Shelby County v. Holder Brief Amici Curiae

    No. 12-96

In  T he

Supreme Court of tfje ®nitet> H>tata£

Shelby County, Alabama,

V.

Petitioner,

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.,
Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ASIAN AMERICAN 
PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS IN SUPPORT OF 

RESPONDENTS

Margaret Fung 
Glenn D. Magpantay 
Jerry Vattamala 
Asian American Legal 

Defense and 
Education Fund 

99 Hudson Street, 12th Floor 
New York, NY 10013 
(212) 966-5932

Monte Cooper
Counsel of Record 

Matthew L. Craner 
Judy Kwan 
Lillian J. Mao 
Andrew S. Ong 
Matthew Pickel 
Matthew Kugizaki 
Orrick, Herrington & 

Sutcliffe LLP 
1000 Marsh Road 
Menlo Park, CA 94025 
(650) 614-7400 
mcooper@orrick. com

Counsel for Amici Curiae 
(Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover)

LEGAL PRINTERS LLC, Washington DC • 202-747-2400 • legalprinters.com



ADDITIONAL AMICI CURIAE
Additional amici curiae are the following 

organizations that represent Asian American voters 
and have conducted voter registration drives, voter 
education events, and election protection activities 
on election day.

Alliance of South Asian American Labor 
(ASAAL)

Asian Citizens for Justice/Asian Center for 
Justice

Asian American Bar Association of the Greater 
Bay Area (AABA)

Asian American Institute (AAI)
Asian Law Alliance (ALA)
Asian Law Caucus (ALC)
Asian Pacific American Legal Center 
Asian Pacific American Legal Resource Center 

(APALRC)
Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon 

(APANO)
Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum 

(APIAHF)
Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote -  

Michigan (APIA Vote-MI)
Asian Services in Action, Inc. (ASIA)
Association of Asian Pacific Community Health 

Organizations (AAPCHO)
Center for Pan Asian Community Services, Inc. 

(CPACS)
Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA)
Chinese Progressive Association (CPA)
Hmong American Partnership (HAP)
Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)



Korean Americans for Political Advancement
(KAPA)

MinKwon Center for Community Action 
(MinKwon)

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association 
(NAP ABA)

OCA
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education 

Fund (SALDEF)
South Asian Americans Leading Together 

(SAALT)
South Asian Bar Association of Northern 

California (SABA-NC)
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center

(SEARAC)



1

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether Congress acted within its authority 
when it reauthorized Section 5 of the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c (Section 5), in 2006?



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)

QUESTION PRESENTED............................................ i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................ iv

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

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT....................................... 3

ARGUMENT.................................................................. 5

I. SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS 
ACT CONTINUES TO BE NECESSARY 
AS DISCRIMINATION AND
DISPARITIES AFFECT ASIAN 
AMERICAN VOTERS IN SECTION 5 
JURISDICTIONS....................................................5

A. Asian Americans Face Intimidation and
Discrimination in Voting and Are Discouraged 
from Even Going to the Polls in Section 5 
Jurisdictions............................................................ 6

B. Continuing Discrimination Against Asian 
American Populations in Section 5 Jurisdictions
Has Resulted in Disparities in Voter 
Registration, Turnout, and Electoral 
Representation.................................................... 9

II. SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS 
ACT PROTECTS THE VOTING RIGHTS 
OF ASIAN AMERICANS....................................12



I l l

A. Section 5 Prevents Voter Redistricting Plans 
from Diluting Asian American Voting Power... 14

B. Section 5 Prevents Changes to Voting
Systems from Weakening Asian American 
Voting Power........................................................ 17

C. Section 5 Ensures that Changes to Poll Sites
Do Not Deny Asian Americans the Right to 
Vote........................................................................18

D. Section 5 Helps Asian Americans Exercise 
Their Voting Rights, Particularly in 
Jurisdictions Covered by the Language 
Assistance Provisions of the Voting Rights
Act .........................................................................21

III. SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS 
ACT REMAINS CRITICAL IN THE 
CONTEXT OF DISCRIMINATION 
FACED BY ASIAN AMERICANS..................... 24

A. Asian Americans Have Suffered a Long
History of Discrimination....................................26

B. Continued Discrimination Against Asian
Americans Is a Barrier to Full Participation in 
the Political Process............................................. 28

CONCLUSION............................................................. 33

APPENDIX OF AMICI CURIAE. App. 1



IV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Federal Cases

City of Rome v. United States,
446 U.S. 156 (1980)............................................... 9

Gong Lum v. Rice,
275 U.S. 78 (1927)................................................. 27

Korematsu v. United States,
323 U.S. 214 (1944)......................................... 27, 28

Oyama v. California,
332 U.S. 633 (1948)............................................... 27

Ozawa v. United States,
260 U.S. 178 (1922).................................................27

People v. Brady,
40 Cal. 198 (1870)...................................................27

Perez v. Perry,
835 F. Supp. 2d 209 (W.D. Tex. 2011).............8, 15

Perry v. Perez,
132 S. Ct. 934 (2012)...............................................14

United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898).................................................33

Federal Statutes

Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, H.R.
140, 112th Cong. (2011) ........................................ 33



V

Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013, H.R.
140, 113th Cong. (2013)........................................ 33

Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882,
Ch. 126, 22 Stat. 58 (repealed 1943)...................26

Immigration Act of 1917,
Ch. 29, 39 Stat. 874 (repealed 1952)...................26

Immigration Act of 1924,
Ch. 190, 43 Stat. 153 (repealed 1952).................26

Naturalization Act of 1790,
Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795)..*..............26, 27

Philippines Independence Act of 1934,
Ch. 84, 48 Stat. 456 ............................................... 26

Scott Act of 1888,
Ch. 1064, 1, 25 Stat. 504 .......................................26

Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973
et seq.................................................................passim

State Statutes

N. Y. Sess. Laws 569-70...............................................18

Regulations

28 C.F.R. pt. 51, App.................................................... 31

28 C.F.R. § 51.29.........................................................21

28 C.F.R. § 51.32.........................................................19

28 C.F.R. § 51.33.........................................................19



VI

Executive Orders

Exec. Order 9066, 7 Fed. Reg. 1407 (Feb. 19,
1942)........................................................................27

Constitutional Provisions

Cal. Const, art. II, § 1 (1879).....................................27

Other Authorities

2011-12 National Asian Pacific American 
Political Almanac 58 (Don T. Nakanishi 
and James S. Lax eds., 14th ed. 2011- 
2012) ....................................................................................12

AALDEF, The Asian American Vote: A
Report on the AALDEF Multilingual Exit 
Poll in the 2004 Presidential Election
(2005) .......................................................................22

AALDEF, Asian Americans and the Voting 
Rights Act: The Case for Reauthorization
(2006) .................................................  16, 19, 23, 24

Asian American Center for Advancing 
Justice, A Community of Contrasts:
Asian Americans in the United States
2011 (2011)................................................ 15, 21, 31

Jessica S. Barnes & Claudette E. Bennett,
U.S. Census Bureau, The Asian 
Population: 2000 (2002) 23



James Blacksher, Edward Still, Nick
Quinton, Cullen Brown & Royal Dumas,
Voting Rights in Alabama 1982-2006, at
5-19 (2006)...............................................................13

Challenged Asian ballots in council race stir 
discrimination concern, Associated Press 
State & Local Wire, Aug. 29, 2004....................6, 7

Terri Yuh-lin Chen, Comment, Hate 
Violence as Border Patrol: An Asian 
American Theory of Hate Violence, 7 
Asian L.J. 69 (2000)...............................................25

Committee of 100, American Attitudes 
Toward Chinese Americans and Asians 
(2001)......................................................................25

Continuing Need for Section 203’s
Provisions for Limited English Proficient 
Voters, Hearing Before the S. Judiciary 
Comm., 109th Cong. 37 (2006).......................... 8, 9

Tim Craig & Michael D. Shear, Allen Quip 
Provokes Outrage, Apology; Name Insults 
Webb Volunteer, Wash. Post, Aug. 15,
2006..........................................................................30

Thierry Devos & Mahzarin R. Banaji,
American = White?, 88 J. Personality &
Soc. Psychol. 447 (2005)........................................25

Thom File & Sarah Crissey, U.S. Census 
Bureau, Voting and Registration in the 
Election of November 2008 (2012)...................9, 10

vii



Sam Dillon, Ethnic Shifts Are Revealed in 
Voting for Schools, N.Y. Times, May 20,
1993.......................................................................... 17

Ashley Dunn, Board Agrees onBallots In
Chinese, N.Y. Times, Aug. 25, 1994..................... 23

Ga. Sec’y of State Voter Registration Sys.,
Active Voters by Race/Gender, General 
Election Voting History (Jan. 23, 2009)............... 11

Gillian Gaynair, Demographic shifts helped 
fuel anti-immigration policy in Va., The 
Capital (Feb. 26, 2009).......................................... 32

Thao L. Ha, The Vietnamese Texans, in
Asian Texas (Irwin A. Tang ed. 2007)....................8

Carol Hardy-Fanta et al., Race Gender and 
Descriptive Representation: A ji 
Exploratory View of Multicultural 
Elected Leadership in the United States 
(2005)........................................................................ 12

Elizabeth M. Hoeffel, Sonya Rastogi,
Myoung Ouk Kim & Hasan Shahid, U.S.
Census Bureau, The Asian Population:
2010 (2012) ..................................................... passim

H.R. Rep. 109-478, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa 
Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting 
Rights Act Reauthorization and 
Amendments Act of 2006 (2006)..................6, 7, 13

viii



IX

Lynette Holloway, This Just In: May 18 
School Board Election Results, N.Y.
Times, June 13, 1999..............................................17

Jerry Kang, Note, Racial Violence Against 
Asian Americans, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 1926 
(1993)........................................................................25

Claire Jean Kim, The Racial Triangulation 
of Asian Americans, 27 Pol. & Soc’y 105 
(1999)........................................................................25

Cynthia Lee, Beyond Black and White:
Racializing Asian Americans in a Society
Obsessed with O.J., 6 Hastings Women’s
L.J. 165 (1995)........................................................25

Sara Lin, An Ethnic Shift is in Store, L.A.
Times, Apr. 12, 2007.............................................. 32

Thomas T. Mackie & Richard Rose, The 
International Almanac of Electoral 
History 508 (3d ed. 1991)...................................... 17

Nat’l Comm’n on the Voting Rights Act,
Protecting Minority Voters: The Voting
Rights Act at Work 1982-2005 (2006)................... 12

R.G. Ratcliffe, Texas Lawmaker Suggests 
Asians Adopt Easier Names, Houston 
Chron., Apr. 8, 2009....................  29

Natsu Taylor Saito, Internments, Then and 
Now: Constitutional Accountability in 
Post-9/11 America, 72 Duke F. for L. &
Soc. Change 71 (2009)........................................... 28



X

Spencer K. Turnbull, Comment, Wen Ho Lee 
and the Consequences of Enduring Asian
American Stereotypes, 7 UCLA Asian
Pac. Am. L.J. 72 (2001)......................................... 25

U.S. Census Bureau, Reported Voting and 
Registration by Sex, Race and Hispanic 
Origin, for States: November 2010 (2010)...........10

U.S. Census Bureau, Reported Voting and 
Registration of the Voting-Age 
Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic 
Origin, for States: November 2006 (2006)....10, 11

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Confronting
Discrimination in the Post-9/11 Era:
Challenges and Opportunities Ten Years
Later (Oct. 19, 2011).......................................28, 29

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, FBI, Hate Crime
Statistics (2010)......................................................29

Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice 
Department to Monitor Elections in New 
York, Washington, and Alabama (Sept.
13, 2004).....................................................................7

Shankar Vedantam, State Lawmakers 
Taking Aim at Amendment Granting 
Birthright Citizenship, Wash. Post, Jan.
5, 2011......................................................................33

Leti Volpp, Divesting Citizenship: On Asian 
American History and the Loss of 
Citizenship Through Marriage, 53 UCLA 
L. Rev. 405 (2005)....................................... 26



XI

Voting Rights Act and Reauthorization 
Amendments Act of 2006 (Part II):
Hearing on H.R. 9 Before the H.
Subcomm. on the Const, of the H.
Judiciary Comm., 109th Cong. 40
(2006)................................................................ 10, 13

Voting Rights Act: Hearing on Section 203- 
Bilingual Election Requirements, (Part I)
Before the H. Subcomm. on the Const, of 
the H. Judiciary Comm., 109th Cong. 19 
(2005) .....................................................9, 10, 23, 32

Voting Rights Act: Section 5 of the Act- 
History, Scope, and Purpose, Hearing 
Before the H. Subcomm. on the Const., H.
Judiciary Comm., 109th Cong. 1664-66
(2005).......................................................................18

DeWayne Wickham, Why renew Voting 
Rights Act? Ala. Town provides answer,
USA Today, Feb 22, 2006....................................... 7



INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1

Non-parties Asian American Legal Defense and 
Education Fund (“AALDEF”), Asian American 
Justice Center (“AAJC”) and others (collectively, 
“Amici Curiae” or “Amici”) are organizations that 
promote the constitutional and civil rights of Asian 
American citizens and residents, including, in 
particular, the right of Asian Americans to 
participate in the United States political process.

AALDEF is a 39-year-old national civil rights 
organization based in New York City that promotes 
and protects the civil rights of Asian Americans 
through litigation, legal advocacy, and community 
education. AALDEF has monitored elections 
through annual multilingual exit poll surveys since 
1988. Consequently, AALDEF has collected valuable 
data that documents both the use of, and the 
continued need for, protection under the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965. In 2012, AALDEF dispatched 
over 800 attorneys, law students, and community 
volunteers to 127 poll sites in 14 states to document 
voter problems on Election Day. The survey polled 
9,298 Asian American voters.

AAJC is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan 
organization based in Washington, D.C. AAJC is a

1

1 Pursuant to Rule 37.6, Amici certify that this brief was 
not written in whole or in part by counsel for any party, and 
that no person or entity other than Amici, their members, and 
their counsel have made any monetary contribution to the 
preparation and submission of this brief. This brief is filed 
with the parties’ written consent, copies of which are on file 
with the Clerk.



2

member of the Asian American Center for Advancing 
Justice, whose other members are Asian American 
Institute, Asian Law Caucus, and Asian Pacific 
American Legal Center. Founded in 1991, AAJC 
works to advance the human and civil rights of 
Asian Americans through advocacy, public policy, 
public education, and litigation. AAJC was a key 
player in collaborating with other civil rights groups 
to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in 2006. In the 
2012 election, AAJC and the affiliates conducted poll 
monitoring and voter protection efforts across the 
country, including in California, Florida, Georgia, 
Illinois, Texas, and Virginia.

Among other activities, Amici provide 
educational services, promote community awareness, 
monitor and seek to prevent violence against Asian 
Americans, and assist with the development and 
adoption of legislation and rulemaking that ensure 
Asian Americans can meaningfully participate in the 
United States political process. All of the Amici 
share as a common goal the desire that Asian 
Americans’ voting rights are honored in accordance 
with constitutional and legislative guarantees, 
particularly with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To 
that end Amici have conducted voter education 
events, voter registration drives, and election 
monitoring activities on Election Day, as well as 
undertaken efforts to ensure that populations of 
Asian Americans are accurately tabulated as part of 
the United States Census.2

2 Statements of interest for the other Amici are included in 
the Appendix to this brief.



SUMMARY OF ARGUM ENT

3

Amici Curiae submit this brief to underscore the 
importance of the continued enforcement of the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965 in preventing actual and 
threatened discrimination aimed at Asian Americans 
in national and local elections. Amici also seek to 
highlight the ongoing disparities in voter 
registration, voter turnout and electoral 
representation experienced by Asian American 
populations in jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of 
the Voting Rights Act, and to illustrate how the Act 
has ameliorated specific instances of such electoral 
irregularity. Given the discrimination and 
disparities in voting rights that still exist in these 
covered jurisdictions, and given the exemplary 
record of the Act in preventing further exacerbation 
of the problems experienced by Asian American 
communities, Section 5 remains a critical tool to 
protect the right of Asian Americans to participate in 
the political process on an equal basis with all other 
United States citizens.

Representatives of the Asian American 
community submitted significant evidence to 
Congress in support of the reauthorization of the 
Voting Rights Act, documenting the unique 
discriminatory practices faced by Asian Americans 
in exercising their right to vote. This evidence also 
demonstrated that the Voting Rights Act has had, 
and continues to have, a meaningful positive impact 
on the Asian American community. Amici wish to 
highlight how the evidence Congress received 
illuminates a valuable, but often overlooked, 
perspective on unique discriminatory practices



4

aimed at Asian Americans in the electoral process; 
such practices underscore the necessary and ongoing 
contributions of the Voting Rights Act to protecting 
minority voting rights.

The significance of Section 5 in protecting the 
voting rights of Asian Americans is amply illustrated 
through the community’s experiences in scrutinizing 
redistricting efforts, ensuring participation and 
representation in local elections, responding to 
changes in poll sites and seeking language 
assistance at the polls. Continued disparities in 
voter registration and electoral representation, 
however, indicate that the work of Section 5 is not 
over. Despite the important victories achieved 
through prior successful Section 5 challenges, the 
need for Section 5’s protection remains critical to the 
Asian American community today, particularly as 
the Asian American population grows in 
jurisdictions covered by Section 5. Ongoing 
discrimination against Asian Americans, derived 
from historical antipathy coupled with continued 
efforts to stifle the community’s emerging political 
voice, make Section 5 an essential mechanism for 
combating the systemic problems that prevent Asian 
Americans from fully participating in the electoral 
process.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act continues to 
be necessary, is justified under current 
circumstances, and was properly reauthorized by 
Congress in 2006. A ruling to the contrary would 
disregard Congress’ deliberative fact-finding process 
and leave the Asian American community, currently 
the fastest-growing racial group in the United



5
States, without the necessary protections to fully 
exercise its right to vote.

ARGUMENT

I. SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT  
CONTINUES TO BE NECESSARY AS 
DISCRIMINATION AND DISPARITIES  
AFFECT ASIAN AM ERICAN VOTERS IN  
SECTION 5 JURISDICTIONS.

Asian Americans3 have successfully utilized 
Section 5 to prevent discriminatory changes to 
voting from being implemented.4 However, Asian 
Americans continue to face discrimination in Section 
5 jurisdictions on Election Day. Additionally, 
continuing and pervasive discrimination against

3 The notion of “Asian American” encompasses a broad 
diversity of ethnicities, many of which have historically 
suffered their own unique forms of discrimination. 
Discrimination against Asian Americans as discussed here 
addresses both discrimination aimed at specific ethnic groups 
along with the discrimination directed at Asian Americans 
generally.

4 Section 5 requires certain states and localities with a 
history of racial discrimination to obtain federal approval of 
changes in voting practices. Once a jurisdiction is covered, 
Section 5 requires that changes to any voting qualification, 
standard, practice, procedure, or redistricting plan be 
“precleared” by the United States Department of Justice 
(“DOJ”) or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 
before going into effect. See 42 U.S.C. § 19/3c. To obtain 
preclearance, the jurisdiction must show that the proposed 
change does not have the purpose or effect of denying or 
abridging the right to vote on the basis of race or color. See id. 
If preclearance is denied, then the change cannot be 
implemented. See id.



6

Asian American voters in Section 5 jurisdictions has 
resulted in disparities in voter participation and 
electoral representation, especially compared to non- 
Hispanic Whites.

A. Asian Americans Face Intimidation  
and Discrimination in Voting and Are 
Discouraged from Even Going to the 
Polls in Section 5 Jurisdictions.

In reauthorizing Section 5 of the Voting Rights 
Act, the House Judiciary Committee found instances 
of discriminatory tactics and efforts by local officials 
to keep covered language minority citizens from 
registering and casting effective ballots in many 
different jurisdictions. See H.R. Rep. No. 109-478, 
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott 
King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and 
Amendments Act of 2006 at 45 (2006). These 
discriminatory practices, including against Asian 
American voters, continue to afflict Section 5 
jurisdictions.

For example, in the 2004 primary elections in 
Bayou LaBatre, Alabama, supporters of a white 
incumbent running against Phuong Tan Huynh, a 
Vietnamese American candidate, made a concerted 
effort to intimidate Asian American voters. They 
challenged Asian Americans at the polls, falsely 
accusing them of not being U.S. citizens or city 
residents, or of having felony convictions. See H.R. 
Rep. No. 109-478 at 45; see also Challenged Asian 
ballots in council race stir discrimination concern, 
Associated Press State & Local Wire, Aug. 29, 2004, 
available at http://news.google.com/newspapers7nid

http://news.google.com/newspapers7nid


7
=1817&dat=20040830&id=cc4dAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w6 
cEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6668,5046184. The challenged 
voters were forced to complete a paper ballot and 
have that ballot vouched for by a registered voter. In 
explaining his and his supporters’ actions, the losing 
incumbent stated, “We figured if they couldn’t speak 
good English, they possibly weren’t American 
citizens.” See 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/ 
2006-02-22-forum-voting-act_x.htm. The DOJ 
investigated the allegations and found them to be 
racially motivated. See H.R. Rep. No. 109-478 at 45; 
see also Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice 
Department to Monitor Elections in New York, 
Washington, and Alabama, Sept. 13, 2004, available 
at http ://www. j ustice. gov/op a/pr/2004/
September/04_crt_615.htm (“In Bayou La Batre, 
Alabama, the Department will monitor the 
treatment of Vietnamese-American voters.”). As a 
result, the challengers were prohibited from 
interfering in the general election, and the city, for 
the first time, elected an Asian American to the City 
Council. See Wickham, supra.

In another example, from the 2004 Texas House 
of Representatives race, Hubert Vo’s victory over an 
Anglo incumbent prompted two recounts, both of 
which affirmed the victory over the incumbent s 
request that the Texas House of Representatives 
investigate the legality of the votes cast in the 
election. The implication was that Vo’s Vietnamese 
American supporters voted in the wrong district or 
were not U.S. citizens with the right to vote in the

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


8

first place. Vo’s campaign voiced concern that such 
an investigation could intimidate Asian Americans 
from political participation altogether. See Thao L. 
Ha, The Vietnamese Texans, in Asian Texas 284-85 
(Irwin A. Tang ed. 2007). Vo’s election was 
particularly significant for the Asian American 
community because he is the first Vietnamese 
American state representative in Texas history. See 
Test, of Ed Martin, Trial Tr. at 350:15-23, Perez v. 
Perry, 835 F. Supp. 2d 209 (W.D. Tex. 2011) 
(hereinafter “Martin Test.”); Test, of Rogene Calvert, 
Trial Tr. at 420:2-421:13, Perez, 835 F. Supp. 2d 209; 
Test, of Sarah Winkler, Trial Tr. at 425:18-426;10, 
Perez, 835 F. Supp. 2d at 209.

Similarly, in 2004 in New York, a Section 5 
jurisdiction for certain counties, poll workers 
required Asian American voters to provide 
naturalization certificates before they could vote.5 
At another poll site, a police officer demanded that 
all Asian American voters show photo identification, 
even though photo identification is not required to 
vote in New York elections. If voters could not 
produce such identification, the officer turned them 
away and told them to go home. See Continuing

5 New York City has the nation’s largest Asian American 
population. Elizabeth M. Hoeffel, Sonya Rastogi, Myoung Ouk 
Kim & Hasan Shahid, U.S. Census Bureau, The Asian 
Population: 2010, at 12 tbl.3 (2012), available at
www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-ll.pdf. Most of 
the examples of Section 5’s success in this brief draw from the 
Asian American experience in New York City because of its 
sizeable Asian American population and because it is one of the 
few places in the country covered under both Section 5 and 
Section 203.

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-ll.pdf


9
Need for Section 203’s Provisions for Limited English 
Proficient Voters, Hearing Before the S. Judiciary 
Comm., 109th Cong. 37 (2006) (testimony of
Margaret Fung, AALDEF, Exec. Dir.); Letter from G. 
Magpantay, AALDEF Staff Attorney, to J. Ravitz, 
Exec. Dir., New York City Bd. of Elections (June 16, 
2005) (submitted to Congress).

B. Continuing Discrimination Against 
Asian American Populations in 
Section 5 Jurisdictions Has Resulted 
in Disparities in Voter Registration, 
Turnout, and Electoral
Representation.

In City of Rome v. United States, the Court 
upheld the constitutionality of Section 5, recognizing 
Congress’ determination that significant disparities 
existed between the percentages of registered whites 
and African Americans to vote. 446 U.S. 156, 180-81 
(1980). The Court also recognized the dearth of 
African American elected officials, particularly in 
state office. Id. More than 30 years after this 
decision, disparities in voting and political 
representation still exist for minorities, and in 
particular for Asian Americans, as compared to non 
Hispanic white Americans. Approximately 45 
percent of Asian Americans are not registered to 
vote compared to only 26 percent of non-Hispanic 
Whites and 30 percent of African Americans.6 Thom

6 This depressed voter turnout stems, in part, from a 
failure to adequately eliminate formidable language barriers to 
voting, as roughly one-third of Asian Americans over the age of 
18 have limited English proficiency. See Voting Rights Act: 
Hearing on Section 203-Bilingual Election Requirements, Part



1 0

File & Sarah Crissey, U.S. Census Bureau, Voting 
and Registration in the Election of November 2008, 
at 1, 5 (2012), available at www.census.gov/prod/ 
2010pubs/p20-562.pdf.

The voting rates for Asian Americans also tend to 
be low (as low as 35 percent for 18- to 24-year old 
voters) in the South, where many Section 5 
jurisdictions are located, including Alabama, Texas, 
and Georgia. See id. at 10. In Alabama, only 4,000 
of the 16,000 Asian American citizens of voting age 
voted in 2010. See U.S. Census Bureau, Reported 
Voting and Registration by Sex, Race and Hispanic 
Origin, for States: November 2010 (2010), Table 4b, 
available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/ 
socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2010/tables.html. 
This is in stark contrast to the almost 1.1 million 
non-Hispanic white voting-age Alabama citizens who 
voted (out of almost 2.5 million non-Hispanic white 
voting-age citizens), equaling 44 percent of those 
eligible. See id. Data are similarly low in other 
Section 5 jurisdictions, particularly in the South. 
For example, in Georgia, which has a population of 
102,000 Asian American citizens, only 30 percent of 
those citizens were registered to vote in November 
2006, and only 26 percent actually voted. See U.S. 
Census Bureau, Reported Voting and Registration of 
the Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race and

I Before the H. Subcomm. on the Const, of the H. Judiciary 
Comm., 109th Cong. 19 (2005) (statement of Margaret Fung, 
AALDEF, Exec. Dir.); see also Voting Rights Act and 
Reauthorization Amendments Act of 2006 (Part II): Hearing on 
H.R. 9 Before the H. Subcomm. on the Const, of the H. 
Judiciary Comm., 109th Cong. 40 (2006) (prepared statement of 
K. Narasaki, citing a 2000 U.S. Census Report).

http://www.census.gov/prod/
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/


1 1

Hispanic Origin, for States: November 2006 (2006), 
Table 4b, available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/
www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2006/tables.ht
ml (hereinafter “2006 Table 4b”). This stands in 
stark contrast to the percentage of non-Hispanie 
white citizens in Georgia who were registered (69 
percent) and who voted (47 percent). See id.7 In the 
2008 general election, only 58 percent of Georgia’s 
Asian American registered voters turned out to vote 
compared to 77 percent of the state’s white 
registered voters. See Ga. Sec’y of State Voter 
Registration Sys., Active Voters by Race/Gender, 
General Election Voting History (Jan. 23, 2009), 
available at http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/
voter_registration/2008%20stats/DocumentDirect%2
0SSVRZ376_Nov_2008.pdf.

In addition to these disparities in voter 
registration and turnout, Asian Americans continue 
to lack representation in elected offices nationwide. 
The Asian American community faces ongoing 
discrimination and has yet to see its political 
strength keep pace with its rapid growth. While the 
Asian American population experienced an 
astonishing eight-fold increase between 1970 and 
2000, the number of Asian American elected officials

7 Similarly, in Texas, home to 319,000 Asian American 
citizens, only 43.0% were registered in November 2006, with 
24.1% actually voting. See 2006 Table 4b, supra, at 11. In 
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. In 
contrast, 71.1% of non-Hispanic white citizens in Virginia were 
registered, with 51.9% voting. See id.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/
http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/


1 2

grew comparatively modestly from 120 to 613 
between 1978 and 2012. Compare Nat’l Comrn’n on 
the Voting Rights Act, Protecting Minority Voters: 
The Voting Rights Act at Work 1982-2005, at 10 
(2006) (citing 1970 statistics), available at 
http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/voting_righ 
ts/documents/files/0023.pdf, with 2011-12 National 
Asian Pacific American Political Almanac 58 (Don T. 
Nakanishi and James S. Lai eds., 14th ed. 2011- 
2012) (presenting 2012 statistics). However, even 
these modest gains for the Asian American 
community could not have been achieved without the 
protections afforded under Section 5 and other 
provisions of the Voting Rights Act.8

II. SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
PROTECTS THE VOTING RIGHTS OF
ASIAN AMERICANS.

The importance of Section 5 of the Voting Rights 
Act in protecting the constitutional rights of Asian 
Americans to participate in the United States 
electoral process at local, state, and national levels 
cannot be overstated. The protections offered by the 
Act remain of paramount importance to the ability of 
the Asian American community to exercise the most 
fundamental of rights offered by a democratic

8 According to a 2005 study, approximately 75 percent “of 
Asian American elected officials were from jurisdictions covered 
by Section 203 provisions or in combination with other 
provisions,” including Section 5. See Carol Hardy-Fanta et al., 
Race Gender and Descriptive Representation: An Exploratory 
View of Multicultural Elected Leadership in the United States, 
at 17 (2005), available at www.gmcl.org/pdFAPSA9-05-05.pdf.

http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/admin/voting_righ
http://www.gmcl.org/pdFAPSA9-05-05.pdf


13

system -  that is, to vote, and to have that vote be 
counted the same as all other participants.

In 1975, Congress extended the Voting Rights 
Act to cover “language minorities,” including Asian 
Americans, recognizing that [discrimination 
against Asian Americans is a well known and sordid 
part of our history.” S. Rep. No. 94-295, at 28 n.21 
(1975); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973b(f), 19731(c)(3); see also S. 
Rep. No. 94-295, at 28-30 (noting that “language 
minority citizens have been the target of 
discrimination in almost every facet of life ). 
Alabama, one of the original jurisdictions covered by 
Section 5, was immediately subject to these broader 
prescriptions for protecting the voting rights of 
language minorities.

Yet by 2006, when Congress was considering 
reauthorizing Section 5, the record before it 
demonstrated that the problems Section 5 sought to 
address, including those experienced by Asian 
Americans, remained ongoing, and could not be 
dismissed as mere sordid history. Over thirty years 
after passing protections for language minorities, 
Congress still faced evidence of profound voting 
discrimination against Asian Americans and other 
minorities, including in Alabama. See, e.g., H.R. Rep 
109-478 at 44, 45; Voting Rights Act and 
Reauthorization Amendments Act of 2006 (Part II): 
Hearing on H.R. 9 Before the H. Subcomm. on the 
Const, of the H. Judiciary Comm., 109th Cong. 40 
(2006) (hereinafter “Hearing on H.R. 9”); see also 
James Blacksher, Edward Still, Nick Quinton, 
Cullen Brown & Royal Dumas, Voting Rights in 
Alabama 1982-2006, at 5-19 (2006) (outlining



14

extensive voting discrimination in Alabama between 
1982 and 2006, including intentional discrimination 
in poll worker appointment and in methods of 
electing local bodies), available at 
http://www.protectcivilrights.org/pdf/voting/Alabama 
VRA.pdf. Overt racism and discrimination against 
Asian Americans at the polls persist to the present 
day, and Section 5 has been a tool to combat such 
barriers.

A. Section 5 Prevents Voter Redistricting 
Plans from  Diluting Asian American  
Voting Power.

Section 5 prevents voter dilution and other 
retrogressive effects against Asian Americans in 
voter redistricting plans by allowing Asian 
Americans to participate in and scrutinize the 
redistricting process.

The protection of the Asian American voice 
afforded by Section 5 remains necessary today as 
there exists evidence of redistricting plans still being 
drafted with discriminatory intent. Indeed, in Perry 
v. Perez, 132 S. Ct. 934 (2012), the Texas Legislature 
engaged in efforts to preclear a redistricting plan, 
PlanH283, that would have had significant negative 
effects on the ability of minorities, and Asian 
Americans in particular, to exercise their right to 
vote.

Since 2004. the Asian American community in 
Texas State House District 149 has voted as a bloc 
with Hispanic and African American voters to elect 
Hubert Vo. a Vietnamese American, as their state 
representative. District 149 has a combined

http://www.protectcivilrights.org/pdf/voting/Alabama


15
minority citizen voting-age population of 62 percent. 
See United States and Defendant-Intervenors 
Identification of Issues 6, Texas v. United States,
C.A. No. 11-1303 (D.D.C.), Sept. 29, 2011, Dkt._No. 
53. Texas, a covered jurisdiction under Section 5, is 
home to the third-largest Asian American 
community in the United States, following New York 
and California. Asian American Center for 
Advancing Justice, A Community of Contrasts: Asian 
Americans in the United States 2011, App. B, at 60
(2011), available at http://www.advancingjustice.org/ 
pdfyCommunity_pf_Contrast.pdf. (hereinafter
“Community of Contrasts’). Consistent with its 
dramatic growth in other Southern states, the Asian 
American population in Texas grew 72 percent 
between 2000 and 2010. Id.

The Texas Legislature sought to eliminate Vo’s 
State House seat and redistribute the coalition of 
minority voters to the surrounding three districts. 
PlanH283, if implemented, would have redistributed 
the Asian American population in certain State 
House voting districts, including District 149, to 
districts with larger non-minority populations. See 
Martin Test, at 350:25-352:25. District 149 would 
have been relocated to a county on the other side of 
the State, where there are few minority voters. See
http://gisl.tlc.state.tx.us/download/House/PLANH28
3 pdf. PlanH283 would have thus abridged the 
Asian American community’s right to vote in Texas 
by diluting the large Asian American populations m 
District 149 and other districts.

AAJC’s partner, the Texas Asian-American 
Redistricting Initiative (TAARI), working with a

http://www.advancingjustice.org/
http://gisl.tlc.state.tx.us/download/House/PLANH28


16
coalition of Asian American and other civil rights 
organizations, participated in the Texas redistricting 
process and advocated on the District 149 issue.9 
Despite the community’s best efforts, the Texas 
Legislature pushed through this problematic 
redistricting plan. However, because of Section 5’s 
preclearance procedures, Asian Americans and other 
minorities had an avenue to object to the Texas 
Legislature’s retrogressive plan, and the DOJ 
ultimately rejected PlanH283 as not complying with 
Section 5. See Texas v. United States, C.A. No. 11- 
1303 (D.D.C.), Sept. 19, 2011, Dkt. No. 45, | 3.

AALDEF has also long used Section 5 to protect 
the Asian American community in New York. After 
the 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 Censuses, AALDEF, 
along with many community groups, submitted 
comments under Section 5 on the redistricting plans 
for the New York City Council and New York State 
Legislature, highlighting the importance of keeping 
Asian American neighborhoods within a single 
district due to political cohesion among Asian 
American voters. See AALDEF, Asian Americans 
and the Voting Rights Act: The Case for
Reauthorization, App. O (2006) (hereinafter, 
“AALDEF Report”) (submitted to Congress and 
available at www.aaldef.org/docs/AALDEF- 
VRAReauthorization-2006.pdf); Letter from M. 
Fung, AALDEF Exec. Dir., et al. to J. Rich, U.S. 
Dep’t of Justice (Apr. 29, 2003) (submitted to

9 Letter from TAARI, Mexican American Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund, and NAACP Houston to Chairman 
Solomons on the elimination of HD 149 and the community’s 
desire for it to be reinstated (April 26, 2011) (on file with 
author).

http://www.aaldef.org/docs/AALDEF-VRAReauthorization-2006.pdf
http://www.aaldef.org/docs/AALDEF-VRAReauthorization-2006.pdf


17
Congress with AALDEF Report and on file with 
counsel).

B. Section 5 Prevents Changes to Voting  
Systems from  W eakening Asian  
Am erican Voting Power.

Section 5 has also prevented changes to voting 
systems that would have retrogressive effects on 
Asian American voters. For example, before 2001, in 
New York City the only electoral success for Asian 
Americans was on local community school boards. 
In each election -  in 1993, 1996, and 1999 -  Asian 
American candidates ran for the school board an 
won. See Lynette Holloway, This Just In: May 18 
School Board Election Results, N.Y. Times, June 13 
1999, available at http://www.nytimes.com/1999/
06/13/nyregion/making-it-work-this-just-in-may-18-
school-board-election-results.html; Jacques
Steinberg, School Board Election Results, N.Y. 
Times, June 23, 1996, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/23/nyregion/neighb
orhood-report-new-york-up-close-school-board-
election-results.html; Sam Dillon, Ethnic Shifts Are 
Revealed in Voting for Schools, N.Y. Times, May 20 
1993, available at http://www.nytimes.com/1993/0o/
20/nyregion/ethnic-shifts-are-revealed-in-voting-for-
schools.html. These victories were due, m part, to 
the alternative voting system known as “single 
transferable voting” or “preference voting.” Instead 
of selecting one representative from single-member 
districts, voters ranked candidates in order of 
preference, from “1” to “9.” See Thomas T. Mackie & 
Richard Rose, The International Almanac oi 
Electoral History 508 (3d ed. 1991).

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/23/nyregion/neighb
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/0o/


18
In 1998, New York submitted to the DOJ for 

preclearance a switch from a “preference voting” 
system, where voters ranked their choices, to a 
“limited voting” system, where voters could select 
only four candidates for the nine-member board, and 
the nine candidates with the highest number of votes 
were elected. See 1998 N. Y. Sess. Laws 569-70 
(McKinney). AALDEF submitted comments to the 
DOJ opposing the change and urged denial of 
preclearance because Asian American voters would 
be in a worse position to elect candidates of their 
choice. See Letter from M. Fung, AALDEF Exec. 
Dir., and T. Sinha, AALDEF Staff Attorney, to E. 
Johnson, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Oct. 8, 1998) 
(submitted to Congress with AALDEF Report and on 
file with counsel). The DOJ, using its authority 
under Section 5, interposed an objection and 
prevented the voting change from taking effect. See 
Voting Rights Act: Section 5 of the Act-History, 
Scope, and Purpose, Hearing Before the H. 
Subcomm. on the Const., H. Judiciary Comm., 109th 
Cong. 1664-66 (2005) (appendix to statement of the 
Honorable Bradley J. Schlozman, U.S. Dep’t. of 
Justice) (providing Section 5 objection letter to Board 
and summarizing changes made to the voting 
methods, along with overall objections to the 
changes).

C. Section 5 Ensures that Changes to Poll 
Sites Do Not Deny Asian Americans 
the Right to Vote.

Changes to poll sites frustrate the ability of 
Asian Americans to vote. Since AALDEF began 
monitoring elections in New York City, there have



19
been numerous instances where the Board has failed 
to take reasonable steps to ensure that Asian 
American voters are informed of their correct poll 
sites. Voters have been misinformed about their poll 
sites before the elections or misdirected by poll 
workers at poll sites on Election Day. Section 5 has 
helped to minimize these disruptions.

Section 5’s preclearance requirement serves an 
important and mandatory public notice function: 
any changes to the locations of designated poll sites 
must be submitted for preclearance, and, once 
submitted, the Attorney General must notify 
interested individuals and groups of the proposed 
submission, as well as provide copies of detailed 
submissions to groups who request the information. 
See 28 C.F.R. §§ 51.32, 51.33. Such advance notice 
is a prerequisite to the community’s ability to react 
to a disruptive change in poll sites or other election 
procedures. Experience has shown that Section 5 
has prevented sudden poll site closures in Asian 
American neighborhoods that would otherwise have 
been made without any notice to the community.

Section 5 ensures that voters receive notice of 
poll site changes, even in emergencies. See AALDEF 
Report at 41. For example, in 2001, primary 
elections in New York City were rescheduled due to 
the attacks on the World Trade Center. The week 
before the rescheduled primaries, AALDEF 
discovered that a certain poll site, I.S. 131, a school 
located in the heart of Chinatown and within the 
restricted zone in lower Manhattan, was being used 
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for 
services related to the World Trade Center attacks.



20
The Board chose to close down the poll site and 
submitted the proposed change to the DOJ for 
preclearance under Section 5, but failed to inform 
voters of the change. See id.

AALDEF lodged oral comments with the DOJ 
urging for an objection because no notice had been 
given to voters. The Board provided no media 
announcement to the Asian language newspapers, 
made no attempts to send out a mailing to voters, 
and failed to arrange for the placement of signs or 
poll workers at the site to redirect voters to other 
sites. In fact, no consideration at all was made for 
the fact that the majority of voters at this site were 
limited English proficient, and that the site had been 
targeted for Asian language assistance under 
Section 203. AALDEF contended that the Board 
should have considered placing bilingual poll 
workers and translated signs at the poll site 
directing voters to alternative poll sites. See id.

Thereafter, the DOJ issued an objection and 
informed the Board that the change could not take 
effect. The elections subsequently took place as 
originally planned at I.S. 131, and hundreds of votes 
were cast on September 25. See id. Without Section 
5, those voters would have undoubtedly lost their 
right to vote.



2 1

D. Section 5 Helps Asian Americans 
Exercise Their Voting Rights, 
Particularly in Jurisdictions Covered 
by the Language Assistance 
Provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Section 5 has had its greatest impact on the 
ability of Asian Americans to participate in the 
political process by ensuring effective language 
assistance at the polls.10 Section 203 of the Voting 
Rights Act requires jurisdictions, based on a formula 
using census data, to provide translated ballots and 
voting materials as well as oral language assistance 
for voters who are limited English proficient. See 42 
U.S.C. § 1973aa-la(c). Section 5 requires that any 
plans to comply with Section 203, or changes to 
current practices to comply with that section, be 
precleared. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(f)(3)-(4) (applying 
Section 5 coverage trigger to language assistance 
obligations). Section 5 enforces Section 203 so as to 
ensure that any changes to the provision of language 
assistance are not retrogressive by allowing 
interested individuals and community groups to 
review any proposed changes and provide comments 
during the preclearance period. See 28 C.F.R. § 
51.29.

10 The United States Census Bureau reports that almost 
two-thirds of Asian Americans are foreign-born, and 
approximately one in three are limited in their English 
proficiency. See Community of Contrasts, supra, at 15. 
Moreover, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that among 
certain Asian American groups, including Vietnamese, Hmong, 
Cambodians, Laotians, Taiwanese, Koreans, and Chinese, 
roughly half the populations are “limited English proficient.” 
Id. at 28.



22
Thus, when jurisdictions are covered under both 

Sections 5 and 203 for Asian language assistance -  
such as New York and Kings Counties in New York 
and Harris County in Texas -  the provisions 
combine as a powerful tool to ensure that language 
minorities have full access to political participation.

For example, Section 5 played a pivotal role in 
shaping the Chinese Language Assistance Program 
in New York City, which was first adopted after 
three counties in the city gained coverage under 
Section 203 in 1992. Limited English proficient 
Chinese American voters typically know the 
candidates by their transliterated names. These 
names appear in Asian-language media outlets, 
advertising, public notices, and campaign literature. 
See AALDEF, The Asian American Vote: A Report on 
the AALDEF Multilingual Exit Poll in the 2004 
Presidential Election 12 (2005) (finding that 36 
percent of Asian American voters turned to ethnic 
media outlets in Asian languages for their main 
source of news about politics and community issues), 
available at www.aaldef.org/docs/AALDEF-Exit-Poll- 
2004.pdf.

In the 1994 election cycle, community groups 
pressed for fully translated ballots that included the 
transliteration of the candidates’ names in Chinese. 
The Justice Department’s denial of preclearance for 
New York City’s Chinese language program under 
Section 5’s comment and preclearance process gave 
community groups and individuals the valuable 
opportunity to shape the nature and scope of 
meaningful language assistance programs, resulting 
in fully translated ballots for the limited English

http://www.aaldef.org/docs/AALDEF-Exit-Poll-2004.pdf
http://www.aaldef.org/docs/AALDEF-Exit-Poll-2004.pdf


23
proficient Chinese Americans who sought to exercise 
their civic duties. Ashley Dunn, Board Agrees on 
Ballots In Chinese, N.Y. Times, Aug. 25, 1994, 
available at http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/25/ 
nyegion/board-agrees-on-ballots-in-chinese.html; 
Voting Rights Act: Hearing on Section 203-Bilingual 
Election Requirements, (Part I) Before the H. 
Subcomm. on the Const, of the H. Judiciary Comm., 
109th Cong. 19 (2005) (statement of Margaret Fung, 
AALDEF, Exec. Dir.); see also Letter from D. 
Patrick, U.S. Dep’t of Justice to K. King, Gen. 
Counsel, New York City Bd. of Elections (May 13, 
1994) (denying preclearance; on file with counsel).

The growing need for Sections 5 and 203 to 
provide language assistance for voters became more 
evident after the 2000 Census, which reported a 66 
percent growth in the Asian American population in 
New York. See Jessica S. Barnes & Claudette E. 
Bennett, U.S. Census Bureau, The Asian Population: 
2000, at 5 tbl. 2 (2002), available at www.census.gov/ 
prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01- 16.pdf. Commensurate with 
this growth, the number of poll sites and election 
districts targeted to provide language assistance 
significantly increased. See AALDEF Report at 43.

Despite this population growth, the New York 
City Board of Election tried to curtail its language 
assistance program by proposing a change in its 
targeting formula, which would have resulted in the 
removal of Chinese language assistance at nearly 70 
poll sites in heavily populated neighborhoods. The 
change would have also removed 16 sites for Korean 
language assistance. See id. In response, AALDEF 
submitted comments opposing preclearance under

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/25/
http://www.census.gov/


24

Section 5, arguing that the change was retrogressive. 
See Letter from G. Magpantay, AALDEF Staff 
Attorney, to J. Rich, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Oct. 17, 
2003) (submitted to Congress with AALDEF Report 
and on file with counsel).

In deciding whether to interpose an objection, 
the DOJ sent the Board a “more information” 
request letter, asking for more detailed information 
to refute AALDEF’s contentions. It also gave the 
Board another opportunity to demonstrate that the 
change would not place Asian Americans in a worse 
position to exercise their right to vote. Upon 
receiving DOJ’s “more information” letter, along 
with AALDEF’s opposition letter, the Board 
withdrew its submission to change the targeting 
formula. See AALDEF Report at 43. Only because 
of Section 5 was Section 203 fully implemented in 
New York City in this instance.

In short, Section 5 is a critical component of the 
Voting Rights Act, allowing Asian Americans full 
access to voting and affording them a powerful tool 
to fight efforts to quiet their voices. Without the 
safeguards provided by Section 5, Asian Americans 
would be denied their constitutional right to 
participate equally and meaningfully in the electoral 
process.

III. SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS 
ACT REMAINS CRITICAL IN THE 
CONTEXT OF DISCRIM INATION FACED  
BY ASIAN AMERICANS.

Discrimination against Asian American 
populations in Section 5 jurisdictions is of particular



25
concern given the perception of Asian Americans as 
“outsiders,” “aliens,” and “foreigners.” See, e.g., 
Claire Jean Kim, The Racial Triangulation of Asian 
Americans, 27 Pol. & Soc’y 105, 108-16 (1999) 
(describing history of whites perceiving Asian 
Americans as foreign and therefore politically 
ostracizing them).11 Based on this perception, at 
various points in history Asian Americans were 
denied rights held by U.S. citizens. Remnants of the 
sentiment that evoked these denials persist today 
and continue to harm Asian Americans.

11 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/ClOOsurvey.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. Cynthia Lee, Beyond Black and White: 
Racializing Asian Americans in a Society Obsessed with O.J., 6 
Hastings Women’s L.J. 165, 181 (1995); Spencer K. Turnbull, 
Comment, Wen Ho Lee and the Consequences of Enduring 
Asian American Stereotypes, 7 UCLA Asian Pac. Am. L.J. 72, 
74-75 (2001); Terri Yuh-lin Chen, Comment, Hate Violence as 
Border Patrol: An Asian American Theory of Hate Violence, 7 
Asian L.J. 69, 72, 74-75 (2000); Jerry Kang, Note, Racial 
Violence Against Asian Americans, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 1926, 
1930-32 (1993); Thierry Devos & Mahzarin R. Banaji, American 
= White?, 88 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 447 (2005) 
(documenting empirical evidence of implicit beliefs that Asian 
Americans are not “American”).

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


26
A. Asian Americans Have Suffered a 

Long History of Discrimination.

The shameful history of extensive discrimination 
against the Asian American community in the 
United States is well known. Until 1943, federal 
policy barred immigrants of Asian descent from even 
becoming United States citizens, and it was not until 
1952 that racial criteria for naturalization were 
removed altogether. See Chinese Exclusion Act of 
1882, ch. 126, 22 Stat. 58, 58-61 (prohibiting 
immigration of Chinese laborers; repealed 1943); 
Immigration Act of 1917, ch. 29, 39 Stat. 874, 874- 
98, and Immigration Act of 1924, ch. 190, 43 Stat. 
153 (banning immigration from almost all countries 
in the Asia-Pacific region; repealed 1952); Leti 
Volpp, Divesting Citizenship: On Asian American 
History and the Loss of Citizenship Through 
Marriage, 53 UCLA L. Rev. 405, 415 (2005). Indeed, 
history is replete with examples of anti-immigrant 
sentiment directed towards Asian Americans, 
manifesting in legislative efforts to prevent Asian 
immigrants from entering the United States and 
becoming citizens. See, e.g., Philippines
Independence Act of 1934, ch. 84, 48 Stat. 456, 462 
(imposing annual quota of fifty Filipino immigrants; 
amended 1946); Immigration Act of 1924, ch. 190, 43 
Stat. 153 (denying entry to virtually all Asians; 
repealed 1952); Scott Act of 1888, ch. 1064, 1, 25 
Stat. 504, 504 (rendering 20,000 Chinese re-entry 
certificates null and void); Naturalization Act of 
1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (providing one of the first 
laws to limit naturalization to aliens who were “free 
white persons” and thus, in effect, excluding African-



Americans, and later, Asian Americans; repealed 
1795).

Legally identified as aliens “ineligible for 
citizenship,” Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178, 
198 (1922), Asian immigrants were prohibited from 
voting, see, e.g., Cal. Const, art. II, § 1 (1879) (“no 
native of China . . . shall ever exercise the privileges 
of an elector in this State”), and owning land, Oyama 
v. California, 332 U.S. 633, 662 (1948) (Murphy, J., 
concurring) (noting that California’s Alien Land Law 
“was designed to effectuate a purely racial 
discrimination, to prohibit a Japanese alien from 
owning or using agricultural land solely because he 
is a Japanese alien”). Both immigrant and native- 
born Asians also experienced pervasive 
discrimination in everyday life, People v. Brady, 40 
Cal. 198, 207 (1870) (upholding law providing that 
“No Indian. . . or Mongolian or Chinese, shall be 
permitted to give evidence in favor of, or against, any 
white man” against Fourteenth Amendment 
challenge); see also Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 
(1927) (upholding segregation of Asian 
schoolchildren).

Perhaps the most egregious example of 
discrimination was the incarceration of 120,000 
Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War 
II without due process. See Exec. Order 9066, 7 Fed. 
Reg. 1407 (Feb. 19, 1942) (authorizing the
internment); see also Korematsu v. United States, 
323 U.S. 214 (1944) (upholding the internment 
under strict scrutiny review). White immigrant 
groups whose home countries were also at war with 
the United States were not similarly detained and no

27



28

assumptions regarding their loyalty, trustworthiness 
and character were-similarly made. See Korematsu, 
323 U.S. at 233, 240-42 (Murphy, J., dissenting) 
(noting that similarly situated American citizens of 
German and Italian ancestry were not subjected to 
the “ugly abyss of racism” of forced detention based 
on racist assumptions that they were disloyal, 
“subversive,” and of “an enemy race,” as Japanese 
Americans were); Natsu Taylor Saito, Internments, 
Then and Now: Constitutional Accountability in 
Post-9/11 America, 72 Duke F. for L. & Soc. Change 
71, 75 (2009) (noting “the presumption made by the 
military and sanctioned by the Supreme Court that 
Japanese Americans, unlike German or Italian 
Americans, could be presumed disloyal by virtue of 
their national origin”).

B. Continued Discrimination Against 
Asian Americans Is a Barrier to Full 
Participation in the Political Process.

1. Anti-Im migrant and Anti-Asian  
Am erican Sentiment Remains 
Pervasive.

Racist sentiment towards Asian Americans is 
not a passing adversity but a continuing reality, 
fueled in recent years by reactionary post-9/11 
prejudice and a growing backlash against 
immigrants. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Confronting 
Discrimination in the Post-9/11 Era: Challenges and 
Opportunities Ten Years Later, at 4 (Oct. 19, 2011) 
(noting that the FBI reported a 1,600 percent 
increase in anti-Muslim hate crime incidents in 
2001), available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/

http://www.justice.gov/crt/


29
publications/post911/post911summit_report_2012- 
04.pdf. Numerous hate crimes have been directed 
against Asian Americans either because of their 
minority group status or because they are perceived 
as unwanted immigrants. See, e.g., id., at 7-9 
(discussing numerous incidents of post-9/11 hate 
crimes prosecuted by the DOJ). In 2010, the nation’s 
law enforcement agencies reported 150 incidents and 
190 offenses motivated by anti-Asian/Pacific Islander 
bias. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime 
Statistics (2010), available at http://www.fbi.gov/ 
about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/tables/table-l- 
incidents-offenses-victims-and-known-offenders-by- 
bias-motivation-2010.xls.

Discriminatory attitudes towards Asian 
Americans manifest themselves in the political 
process as well. For example, during a 2009 Texas 
House of Representatives hearing, legislator Betty 
Brown suggested that Asian American voters adopt 
names that are “easier for Americans to deal with” in 
order to avoid difficulties imposed on them by voter 
identification laws. R.G. Ratcliffe, Texas Lawmaker 
Suggests Asians Adopt Easier Names, Houston 
Chron., Apr. 8, 2009, available at
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/ 
Texas-lawmaker-suggests-Asians-adopt-easier- 
names-1550512.php. Although this statement did 
not physically obstruct any voters from reaching the 
polls, it made clear that the Asian American 
community’s voice was unwelcome in American 
politics and notably cast Asian Americans apart 
from other “Americans.”

http://www.fbi.gov/
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/


30

At a campaign rally during the 2004 U.S. Senate 
race in Virginia (a jurisdiction covered under Section 
5), incumbent George Allen repeatedly called a 
South Asian volunteer for his opponent a “macaca” -  
a racial epithet used to describe Arabs or North 
Africans that literally means “monkey” — and then 
began talking about the “war on terror.” See Tim 
Craig & Michael D. Shear, Allen Quip Provokes 
Outrage, Apology; Name Insults Webb Volunteer, 
Wash. Post, Aug. 15, 2006, available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ 
article/2006/08/14/AR2006081400589.html.

Incidents of discrimination and racism like these 
perpetuate the misperception that Asian American 
citizens are foreigners and have the real effect of 
denying Asian Americans the right to fully 
participate in the electoral process. Such 
discrimination has created an environment of fear 
and resentment towards Asian Americans, many of 
whom are perceived as foreigners based on their 
physical attributes. This perception, coupled with 
the growing sentiment that foreigners are destroying 
or injuring the country, jeopardizes Asian 
Americans’ ability to exercise their right to vote free 
of harassment and discrimination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/


31
2. As Asian American Populations 

Continue to Grow Rapidly in 
Section 5 Jurisdictions, Levels of 
Discrimination Against Racial 
M inorities Can Be Expected to 
Rise.

Asian Americans have become the fastest 
growing minority group in the United States. See 
Hoeffel et al., supra note 5, at 1, 3. While the total 
population in the United States rose 10 percent 
between 2000 and 2010, the Asian American 
population increased 43 percent12 during that same 
time span. Id.

The fastest population growth occurred in the 
South, where the Asian American population 
increased by 69 percent. Id. at 6. Today, of the five 
states with the fastest Asian American population 
growth, two are entirely covered under Section 5 
(Arizona and Georgia) and another (North Carolina) 
is partially covered. See 28 C.F.R. pt. 51, App.; 
Hoeffel et al., supra, note 5, at 8. In Alabama (also a 
completely covered state), Asian Americans 
experienced a 70 percent increase between 2000 and 
2010. Hoeffel et al., supra, note 5, at 7.

With this demographic shift comes a continuing 
need for Section 5 to combat voting discrimination in

12 The U.S. Census Bureau data in this brief reflects 
figures for Asian Americans who reported themselves as “Asian 
alone.” Counting the Asian American community’s rapidly 
growing multiracial population, who reported as “Asian alone 
or in combination,” this growth rate is 46 percent. Community 
of Contrasts, supra, at 15.



32

covered jurisdictions. See Voting Rights Act: 
Hearing on Section 203-Bilingual Election 
Requirements, (Part I) Before the H. Subcomm. on 
the Const, of the H. Judiciary Comm., 109th Cong. 
19 (2005) (statement of Margaret Fung, AALDEF, 
Exec. Dir.); Hearing on H.R. 9, 109th Cong. 47 
(prepared statement of K. Narasaki, Exec. Dir., 
Asian Am. Justice Ctr.). When groups of minorities 
move into or outpace general population growth in 
an area, reactions to the influx of outsiders can 
result in racial tension.13 Thus, as Asian American 
populations continue to increase rapidly in 
jurisdictions covered by Section 5, levels of racial 
tension and discrimination against racial minorities 
can be expected to increase. In 2011, the growth of 
immigrant communities and rising anti-immigrant

13 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, Virginia, 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.com/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, 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), available at 
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/12/ local/me-chinohillsl2.

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/12/


33
sentiment in Alabama led to the passage of H.B. 56, 
the toughest immigration enforcement law in the 
country. Also in 2011, state lawmakers in other 
regions in the South, including Georgia and South 
Carolina, launched efforts to deny the automatic 
right of citizenship to the U.S.-born children of 
undocumented immigrants.14 At the federal level, 
Alabama members of the U.S. House of
Representatives co-sponsored legislation to enact 
this restriction.15 This bill was reintroduced in 2013 
and co-sponsored again by Alabama Representatives, 
as well as legislators from other Section 5 
jurisdictions such as Arizona, Georgia, and Texas.16

Given the discrimination against Asian 
Americans and immigrants that persists as these 
populations continue to grow, the protections of 
Section 5 remain critical in the jurisdictions they 
cover.

CONCLUSION

Section 5 has proven to be an effective tool in 
protecting Asian American voters against a host of

uSee Shankar Vedantam, State Lawmakers Taking Aim at 
Amendment Granting Birthright Citizenship, Wash. Post, Jan. 
5, 2011, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2011/01/05/AR2011010503134.html; see also 
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (holding 
Fourteenth Amendment grants U.S. citizenship to native-born 
children of alien parents).

15 Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, H.R. 140, 112th 
Cong. (2011).

16 Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013, H.R. 140, 113th 
Cong., (2013).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-


34

actions that threaten to curtail their voting rights. 
American citizens of Asian ancestry have been 
targeted as foreigners and unwanted immigrants, 
and racism and discrimination against them in this 
country persist to this day. These negative 
perceptions have real consequences for the ability of 
Asian Americans to fully participate in the electoral 
and political process. Congress properly
reauthorized Section 5 after a deliberative fact­
finding process, mindful in particular of the 
important functions that Section 5 serves for 
minority communities.

For the foregoing reasons and the reasons 
presented by Respondent and Intervenor- 
Respondent, the judgment of the United States 
District Court for the District of Columbia should be 
affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,
Margaret Fung 
Glenn D. Magpantay 
Jerry Vattamala 
A sian  A m e r ic a n  Legal  
D efen se  a n d  E d u c a tio n  
Fund
99 Hudson Street, 12th FI. 
New York, NY 10013 
(212) 966-5932

Monte Cooper
Counsel of Record 

Matthew L. Craner 
Judy Kwan 
Lillian J. Mao 
Andrew S. Ong 
Matthew Pickel 
Matthew Kugizaki 
O r r ic k , H e r rin g to n  & 
Su tc liffe  LLP 
1000 Marsh Road 
Menlo Park, CA 94025 
(650) 614-7400 
mcooper@orrick.com

mailto:mcooper@orrick.com


35

Mee Moua
Meredith S.H. Higashi 
Jeanette Y. Lee 
Terry Ao Minnis 
A sian  A m e r ic a n  Justice  
Cen ter
1140 Connecticut Ave. NW 
Suite 1200
Washington, D.C. 20036 
(202) 296-2300

Counsel for Amici Curiae



App. 1 
APPENDIX

STATEMENTS OF INTEREST OF AMICI

Alliance of South Asian American Labor (ASAAL)
ASAAL is a community-based organization 

founded by trade unionists that are of South Asian 
heritage. ASAAL’s mission is to increase the culture 
of civic participation in the larger South Asian 
American community based on their organizing 
experiences in the labor movement.

American Citizens for Justice/Asian American 
Center for Justice

American Citizens for Justice/Asian American 
Center for Justice was founded in 1983 in response 
to the baseball bat beating case of Vincent Chin. It 
is an organization devoted to civil rights education 
and advocacy in the Asian American community.
Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay 

Area (AABA)
The Asian American Bar Association of the 

Greater Bay Area (AABA) represents the interests of 
Asian Pacific American attorneys in the Greater San 
Francisco Bay Area. It is one of the largest Asian 
Pacific American bar associations in the nation and 
one of the largest minority bar associations in the 
State of California. From its inception in 1976, 
AABA has been actively involved in civil rights 
issues and has advocated on issues regarding 
minority communities, diversity, and equal 
protection. Among other things, AABA filed an 
amicus brief in the Bakke affirmative action case 
before the United States Supreme Court in 1977 and



in In re Marriage Cases before the California 
Supreme Court in 2007.

Asian American Institute (AAI)
The Asian American Institute (AAI) is a pan- 

Asian, non-partisan, not-for-profit organization 
located in Chicago, Illinois, whose mission is to 
empower and advocate for the Asian American 
community through advocacy, coalition-building, 
education, and research. AAI is a member of the 
Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, whose 
other members include Asian American Justice 
Center, Asian Law Caucus, and Asian Pacific 
American Legal Center. AAI’s programs include 
community organizing, leadership development, and 
legal advocacy. AAI is deeply concerned about the 
discrimination and other challenges that immigrants 
face, including laws or policies that 
disproportionately impact and hinder eligible 
citizens’ ability to exercise their fundamental right 
to vote. Accordingly, AAI has a strong interest in 
this case.

Asian Law Alliance (ALA)

The Asian Law Alliance (ALA) is a local non­
profit, non-partisan organization whose mission is to 
ensure equal access to the justice system to Asian 
and Pacific Islanders and low income residents of 
Santa Clara County through legal services, 
community education and advocacy. Founded in 
1977, ALA has a long-standing interest in voting 
rights and protecting the rights of Asian and Pacific 
Islanders to access the polls.

App. 2



Asian Law Caucus (ALC)
Established in 1972, the Asian Law Caucus 

(ALC) is the country’s oldest civil rights and public 
interest legal organization serving the Asian Pacific 
American community. ALC is dedicated to the 
pursuit of equality and justice for all sectors of 
society. ALC represents primarily low-income, 
monolingual, or limited English proficient Asian 
Pacific Americans in the areas of employment/labor, 
immigration, housing/community development, and 
civil rights. Through its Voting Rights project, ALC 
works to ensure the full participation of all eligible 
voters in the electoral process.

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

Legal Center of Southern California (APALC), a 
member of the Asian American Center for Advancing 
Justice, is the nation’s largest nonprofit public 
interest law firm devoted to the Asian American, 
Native Hawaiian 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 
improve the civil rights of Asian Americans, Native 
Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. APALC’s civil 
rights litigation has covered a broad range of issues 
such as race and national origin discrimination, 
access to education, immigration and naturalization, 
language rights, garment worker rights and other 
lowwage worker exploitation. 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.

App. 3



Asian Pacific American Legal Resource Center 
(APALRC)

The Asian Pacific American Legal Resource 
Center (APALRC) is a non-profit civil legal services 
organization based in Washington, D.C. that serves 
the region’s low-income Asian Americans with 
limited English proficiency. Founded in 1998, the 
mission of APALRC is to ensure Asian Americans’ 
access to justice through linguistically accessible and 
culturally appropriate legal services, community 
legal education, and advocacy. Promoting language 
access in government services and the legal system 
is central to the work of the APALRC. Since 2008, 
APALRC has participated in election monitoring and 
voter assistance activities on Election Day to protect 
Asian Americans’ right to political participation.
Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon (APANO)

The Asian Pacific American Network of 
Oregon (APANO) is a statewide, grassroots 
organization, uniting Asians and Pacific Islanders 
(APIs) to achieve social justice. APANO’s efforts 
focus on creating a just and equitable world where 
APIs are fully engaged in the social, economic and 
political issues that affect us. APANO’s work on 
redistricting issues has successfully raised 
awareness about the political representation of 
Oregon’s fast-growing API community with 
legislative decision makers, with community 
partners, and with API communities.

App. 4



Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum 
(APIAHF)

The Asian & Pacific Islander American Health 
Forum (APIAHF) is a national health justice 
organization that influences policy, mobilizes 
communities, and strengthens programs and 
organizations to improve the health and well-being 
of more than 18 million Asian Americans, Native 
Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders living in the 
United States and its jurisdictions. Many of 
APIAHF’s partners are located in Section 5-covered 
jurisdictions including Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Texas and Virginia. APIAHF believes 
that civic engagement and the ability to participate 
in the political process is a crucial aspect to 
achieving health equity and justice for Asian 
American communities.

Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote -  
Michigan (APIAVote-MI)

APIAVote-MI is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) 
nonprofit organization that serves the Asian Pacific 
Islander American community in Michigan through 
civic participation, advocacy, and education. 
APIAVote-MI registered over 700 voters, mobilized 
over 20,000 voters, conducted poll monitoring/exit 
polling, and distributed a multilingual voter guide 
during the 2012 election.

Asian Services in Action, Inc. (ASIA)
Asian Services in Action, Inc. (ASIA) is a non­

profit health and human services agency in Ohio 
dedicated to empowering and advocating for Asian 
Americans/Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) and to 
providing AAPIs access to quality, culturally and

App. 5



linguistically appropriate information and services. 
Incorporated in 1995, ASIA serves over 10,000 
individuals annually, the majority of whom are 
immigrants and refugees from Asia, through legal 
assistance, social services, vocational training, and 
issue advocacy. ASIA has witnessed firsthand that 
naturalized AAPI voters often require assistance at 
the polls due to limited English proficiency and 
unfamiliarity with American civic institutions. 
Given the widespread and persistent stereotypes of 
AAPIs as perpetual and ‘invasive’ foreigners or 
immigrants, ASIA believes that Section 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act remains necessary to protect the 
voting rights of AAPI citizens, especially in locales 
with histories of racial discrimination.

Association of Asian Pacific Community Health 
Organizations (AAPCHO)

The Association of Asian Pacific Community 
Health Organizations (AAPCHO) is a national 
association of community health organizations 
serving medically underserved Asian Americans, 
Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders. 
AAPCHO is dedicated to promoting advocacy, 
collaboration, leadership, access, and civic 
participation to improve the health status of these 
groups. AAPCHO shares the collective knowledge 
and experiences of its members with policy makers 
at the national, state, and local levels and seeks to 
improve the integration and engagement of 
community health centers and their patients in the 
electoral process.

App. 6



Center for Pan Asian Community Services, Inc. 
(CPACS)

Center for Pan Asian Community Services, 
Inc. (CPACS) is a private nonprofit located in 
Atlanta, Georgia. CPACS’ mission is to promote self- 
sufficiency and equity for immigrants, refugees, and 
the underprivileged through comprehensive health 
and social services, capacity building, and advocacy. 
CPACS sponsored numerous events and provided 
community services, such as voter registration 
drives, polling site assistance, exit polling, and voter 
education, during the most recent election cycle. 
CPACS seeks to protect and advance the voting 
rights of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans in a 
state that is covered by Section 5.

Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA)
Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA) was 

founded in 1969 to protect the civil and political 
rights of Chinese Americans and to advance 
multiracial democracy in the United States. Today, 
CAA is a progressive voice in and on behalf of the 
broader Asian and Pacific American community. 
CAA advocates for systemic change that protects 
immigrant rights, promotes language diversity, and 
remedies racial injustice.

Chinese Progressive Association (CPA)
Founded in 1972, the Chinese Progressive 

Association (CPA) educates, organizes and empowers 
the low income and working class immigrant 
Chinese community in San Francisco to build 
collective power with other oppressed communities 
to demand better living and working conditions and 
justice for all people. As part of CPA’s Political

App. 7



Empowerment Campaign, CPA has trained and 
developed dozens of new grassroots leaders and 
reached thousands of Chinese immigrant voters.

Hmong American Partnership (HAP)

Hmong American Partnership (HAP) is a non­
profit community development and social service 
agency that provides critical services and support to 
more than 5,000 community members within 
Minnesota each year. HAP's vision is to reach out to 
the world with profound social, economic and 
education transformation, and a crucial key to 
accomplishing this vision is to encourage Asian 
American community members to participate in the 
civic engagement process. During the last election, 
HAP worked closely with its subsidiary organization, 
Hmong National Development (HND), to launch a 
full-scale GOTV campaign to encourage individuals 
within the community to vote. In addition, HAP 
took a public stance against the Voter ID 
amendment in Minnesota and educated the 
community on the amendment and the importance of 
voting. HAP is dedicated to empowering the Asian 
American community and opposes any measures 
that discriminate and create additional barriers for 
community members to have a voice. Therefore, 
HAP strongly supports efforts to ensure that all 
individuals are given a voice and a chance to vote.

Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
The Japanese American Citizens League 

(JACL) was founded in 1929. It is the oldest and 
largest civil rights organization representing persons 
of Japanese and other ancestry in the United States. 
It has over 10,000 members and chapters throughout

App. 8



the nation. JACL was a leading organization in 
removing state alien land laws and in securing 
redress for Japanese Americans imprisoned during 
World War II. JACL also has a long history of 
advocacy in issues relating to immigration, 
naturalization, and voting rights.
Korean Americans for Political Advancement (KAPA)

KAPA is a membership organization 
promoting progressive policies that advance the 
political and civil rights of all citizens, the rights of 
all immigrants, and economic and social justice for 
all individuals and communities. Through lobbying, 
grassroots organizing, and political action, KAPA 
also strives to encourage civic participation and to 
help organize the political power of individuals -  
particularly of Korean American individuals residing 
in the New York metropolitan area -  in ways that 
advance KAPA’s advocacy purpose.
MinKwon Center for Community Action (MinKwon)

MinKwon was established to meet the needs 
and concerns of the Korean American community 
through education, civic participation, immigrant 
rights, social services, and culture in New York. 
MinKwon works with various grassroots 
organizations on immigration policy and voter 
rights. MinKwon has conducted election poll 
monitoring/exit polling for the past several elections, 
including the 2008 election.

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association 
(NAPABA)

The National Asian Pacific American Bar 
Association (NAPABA) is the national association of

App. 9



Asian Pacific American attorneys, judges, law 
professors, and law students, representing the 
interests of over 40,000 attorneys and more than 60 
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, NAP ABA has 
served as the national voice for Asian Pacific 
Americans in the legal profession and has promoted 
justice, equity, and opportunity for Asian Pacific 
Americans. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has 
proven to be a critical tool for ensuring that all 
Americans have access to the ballot, and must be 
upheld in order to protect the voting rights of Asian 
Pacific Americans. NAP ABA has affiliates in many 
of the Section 5-covered jurisdictions, including 
Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, 
Virginia, California, Florida, and New York.

OCA
OCA is a national organization dedicated to 

advancing the political, social, and economic well­
being of Asian Pacific Americans (APAs). Through 
the 80 chapters and affiliates from across the United 
States, OCA members engage in voter registration, 
mobilization, and protection efforts for the 
traditionally disenfranchised class including but not 
limited to the APA population. OCA has local 
chapters in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, 
California, Florida, New York, and Michigan, which 
are or include Section 5-covered jurisdictions.

App. 10



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 educational organization 
in the United States. SALDEF works to empower 
Sikh Americans and ensure the protection of their 
civil rights, including their voting rights.

South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT)
South Asian Americans Leading Together 

(SAALT) is a national non-profit organization whose 
mission is to elevate the voices and perspectives of 
South Asian individuals and organizations to build a 
more just and inclusive society in the United States. 
As an organization that is committed to the 
importance of civic engagement and ensuring that 
the South Asian community and all immigrant 
communities have the fundamental right to vote and 
fully participate in the election and political process, 
SAALT joins this brief to ensure that Section 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act continues to protect these rights 
for all Americans.
South Asian Bar Association of Northern California 

(SABA-NC)
The South Asian Bar Association of Northern 

California (SABA-NC) was founded in 1993 to 
ensure that Bay Area South Asian lawyers were 
provided an avenue to develop professionally, 
network among peers and volunteer within the 
South Asian community. SABA-NC supports and 
hosts fundraisers for South Asian community 
support and social service organizations and 
facilitates pro bono legal services to those in need.

App. 11



SABA-NC has supported and participated in voter 
registration drives and voter protection poll 
monitoring projects.

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC)
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 empowerment and leadership 
development, as well as by advocating for and 
representing the diverse Southeast Asian American 
community on issues and concerns such as 
education, health care, safety, economic 
development, and civil rights. The Southeast Asian 
American population is spread throughout the 
United States, with high concentrations in states 
such as California, Texas, and Louisiana. SEARAC’s 
work with community-based organizations that 
serve Southeast Asian American communities 
includes working with organizations in Section 5 
jurisdictions such as New Orleans, Merced, and 
Houston.

App. 12





f LLCLegal Printer
202-747-2400 
202-449-9565 Fax 
L egalP rin ters.com

5614 C onnecticu t A venue, N W  #307 
W ashington , DC 20015

February 1, 2013

Clerk
Supreme Court of the United States 
1 First Street, NE 
Washington, D.C. 20002

R e NO. 12-96: SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA V. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, ETAL.

Dear Sir or Madam:

As a member of the Supreme Court Bar i hereby certify that pursuant to Rule 29, on 
February 1,2013, ! caused to be served, by depositing in an official "first class mail” receptacle 
of the United States Post Office, three copies of the Brief of Amici Curiae Asian American 
Public Interest Groups in Support of Respondents on the following counsel for the Petitioner, 
Respondents and Respondent-Interveners:

PETITIONER:
Bert W. Rein 
Wilev Rein LLP 
1776 K Street. N.W.
Washington. DC 20006

RESPONDENT ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. 
ATTORNEY GENERAL:

Donald B. Verilli, dr.
Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice 
Room 5614
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 
Washington, DC 20530-0001

RESPONDENT-1NTERVENORS EARL 
CUNNINGHAM, ETAL.-
Debo l5. Adegbile
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational 

Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, NY 10013

RESPONL)ENT-1NTERVENOR BOBBY 
LEE HARRIS:

Jon M. Greenbaum
Lawyers' Committee for e ll'll Rights

Under Law
1401 New York Avenue, NW 
Suite 4()0
Washington, DC 20005

RESPONDENT-INTERVENORS BOBBY 
PIERSON, ETAL.:
I aughlin McDonald
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 
230 Peachtree Street NW 
Atlanta, GA 30303-1501

This service was effected at the request of counsel for Amici Curiae Asian American 
Public Interest Groups.



9 LLCLegal Printer
202-747-2400 
202-449-9565 Fax 
L egalP rinters.com

5614 C onnecticu t A venue, N W  #307  
W ashington , DC 20015

February 1, 2013

Clerk
Supreme Court of the United States 
1 First Street, NE 
Washington, D.C. 20002

Re No. 12-96: Shelby County, Alabama v . Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney 
General, e t a l .

Dear Sir or Madam:

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the Brief of Amici 
Curiae Asian American Public Interest Groups in Support of Respondents referenced 
above contains 7,685 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by 
Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

As a member of the Supreme Court Bar, I declare under penalty of perjury that 
the foregoing is true and correct.