Northwest Austin Municipal Utility Distr. One v. Holder Brief of Amici Curiae Asian American Justice Center et al.

    No. 08-322

In  T he

Supreme Court of tfje Unttefc States!

N o r t h w e s t  A u s t in  M u n ic ip a l  U t il it y  
D is t r ic t  N u m b e r  O n e ,

Appellant,
v.

E r ic  H . H o l d e r , J r ., A t t o r n e y  G e n e r a l  o f  th e  
U n ite d  St a t e s , e t . a l .,

Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ASIAN AMERICAN 
JUSTICE CENTER, ASIAN PACIFIC 

AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER OF SOUTHERN 
CALIFORNIA, ASIAN AMERICAN 

INSTITUTE, ASIAN LAW CAUCUS, ET AL. 
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES

Karen  K. Narasaki 
V incent A. Eng  
Terry  M. A o 
Asian  Am erican  Justice 

Center
1140 Connecticut Ave., NW 
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20036 
(202) 296-2300

Allegra  R. R ich  
Counsel of Record 

Joseph  J. Dyer  
David  M. Burns 
Taron  K. M urakam i 
Seyfarth  Shaw  LLP  
975 F Street NW 
Washington, DC 20004 
(202) 463-2400

Counsel for Amici Curiae 
[Additional Amici listed on inside cover]

W ilson-Epes Printing Co., Inc. -  (202)789-0096 -  Washington, D. C. 20002



Asian  Am erican  Business 
Roundtable  (AABR)

Asian  Law  A lliance  (ALA)

Asian  Pacific  Am erican  
Labor  A llian ce , AFL- 
CIO (APALA)

Asian  Pacific  Am erican  
Legal Resource  
Center  (APALRC)

A sian  & Pacific  Islander  
Am erican  H ealth  
Forum  (APIAHF)

Asian  & Pacific  Islander  
Am erican  V ote 
(APIAVote)

Boat People  SOS, Inc. 
(BPSOS)

Chinese  for  A ffirm ative  
A ction  (CAA)

Fred  T. K orem atsu  
Center  for Law  and  
Equality  (K orem atsu  
Center)

Hm ong  National  
D evelopm ent , In c . 
(HND)

Japanese  Am erican  
Citizens  League (JACL)

National  Asian  Pacific 
Am erican  Bar  
Asso ciatio n  (NAPABA)

National  K orean  
Am erican  Service  & 
Educational 
Consortium  
(NAKASEC)

National  Asian  Pacific  
Am erican  W om en ’s 
Forum  (NAPAWF)

Organization  of Chinese 
A m erican s , In c . (OCA)

Sikh  A m erican  Legal 
Defense  and  
Education  Fund  
(SALDEF)

Southeast A sian  
Resource  A ction  
Center  (SEARAC)



TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................  iii
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI

CURIAE..................................................................... 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...................................  2
ARGUMENT................................................................. 2

I. ASIAN AMERICAN VOTERS IN SEC­
TION 5 JURISDICTIONS CONTINUE 
TO ENCOUNTER DISCRIMINATION 
AND SUFFER FROM DISPARITIES IN 
VOTING PARTICIPATION AND ELEC­
TORAL REPRESENTATION...................  4
A. Asian American Populations In Sec­

tion 5 Jurisdictions Suffer From 
Disparities In Voter Registration and 
Turnout...................................................  5

B. Asian Americans in Section 5 Juris­
dictions Also Lack Electoral Repre­
sentation.................................................  6

C. Asian American Voters in Section 5
Jurisdictions Still Suffer From 
Discrimination...............    9

II. AS ASIAN AMERICAN POPULATIONS 
CONTINUE TO GROW IN SECTION 5 
JURISDICTIONS, SECTION 5 COVER­
AGE REMAINS CRITICAL TO DETER­
RING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
ASIAN AMERICAN VOTERS..................  13
A. As Asian American Populations 

Continue To Grow Rapidly In Section 
5 Jurisdictions, Levels Of Discrim­
ination Against Racial Minorities 
Can Be Expected To Increase.............  13

Page

(i)



11

B. The Perception of Asian Americans
As “Outsiders” That Motivated Past 
Racial Discrimination Still Persists 
And Leads To Voting Discrimination 
Against Asi an Am ericans..................... 15

C. Section 5 Is Needed To Combat
Discrimination Against Politically 
Emerging Asian American Popula­
tions.......................................................... 18

CONCLUSION.......................................................  21
APPENDIX

List of Amici Curiae...........................................  la

TABLE OF CON TEN TS— Continued

Page



Ill

CASES Page
Bartlett v. Strickland, __ U.S. No. 07-

689, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 1842 (Mar. 9,
2009).............................................................. 2,21

City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S.
156(1980).....................................................  4 ,5

Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81
(1943) ..........................................................  17

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214
(1944) .........  17

Morales v. Handel, No. I:08cv3172 (N.D.
Ga. Oct. 27, 2008)........................................  10

Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178, 198
(1922)..............................   16

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S.
301 (1966).....................................................  4

Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923).. 16
Webb v. O’Brien, 263 U.S. 313 (1923).......... 16
Tick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) .... 16

STATUTES
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, ch. 126, 22

Stat. 58, 58-61 (1882).................................  16
Geary Act, ch. 60 § 1, 27 Stat. 25 (1892)...... 16
Immigration Act of 1917, ch. 29, 39 Stat.

874(1924)....................................................   16
Immigration Act of 1924, ch. 190, 43 Stat.

153 (1924).....................................................  16
Naturalization Act of 1790, ch.3, 1 Stat.

103 (1790)..............................................    16
Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, ch. 84, 48

Stat. 456 (1934)...........................................  16

TABLE OF AU THORITIES



IV

OTHER AUTHORITIES Page
Asian American Justice Center, A Com­

munity o f Contrasts: Asian Americans 
and Pacific Islanders in the United
States (2006)................................................. 3, 13

Asian American Voter Turnout High on 
Election Day, hut Many Face Problems
at Polls, USAsian Wire (Nov. 5, 2008)....  9

C. Lee, Beyond Black and White: Racia- 
lizing Asian Americans in a Society 
Obsessed with O.J., 6 Hastings Women’s
L.J. 165 (1995)............................................. 15

Challenged Asian ballots in council race 
stir discrimination concern, Associated 
Press State & Local Wire (Aug. 29,
2004).............................................................. 20

Claire Jean Kim, The Racial Triangula­
tion o f Asian Americans, 27 Pol. & Soc’y
105 (1999)..............................    15

Committee of 100, American Attitudes 
Toward Chinese Americans and Asians
(2001)............................................................. 15

Continuing Need for Section 203’s Pro­
visions for Limited English Proficient 
Voters: Hearing on S. 2703 Before 
Subcomm. On the Constitution, Civil 
Rights and Prop. Rights o f the Comm, on

TABLE OF AU TH O RITIES— Continued

the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (June 13,
2006).............................................................  3,18

Deborah Woo, Glass Ceilings and Asian 
Americans: The New Face o f Workplace 
Barriers (Altamira Press 2000)................  3



V

DeWayne Wickham, Why renew Voting 
Rights Act? Ala. Town provides answer,
USA Today (Feb 22, 2006).........................  19, 20

Frank H. Wu, Yellow: Race in America 
Beyond Black and White (Basic Books
2002).............................................................. 3

Frye Gaillard, After the Storms: Tradition 
and Change in Bayou La Batre, 94 
Journal of American History 856 (Dec.
2007) .....................................    19

Ga. Sec’y of State Voter Registration Sys.,
Active Voters by Race /Gender, General 
Election Voting History (Jan. 22, 2009)... 6

Gillian Gaynair, Demographic shifts helped 
fuel anti-immigration policy in Va., The
Capital (Feb. 26, 2009)..................................  14

Glenn Magpantay, Attorneys Monitor Polls 
on Election Day 2008, National Asian 
Pacific American Bar Association Law­
yer (Winter 2009).....    9

Haya El Nasser, In a twist, USA’s Asians 
are heading to the Mountain West, USA
Today (Jul. 6, 2008)................    13

James Angelos, The Great Divide, N.Y.
Times (Feb. 22, 2009).................................  14

Jerry Kang, Racial Violence Against Asian 
Americans, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 1926
(1993)............................................................  15

Jim Camden, Man Says Votes from Illegal
Immigrants (March 31, 2005).........    18

Jonathan Springston, Federal Court Inter­
venes in Handel’s Voter Purge, The 
Atlanta Progressive News (Oct. 31,
2008) ...........................................................  9

TABLE OF AU TH O RITIES— Continued
Page



VI
TABLE OF AU TH O RITIES— Continued

Page

Katherine Sayre, Feds to monitor election 
in Bayou La Batre, al.com Press-
Register (Aug. 26, 2008)............................  20

Keith Aoki, No Right to Own?: The Early 
Twentieth-Century “Alien Land Laws” as 
a Prelude to Internment, 40 B.C. L. Rev.
37 (1998).......................................................  16

Letter from Christopher Coates, Chief,
Voting Section, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to 
Dennis R. Dunn, Ga. Deputy Attorney
Gen. (Dec. 15, 2008).................................... 11

Letter from Christopher Coates, Chief,
Voting Section, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to 
Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney Gen. of Ga.
(Oct. 8, 2008)................................................ 10

Mary Lou Pickel, Nearly 5,000 challenge 
ballots cast; most accepted, The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution (Nov. 8, 2008)........ 11

Nat’l Asian Pacific Legal Consortium,
Sound Barriers: Asian Americans and 
Language Access in Election 2004
(2005)............................................................. 18

National Asian Pacific American Political 
Almanac (Don T. Nakanishi and James
S. Lai, eds. 2007-08)..................................  7, 8

Ramona E. Romero and Cristobal Joshua 
Alex, Immigrants becoming targets o f 
attacks, The Philadelphia Inquirer (Jan.
25,2009)..........    14

S. Turnbull, Wen Ho Lee and the Conse­
quences o f Enduring Asian American 
Stereotypes, 7 Asian Pac. Am. L.J. 72 
(2001)............................................................. 15



Sara Lin, An ethnic shift is in store; Some 
Chino Hills residents protest, in vain, an 
Asian market in the upscale community,

vii
TABLE OF AU TH O RITIES— Continued

Page

L.A. Times (Apr. 12, 2007).........................  14
Spencer Overton, Stealing Democracy: the 

New Politics o f Voter Suppression (2006). 19, 20 
Sucheng Chan, Asian Americans: An Inter­

pretative History (1991).............................  17
T. Devos & M. Banaji, American = White?,

88 J. Personality & Soc. Psych. 447
(2005)............................................................  15

Terry Yuh-lin Chen, Hate Violence as 
Border Patrol: An Asian American 
Theory o f Hate Violence, 7 Asian L.J. 69
(2000)............................................................  15

Testimony of EunSook Lee, Executive 
Director o f the National Korean Ameri­
can Service & Education Consortium 
(NAKASEC) before the Nat’l Comm’n on 
the Voting Rights Act (Sept. 27, 2005)....  18

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Annual County 
Resident Population Estimates by Age,
Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1,
2000 to July 1, 2007 (Georgia) (May 1,
2008)........................... ..................................  8

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Annual County 
Resident Population Estimates by Age,
Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1,
2000 to July 1, 2007 (Virginia) (August 
7, 2008) 8



Vlll

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Annual Pop­
ulation Estimates, Estimated Compo­
nents o f Population Change, and Rates 
o f the Componen ts o f Population Change 
for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1,
2007 (March 20, 2008)...............................  8

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Annual State 
Population Estimates with Sex, 5 Race 
Groups (5 Race Alone or in Combination 
Groups) and Hispanic Origin: April 1,
2000 to July 1, 2007 (May 1, 2008).......... 7, 13

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Reported 
Voting and Registration o f the Citizen 
Voting-Age Population, for States: No­
vember 2006, Table 4b (Nov. 2006).........5, 6, 12

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Voting and 
Registration in the Election o f  November 
2002: Population Characteristics (July
2004).............................................................. 5

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Voting and 
Registration in the Election o f November 
2006: Population Characteristics (June
2008).............................................................. 6

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Department 
to Monitor Elections in Alabama (Oct. 6,
2008).... ........................ ............. .................. 20

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Department 
to Monitor Three Local Elections in 
Alabama and Florida (Aug. 25, 2008)

TABLE OF AU TH O RITIES— Continued

Page

20



STATEMENT OF INTEREST 
OF AMICI CURIAE 1

The Asian American Justice Center (“AAJC”), a 
501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, was 
incorporated in 1991 and opened its Washington, 
D.C., office in 1993. AAJC works to advance the hu­
man and civil rights of Asian Americans through ad­
vocacy, public policy, public education, and litigation. 
In accomplishing its mission, AAJC works to promote 
civic engagement, to forge strong and safe communi­
ties, and to create an inclusive society in communi­
ties on a local, regional, and national level. A nation­
ally recognized voice on behalf of Asian Americans, 
AAJC focuses its expertise on voting rights, anti- 
Asian violence prevention/race relations, census is­
sues, immigrant rights, language access, and affirma­
tive action. AAJC has maintained a strong interest 
in the voting rights of Asian Americans and strives to 
protect Asian Americans’ access to the polls. Such 
long-standing interest has resulted in AAJC’s par­
ticipation in a number of amicus briefs before the 
courts.

Amici include some of the largest and oldest Asian 
American groups in this country. These organiza­
tions are involved in challenging racial discrimina­
tion, safeguarding civil rights, and protecting the 
voting rights of Asian Americans. Statements of in­
terest for additional Amici are included in Appendix 
A.

1 The parties have consented to the filing of this brief. No 
counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and 
no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to 
fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person 
other than amici curiae, their members, or their counsel made a 
monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.



SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
2

Appellant asks the Court to declare Section 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. As other briefs 
have shown, Section 5 and its reauthorization are a 
valid exercise of Congressional power under the 
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The purpose 
of this brief is to highlight continuing disparities 
faced by Asian American populations in Section 5- 
covered jurisdictions with respect to voter registra­
tion 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.

ARGUMENT
As the Court has recognized, this country’s long 

history of racial discrimination in voting continues in 
the present day, and the effects of this discrimination 
still pervade our system of democracy. See Bartlett v. 
Strickland, _  U.S. _ ,  No. 07-689, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 
1842, *42 (Mar. 9, 2009) (“racial discrimination and 
racially polarized voting are not ancient history. 
Much remains to be done to ensure that citizens of all 
races have equal opportunity to share and participate 
in our democratic processes and traditions. . . .”). In 
response to this history of discrimination against ra­
cial minorities, Congress passed the Voting Rights 
Act, together with other important civil rights legis­
lation, in 1965. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 
serves an important tool in vindicating the voting 
rights of racial minorities. Section 5 has been ex­
tended four times by Congress, in 1970, 1975, 1982, 
and 2006. In approving the most recent extension of 
Section 5, Congress heard testimony from numerous



3
organizations and individuals on the important role 
that the Voting Rights Act has played in deterring 
civil rights violations and ensuring equal access to 
voting.

AAJC and other Amici supported the 2006 reau­
thorization of Section 5 and the other temporary pro­
visions of the Voting Rights Act because it recognized 
the importance of the Voting Rights Act in ensuring 
equal access to voting for Asian Americans. Although 
Asian Americans are at times overlooked when ex­
amining our country’s history of racial discrimina­
tion, the lingering effects of racial discrimination 
against Asian Americans remain today.2 The Voting

2 Asian Americans are often portrayed as the '‘model minor­
ity,” with the assumption that they have succeeded in achieving 
economic prosperity and assimilating into American society. 
This myth ignores the diversity within the Asian American 
community, as well as the long history of discrimination against 
Asian Americans that unfortunately continues today. See, e.g., 
Frank H. Wu, Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White, 
39-59 (Basic Books 2002) (discussing the empirical and other 
flaw's in this myth); Deborah Woo, Glass Ceilings and Asian 
Americans: The New Face o f Workplace Barriers, 34-38 (Alta- 
mira Press 2000). Contrary to the model minority myth, Asian 
Americans’ socioeconomic status reflects the lingering effects of 
racial discrimination, as eleven Asian American groups have 
poverty rates above average, including Chinese, Koreans, Viet­
namese, and Pakistanis. See Asian American Justice Center, A 
Community o f Contrasts: Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders 
in the United States 2 (2006) [hereinafter Community of Con­
trasts]. Asian Americans experience “glass ceiling” barriers in 
the corporate sector, the federal government, science and engi­
neering, academia, the federal judiciary and discrimination in 
government contracting. See Continuing Need for Section 203’s 
Provisions for Limited English Proficient Voters: Hearing on S. 
2703 Before Subcomm. On the Constitution, Civil Rights and 
Prop. Rights of the Comm, on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 9-10 
(June 13, 2006) (statement of Karen K. Narasaki, Pres, and



4
Rights Act helps to remedy continued discrimination 
and its provisions, including Section 5, are targeted 
toward the areas with the most need. As Asian 
American voters continue to encounter discrimination 
at the polls and as the Asian American population 
grows in jurisdictions covered by Section 5, Section 5 
will become even more crucial to ensuring meaningful 
and fair representation for Asian Americans.

I. ASIAN AMERICAN VOTERS IN SECTION 
5 JURISDICTIONS CONTINUE TO EN­
COUNTER DISCRIMINATION AND SUF­
FER FROM DISPARITIES IN VOTING 
PARTICIPATION AND ELECTORAL RE­
PRESENTATION.

In City o f Rome v. United States, the Court upheld 
the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights 
Act and reaffirmed its decision in South Carolina v. 
Katzenhach that Congress may outlaw voting prac­
tices that are discriminatory in effect. 446 U.S. 156, 
175 (1980) (citing South Carolina v. Katzenhach, 383 
U.S. 301, 334 (1966)). The Court recognized that 
Congress, in considering the extension of the Voting 
Rights Act in 1975, determined that, though voter 
registration among African Americans had improved 
since the initial passage of the Voting Rights Act in 
1965, significant disparities existed between the per­
centages of registered whites and African Americans 
to vote, and recognized the dearth of African Ameri­

Exec. Dir., Asian Am. Justice Ctr.) [hereinafter Narasaki 
Statement], available at http://www.advancingequality.org/files 
ARA_Senate__Hearing_Statement_706.pdf. Asian Americans 
also face barriers to voting, in part because of high levels of li­
mited English proficiency.

http://www.advancingequality.org/files


can elected officials, particularly in state office. See 
id. at 180-81.

A. Asian American Populations In Sec­
tion 5 Jurisdictions Suffer From 
Disparities In Voter Registration and 
Turnout.

Though it has been almost thirty years since the 
Court’s decision in City o f Rome, disparities in voting 
and political representation still exist. Asian Ameri­
cans in particular continue to suffer from disparities 
in voter registration and turnout as compared to non- 
Hispanic white Americans. The U.S. Census Bureau 
reported that in November 2006, 49.1% of eligible 
Asian Americans were registered to vote, as opposed 
to 71.2% of eligible non-Hispanic white Americans 
nationwide. See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Reported 
Voting and Registration o f the Citizen Voting-Age 
Population, for States: November 2006, Table 4b 
(Nov. 2006) [hereinafter 2006 Table 4b], available at 
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/votive 
/cps2006.html. Likewise, only 32.4% of eligible Asian 
Americans voted, as opposed to 51.6% of eligible non- 
Hispanic white Americans.3 See id.

5

3 The Census Bureau reported that the percentage of Asian 
American citizens who were registered and voted decreased 
slightly between 1994 and 2002 as the Asian American citizen 
population became larger. See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Vot­
ing and Registration in the Election of November 2002: Popula­
tion Characteristics 5 (July 2004), available at http:// 
www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-552.pdf. The percentage of 
Asian American citizens registered were 51.9, 49.1, and 49.2 in 
1994, 1998, and 2002, respectively. The percentage of Asian 
American citizens who voted were 39.4, 32.3, and 31.2 in 1994, 
1998, and 2002, respectively. Id.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/votive
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-552.pdf


6
The voting rates for Asian Americans also tend to 

be lower in the South (a low of 24.7%), where many 
covered jurisdictions are located, including Georgia, 
Texas and Virginia. See U.S. Bureau of the Census, 
Voting and Registration in the Election o f November 
2006: Population Characteristics 8 (June 2008), 
available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs 
/p20-557.pdf. For example, in Georgia, which has a 
population of 102,000 Asian American citizens, only 
30.4% of those citizens were registered to vote in No­
vember 2006; 25.7% actually voted. See 2006 Table 
4b, supra. This is in stark contrast to the percentage 
of non-Hispanic white citizens in Georgia who were 
registered (68.8%) and who voted (46.9%). See id.4 
In the 2008 general election, only 58% of Georgia’s 
Asian American registered voters turned out to vote 
compared to 77% of white registered voters. See Ga. 
Sec’y of State Voter Registration Sys., Active Voters 
by Race I Gender, General Election Voting History 
(Jan. 22, 2009), available at http://sos.georgia.gov 
/elections/voter_registration/2008%20stats/Document 
Direct%20SSVRZ376_Noy_2008.pdf.

B. Asian Americans in Section 5 Jurisdic­
tions Also Lack Electoral Representa­
tion.

In addition to these disparities in voter registration 
and turnout, Asian Americans continue to lack repre­

4 Similarly, in Texas, home to 319,000 Asian American citi­
zens, only 43.0% were registered in November 2006 with 24.1% 
actually voting. See 2006 Table 4b, supra. By contrast, 72.8% of 
non-Hispanic white citizens in Texas were registered with 
45.2% voting. See id. In Virginia, home to 140,000 Asian 
American citizens, only 48.4% were registered in November 
2006 with 25.2% actually voting. See id. By contrast, 71.1% of 
non-Hispanic white citizens in Virginia were registered with 
51.9% voting. See id.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs
http://sos.georgia.gov


7
sentation in elected offices nationwide. This is par­
ticularly true in jurisdictions covered by Section 5. In 
the nine states that are wholly covered by Section 5 
(Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mis­
sissippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia), only 
five Asian Americans held state office in 2007. See 
National Asian Pacific American Political Almanac 
82 (Don T. Nakanishi and James S. Lai, eds. 2007- 
OS). Only eight Asian Americans held city council or 
mayoral positions. See id. Twenty-five Asian Ameri­
cans were elected to judgeships and seven others 
were elected to school board or other positions. Id. at 
83. These numbers are minute considering that the 
Asian American population ranges from 3% to almost 
6% in five of these states (Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, 
Texas, and Virginia). See U.S. Bureau of the Census, 
Annual State Population Estimates with Sex, 5 Race 
Groups (5 Race Alone or in Combination Groups) and 
Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007, (May 
1, 2008) [hereinafter 2007 State Population Esti­
mates], available at http://www.census.gov/popest 
/states/asrh/files/SC-EST2007-5RACE-ALL.csv.

These numbers are sparse compared to the growing 
Asian American populations in these jurisdictions. 
For example, 915,201 Asian Americans resided in 
Texas in 2007, a 40.35% increase since 2000. See id. 
Asian Americans consist of 3.83% of the population in 
Texas. See id. Currently, only one Asian American 
serves in the Texas state legislature, which includes 
181 members. See Nakanishi, supra, at 82. Virginia 
presents a similar situation, with one Asian Ameri­
can member of Congress, no Asian American repre­
sentatives in the 140-member Virginia legislature, no 
Asian American city council members, and only two 
Asian American school and college board members. 
This is the case even though Virginia’s population is

http://www.census.gov/popest


8
5.49% Asian American, and Asian Americans make 
up over 6% of the population in ten counties and in­
dependent cities in Virginia and over 10% of the pop­
ulation in four counties and independent cities. See 
id. at 82-83; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Annual Pop­
ulation Estimates, Estimated Components o f Popula­
tion Change, and Rates o f the Components o f Popula­
tion Change for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 
2007 (March 20, 2008) [hereinafter 2007 County 
Population Changes], available at http://www.cen 
sus.gov/popest/counties/files/CO-EST2007-ALLDATA. 
csv; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Annual County 
Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and 
Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 
(Virginia) (August 7, 2008), available at http:// 
www.census.gov/popest/counties/asrh/files/cc-est 2007- 
5race-51.csv. Similarly, in Georgia, there were no 
Asian American members of Congress and only one 
Asian American representative in the 236-member 
Georgia state legislature, one Asian American city 
council member, and one Asian American school and 
college board member. This is the case, even though 
Georgia’s population is 3.19% Asian American, and 
Asian Americans make up 4% or more of the 
population in eight counties in Georgia. See 
Nakanishi, supra, at 82-83; 2007 County Population 
Changes, supra', U.S. Bureau of the Census, Annual 
County Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex, 
Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 
2007 (Georgia) (May 1, 2008), available at http:// 
www.census.gov/popest/counties/asrh/files/cc-est 2007- 
5race-13.csv.

http://www.cen
http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/asrh/files/cc-est
http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/asrh/files/cc-est


9
C. Asian American Voters in Section 5 

Jurisdictions Still Suffer From Dis­
crimination.

Discrimination against Asian American voters con­
tinues to afflict Section 5-covered jurisdictions.5 The 
importance of continuing Section 5 coverage was re­
cently underscored by discriminatory voting changes 
made by the State of Georgia that affected the rights 
of thousands of minority voters. In March 2007, 
Georgia implemented a citizenship confirmation sys­
tem to cross-check information provided on voter 
registration forms against lists maintained by the 
Georgia Department of Driver Services (“DDS”) and 
the federal Social Security Administration to verify 
citizenship. See Jonathan Springston, Federal Court 
Intervenes in Handel’s Voter Purge, The Atlanta Pro­
gressive News (Oct. 31, 2008), available at http;// 6

6 Indeed problems have persisted as recently as the Novem­
ber 2008 elections. In November 2008, the Asian American Le­
gal Defense and Education Fund received hundreds of com­
plaints from Asian American voters on its telephone hotline, 
which included Section 5 covered jurisdictions New York (par­
tially covered), Louisiana, Texas, and Virginia. See Asian Amer­
ican Voter Turnout High on Election Day, but Many Face Prob­
lems at Polls, USAsian Wire (Nov. 5, 2008), available at 
http://www.usasianwire.com/release.php7id-1919922208. Voters 
in these jurisdictions experienced difficulties because of poll 
workers’ non-compliance with language assistance obligations, 
names of registered voters being dropped from voter lists, and 
improper electioneering by poll workers. See id In Annandale, 
Virginia, volunteer monitors reported that campaign operatives 
told Korean voters how to vote and who to vote for. In Falls 
Church, Virginia, a poll worker ignored Asian American voters 
while assisting white voters who stood behind them. See Glenn 
Magpantay, Attorneys Monitor Polls on Election Day 2008, Na­
tional Asian Pacific American Bar Association Lawyer (Winter 
2009), at 6.

http://www.usasianwire.com/release.php7id-1919922208


10
www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0395.html. The 
verification system contained several flaws, including 
reliance upon outdated information contained in the 
DDS database, which is not updated to reflect 
citizenship status for persons who become na­
turalized after receiving a driver’s license.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educa­
tional Fund (“MALDEF”) and several other voting 
rights groups brought a lawsuit against the State of 
Georgia on behalf of a naturalized citizen who was 
issued a letter informing him that he may not be eli­
gible to vote. See Complaint, Morales v. Handel, 
No. I:08cv3172 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 9, 2008). Among other 
things, the lawsuit alleged non-compliance with Sec­
tion 5’s preclearance requirement.6 As a result of the 
lawsuit, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court 
for the Northern District of Georgia held that Geor­
gia’s failure to submit its new verification system for 
preclearance was a violation of Section 5. See Order, 
Morales v. Handel, No. I:08cv3172 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 27, 
2008).6 7 The court also issued a temporary injunction

6 Though Georgia is a covered jurisdiction under Section 5, it 
failed to submit its new verification system to the Department 
of Justice for preclearance. See Letter from Christopher Coates, 
Chief, Voting Section, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Thurbert E. 
Baker, Attorney Gen. of Ga. (Oct. 8, 2008), available at 
http://www.maldef.org/voting_rights/litigation/Please_SubmitJe 
tter_from_DOJ.pdf (requesting that changes to voter registra­
tion process be submitted to Department of Justice or U.S. Dis­
trict Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to Section 5).

7 Unfortunately, the court also required voters and prospec­
tive voters who were flagged as non-citizens to vote with a 
challenge ballot in the November 2008 election and submit proof 
of citizenship within two days of the election. See Order, Mo­
rales v. Handel, No. I:08cv3172 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 27, 2008). As a 
result, ballots of voters who submitted a challenge ballot but did 
not provide proof of citizenship following the election were

http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0395.html
http://www.maldef.org/voting_rights/litigation/Please_SubmitJe


11
staying the verification system to give the U.S. De­
partment of Justice sixty days to review the system 
under the Voting Rights Act. See id.8

The case is a prime example of the continuing need 
for the preclearance requirement in Section 5 juris­
dictions. The Georgia verification system dispropor­
tionately hindered minorities from voting by relying 
on outdated DDS data that failed to reflect citizen­
ship status for recently naturalized citizens — 83% of 
Georgia residents who became naturalized citizens in 
the two years prior to the system’s implementation 
were African American, Latino, or Asian American. 
See Letter from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil 
Rights Under Law, MALDEF, the Voting Rights 
Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and 
Brian Spears to Christopher Coates, Chief, Voting 
Section, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Nov. 25, 2008) [herei­
nafter Joint Letter to Coates] (on file with the 
authors), at 9, citing DHS 2007 Yearbook of 
Immigration Statistics, Supp. Table 1, available at 
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statustics/publications/Yr 
Bk07Na.shtm; DHS Yearbook of Immigration

thrown out. See Mary Lou Picket, Nearly 5,000 challenge ballots 
cast; most accepted, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Nov. 8, 
2008), available at http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro 
/stories/2008/ll/08/challenge_ballots_georgia.html?cxtype=rss& 
cxsvc=7&cxcat=13.

8 Following the Department of Justice’s October 8, 2008 letter 
to the Georgia Attorney General, Georgia submitted a request 
for preclearance of the new system. The Department has re­
quested that Georgia provide more information to help deter­
mine whether the proposed change is retrogressive. See Letter 
from Christopher Coates, Chief, Voting Section, U.S. Dep’t of 
Justice, to Dennis R. Dunn, Ga. Deputy Attorney Gen. (Dec. 15, 
2008), available at http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/votingrights/mora 
les_dojrequest_20081215.pdf.

http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statustics/publications/Yr
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/votingrights/mora


12
Statistics, Supp. Table 1, available at http:// 
www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk06N 
a.shtm.

Not surprisingly, during the year-and-a-half period 
when Georgia operated the system before the court 
stayed implementation of the system, the individuals 
who were “flagged” under the system as non-citizens 
were also disproportionately minorities, including 
Asian Americans. Of the 4,596 individuals who were 
flagged and also identified by race or ethnicity, 20% 
were Asian American, an incredibly high number 
considering that less than 4% of Georgia’s population 
is Asian American and only 1% of Georgia’s regis­
tered voters are Asian American. See Joint Letter to 
Coates, supra, at 9, citing U.S. Bureau of the Census, 
Voting and Registration in the Election of 2006, 
Table 4b, available at www.census.gov/population/ 
wwwsocdemo /voting/cps2006.html.

There has been no evidence that Georgia’s verifica­
tion system resulted in the state identifying any regi­
strants who were not U.S. citizens. See id. at 17. In­
stead, the system created unnecessary barriers to 
voting for Asian Americans and other minority vot­
ers,9 and highlights the continuing need for Section 5, 
which is designed specifically to prevent discrimina­
tory practices such as Georgia’s verification system 
from harming minority voters.

9 One of these voters, Marvin Lim, who became a naturalized 
citizen in 2007, underwent many efforts to prove his citizenship 
to Gwinnett County election officials after being flagged, in­
cluding repeated phone calls and multiple faxes of his naturali­
zation papers. See Joint Letter to Coates, supra, at 13. While 
Mr. Lim was eventually able to vote (by absentee ballot, which 
he had to return by express mail), it was only after these unne­
cessary steps to prove his citizenship. See id.

http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk06N
http://www.census.gov/population/


II. AS ASIAN AMERICAN POPULATIONS 
CONTINUE TO GROW IN SECTION 5 
JURISDICTIONS, SECTION 5 COVER­
AGE REMAINS CRITICAL TO DETER­
RING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 
ASIAN AMERICAN VOTERS.
A. As Asian American Populations Con­

tinue To Grow Rapidly In Section 5 
Jurisdictions, Levels Of Discrimina­
tion Against Racial Minorities Can Be 
Expected To Increase.

No longer do Asian Americans live in enclaves 
solely in New York, California, and Hawaii. Signifi­
cant growth of Asian American populations has taken 
place in metropolitan areas located in Section 5- 
covered jurisdictions such as Atlanta, Georgia and 
Houston, Texas.10 See Community o f Contrasts, su­
pra, at 2. New Hampshire, Georgia, Arizona, North 
Carolina, and Virginia, states that are covered in full 
or in part by Section 5, were among the top ten states 
with the fastest rates of growth in the Asian Ameri­
can population between 2000 and 2004. See id. at 6; 
see also Hay a El Nasser, In a twist, USA’s Asians are 
heading to the Mountain West, USA Today (Jul. 6, 
2008), available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/ 
natiorb2008-07-06-Asians-West__N.htm (noting the 
growth of Asian American populations in Nevada, 
Arizona, Texas, and Washington, D.C.). Georgia and

13

10 The Asian American population has grown between 2000 
and 2007 by the following percentages in the following Section 
5-covered states: 37.41% in Alabama; 24.41% in Alaska; 60.59% 
in Arizona; 51.43% in Georgia; 12.57%' in Louisiana; 28.06% in 
Mississippi; 43.70% in South Carolina; 40.35% in Texas; and 
38.12% in Virginia. See 2007 State Population Estimates, 
supra.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/


North Carolina more than doubled their Asian 
American populations between 1990 and 2000.

As Asian American populations continue to in­
crease rapidly in jurisdictions covered by Section 5, 
levels of racial tension and discrimination against ra­
cial minorities can be expected to increase. When 
groups of minorities, particularly groups of immi­
grants, move into or outgrow the population in an 
area, reactions to the influx of outsiders can result in 
racial tension.11 Prejudice against Asian Americans 
persists today, and concerns about discrimination 
against Asian Americans are legitimate.

14

11 See Gillian Gaynair, Demographic shifts helped fuel anti­
immigration policy in Va., The Capital (Feb. 26, 2009), available 
at http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/gov/2009/02/26-10/ 
Demographic-shifts-helped-fuel-anti-immigration-policy-in-Va.html 
(noting that longtime residents of Prince William County, Vir­
ginia, perceived that their quality of life was diminishing as 
Latinos and other minorities settled in their neighborhoods); 
James Angelos, The Great Divide, N.Y. Times (Feb. 22, 2009) 
(describing ethnic tensions in Bellerose, Queens, New York, 
where the South Asian population is growing), available at 
http://www.nytimes.eom/2009/02/22/nyregion/thecity/22froz.html 
?_r=3&pagewanted=l; Ramona E. Romero and Cristobal Joshua 
Alex, Immigrants becoming targets of attacks, The Philadelphia 
Inquirer (Jan. 25, 2009) (describing the rise in anti-Latino 
violence where the immigration debate is heated in New York, 
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia); Sara Lin, An ethnic shift is 
in store; Some Chino Hills residents protest, in vain, an Asian 
market in the upscale community, L.A. Times (Apr. 12, 2007), at 
B1 (describing protest of Chino Hill residents to Asian market 
opening in their community where 39% of residents were Asian).

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/gov/2009/02/26-10/
http://www.nytimes.eom/2009/02/22/nyregion/thecity/22froz.html


15
B. The Perception of Asian Americans As 

“Outsiders” That Motivated Past 
Racial Discrimination Still Persists 
and Leads To Voting Discrimination 
Against Asian Americans.

Discrimination against Asian American popula­
tions that are rapidly growing in Section 5-covered 
jurisdictions is of particular concern given the per­
ception of Asian Americans as “outsiders,” “aliens,” 
and “foreigners.” See, e.g., Claire Jean Kim, The Ra­
cial Triangulation o f Asian Americans, 27 Pol. & 
Soc’y 105, 108-16 (1999) (describing history of whites 
perceiving Asian Americans as foreign and therefore 
politically ostracizing them).12 Based on this percep­
tion, at various points in history Asian Americans

12 In 2001, a comprehensive survey revealed that 71% of adult 
respondents held either decisively negative or partially negative 
attitudes toward Asian Americans. Committee of 100, American 
Attitudes Toward Chinese Americans and Asians 56 (2001), 
available at http://www.committeel00.org/publications/survey 
/C l00survey.pdf. Racial representations and stereotyping of 
Asian Americans, particularly in well-publicized instances 
where public figures or the mass media express such attitudes, 
reflect and reinforce an image of Asian Americans as “different,” 
“foreign,” and the “enemy,” thus stigmatizing Asian Americans, 
heightening racial tension, and instigating discrimination. C. 
Lee, Beyond Black and White: Racializing Asian Americans in a 
Society Obsessed with O.J., 6 Hastings Women’s L.J. 165, 181 
(1995); S. Turnbull, Wen Ho Lee and the Consequences of Endur­
ing Asian American Stereotypes, 7 Asian Pac. Am. L.J. 72, 74-75 
(2001); Terry Yuh-lin Chen, Hate Violence as Border Patrol: An 
Asian American Theory o f Hate Violence, 7 Asian L.J. 69, 72, 74- 
75 (2000); Jerry Kang, Racial Violence Against Asian Ameri­
cans, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 1926, 1930-32 (1993); T. Devos & M. 
Banaji, American = White?, 88 J. Personality & Soc. Psych. 447 
(2005) (documenting empirical evidence of implicit beliefs that 
Asian Americans are not “American”).

http://www.committeel00.org/publications/survey


16
were legislatively excluded from entering the United 
States and from gaining citizenship. See, e.g., Tyd- 
ings-McDuffie Act of 1934, ch. 84, 48 Stat. 456 (1934) 
(amended 1946) (imposing annual quota of fifty Fili­
pino immigrants); Immigration Act of 1924, ch. 190, 
43 Stat. 153 (1924) (repealed 1952); Immigration Act 
of 1917, ch. 29, 39 Stat. 874 (repealed 1952) (estab­
lishing an “Asiatic barred zone”); Geary Act, ch. 60 
§ 1, 27 Stat. 25 (1892); Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, 
ch. 126, 22 Stat. 58, 58-61 (repealed 1943) (prohibit­
ing Chinese workers from entering the United 
States); Naturalization Act of 1790, ch.3, 1 Stat. 103 
(limiting naturalization to “free white persons”). 
People of Asian descent were ineligible for citizenship 
because they were considered neither African Ameri­
can nor White. See Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 
178, 198 (1922). Exclusion from citizenship conse­
quently excluded Asian American immigrants from 
the right to vote.

Asian Americans were also subject to other discri­
minatory laws. They were removed from their homes 
and confined to areas set aside for slaughterhouses 
and other businesses thought prejudicial to public 
health or comfort. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 
(1886) (describing San Francisco ordinance). They 
were denied the right to own land and related real 
property rights. See, e.g., Webb v. O’Brien, 263 U.S. 
313 (1923) (upholding California Alien Land Law 
prohibiting land rights for “aliens ineligible for citi­
zenship”); Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923) 
(upholding similar Alien Land Law in Washington); 
see also Keith Aoki, No Right to Own?: The Early 
Twentieth-Century “Alien Land Laws” as a Prelude to 
Internment, 40 B.C. L. Rev. 37 (1998) (describing his­
tory of Alien Land Laws, which, while facially race- 
neutral, were passed in response to Japanese immi­



17
grants competing for agricultural land). They faced a 
number of other discriminatory laws ranging from 
foreign miner taxes, directed at Chinese gold miners, 
to anti-Asian business regulations. See Sucheng Chan, 
Asian Americans: An Interpretative History 46-47 
(1991).

Perhaps the most egregious and best documented 
example of discriminatory treatment of Asian Ameri­
cans by society and the law was the internment, 
without due process, of over 120,000 Japanese 
Americans during World War II. The internment 
was executed by Executive Order 9066, signed by 
President Roosevelt and sanctioned by the Court. 
See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943); 
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) 
(upholding the internment). Although Germany and 
Italy, too, were enemies, the United States did not 
accord similar treatment to German Americans or 
Italian Americans.

This summary illustrates the historical context 
against which discrimination against Asian American 
voters occurs today. Indeed, the hallmark of histori­
cal discrimination against Asian Americans— 
discrimination motivated by the perception of Asian 
Americans as outsiders—continues in the present 
era, as seen in various instances of discrimination 
against Asian American voters across the country:

In 2005, a citizen named Martin Ringhofer chal­
lenged the right to vote of more than one thou­
sand people with “foreign sounding” names, tar­
geting primarily Asian American and Latino vot­
ers. Mr. Ringhofer targeted voters with names 
that “have no basis in the English language” and 
“appear to be from outside the United States” 
while eliminating from his challenge voters with



names “that clearly sounded American-born, like 
John Smith, or Powell.” See Narasaki Statement, 
supra, at 7; Jim Camden, Man Says Votes from 
Illegal Immigrants (March 31, 2005), available at 
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/local/story.asp 
?ID=61944.
In 2004, an election judge in Cook County, Illi­
nois, when asked why a Chinese ballot booth was 
not clearly marked as such, the election judge 
replied, “They don’t need them anyway. They 
just use a piece of paper and punch numbers. 
They don’t read the names anyway, so it doesn’t 
matter.” See Nat’l Asian Pacific Legal Consor­
tium, Sound Barriers: Asian Americans and 
Language Access in Election 2004 10 (2005), 
available at http://65.36.162.215/files/sound_bar 
riers.pdf.
In Los Angeles Koreatown during the 2004 gen­
eral elections, a precinct inspector gave certain 
Asian American voters time limits and sent at 
least one Asian American voter to the back of the 
line. See Testimony o f EunSook Lee, Executive 
Director o f the National Korean American Service 
& Education Consortium (NAKASEC) before the 
Nat’l Comm’n on the Voting Rights Act (Sept. 27, 
2005), available at http://www.votingrightsact, 
org/hearings/pdfs/lee_eunsook.pdf.

C. Section 5 Is Needed To Combat Dis­
crimination Against Politically Emerg­
ing Asian American Populations.

Given the history of racial discrimination against 
Asian Americans, the continuing perception of Asian 
Americans as foreigners and outsiders, and the 
growth of Asian American populations in Section 5- 
covered jurisdictions, Section 5 remains relevant and

18

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/local/story.asp
http://65.36.162.215/files/sound_bar
http://www.votingrightsact


19
provides an important tool in combating voting dis­
crimination against politically emerging Asian 
American populations.

One prominent example of voting discrimination 
against Asian Americans occurred in Bayou La Ba­
tre, Alabama in August 2004. Bayou La Batre is a 
fishing village of less than 3,000 residents. Asian 
Americans began settling in Bayou La Batre after the 
Vietnam War in the 1970s, and now make up about 
one-third of Bayou La Batre’s population. See gener­
ally, Frye Gaillard, After the Storms: Tradition and 
Change in Bayou La Batre, 94 Journal of American 
History 856 (Dec. 2007), available at http:// www. 
journalofamericanhistory.org/projects/katrina/Gaillard 
.html. Though Asian Americans have been in Bayou 
La Batre for many years, until recent elections their 
political participation has been minimal. For 
example, in 1996, only 15 of 800 votes cast in local 
elections were by Asian Americans. Spencer Overton, 
Stealing Democracy: the New Politics o f Voter Sup­
pression 74 (2006).

Though Bayou La Batre’s population is diverse, ra­
cial animus against Asian Americans came to the fo­
refront when an Asian American candidate ran for 
city council for the first time in the city’s history. In 
the 2004 primary elections, Phuong Tan Huynh ran 
for a city council position against a white incumbent, 
J.E. “Jackie” Ladnier. Ladnier and his supporters 
challenged about fifty Asian American voters at the 
polls, to their faces, complaining that the voters were 
not U.S. citizens or city residents, or that they had 
felony convictions. See id. at 75; DeWayne Wickham, 
Why renew Voting Rights Act? Ala. Town provides 
answer, USA Today (Feb 22, 2006), available at 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-


20
02-22-forum-voting-act_x.htm. These challenges con­
stituted “scare tactics,” which intimidated many who 
had been confronted. See Challenged Asian ballots in 
council race stir discrimination concern, Associated 
Press State & Local Wire (Aug. 29, 2004).13 As 
explained by Ladnier, his supporters “figured if 
[Asian American voters] couldn’t speak good English, 
they possibly weren’t American citizens.” See Over- 
ton, supra at 75. The challenged voters had to 
complete a paper ballot and have the paper ballot 
vouched for by a registered voter.

The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed that the 
challenges were race-based, and prohibited the chal­
lenges in the city’s 2004 general election. See Kathe­
rine Sayre, Feds to monitor election in Bayou La Ba- 
tre, al.com Press-Register (Aug. 26, 2008), available 
at http://www.al.com/news/press-register/index.ssf?/
base/news/1219742108217850.xml&coll=3; Wickham, 
supra. Huyhn eventually won the council position by 
100 votes. See Overton, supra at 76. However, 
concern about racial animus against Asian American 
voters persisted through 2008. The U.S. Department 
of Justice monitored the treatment of voters in Bayou 
La Batre in August and October 2008 to ensure 
compliance with the Voting Rights Act. See Sayre, 
supra-, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Department 
to Monitor Elections in Alabama (Oct. 6, 2008), 
available at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/0ct 
ober/08-ag-900.html; U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice 
Department to Monitor Three Local Elections in Ala­

13 Huynh’s sister, Linh Huyhn Tran, stated of the challengers, 
“These people were just hoping that if they challenged our vot­
ers, they would just back out. They’d feel like they were in some 
kind of trouble or they’d be intimidated by all the paperwork in 
English.” See Challenged Asian ballots, supra.

http://www.al.com/news/press-register/index.ssf?/
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/0ct


bama and Florida (Aug. 25, 2008), available at http:// 
www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/August/08-crt-747.html.

CONCLUSION

21

The Voting Rights Act, including Section 5, must 
be viewed in the context of this country’s long strug­
gle to protect the civil rights of racial minorities 
against discrimination. Although there has been 
much progress, much of it the result of the Voting 
Rights Act itself, disparities in voter registration and 
actual voting among Asian Americans as compared to 
white Americans, a lack of Asian American electoral 
representation, and acute instances of discrimination 
against Asian American voters around the country 
and particularly in Section 5 jurisdictions indicate 
that much needs to be done to secure equal opportu­
nity for racial minorities to participate in our system 
of democracy. See Bartlett, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 1842 at 
*42. Congress has recognized that Section 5 is a vital 
tool in the fight to vindicate the voting rights of racial 
minorities, and the Court should uphold Congress’s 
2006 reauthorization of Section 5 as a valid and ne­
cessary exercise of its enforcement powers under the 
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

Karen  K. Narasaki 
V incent A. Eng  
Terry  M. A o 
A sian  A m erican  Justice 

Center
1140 Connecticut Ave., NW 
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20036 
(202) 296-2300

Respectfully submitted,
A llegra  R. Rich 

Counsel of Record 
Joseph  J. Dyer  
David  M. Burns 
Taron  K. M urakami 
Seyfarth  Shaw  LLP 
975 F Street NW 
Washington, DC 20004 
(202) 463-2400

Counsel for Amici Curiae
March 25, 2009

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/August/08-crt-747.html


APPENDIX



la
APPENDIX

List of Amici Curiae
Asian American Business Roundtable (AABR)

The Asian American Business Roundtable (AABR) 
was established in 1989 to help Asian and other mi­
nority-owned businesses access federal procurement, 
expand their market base with the Federal Govern­
ment as well as the commercial sector by providing 
information that is accurate and timely to enable 
them to make informed decisions beneficial to their 
companies. AABR has a long-standing interest in 
voting rights and protecting the rights of Asian 
Americans to access the polls. This interest has re­
sulted in AABR’s participation in a number of amicus 
briefs before the courts.
Asian American Institute (AAI)

Asian American Institute (AAI) is a pan-Asian, 
non-partisan, not for profit organization located in 
Chicago, Illinois, whose mission is to empower the 
Asian American community through advocacy, by 
utilizing coalition building, education, and research. 
AAI’s programs include community organizing, lea­
dership development, and legal advocacy. Asian 
Americans are a diverse and often overlooked com­
munity, but they are one of the fastest-growing pop­
ulations in the United States. AAI is committed to 
ensuring that Asian Americans are able to vote and 
are unencumbered by barriers such as racial dis­
crimination, inaccessible poll sites, and non-com­
pliance with language assistance obligations. 
Through poll watching and exit polling, AAI works to 
document the difficulties that place unwarranted 
burdens upon Asian American voters. AAI thus has



an important interest in Section 5’s protection of 
Asian American voters.
Asian Law Alliance (ALA)

The Asian Law Alliance (ALA), founded in 1977, is 
a nonprofit public interest legal organization with 
the mission of providing equal access to the justice 
system to the Asian and Pacific Islander communities 
in Santa Clara County, California. ALA has advo­
cated for the voting rights of limited English 
speaking citizens residing in Santa Clara County for 
the past 15 years.
Asian Law Caucus (ALC)

The Asian Law Caucus is the nation’s oldest legal 
and civil rights organization serving the low-income 
Asian Pacific American communities. The mission of 
the Asian Law Caucus is to promote, advance and 
represent the legal and civil rights of the Asian and 
Pacific Islander communities. Recognizing that so­
cial, economic, political and racial inequalities con­
tinue to exist in the United States, the Asian Law 
Caucus is committed to the pursuit of equality and 
justice for all sectors of our society with a specific 
focus directed toward addressing the needs of low- 
income Asian and Pacific Islander. Such pursuit in­
cludes an interest in voting rights and protecting the 
rights of Asian Americans to access the polls, which 
in turn has resulted in the Asian Law Caucus’ par­
ticipation in a number of amicus briefs before the 
courts.
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL- 

CIO (APALA)

The Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance 
(APALA), AFL-CIO, is the first and only national

2a



3a
organization of Asian Pacific American union 
members. It organizes and works with Asian Pacific 
American workers, many of them immigrants, to 
build the labor movement and address exploitative 
conditions in the workplace. APALA has a long­
standing interest in voting rights and protecting the 
rights of Asian Pacific Americans. This interest has 
resulted in APALA’s participation in a number of 
amicus briefs before the courts.
Asian Pacific American Legal Center of

Southern California (APALC)
Founded in 1983, the Asian Pacific American Legal 

Center of Southern California (APALC) is the na­
tion’s largest non-profit public interest law firm de­
voted to the Asian American and Pacific Islander 
community. APALC provides direct legal services to 
indigent members of our community and uses impact 
litigation, policy advocacy, community education and 
leadership development to obtain, safeguard and im­
prove the civil rights of Asian Americans and Pacific 
Islanders. APALC’s civil rights litigation has covered 
a broad range of issues such as race and national ori­
gin discrimination, access to higher education, immi­
gration and naturalization, language rights and gar­
ment worker rights. APALC has a long history of 
working to protect the voting rights of historically 
disenfranchised communities and thus has a strong 
interest in the outcome of this case.
Asian Pacific American Legal Resource Center 

(APALRC)
The Asian Pacific Anerican Legal Resource Center 

(APALRC) is the Capital Region’s nonprofit advocate 
advancing the legal and civil rights of Asian Pacific 
Americans through direct services, education, and



advocacy. APALRC serves the individual legal needs 
of low-income and limited-English proficient Asian 
Pacific Americans and advocates for broad-based 
systemic change on legal and civil rights issues 
impacting Asian Pacific Americans. APALRC is 
committed to ensuring that Asian Pacific Americans 
are able to vote. APALRC has conducted poll moni­
toring and exit polling in Virginia during the 2004 
election and in Virginia, Washington DC, and Mary­
land during the 2006 and 2008 elections. These ju ­
risdictions continue to lack significant local or state­
wide Asian Pacific American elected representation 
despite the exponential growth of the Asian Pacific 
American communities. Through APALRC’s poll 
watching and exit polling, APALRC has documented 
the ongoing barriers that prevent equal participation 
by Asian Pacific American voters. APALRC thus 
supports ensuring the right to vote of Asian Pacific 
Americans through Section 5 of the Voting Rights 
Act.
Asian & Pacific Islander American Health

Forum (APIAHF)
The Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Fo­

rum CAPIAHF) is a national advocacy organization 
dedicated to promoting policy, program, and research 
efforts to improve the health and well-being of Asian 
American, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islan­
der (“AA and NHPI”) communities. Founded in 1986, 
APIAHF approaches activities with the philosophy of 
coalition-building and developing capacity within 
local AA and NHPI communities. We advocate on 
health issues of significance to AA and NHPI com­
munities, conduct community-based technical assis­
tance and training, provide health and U.S. Census 
data analysis and information dissemination, and

4a



convene regional and national conferences on AA and 
NHPI health. Our health and well-being advocacy 
extends to an interest in increased participation 
in the electoral process within the AA and NHPI 
communities and results in our participation in this 
amicus brief.
Asian & Pacific Islander American Vote

(APLAVote)
Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIA- 

Vote) is a national nonpartisan, nonprofit organiza­
tion that encourages and promotes civic participation 
of Asian Pacific Islander Americans in the electoral 
and public policy processes at the national, state and 
local levels. We envision a society in which all 
Asian Pacific Islander Americans fully participate in 
and have access to the democratic process. As such, 
APIAVote has a long-standing interest in voting 
rights and protecting the rights of Asian Americans 
and Pacific Islanders to access the polls. This 
interest has resulted in APIAVote’s participation in a 
number of amicus briefs before the courts.
Boat People SOS, Inc. (BPSOS)

BPSOS is a national immigrant services organiza­
tion serving primarily Vietnamese refugees and im­
migrants with 13 branch offices nationwide. BPSOS’ 
domestic operation includes a large array of human 
and immigration services for Vietnamese refugees 
and immigrants. They were denied basic civil rights, 
including the right to choose the form of government 
and the ruling party. When moving to America, 
many of these Vietnamese settled in enclaves in 
states and counties with egregious voting records. It 
is imperative that this new voting population is 
allowed to exercise their rights as Americans and not

5a



6a
experience disenfranchisement due to discrimination. 
Additionally, BPSOS has a branch office in Bayou La 
Batre, Alabama where there was significant voter 
disenfranchisement of Vietnamese Americans in the 
past two elections. It is because of this interest that 
BPSOS participates in the brief.
Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA)

Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA) was founded 
in 1969 to protect the civil and political rights of Chi­
nese Americans and advance multiracial democracy 
in the United States. Today, CAA is a progressive 
voice in and on behalf of the broader Asian and Pa­
cific American community. Advocates for systemic 
change that protects immigrant rights, promotes lan­
guage diversity, and ensures racial injustice. CAA 
has a long-standing interest in voting rights and pro­
tecting the rights of Chinese Americans to access the 
polls. This interest has resulted in CAA’s participa­
tion in a number of amicus briefs before the courts.
Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and

Equality (Korematsu Center)
The Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and 

Equality (Korematsu Center) is a nonprofit organiza­
tion based at Seattle University School of Law and 
works to advance justice through research, advocacy, 
and education. The Korematsu Center is dedicated 
to advancing the legacy of Fred Korematsu, who de­
fied the military orders during World War II that ul­
timately led to the internment of 110,000 Japanese 
Americans. He took his challenge of the military or­
ders to the United States Supreme Court, which 
upheld his conviction in 1944 on the ground that the 
removal of Japanese Americans was justified by 
“military necessity.” Fred Korematsu went on to sue-



cessfully challenge his conviction and to champion 
the cause of civil liberties and civil rights for all 
people. The Korematsu Center, inspired by his ex­
ample, works to advance his legacy by promoting 
social justice for all. It has a special interest in 
promoting participation in the democratic process 
through protecting voting rights and access to the 
polls. We note that the Korematsu Center does not, 
in this brief or otherwise, represent the official views 
of Seattle University.
Hmong National Development, Inc. (HND)

Hmong National Development, Inc. (HND) is a na­
tional 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to 
building capacity, developing leadership and empo­
wering the Hmong American community. HND 
works with local and national organizations, public 
and private entities, and individuals to promote edu­
cational opportunities, increase community capacity, 
and develop resources for the well-being, growth, and 
full participation of Hmong in society. HND has a 
long-standing interest in ensuring and protecting the 
voting rights o f all Hmong to access the polls. This 
interest has resulted in HND’s participation in a 
number of amicus briefs before the courts.
Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)

The Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), 
founded in 1929, is the nation’s oldest and largest 
Asian American non-profit, non-partisan civil rights 
organization with 113 chapters throughout the conti­
nental United States, Hawaii’, and Japan. The mis­
sion of the JACL is to uphold the civil and human 
rights of Americans of Japanese Ancestry and of all 
people. The JACL played a prominent role in ob­
taining redress for Japanese Americans who were in­

7a



terned during World War II. The JACL has also 
worked to educate against and combat discrimination 
on the basis of race, national origin, age, ethnicity, 
gender, or disability, and to protect the right of all 
persons to equal participation in the political process. 
In the past, the JACL has helped lead the Asian 
Pacific American community in the expansion and re­
authorization of provisions of the Voting Rights Act 
in 1992 and 2006. Further, the JACL has committed 
to and adopted Resolutions supporting the Voting 
Rights Act at the JACL National Convention in 2006. 
Understanding the meaning and acknowledging the 
importance of the disenfranchising effect when voting 
rights are limited or eliminated for certain racial mi­
norities, Amici thus has an important and substan­
tial interest in this case.
National Asian Pacific American Bar

Association (NAPABA)

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Associa­
tion (NAPABA) is the national association of Asian 
Pacific American attorneys, judges, law professors, 
and law students, providing a national network for 
its members and affiliates. NAPABA advocates for 
the legal needs and interests of the Asian Pacific 
American community and represents the interests of 
over 40,000 attorneys and 58 local Asian Pacific 
American bar associations, who work variously in 
solo practices, large firms, corporations, legal services 
organizations, non-profit organizations, law schools, 
and government agencies. Since its inception in 
1988, NAPABA has been at the forefront of national 
and local activities in the areas of civil rights. 
In furtherance of its mission to promote justice, 
equity, and opportunity for Asian Pacific Americans,

8a



9a
NAP ABA works to protect Asian Pacific Americans’ 
right to vote and participate in the electoral process.
National Korean American Service & Education

Consortium (NAKASEC)
The National Korean American Service & Educa­

tion Consortium is a national non-profit organization 
based in Los Angeles, California with a Washington 
DC office. NAKASEC affiliates are the Korean 
American Resource & Cultural Center in Chicago 
and the Korean Resource Center in Los Angeles. 
Founded in 1994, NAKASEC is a multi-issue civil 
rights and human rights organization based in the 
Korean American community. NAKASEC’s mission 
is to project a national progressive voice for Korean 
Americans and promote their full participation in the 
United States. To this end, NAKASEC promotes 
equitable and just changes to the political and legis­
lative systems through a combination of education 
and policy advocacy with grassroots organizing and 
community mobilization.
National Asian Pacific American Women’s

Forum (NAPAWF)
The National Asian Pacific American Women’s Fo­

rum (NAPAWF) is the only national, multi-issue 
Asian Pacific American (“APA”) women’s organiza­
tion in the country and works to build a movement to 
advance social justice and human rights for APA 
women and girls. To this end, NAPAWF supports 
protecting the right of all individuals to engage in the 
democratic process by having access to the polls.
Organization of Chinese Americans, Inc. (OCA)

Founded in 1973 as Organization of Chinese 
Americans, Inc., OCA is a 501(c)(3) national non­



10a
profit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to ad­
vancing the social, political, and economic well-being 
of Asian Pacific Americans in the United States. 
With over 80 chapters and affiliates across the na­
tion, OCA’s aims are to advocate for social justice, to 
promote civic participation, to advance coalitions and 
community building, and to foster cultural heritage. 
OCA monitors issues and policies that affect the 
Asian Pacific American community. OCA and its 
chapters have conducted poll monitoring/exit polling 
during the 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections.
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education

Fund (SALDEF)
The Sikh American Legal Defense and Education 

Fund (SALDEF) is the oldest Sikh American civil 
rights and advocacy organization in the United 
States. Founded as the Sikh Mediawatch and Re­
source Task Force (SMART) in 1996, SALDEF em­
powers Sikh Americans through legal assistance, 
educational outreach, legislative advocacy, and media 
relations. SALDEF has over a decade of experience 
in working with other Sikh and minority organ­
izations in providing public policy, advocacy, and 
community education on discrimination issues. 
SALDEF has a strong interest in voting rights and 
protecting the rights of Asian Americans to access the 
polls.
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center

(SEARAC)
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) 
was founded in 1979 to facilitate the relocation of 
Southeast Asian refugees into American society as 
well as the development of nonprofit organizations 
led by and for Southeast Asians. SEARAC’s principal



mission is to advance the interests of Southeast 
Asian Americans by promoting community empo­
werment and leadership development, as well as ad­
vocating for and representing the diverse Southeast 
Asian American community on issues and concerns 
such as education, health care, safety, economic de­
velopment, and civil rights. We also foster civic en­
gagement among Southeast Asian Americans, and 
represent our communities at the national level in 
Washington, D.C. As such, we have a strong interest 
in ensuring the voting rights of Southeast Asian 
Americans and strive to protect their access to the 
polls.

11a