Shelby County v. Holder Brief Amici Curiae

    No. 12-96

In the

Supreme (Emirt of tlie Utritefi States

SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA,
Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official capacity 
as Attorney General of the United States, et. al.,

Respondents.

On W r it  of C er t io r ar i to  t h e  U n it e d  S ta tes  C ourt  
of  A p p e a l s  fo r  t h e  D istrict  of  C o lu m b ia

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE, THE CITY OF NEW 
YORK, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW 

YORK, MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, IN HIS 
CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW 

YORK, AND CHRISTINE C. QUINN, IN HER 
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE SPEAKER OF THE 

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

M ichael A. Cardozo, 
Corporation Counsel of the 

City of New York,
Leonard J. Koerner*
Deborah A. Brenner 
Rebecca K. K. Sternhell 

of Counsel 
100 Church Street 
New York, New York 10007 
(212) 788-1010 
(202)624-5909 
lkoerner@law.nyc.gov

*Counsel o f Record

245981

mailto:lkoerner@law.nyc.gov


TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................. i

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES............................ii

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .................................. 1

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT..............................2

ARGUMENT.....................................................................2

I. T H E  A D M I N I S T R A T I V E
R E Q U I R E M E N T S  I M P O S E D  
BY SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING 
RIGHTS ACT ARE NOMINAL AND 
NON-OBTRUSIVE..............................................3

a. The Process Of Generating and
Transm itting A Submission For 
Preclearance Does Not Require 
Significant Additional Time or Cost............ 3

b. Section 5 Preclearance Requirements
Do Not Impede or Interfere With 
Lawful Local Decision Making.................... 6

II. THE R ELA TIVE  COSTS IMPOSED
BY SECTION 5 PR E C LE A R A N C E  
ARE FAR OUTW EIGHED BY THE 
B E N E F I T S  G E N E R A T E D  F OR  
CITIZENS AND COUNTRY OVERALL........8

CONCLUSION............................................................... 11

Page



II

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page

Baker v. Carr,
369 U.S. 186 (1962)...................................................... 4

Board of Estimate v. Morris,
489 U.S. 688 (1989)...................................................... 7

N.Y. State on behalf o f N.Y., Bronx & Kings Co. v.

65 F.R.D. 10 (D.D.C. 1974).........................................1

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES, 
REGULATIONS

U.S. Const, amend. X V ...................................................10

U.S. Const, amend. XV, art. IV ....................................... 2

Voting Rights Act of 1965
42 U.S.C. § 1973a.................................................passim
42 U.S.C. § 1973b.................................................passim

28 C.F.R. § 51.27 (2011)..................................................... 4

28 C.F.R. § 51.28 (2011)..................................................... 4

36 Fed. Reg. 5809 (Mar. 27,1971)....................................1

40 Fed. Reg. 43746 (Sept. 23,1975)..................................1



i n

76 Fed. Reg. 7470 (Feb. 9,2011)....................................... 3

76 Fed. Reg. 21,239 (Apr. 15,2011)................................. 3

N.Y. Elec. Law § 1-102 (2012)..................................... 4, 7

N.Y. E lec. Law §§ 3-200 et seq. (2012)........................... 4

N.Y. E lec. Law § 3-212 (2012)......................................... 4

N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 (2012)................................. 1

N.Y.C. Charter ch. 2-A (2009)......................................... 5

N.Y.C. Charter § 51 (2009)........................................... 4, 6

N.Y.C. Charter § 52 (2009)................................................5

N.Y.C. Charter §§ 1133 & 3003 (2009)............................6

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Br. for Arizona et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting 
Pet’r, Shelby County, A L  v. Holder et al.,
No. 12-96 (Jan. 2,2013) ................................................6

Douglas R. Hess, Project Vote, Representational 
Bias in the 2008 E lectorate 12, Table 5 
(2009), available at http://www.projectvote. 
org/reports-on-the-electorate-/440.html.................... 9

Cited Authorities

Page

http://www.projectvote


IV

Frank Lombardi, White City Council Members 
the Minority for First Time Ever After Tuesday 
Elections, N.Y. Daily News, Nov. 3,2009 ................10

How to File An Electronic Submission, http:// 
www.justice.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/evs (last 
visited Jan. 17,2013).................................................3-4

Juan Cartagena, Report: Voting Rights in New 
York City: 1982-2006,17 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Social 
Justice 501................................................................ 2, 9

Letter from John R. Dunne, Asst. Att’y Gen.,
Civil Rights Div., Dep’t of Justice, to Judith 
Reed, N.Y.C. Districting Comm’n, regarding 
Submission No. 91-1902 (July 19, 1991) (on 
file with author)............................................................. 8

Letter from Wm. Bradford Reynolds, Asst. Att’y 
Gen., Civil Rights Div., Dep’t of Justice, to 
Fabia Palomino, N.Y.C. Districting Comm’n, 
regarding Submission No. 81-1981 (Oct. 27,
1981) (on file with author)..............................................7

N.Y.C. Board of Elections, For Voters, http://vote. 
nyc.ny.us/html/voters/voters.shtml (last visited 
Jan. 18,2013)............................................................ 9-10

N.Y.C. Charter Revision Comm’n, Final Report 
o f the New York City Charter Revision:
Jan. 1989-Nov. 1989 (1990)

Cited Authorities

Page

7

http://vote


V

Cited Authorities

N.Y.C. Department of City Planning, Total 
Population by M utually E xclusive Race 
and Hispanic Origin: New York City and

Page

Boroughs, 1990 to 2010, Table PL-P2A NYC 
(May 2011)...............................................................9,10

NY.C. Districting Comm’n, The Final Districting 
Plan For The Council Of The City Of New York 
(Mar. 31, 2003) (Submission No. 2003-1147)..............6

Reauthorization of the Act’s Temporary Provisions:
Policy Perspectives and Views from  the Field: 
Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Constitution,
Civil Rights and Property Rights o f the S. 
Comm, on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 13 (2006)___ 3

Robert Pear, New York’s Plan Wins U.S. Backing,
N.Y. T imes, Jul. 27, 1991, available at http:// 
w w w .nytim es.com /1991/07 /27 /nyregion / 
new-york-s-plan-wins-us-backing.html......................8

Section 5 Objection Determ inations: New 
York, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/ 
ny_obj2.htm (last visited Jan. 24,2013)......................7

U.S. C ensus B ureau , 2010 C ensus B riefs, 
C2010BR-02, Overview of Race and H ispanic 
Origin: 2010 (Mar. 2011)............................................... 9



Cited Authorities

Page

U .S . C ensus B u reau . S tate and  C ounty 
QuickFacts. Updated Jan. 10, 2013, available 
at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/
3651000.html.................................................................1

Voting Rights A ct: E vidence o f  Continued  
Need: H earing B efore the Subcomm. on 
the Constitution o f the H. Comm, on the 
Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1840 (2006)........................... 2

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/


1

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici are the City of New York, the Council of the 
City of New York, Michael R. Bloomberg, in his official 
capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, and Christine 
C. Quinn, in her official capacity as Speaker of the Council 
of the City of New York (hereinafter collectively referred 
to as “the City” ). Three of the City’s five counties are 
covered jurisdictions under Section 5 of the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973b. Bronx, Kings, and New 
York counties were declared covered jurisdictions under 
Section 5 in 1971 and have remained covered since.1 36 
Fed. Reg. 5809 (Mar. 27,1971).

New York City’s five counties are home to over 
8.2 million residents. U.S. Census Bureau. State and 
County QuickFacts. Updated Jan. 10, 2013, available 
at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3651000. 
html. The City’s residents come from all fifty states and 
from countries around the world. They are diverse in a 
myriad of ways, including race, color, creed, age, national 
origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and marital 
status. The City embraces this diversity with strong 
anti-discrimination laws and policies promoting the equal 
rights of its residents. See, e.g., N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 
(2012).

In the intervening 41 years since the City became a 
covered jurisdiction, the City has pre-cleared over two

1. Kings and Bronx counties are also covered under Section 4(f) 
(4), which relates to language minority voters. 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(f); 40 
Fed. Reg. 43746 (Sept. 23,1975). Section 5 preclearance for the three 
covered counties started in 1974 following litigation that temporarily 
exempted the City from coverage, and then reopened the City to 
Section 5 review. See N.Y. State on behalf ofN.Y., Bronx & Kings Co. 
v. U.S., 65 F.R.D. 10 (D.D.C. 1974).

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3651000


2

thousand voting changes with the Justice Department. 
See 2 Voting Rights Act: Evidence o f Continued Need: 
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution o f 
the H. Comm, on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1840 (2006) 
(Appendix to the statement of Wade Henderson, report 
of RenewTheVRA.Org, “ Voting Rights in New York, 
1982-2006”); Juan Cartagena, Report: Voting Rights 
in New York City: 1982-2006,17 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Social 
Justice 501, 505. Changes have ranged from altering the 
location of polling places to the inclusion of additional 
languages, like Bengali, on election materials for language 
minority groups. In the course of the City’s long history 
with Section 5 procedures, New York City officials have 
regularly engaged with Justice Department officials, who 
serve as valuable resources for local election officials in 
developing voting-related plans. The Justice Department’s 
feedback both before and after preclearance assists the 
City in perfecting its electoral processes.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The Section 5 preclearance requirements do not 
impose an undue burden on or interfere with governmental 
function in covered jurisdictions like New York City. In 
fact, preclearance has, and continues to, provide 
substantial benefits to New York City and the nation in 
eliminating voting discrimination.

ARGUMENT

We agree with the Justice Department and Intervenors- 
Respondents that Congress’s 2006 reauthorization of the 
Voting Rights Act and Section 5 was a Constitutional 
exercise of legislative power granted under Article IV 
and the Fifteenth Amendment. Congress’s judgment is 
due substantial deference. This brief does not repeat the



3

arguments of the parties in explaining why Section 5 
satisfies Constitutional requirements. Instead, this brief 
relates the experience of the City as a covered jurisdiction, 
demonstrating that Section 5 imposes no undue burden 
on covered jurisdictions and that it provides substantial 
benefits to the nation in eliminating voting discrimination.

I. THE ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 
IMPOSED BY SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING 
RIGHTS ACT ARE NOMINAL AND NON- 
OBTRUSIVE

a. The Process Of Generating and Transmitting 
A Submission For Preclearance Does Not 
Require Significant Additional Time or Cost.

The procedures for submitting voting changes are 
clear, unambiguous, and effectively routine. See, e.g., 
Reauthorization o f the Act's Temporary Provisions: 
Policy Perspectives and Views from  the Field: Hearing 
Before the Subcomm. On Constitution, Civil Rights and 
Property Rights o f the S. Comm, on the Judiciary, 109th 
Cong. 13 (2006) (testimony of Donald Wright). Indeed, the 
Justice Department has gone to great lengths to ease and 
streamline the preclearance process. Regular guidance as 
to the standards of review and essential components for 
submission is published in the Federal Register. Guidance 
Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act, 76 Fed. Reg. 7470 (Feb. 9, 2011); Revision 
of Voting Rights Procedures, 76 Fed. Reg. 21,239 (Apr. 
15, 2011). Officials are also available to field questions 
in advance of submissions. Moreover, technological 
advancements have enabled online submission, in many 
cases, saving time and money in printing and mailing 
costs. See How to File An Electronic Submission, http:// 
www.justice.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/evs (last visited Jan. 17,

http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/evs


4

2013). Currently, submitting routine voting changes need 
not consume significant additional administrative time 
than documenting and implementing the voting change 
itself.

Any burden in developing a submission for preclearance 
is de minimis relative to the work already required for 
any voting change under New York State and local law. 
Irrespective of Section 5’s requirements, the type of 
government action subject to preclearance will always 
involve substantiation. N.Y. E l e c . L aw  §§ 1-102 & 3-200 
et seq. (2012). For example, under State law, a change 
in polling place must be reflected in an official record, 
implemented according to law, and supported by a 
articulable rationale -  even if that reason is merely a 
political judgment. N.Y. E l e c . L aw  § 3-212 (2012). As 
Section 5 requires just such straightforward information, 
this record serves as the basis for the submission. 28 
C.F.R. § 51.27 (2011). Preclearance requires that all 
changes with an effect on voting be supported by basic 
descriptive factual information about the proposed 
change and affected jurisdiction. Id. If the action only 
has a negligible impact on voting rights, the submission 
will be brief. If the action is more significant, such as 
redistricting, maps and census data are also required.2 28 
C.F.R. § 51.28 (2011). But, as noted, much of the necessary 
submission material will already have been generated 
during the redistricting process, in which maps are drawn, 
census data is analyzed, and past election results are 
documented. N.Y.C. Charter § 51 (2009).

Under local law, the City redraws its City Council 
districts every ten years, utilizing the most recent

2. This type of record is generated in all states and their 
political subdivisions at least every 10 years when they must 
redraw districts. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).



5

decennial-Census data — a process that takes several 
months to conduct. N.Y.C. Charter ch. 2-A (2009). With 
or without the Section 5 requirements, the City would 
be obligated by law to undertake the same redistricting 
process in a manner consistent with the goals of the 
Voting Rights Act. As evidenced by the language of the 
Charter, compliance with the whole of the Voting Rights 
Act is paramount, both because of preclearance and the 
value of good electoral processes. See Id. The City Charter 
mandates that the appointed Districting Commission 
draw new Council districts with careful attention to 
Constitutional parameters. Specifically,

a. The difference in population between the 
least populous and the most populous districts 
shall not exceed ten percentum (10%) of the 
average population for all districts, according to 
figures available from the most recent decennial 
census. Any such differences in population must 
be justified by the other criteria set forth in 
this section.

b. Such districting plan shall be established in 
a manner that ensures the fair and effective 
representation of the racial and language 
minority groups in New York city which are 
protected by the United States voting rights 
act of nineteen hundred sixty-five, as amended.

c. District lines shall keep intact neighborhoods 
and communities with established ties of 
common interest and association, whether 
historical, racial, economic, ethnic, religious 
or other.

Id. at § 52.



6

Redrawing lines is a comprehensive and measured 
process, wherein the Districting Commission holds 
open meetings and hearings. Id. at § 51. A  variety of 
stakeholders, including citizens, minority interest groups, 
political groups, and academics attend hearings, provide 
testimony, and engage with the Districting Commission. 
See, e.g., N.Y.C. Districting Comm’n, The Final Districting 
Plan For The Council Of The City Of New York (Mar. 
31, 2003) (Submission No. 2003-1147), 10-16. The new 
district lines drawn by the Districting Commission are 
then subject to public comment and review, and possible 
revision if necessary. N.Y.C. Charter § 51. The resultant 
record of this process must be maintained as a part of 
City records. N.Y.C. Charter §§ 1133 & 3003 (2009). It is 
no hardship to submit those same materials to the Justice 
Department for preclearance review.

b. Section 5 Preclearance Requirements Do 
Not Impede or Interfere With Lawful Local 
Decision Making.

Nowhere does the Voting Rights Act prohibit lawful 
local governance. Moreover, the preclearance process 
does not remove local authority to make decisions, as 
others have argued. Br. for Arizona et al. as Amici Curiae 
Supporting Pet’r, Shelby County, AL v. Holder et al., 
25, No. 12-96 (Jan. 2, 2013). Preclearance only provides 
a review of decisions to ensure they comply with the 
Constitution when they potentially affect voting rights.

New York City has not been meaningfully limited 
in its governance decisions as a result of preclearance. 
The Districting Commission and City officials may make 
all necessary legal changes for effective New York City



7

elections. N.Y. E l e c . L aw  § 1-102 (2012); N.Y.C. Charter 
§ 51 (2009). On the rare occasions the Justice Department 
has raised objections to City voting changes, the City was 
able to fix the identified problems in ways that did not 
interfere with the concept of self-governance.3 See, e.g., 
Letter from Wm. Bradford Reynolds, Asst. Att’y Gen., 
Civil Rights Div., Dep’t of Justice, to Fabian Palomino, 
N.Y.C. Districting Comm’n, regarding Submission No. 
81-1981 (Oct. 27, 1981) (on file with author) (objecting to 
possible retrogressive effects in new redistricting plans). 
Rather, these objections simply sharpened the City’s focus 
on potential voting rights issues.

In the past, when the Justice Department has objected, 
the City has benefited from its review and consideration. 
In 1981, the Justice Department rejected the City’s 
redrawn Council districts because of the retrogressive 
effects of certain district lines. Id. In 1991, the Justice 
Department again objected to the City’s redistricting 
plans. However, these plans were the first submitted for 
preclearance since this Court had ruled that the City’s 
Board of Estimate violated the “one person, one vote” 
requirements in 1989. Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 
U.S. 688 (1989). The City was then confronted with the 
formidable task of expanding its 35 City Council districts 
to 51. N YC . Charter Revision Comm’n, Final Report of 
the New York City Charter Revision: Jan. 1989-Nov. 1989 
(1990), 9-11. The Justice Department objected to the City’s 
initial plans, noting potential problems with new districts

3. Only nine objections have been raised in response to the 
City’s submissions, the last o f which was in 1999. See Section 5 
Objection Determinations: New York, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ 
voting/sec_5/ny_obj2.htm (last visited Jan. 24, 2013).

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/


8

in Brooklyn and the Bronx, and the difficulties the City 
faced with such dramatic district changes. Letter from 
John R. Dunne, Asst. Att’y Gen., Civil Rights Div., Dep’t 
of Justice, to Judith Reed, N.Y.C. Districting Comm’n, 
regarding Submission No. 91-1902 (July 19, 1991) (on 
file with author) (“ [It is] a job of staggering proportions, 
namely to divide a city of over 7 million people into 51 new 
council districts while addressing the historical inability 
of the many minority communities in the city to elect 
candidates of their choice”). The letter went on to clarify 
Justice Department policies with regard to incumbents 
and offered further assistance if needed. Id. Following 
the suggestions set forth in the Justice Department letter, 
the City was able to swiftly redraw district lines so all 
citizens had the opportunity to elect the candidates of 
their choice. Robert Pear, New York’s Plan Wins U.S. 
Backing, N.Y. T imes, Jul. 27, 1991, available at http:// 
www.nytimes.com/1991/07/27/nyregion/new-york-s- 
plan-wins-us-backing.html. The next redistricting plan 
was submitted by the City in 2003, and was accepted by 
the Justice Department without objection. The City is 
currently preparing new Council district lines for the 2013 
elections, and will be soon be submitting those changes 
to the Justice Department.

II. THE RELATIVE COSTS IMPOSED BY SECTION
5 PRECLEARANCE ARE FAR OUTWEIGHED BY
THE BENEFITS GENERATED FOR CITIZENS
AND COUNTRY OVERALL

As a covered jurisd iction , the City supports 
affirmation of the Circuit Court’s decision upholding the 
constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. As discussed 
above, the actual “burden” imposed by Section 5 is minor.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/27/nyregion/new-york-s-plan-wins-us-backing.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/27/nyregion/new-york-s-plan-wins-us-backing.html


9

Further, any such burden pales in comparison to the broad 
benefits of Section 5.

Voting rights are an important and vital issue, 
especially in a period where national demographics are 
dramatically shifting. Both the City’s and country’s 
populations are more diverse than ever. U.S. Census 
Bureau, 2010 Census Briefs, C2010BR-02, Overview of 
Race and H ispanic Origin: 2010, 3 (Mar. 2011); N.Y.C. 
Department of City Planning, Total Population by 
Mutually Exclusive Race and Hispanic Origin: New 
York City and Boroughs, 1990 to 2010, Table PL-P2A 
NYC (May 2011) (hereinafter, “City Planning Table: 
N.Y.C. 1990-2010” ). Continued vigilance is needed to 
protect the most fundamental right in a representative 
democracy -  the right to vote -  for all citizens. Since 
1965, Section 5 has played a critical role in advancing 
the Constitutional voting rights of minorities across 
the United States. Data show increased participation 
by minority-citizens nationwide. D ouglas R. H ess, 
Project Vote, Representational Bias in the 2008 
E lectorate 12, tbl. 5 (2009), available at http://www. 
projectvote.org/reports-on-the-electorate-/440.html. 
Despite these laudable gains, voting discrimination 
still exists and pernicious problems remain. Id. at 21; 
Cartagena, supra, at 537-39. There is still room for 
improvement.

During its time as a covered jurisdiction, the City has 
achieved increased participation by racial and language 
minorities. For example, voting-related materials have 
been translated into Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Bengali 
and Russian. N.Y.C. Board of Elections, For Voters, http:// 
vote.nyc.ny.us/html/voters/voters.shtml (last visited Jan.

http://www


10

18,2013). Elections in the City are more inclusive because 
more citizens can meaningfully engage in the electoral 
process. Further, 53% of the New York City Council seats 
are now held by members of racial minorities, compared 
to 45% ten years ago. Frank Lombardi, White City 
Council Members the Minority fo r  First Time Ever After 
Tuesday Elections, N.Y. Daily News, Nov. 3, 2009. The 
representation of racial minorities on the Council is now 
approaching parity with the demographic makeup of the 
City, where the population is 67% minority or non-white. 
City Planning Table: N.Y.C. 1990-2010.

The City continually strives to ensure that the 
Fifteenth Amendment rights of all its citizens are 
protected. Its voting-rights record improves year after 
year, and preclearance aids in this process by providing an 
additional external check on the process. The City engages 
in transparent redistricting and elections processes that 
are varied and complex. It is with the help of Section 5 
that state and local governments with imperfect histories 
on voting issues have improved, and continue to improve, 
their electoral processes.



11

CONCLUSION

For all the above reasons, and those stated in the 
Justice Department and Intervenors-Respondent’s briefs, 
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act should be upheld. This 
is especially important in ensuring fundamental rights 
are protected and in advancing democracy in this country. 
Congress did not exceed its enumerated powers in 
reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act in 2006. Accordingly, 
the City of New York urges affirmance of the D.C. Circuit 
Court’s judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

M ichael A. Cardozo, 
Corporation Counsel of the 

City of New York,
Leonard J. Koerner*
Deborah A. Brenner 
Rebecca K. K. Sternhell 

of Counsel 
100 Church Street 
New York, New York 10007 
(212) 788-1010 
(202) 624-5909 
lkoerner@law.nyc.gov

*Counsel of Record

mailto:lkoerner@law.nyc.gov




Roy I. Liebman, Esq.
rliebman@counselpress.com 
800 274 3321

C O U N S E L  P R E S S
United States Supreme Court Division

February 8, 2013

Mr. Donald Baker 
Document Control 
Supreme Court o f the United States 
One First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Dear Mr. Baker:

As we discussed, we are herewith delivering 40 replacement copies o f  an Amici brief 
which we originally filed for the City o f  New York et al. on February 1, 2013.

No substantive changes have been made. We just added a Summary o f  the Argument 
section.

We have today sent all five parties corrected copies o f  the brief. Thank you for your 
courtesy and cooperation and would you please destroy the earlier briefs.

Counsel Press LLC • 727 15th Street NW • Suite 1250 • Washington, DC 20005
460 West 34th Street • 4th Floor • New York, NY 10001

Boston, MA • Buffalo. NY • Chicago, IL • Iselin. NJ • Los Angeles, CA • New York, NY • Philadelphia, PA • Richmond, VA • Rochester, NY • Syracuse, NY • Walton, NY • Washington, DC

Re: Shelby County v. Flolder et al. 
Docket No. 96

" 7

www.counselpress.com

mailto:rliebman@counselpress.com
http://www.counselpress.com


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 12-96
X

Shelby County, Alabama,

Petitioner,

vs.

Eric Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.„

Respondents.
X

C E R T IF IC A T E  OF C O M P LIA N C E

As required by Suprem e Court Rule 33.1(h), 
I certify  that the docum ent contains 2,560 w ords, 
excluding the parts o f the docum ent that are exem pted 
by Suprem e Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty o f perjury  that the foregoin g  
is true and correct.

Executed on February 1, 2013

Sworn to and subscribed before me
this 8th day o f  February, 2013