Texas House organized and committed to addressing the issues that Latinos face across the state of Texas. Amici argue that the judgment of the three-judge district court be affirmed.

Amicus brief filed by the Asian American Justice Center, Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, and Asian American Institute, Asian Law Caucus, et al. in support of Appellees. Amici wish to to highlight continuing disparities faced by Asian American populations in Section 5- covered jurisdictions with respect to voter registration and turnout, electoral representation, and racial discrimination in voting, thereby demonstrating that Section 5 is essential to ensuring access to the polls by Asian Americans, particularly as Asian American populations continue to rapidly grow in Section 5- covered jurisdictions.

Amicus brief on behalf of Rodney and Nicole Louis, et al., Angie Garcia, et al., Lisa and David Diaz, et al., and People for the American Way. Teh questions presented are whether a municipal utility district that does not register voters is a “political subdivision” eligible to invoke the bailout provision in Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act when the Act’s plain language limits such “political subdivision[s]” to counties, parishes, and entities “which conduct[ ] registration for voting.”; and whether Congress acted within the scope of its enforcement powers under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments when, in light of an extensive legislative record of persistent unconstitutional discrimination against minority voters in covered jurisdictions and compelling evidence that a failure to renew Section 5 would result in backsliding of the progress that has been made, Congress reauthorized Section 5 of the Act. Amici argue that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

Amicus brief on behalf of Dr. Abigail Thernstrom and Former DOJ Officials. It is argued that the judgment of the district court be reversed.

Amicus brief on behalf of the Southeastern Legal Foundation in support of Appellant. It is argued that the judgment of the district court be reversed.

Amicus brief of Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia in support of Appellant. Amicus argues that Congress’ remedial powers under the Fifteenth Amendment cannot extend to the point of ignoring reality. Because Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as renewed cannot be constitutionally applied, the judgment of the District Court should be reversed and remanded for judgment to be entered in favor of Appellant.

Amicus brief on behalf of the Goldwater Institute, by the Scharf-Norton center, in support of Appellant. Amici argue that the Court should declare that preclearance reached its termination point long ago.

Amicus brief for covered jurisdictions of North California, Arizona, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and New York in support of Eric Holder, et al. Amici argue that the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia should be affirmed.

Amicus brief written on behalf of Barbara Lee, Member of Congress and Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Nydia Velázquez, Member of Congress and Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Michael Honda, Member of Congress and Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, et al. in support of Appellees. Amici urge the Court to uphold the decision below and find that the preclearance provision remains a constitutionally valid exercise of legislative enforcement authority pursuant to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.  

Amicus brief on behalf of Representatives John Conyers, James Sensenbrenner, Melvin Watt, and Jerrold Nadler and former Representative Steve Chabot in support of Appellees. Amici conclude that judgment of the District Court should be affirmed.