Shelby County v. Holder Brief Amici Curiae

    No. 12-96

In The

Supreme Court of tfjc QHmtrti States

Shelby County, Alabama,
Petitioner,

v.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General 
of the United States of America, et al .,

Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari 
to the United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit

BRIEF OF A M IC U S CURIAE  
TH E A M E R IC A N  BAR A SSO C IA TIO N  

IN  SUPPORT OF R ESPO N D EN TS

Of Counsel: Laurel G. Bellows*
Jessica L. Ellsworth President
Katie D. Burke American Bar Association

321 North Clark Street 
Chicago, IL 60654 
(312) 988-5000
abapresident@americanbar.org 
* Counsel of Record

Counsel for Amicus Curiae the American Bar Association

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

mailto:abapresident@americanbar.org


Q U E STIO N  PRESENTED

Whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize 
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre- 
existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the 
Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the 
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus 
violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the 
United States Constitution.

(i)



11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................... iii
STATEMENT OF INTEREST.....................................1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT..................................... 4
ARGUMENT................................................................ 6

THE RECORD SUPPORTS CONGRESS’ 
CONCLUSION THAT THE AVAILABILITY 
OF SECTION 2 LITIGATION IS NOT AN 
ADEQUATE REMEDY IN COVERED 
JURISDICTIONS......................................................6
A. Prospective Remedies From 

Successful Section 2 Litigation Do 
Not Undo Substantial Harms Flowing
From Past Discriminatory Elections............... 7

B. The Congressional Record Documents 
Numerous Obstacles To Individual
Voting Rights Actions......................................14

C. The Record Documents The Efficacy
Of Section 5 In Protecting Section 2 
Victories, Preventing Additional 
Harms, And Avoiding New 
Discriminatory Actions....................................21

CONCLUSION........................................................... 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page



Ill
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases-
Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine,

336 F. Supp. 2d 976 (D.S.D. 2004)................ 11
Chatman v. Spillers,

44 F.3d 923 (llth  Cir. 1995)..........................13
Dillard v. Baldwin Cnty. Bd. ofEduc.,

686 F. Supp. 1459 (M.D. Ala. 1988)........ 10, 11
Dillard v. City o f Foley,

926 F. Supp. 1053 (M.D. Ala. 1996)......... 19-20
Dillard v. Crenshaw Cnty.,

748 F. Supp. 819 (M.D. Ala. 1990)................ 20
Dillard v. Town o f North Jones,

717 F. Supp. 1471 (M.D. Ala. 1989).............. 20
Houston v. Lafayette Cnty.,

20 F. Supp. 2d 996 (N.D. Miss. 1998)........... 12
Mississippi State Chapter, Operation 

PUSH, Inc. v. Allain,
674 F. Supp. 1245 (N.D. Miss. 1987)............ 22

Mississippi State Chapter, Operation 
PUSH, Inc. v. Mabus,
932 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1991)..........................22

Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v.
Holder,
557 U.S. 193 (2009)...................................14, 15

Reynolds v. Simms,
377 U.S. 533 (1964)...........................................7

Shelby Cnty. v. Holder,
811 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.D.C. 2011) 20



IV

South Carolina v. Katzenbach,
383 U.S. 301 (1966)...................................14, 15

Texas v. Holder,
_  F. Supp. 2d 2012 WL 3743676 
(D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2012)................................... 4-5

Texas v. United States,
__F. Supp. 2d__, 2012 WL 3671924
(D.D.C. Aug. 28, 2012).......................................4

Vander Linden v. Hodges,
193 F. 3d 268 (4th Cir. 1999).................. 12, 13

Young v. For dice,
520 U.S. 273 (1997)..........................................22

Statute-
42 U.S.C. § 1973............................................passim

Rule-
Supreme Court Rule 37.6.......................................1

Legislative Materials:
An Introduction to the Expiring Provisions 

o f the Voting Rights Act and Legal 
Issues Relating to Reauthorization•
Hearing before the S. Comm, on the 
Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2006)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES— Continued
Page

16, 18



V

H.R. Rep. No. 109-478 (2006)......................passim
Modern Enforcement o f the Voting Rights 

Act■ Hearing before the S. Comm, on the 
Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2006)....................17,18

Reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act’s 
Temporary Provisions• Policy 
Perspectives and Views from the Field• 
Hearing before the S. Comm, on the 
Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2006)................ passim

S. Rep. No. 109-295 (2006).......... 10, 16-17, 18, 20
The Continuing Need for Section 5 

Pre-Clearance- Hearing before the 
S. Comm, on the Judiciary,
109th Cong. (2006)...................................passim

To Examine the Impact and Effectiveness 
of the Voting Rights Act- Hearing before 
the Subcomm. on the Constitution o f 
the H. Comm, on the Judiciary,
109th Cong. (2005).........................7, 8-9, 16, 18

Understanding the Benefits and Costs o f 
Section 5 Pre-Clearance- Hearing before 
the S. Comm, on the Judiciary,
109th Cong. (2006)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES— Continued
Page

15, 16, 17



VI

Voting Rights Act• Evidence o f Continued 
Need■ Hearing before the Suhcomm. on 
the Constitution o f the House Judiciary 
Comm., 109th Cong. (2006)................... passim

Voting Rights Act• Section 5 o f the Act—
History, Scope, and Purpose ‘ Hearing 
before the Subcomm. on the 
Constitution o f the House Judiciary 
Comm., 109th Cong. (2005)........... 9, 16, 17, 19

Other Authorities'
ABA Leadership, House of Delegates,

General Information, http-//www.abanet

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES— Continued
Page

.org/leadership/delegates.html (last
visited Feb. 1, 2013)...........................................2

ABA 2006 Report with Recommendation..............3

ABA Report with Recommendation #105............. 2

ABA Report with Recommendation #108............. 3
Board o f Supervisors Page, Overview,

Lafayette County, Mississippi,
h ttp V/lafaye ttecom s. com/HTML/Main. h t 
ml?Boardof Supervisors Page (last 
visited Feb. 1, 2013).................................. 12

http://www.abanet


V ll

Page
Letter from Robert D. Evans, Director, ABA 

Governmental Affairs Office, to House of 
Representatives (June 20, 2006)...........................4

Letter from Robert D. Evans, Director, ABA 
Governmental Affairs Office, to Senate 2 
(July 20, 2006)........................................................4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES— Continued



STA TE M E N T OF IN T E R E ST1

Amicus curiae the American Bar Association 
(“ABA”) respectfully submits this brief in support of 
Respondents. Because Respondents, other amici, 
and the court below address in detail the 
congressional record as it relates to Section 5 
preclearance, the ABA addresses a corollary issue- 
Section 5 is essential because the record amply 
supports the conclusion that Section 2 litigation 
alone cannot be an adequate and sufficient remedy 
for voting discrimination in covered jurisdictions.

The ABA is the largest voluntary professional 
membership organization and the leading 
organization of legal professionals in the United 
States. The ABA’s nearly 400,000 members span all 
50 states and other jurisdictions, and include 
attorneys in private law firms, corporations, non­
profit organizations, government agencies, and 
prosecutorial and public defender offices, as well as 
judges, legislators, law professors, and law students.2

As the national voice of the legal profession, the 
ABA has taken special responsibility for protecting 
the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and

1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, counsel for amicus 
certifies that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole 
or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary 
contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of 
this brief. No person other than amicus, its members, or its 
counsel made such a monetary contribution. This brief is filed 
with the consent of all the parties.

2 Neither this brief nor the decision to file it should be 
interpreted to reflect the view of any judicial member of the 
ABA. No inference should be drawn that any member of the 
Judicial Division Council participated in the adoption or 
endorsement of the positions in this brief. This brief was not 
circulated to any member of the Judicial Division Council prior 
to its fifing.



2

fostering the rule of law. In 1973, for example, the 
ABA created a committee (now the Standing 
Committee on Election Law) to examine and develop 
ways to improve the federal electoral process. In 
1981, when Congress began hearings on the 
re authorization of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), 
this committee held a symposium attended by 
representatives from congressional committees, civil 
rights groups, academia, and states covered by the 
VRA. In recommending that the ABA support 
re authorization of the VRA, the committee reported 
that the Act “has not only enhanced the political 
posture of minority groups, but it has also advanced 
the very ideals that make our country’s 
governmental system unique in political history.”3 
The committee also reported'

The Voting Rights Act has been called the 
most effective civil rights law ever enacted in 
view of the large number of minority 
politicians elected to office subsequent to its 
passage. There is clear evidence that as soon 
as the Act comes into play, the number of 
minority politicians elected to office increases 
dramatically. Also, there is general agreement 
that the Act has been instrumental in

3 ABA Report with Recommendation #105 (adopted August 
1981), published in 106 Annual Report of the American Bar 
Association 742, 745 (1981), available from the ABA archives. 
Recommendations for ABA pohcy and their supporting reports 
are presented to the ABA’s House of Delegates (“HOD”), which 
is comprised of 560 delegates representing states and 
territories, state and local bar associations, affiliated 
organizations, sections and divisions, ABA members and the 
Attorney General of the United States, among others. Only 
recommendations adopted by the HOD become ABA pohcy. 
See ABA Leadership, House of Delegates, General Information, 
available at http://www.abanet.org/leadership/delegates.html.

http://www.abanet.org/leadership/delegates.html


3

developing a political community of interest 
and awareness in minority communities.4

In 2005, the ABA adopted a policy that supported 
the 25-year extension of the Act that is now before 
the Court, stating in the accompanying Report that 
“despite the progress that has been made since the 
passage of the Act, members of minority groups still 
face discrimination in exercising their right to vote.” 
ABA 2005 Report with Recommendation #108 at l .5 
Re authorization would “enable continued efforts to 
prevent and dismantle discrimination in votingt,]” 
“enhance access to the political process, deter and/or 
document ongoing abuses and prohibit
discriminatory voting practices.” Id. As the Report 
concluded, “because of the persistence of
discriminatory behavior in the election process,” the 
ABA sought “to ensure that the Act remains a 
valuable tool in the struggle to preserve and protect 
voting rights for all Americans.” Id. at 5.

The ABA reaffirmed this policy in 2006, pursuant 
to which it participated in the congressional debates 
on the VRA’s 2006 re authorization, ABA 2006 Report 
with Recommendation, 6 stating that Section 5 is one 
of the Act’s “most important and effective” 
provisions; that it, along with its companion 
provisions, “will continue to be important factors and

4 Id. at 743.
5 Available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/ 

directories/pobcy/2005_am_108. authcheckdam.pdf.
6 Available at http V/www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/ 

directories/pohcy/2006_bg_exhibit_2_3.authcheckdam.pdf. Because 
legislation reauthorizing the VBA was introduced in the United 
States House of Representatives and Senate in May 2006, but 
the ABA HOD did not meet until August 2006, this Report with 
Recommendation was adopted as ABA policy in June 2006 by 
the ABA’s Board of Governors, acting pursuant to ABA bylaws.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/


4

safeguards in making available the right to vote to 
all segments of our population”; and that it therefore 
“must be reauthorized.” Id. at 1, 4.7

The ABA continues to believe that Section 5’s work 
is not yet complete and that the Act continues to 
provide critical protections against discrimination in 
voting. The ABA also believes, as discussed in this 
amicus brief, that Section 2 litigation alone would 
not be an adequate and sufficient remedy for voting 
discrimination in covered jurisdictions.

SU M M A R Y OF A R G U M E N T

The ABA urges the Court to uphold the 2006 
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act as 
constitutional. The congressional record contains 
extensive statistical evidence and first-hand accounts 
demonstrating that the predicates for Section 5 
preclearance continue to exist—namely, that 
unconstitutional voting discrimination continues in 
covered jurisdictions, that such discrimination would 
be even more prevalent without Section 5, and that 
Section 5 is an effective tool to combat it.8

7 The ABA’s participation included letters sent to Congress 
supporting reauthorization. See, e.g., Letter from Robert D. 
Evans, Director, ABA Governmental Affairs Office, to House of 
Representatives (June 20, 2006), http V/www. abanet.org/poladv/ 
letters/electionlaw/0606201etter_vra_reauth_house.pd£ Letter from 
Robert D. Evans, Director, ABA Governmental Affairs Office, to 
Senate 2 (July 20, 2006), http7Avww.abanet.org/poladv/letters/ 
election law/0607201etter_vra_reauth_se nate.pdf.

8 Indeed, as recently as last year, courts continue to reject 
under Section 5 voting laws that have a discriminatory purpose
or effect. See, e.g., Texas v. United S tates,__F. Supp. 2 d ___,
2012 WL 3671924, at *18 (D.D.C. Aug. 28, 2012) (redistricting 
plan violated Section 5 because it “was enacted with 
discriminatory purpose” and would increase representation 
gap); Texas v. Holder, _  F. Supp. 2d 2012 WL 3743676, at 
*32 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2012) (voter ID law violated Section 5



5

The congressional record also supports Congress’ 
conclusion that Section 2 litigation alone would be an 
inadequate and insufficient remedy for voting 
discrimination in covered jurisdictions. That is the 
focus of this brief. Voting rights litigation under 
Section 2, as many ABA members know from front 
line experience, is extremely complex and costly. 
During the several years it regularly takes to litigate 
a Section 2 case, officials who were elected under an 
improper election regime continue to hold office, 
implement policies, and make a wide variety of 
decisions that remain in effect, often long after the 
election process that brought them to power is found 
to be discriminatory. Moreover, success in 
eliminating one discriminatory practice is often 
followed by the adoption of a new discriminatory 
practice that must be fought all over again. These 
effects are real and profound for representative 
democracy—and they cannot be remediated 
effectively through the prospective remedies Section 
2 litigation characteristically offers.

The congressional record documents the limitations 
that would result from relying exclusively on Section 
2 litigation to fight voting discrimination in 
jurisdictions with a documented history of 
discrimination. These limitations underscore the 
continuing need for Section 5 preclearance. The 
time, cost, and complexity of prosecuting a Section 2 
case cause significant on-going harms that could be 
minimized by Section 5 preclearance but often 
cannot be remedied after the fact.

because it would have retrogressive effect on racial minorities’ 
effective exercise of the right to vote).



6

A R G U M E N T

TH E RECORD SUPPORTS CO N G R ESS’ 
C O N C L U SIO N  TH A T TH E A V A IL A B IL IT Y  OF  

SE C TIO N  2 LITIG A TIO N  IS N O T A N  A D E Q U A TE  
R E M E D Y IN  COVERED JU R ISD ICTIO N S

Petitioner and its amici argue that Section 2 
litigation and case-by-case enforcement can 
adequately address present-day discrimination and 
should lead the Court to strike down Section 5 
preclearance. The record compiled during the 2006 
re authorization contradicts that argument and led 
Congress to the opposite conclusion- that “case-by- 
case enforcement alone is not enough to combat” 
voting discrimination in covered jurisdictions. H.R. 
Rep. No. 109-478 at 57 (2006). Although Section 2 
litigation is unquestionably useful, the record 
documents that many of the harms caused by voting 
discrimination are not later remediated through 
Section 2 litigation.

That is because elected officials enact, interpret, 
and enforce laws and policies, starting on the day 
they take office. Post-election Section 2 litigation 
cannot turn the clock back and undo the effects of 
these legislative choices. The following sections 
highlight materials in the legislative record that 
document why Section 2 litigation alone is not a 
sufficient remedy in jurisdictions with a history of 
voting discrimination. These materials reinforce 
why Section 5 preclearance remains necessary to 
prevent the fundamental harms to representative 
government that voting discrimination causes.



7

A . Prospective Remedies From Successful Section 
2 Litigation Do Not Undo Substantial Harm s 
Flowing From Past Discriminatory Elections.

Elections held under a discriminatory regime cause 
significant harms that are not remedied, years later, 
by forward-looking Section 2 remedies. Congress 
emphasized the magnitude of harms from 
abridgements of the right to vote- “The right to vote 
is the most fundamental right in our democratic 
system of government because its effective exercise is 
preservative of all others.” H.R. Rep. No. 109-478 at 
6 (citing Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)). 
Indeed, “there is no right more fundamental than the 
right to participate in our democratic form of 
Government,” because, “[t]he ability of our citizens to 
cast a ballot for their preferred candidate ensures 
that every voice is heard, most importantly, the right 
to vote safeguards our freedoms and all other rights 
enshrined in the Constitution.” To Examine the 
Impact and Effectiveness o f the Voting Rights Act'- 
Hearing before the Subcomm. on the Constitution o f 
the H. Comm, on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 1 (2005) 
(“Impact and Effectiveness) (statement of
Congressman Chabot).

Even when Section 2 litigation results in a finding 
that an election was discriminatory, a court is ill- 
equipped to undo the harms that flowed from that 
election, as lawyers well-versed in the remedies 
available for Section 2 litigants told Congress. For 
example, Donald M. Wright, General Counsel for the 
North Carolina State Board of Elections, testified 
from his personal experience that during the several 
years it takes to fully litigate a Section 2 case, “the 
discriminatory voting change is put into effect, which 
would not happen under Section 5.” Reauthorizing 
the Voting Rights Act’s Temporary Provisions-



8

Policy Perspectives and Views from the Field-' 
Hearing before the S. Comm, on the Judiciary, 109th 
Cong. 121 (2006) (“Views from the Field’). As a 
result, “even after a successful Section 2 case is 
brought to stop a discriminatory voting change, the 
damage is often already done: elections may have 
been held under an unlawful plan, providing 
candidates elected under that plan an advantage in 
terms of incumbency and fundraising under any 
remedial plan that might be adopted.” Id.

The congressional record repeatedly emphasizes 
this incumbency advantage that Mr. Wright 
highlighted. Several former and then-current elected 
officials—Republican and Democrat alike—reported 
to Congress that the incumbency benefits enjoyed by 
officials elected under a discriminatory regime are 
unlikely to be remedied by litigation that concludes 
years after they were elected. Colorado’s former 
Lieutenant Governor testified to that precise point:

Whether the incumbent achieved it by an 
illegal scheme, as you characterize it, or was 
simply elected to the position, the reality is 
that incumbents enjoy an advantage as it 
relates to opposition candidates. I mean, that 
has been proven clearly across the board in 
terms of the record of incumbency and the 
ability to hold on to offices.

Voting Rights Act- Evidence o f Continued Need-' 
Hearing before the Subcomm. on the Constitution o f 
the House Judiciary Comm., 109th Cong. 97 (2006) 
(“Continued Need’) (testimony of Joe Rogers). So did 
numerous others.9

9 See, e.g., Impact and Effectiveness at 13-14 (testimony of 
Jack Kemp, former member of Congress and Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development); id. at 43-44 (testimony of



9

When it comes to the incumbency advantage, “[i]t 
does little good to establish months, perhaps years 
after an election is over that the law was violated 
and that citizens were deprived of the opportunity to 
exercise their franchise in a meaningful and effective 
manner.” Voting Rights Act' Section 5 o f the Act— 
History, Scope, and Purpose' Hearing before the 
Subcomm. on the Constitution o f the House 
Judiciary Comm., 109th Cong. 5 (2005) (“History and 
Purpose”) (Congressman Nadler). Even if the 
election regime is changed for future elections as a 
result of successful Section 2 litigation, 
“[{Incumbency can then preclude a subsequent 
remedy at the polls.” Id.

Witnesses also made clear that many other harms 
flow from discriminatory elections during the time it 
takes to litigate a Section 2 case. E.g., The 
Continuing Need for Section 5 Pre-Clearance• 
Hearing before the S. Comm, on the Judiciary, 109th 
Cong. 15 (2006) (testimony of Pamela S. Karlan, 
Associate Dean, Stanford University School of Law) 
(“Continuing Need’) (“Section 2 is not an adequate 
substitute for Section 5 because it allows the changes 
to go into effect, and that means you can go through 
several election cycles while the litigation is going on 
where the discriminatory change is in effect.”); Views 
from the Field at 7 (statement of Debo Adegbile, 
Associate Director of Litigation, NAACP Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.) (“but for 
Section 5, those voting changes, those redistricting 
plans would have gone into effect and would have 
served to minimize the opportunity of African- 
Americans in a State with a long and well- 
documented history of discrimination to participate

Marc H. Morial, President and CEO of the National Urban 
League and former Mayor of New Orleans).



10

in the political process. They would have been left to 
try to find lawyers to bring complex Section 2 cases, 
and all the while they would have suffered from 
discrimination.”).

Decisions in Section 2 cases litigated since the 1982 
VRA reauthorization reinforce this point.10 In one 
case, for instance, the court found that an at-large 
election scheme that had been in place for 27 years 
was specifically intended to be racially 
discriminatory and had “render [ed] the ability of the 
black voters to elect their representative 
substantially inferior to that of whites.” Dillard v. 
Baldwin Cnty. Bd. ofEduc., 686 F. Supp. 1459, 1467 
(M.D. Ala. 1988). As a result, “black citizens of 
Baldwin County have been effectively left 
unrepresented because the school board 
representatives in the county may for the most part 
ignore the interests of blacks in the county without 
fear of political consequences.” Id. (emphasis added). 
And, as the evidence established, “the Baldwin 
County Board of Education has been particularly 
unresponsive to the black citizens’ concern about 
race relations in the county’s schools, in particular 
concerns arising out of school desegregation and the 
apparent resulting displacement of black 
administrators.” Id. Still, the court-ordered remedy 
only changed the situation going forward; it could 
not remedy nearly three decades of black children

10 A significant portion of the congressional record consists of 
reports and accounts of voting rights litigation that occurred 
during 1982-2006. Congress reviewed the litigation reports and 
examined the underlying case law. See S. Rep. No. 109-295 at 
65 (2006) (explaining staffs review of the case law). The 
examples discussed in this brief are drawn from these record 
materials.



11

attending school while the school board was free to 
ignore their interests.

Similarly, in Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, 336 F. Supp. 
2d 976 (D.S.D. 2004), the court held that a 2001 
redistricting plan “dilute [d] the Indian vote and 
violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” finding “that 
Indians in Districts 26 and 27 have been denied an 
equal opportunity to access the political process.” Id. 
at 1052. In reaching this conclusion, the court found 
that “South Dakota is largely unresponsive to the 
needs of Indians.” Id. at 1043. In particular, the 
court catalogued numerous ways that three 
legislators from District 26 who took office under the 
2001 plan “repeatedly voted against legislation that 
was of particular concern to, and supported by, 
Indians.” Id. The court identified over a dozen 
pieces of such legislation that one or more of these 
legislators opposed or helped defeat. Id. 1043-46. It 
described how Indians from District 26 “frequently 
contacted]” another district’s representative rather 
than their own representative. Id. at 1046. The 
remedy for the VRA violation, however, would only 
apply prospectively. Id. 1053. Votes that had been 
cast contrary to Indian interests were not revisited, 
and the legislators continued to serve their term in 
office.

As cases like Baldwin County and Bone Shirt 
demonstrate, during the time discriminatory election 
procedures are utilized, citizens whose votes are 
marginalized (or worse) may be subjected to the 
discriminatory policies and practices of improperly 
elected officials.

Litigation of an extended duration—while
improperly elected officials continue to make 
decisions—is not an anomaly in individual 
enforcement actions. For example, it took seven



12

years for a court to order Lafayette County, 
Mississippi to develop a remedial plan to cure a 
Section 2 violation in how the County Board of 
Supervisors was elected. See Houston v. Lafayette 
Cnty., 20 F. Supp. 2d 996 (N.D. Miss. 1998). 
Elections continued to be held under the unlawful 
plan during the litigation. Id. at 998. As a result, 
improperly elected members of the Board of 
Supervisors made untold numbers of decisions over 
the course of nearly a decade that directly impacted 
Lafayette County’s residents. Supervisors are 
responsible for “adopting the annual budget, setting 
tax rates, adopting orders, resolutions, or ordinances 
which involve county affairs, promoting growth and 
development of Lafayette County, appointing certain 
individuals to carry out the daily business of the 
county such as Attorney, Comptroller, County 
Administrator, Engineer, Purchase Clerk, and Road 
Manager, and many other duties as mandated by 
State Law.”11

In another case, it took the plaintiffs eight years to 
obtain a ruling that a South Carolina legislative 
delegation system that historically “arose against the 
backdrop of a white supremacist movement” and 
“sought to diminish African-American voting power” 
violated the “one person, one vote” requirement 
derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal 
Protection Clause. Vander Linden v. Hodges, 193 F. 
3d 268, 270, 272 (4th Cir. 1999); see also Continued 
Need at 964-68 (Report by Voting Rights Project of 
the American Civil Liberties Union) (“ACLU

11 Board o f Supervisors Page, Overview, Lafayette County, 
Mississippi, httpV/lafayettecoms.com/HTML/Main.html?Board 
of Supervisors Page (last visited Feb. 1, 2013).



13

Report’).12 Throughout these eight years, the 
delegations performed numerous governmental 
functions including “approving or recommending 
expenditures for various activities, approving local 
school district budgets, initiating referenda 
regarding special-purpose governing bodies in public 
service districts, approving reimbursement of 
expenses for county planning commissioners, 
approving county planning commission contracts, 
altering or dividing county school districts, reducing 
special school levies, submitting grant applications 
for park and recreation facilities, and making or 
recommending appointments.” Id. at 276. The 
consequences of years of decisions by the 
unconstitutional legislative delegations
unquestionably lasted long after the unlawful system 
was dismantled.

As one final example, no mayoral or city council 
elections were held in Butler, Georgia, for nine years, 
while Section 2 litigation was pending. Chatman v. 
Spillers, 44 F.3d 923 (llth  Cir. 1995). Ultimately, 
the Eleventh Circuit had to direct the district court 
to dissolve its stay and order a special election. 
When that election occurred, two black candidates 
were elected to the city council for the first time in 
the city’s history. Continued Need at 828-30 (ACLU 
Report).

In these cases, and numerous others, the courts 
ordered forward-looking relief—leaving victims to 
hope that, in the next election, they would not be 
denied an equal voice in governance. But the 
legislative legacies of officials elected through the

12 The Fourth Circuit eventually resolved the “one person, one 
vote” issue in plaintiffs’ favor, without needing to reach 
plaintiffs’ other voting claims. Vander Linden, 193 F. 3d at 272.



14

discriminatory practices would undoubtedly be felt 
long after the next election.

B. The Congressional Record Documents 
Num erous Obstacles To Individual Voting  
Rights Actions.

Congress’ conclusion that case-by-case enforcement 
actions would be insufficient to combat voting 
discrimination in jurisdictions with a history of 
discrimination is further buttressed by the evidence 
it compiled documenting impediments to litigating 
individual actions. Voting rights lawyers told 
Congress that these cases are especially complex, 
difficult, time consuming, and expensive. The 
inordinate amount of resources and expertise it 
typically takes to successfully litigate such cases 
creates real obstacles, even to filing suit.

In upholding the VRA in South Carolina v. 
Katzenbach, the Court acknowledged the historical 
fact that case-by-case litigation has previously 
proven inadequate to stop voting discrimination in 
some jurisdictions. 383 U.S. 301, 328 (1966) 
(“Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was 
inadequate to combat widespread and persistent 
discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate 
amount of time and energy required to overcome the 
obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these 
lawsuits.”). It emphasized this point again in 
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One 
v. Holder. 557 U.S. 193, 197-98 (2009) (“Another 
series of enforcement statutes in the 1950s and 
1960s depended on individual lawsuits filed by the 
Department of Justice. But litigation is slow and 
expensive, and the States were creative in ‘contriving 
new rules’ to continue violating the Fifteenth 
Amendment ‘in the face of adverse federal court 
decrees.’”) (citation omitted).



15

The 2006 legislative record confirms that the 
difficult and complex nature of individual voting 
rights litigation persists as a stumbling block to 
reliance on Section 2 alone. Section 2 litigation 
remains “slow and expensive.” Northwest Austin, 
557 U.S. at 197. If anything, testimony from lawyers 
in the field reveals that such litigation has only 
gotten slower, more expensive, and more arduous 
since Katzenbach. Section 2 cases are among the 
most difficult cases to prosecute and have become 
more complex as voting discrimination has evolved 
from the blatant forms of discrimination that 
characterized the 1965 record to subtler but 
persistent discrimination like vote dilution that is 
more likely to be at issue today. H.R. Rep. No. 109- 
478 at 6 (“Discrimination today is more subtle than 
the visible methods used in 1965. However, the 
effect and results are the same, namely a 
diminishing of the minority community’s ability to 
fully participate in the electoral process and to elect 
their preferred candidates of choice.”).

The following record materials illustrate the nature 
of individual enforcement actions.

• Section 2 cases are enormously complex.
“The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts ranks 

different types of cases by complexity and Section 2 
cases, and voting rights cases in general, have among 
the highest rating. They are up there with securities 
cases and antitrust cases in the complexity and time 
requirements rating. A Section 2 case is not a picnic. 
It is one of the hardest things to do that there is, and 
Section 5 was designed exactly to avoid that kind of 
difficulty.” Understanding the Benefits and Costs o f 
Section 5 Pre-Clearance-' Hearing before the S. 
Comm, on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 20 (2006)



16

(testimony of Armand Derfner, Attorney with 
Derfner, Altman, & Wilborn) (“Benefits and CostJ).

• Section 2 cases impose an extraordinary 
workload on courts and parties.

“According to a study published by the Federal 
Judicial Center, voting rights cases impose almost 
four times the judicial workload of the average case” 
and “are more work intensive than all but five of the 
sixty-three types of cases that come before the 
federal district courts.” An Introduction to the 
Expiring Provisions o f the Voting Rights Act and 
Legal Issues Relating to Re authorization- Hearing 
before the S. Comm, on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 
141 (2006) (responses of Laughlin McDonald,
Director, ACLU Voting Rights Project) (“Introduction 
to Expiring Provision J).

• Section 2 cases are resource-intensive and take 
years to litigate.

“Section 2 requires costly and time-consuming 
litigation. It also requires the bad change to go into 
effect and even be implemented for several election 
cycles before challengers can gather enough evidence 
to mount a successful court challenge, which is also 
incredibly costly, and although there is some 
attorney fees involved, you can never get back the 
money you put into section 2 cases.” History and 
Purpose at 92 (testimony of Nina Perales, Regional 
Counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund).

“The costs by minority voters to hire a private 
attorney under section 2 * * * can run in the millions 
of dollars.” Impact and Effectiveness at 42 
(testimony of Ann Marie Tallman, President and 
General Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund); see also Views from the



17

Field at 121 (response of Donald M. Wright) (typical 
voting rights cases can take several years to 
litigate).13

“Adequate legal, financial and human resources did 
not exist in Mississippi in the past 40 years to bring 
a lawsuit in lieu of every one of the 169 objections 
that have been issued. Those resources do not exist 
today, and given persistent socio-economic 
disparities between Blacks and whites, I have little 
hope that this reality will change in the near future.” 
Modern Enforcement o f the Voting Rights Act- 
Hearing before the S. Comm, on the Judiciary, 109th 
Cong. 96 (2006) (response of Robert B. McDuff, 
Attorney and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of 
the Mississippi Center for Justice) (“Modern 
Enforcem enC).

A private plaintiffs’ attorney reported that “we had 
to put in over 2000 hours representing the plaintiffs, 
in addition to many more hours that the Justice 
Department put in” on a successful 2001 suit 
challenging the method for electing the County 
Council for Charleston, South Carolina. Benefits 
and Costs at 80 (answers of Armand Derfner); see

13 Compounding the burden for victims of discrimination, a 
putative plaintiff must have the resources up-front to hire and 
fund the lawyers, the necessary cadre of experts, and all of the 
associated litigation costs for multi-year litigation. Petitioner’s 
suggestion that concerns about costs may be addressed by a 
post-litigation award of fees, Pet. Br. 33, does not comport with 
reality. Voting rights lawyers repeatedly told Congress that 
potential litigants simply do not have the resources to take on 
the substantial expenses that the plaintiff bears—often for 
years—in these cases and that even in successful cases, voting 
rights lawyers do not expect to be fully compensated. History 
and Purpose at 92 (testimony of Nina Perales); Views from the 
Field at 121 (response of Donald M. Wright).



18

also Impact and Effectiveness (statement of Joe 
Rogers); H.R. Rep. No. 109*478 at 39.

• Section 2 cases require extensive expert 
testimony.

“A typical Section 2 case requires at a minimum a 
demographer to draw plans to prove geographic 
compactness, and a statistician to prove political 
cohesion and legally significant white bloc voting. In 
addition, a typical case may require the services of a 
political scientist, a historian, an anthropologist, or 
other specialist.” Introduction to Expiring Provisions 
at 141 (responses of Laughlin McDonald).

“To be appropriately presented, these cases require 
costly experts including historians, social scientists 
and statisticians, among others.” Modern 
Enforcement at 96 (response of Robert B. McDuff).

Expert fees alone can total “more than one hundred 
thousand dollars.” Views from the Field at 121 
(response of Donald M. Wright).

• There is a small bar o f attorneys with the 
experience and qualifications to Utigate Section 2 
cases.

“Having litigated a great number of voting rights 
matters in the State of Mississippi, I know that there 
are not enough lawyers who specialize in this area to 
carry the load.” Modern Enforcement at 96 
(response of Robert B. McDuff).

“It is a very small bar of [lawyers] who do Section 2 
litigation and who have the expertise to do it.” 
Continuing Need at 15 (testimony of Pamela S. 
Karlan).

Voters in “local communities and particularly in 
rural areas * * * do not have access to the means to 
bring litigation under Section 2,” even though “they



19

are often the most vulnerable to discriminatory 
practices such as racially disparate annexation 
practices, that have significant impact on their 
property values, standingtsic] of living and their 
ability to participate equally in the election process.” 
History and Purpose at 84 (statement of Anita Earls, 
Director of Advocacy, Center for Civil Rights); see 
also Continuing Need at 15 (testimony of Prof. 
Pamela S. Karlan) (“When you get down to the local 
level, the national organizations often are not 
involved, they are not aware of what is going on”).

• Section 2 cases are ill-suited to preserving 
litigation victories.

A number of the cases in the legislative record 
demonstrate that individual enforcement actions 
require multiple rounds of litigation, as recalcitrant 
jurisdictions simply change their tactics after initial 
defeats and continue to employ discriminatory 
electoral procedures after conceding, or after a court 
finding, that their election procedures were unlawful 
under Section 2. When this happens, hard-earned 
victories and their resultant remedies are of little 
value unless litigation is reinstituted. And during 
the reinstituted litigation, discrimination victims 
continue to be denied their fundamental rights and 
continue to be subject to the actions and legacy of 
incumbent officials who continue to be elected based 
on discriminatory procedures.

For instance, after plaintiffs challenged the City of 
Foley, Alabama’s at-large election method under 
Section 2—and won—Foley responded by
implementing a racially discriminatory annexation 
policy, and the plaintiffs had to sue all over again. 
Dillard v. City o f Foley, 926 F. Supp. 1053 (M.D. Ala.



20

1995).14 In that next round of litigation, the city 
entered into a consent decree acknowledging that the 
plaintiffs had established a prima facie violation of 
Section 2 and the Constitution in the annexation 
policy. Id. at 1059.

Similarly, another Alabama jurisdiction—North 
Jones—conceded that “its at-large system for electing 
members of the town council was racially 
discriminatory in violation of [Section] 2” and 
entered into a consent decree. Dillard v. Town o f 
North Jones, 717 F. Supp. 1471, 1473 (M.D. Ala. 
1989). Despite North Jones’ admission, plaintiffs 
had to return to the district court as a result of the 
very next election. This time, the court found that 
North Jones had moved from a discriminatory at- 
large system to a system in which the mayor 
intentionally discriminated against black candidates 
by refusing to provide them with necessary 
registration forms and refusing to swear them in 
after they were elected. Id. at 1476; see also S. Rep. 
No. 109-295 at 126-27.

* * *
As these examples from the legislative record make 

clear, the evidence before Congress concerning the 
modern nature of Section 2 voting rights litigation

14 Foley was a part of the so-called “Dillard litigation” 
initiated in the 1980s and continuing through the 2000s that 
eventually “raised claims against a total of 183 Alabama cities, 
counties, and school boards that employed at-large methods of 
election, including Shelby County.” Shelby Cnty. v. Holder, 811 
F. Supp. 2d 424, 442 (D.D.C. 2011). Petitioner Shelby County 
was a party in that litigation. Shelby County entered into a 
consent decree and agreed to alter its electoral system. See 
Dillard v. Crenshaw Cnty., 748 F. Supp. 819, 821-23 (M.D. Ala. 
1990) (describing Shelby County’s involvement in the Dillard 
litigation).



21

and its remedies was more than sufficient to support 
Congress’ conclusion that Section 2 litigation is not 
sufficient to address voting discrimination in covered 
jurisdictions and is not an adequate substitute for 
Section 5’s preclearance requirements.

C. The Record Documents The Efficacy O f Section 5 
In Protecting Section 2 Victories, Preventing 
Additional Harm s, And Avoiding New  
Discriminatory Actions.

Congress compiled extensive evidence that Section 
5 fills the gaps left by Section 2 remedies. It “has 
enabled the Federal Government and court to stay 
one step ahead of covered jurisdictions that have a 
documented history of denying minorities the 
protections guaranteed by the Constitution.” H.R. 
Rep. No. 109-478 at 65. Among other benefits, 
preclearance prevents relitigation of victories and 
effectively blocks new discriminatory measures from 
being implemented before they can result in further 
injuries. And in so doing, it protects the integrity of 
future elections and our system of government.

Congress specifically found that Section 5 “hats] 
been and continue [s] to be a shield that prevents 
backsliding from the gains previously won.” Id. at 
53. It made that finding based on a record that 
demonstrated Section 5’s efficacy in blocking 
deliberate, repeated attempts by covered 
jurisdictions to reenact a voting regime that a court 
previously had struck down as discriminatory. Id. at 
39-40.

Among others, in 1995, the Mississippi state 
legislature attempted to resurrect a dual registration 
system “under the guise of complying with the 
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA),” 
even though a federal court had struck down the



22

same system as discriminatory years earlier. Id. at 
39.15 But, “[kjnowing that maintenance of the two 
registration systems had previously been struck 
down as discriminatory, the State refused to submit 
the change for preclearance under Section 5.” Id. 
Following a Section 5 enforcement action, and a 
unanimous decision by this Court holding that the 
state must submit its plan, see Young v. Fordice, 520 
U.S. 273 (1997), Mississippi finally submitted its 
plan to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for 
preclearance. DOJ objected, and the system was not 
reinstituted. See Continued Need at 91 (statement 
of Joe Rogers).

In a similar fashion, in 2003, South Carolina 
‘“enacted legislation adopting the identical method of 
elections for the board of trustees of the Charleston 
County School District that had earlier * * * been 
found to dilute minority voting strength in violation 
of Section 2,’” H.R. Rep. No. 109-478 at 39 (quoting 
Continued Need at 401 (ACLU Report)). When the 
DOJ denied preclearance, the state was prevented 
from re-implementing the same system that 
previously had been struck down. Id. at 40.

As the Mississippi and South Carolina examples 
(and others16) demonstrate, Section 5 prevented the 
victims of past voting discrimination from having to 
use Section 2 litigation to challenge—again—the 
same discriminatory system a court had already

15 The earlier victory had required plaintiffs to endure seven 
years of litigation. See Mississippi State Chapter, Operation 
PUSH, Inc. v. Mabus, 932 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1991); Mississippi 
State Chapter, Operation PUSH, Inc. v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 
1245, 1241 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

16 For additional examples of Section 5 objections spurred by 
a jurisdiction’s attempt to evade or undermine the effect of a 
successful Section 2 action, see Federal Resp.’s Br. at 36 n.5.



23

struck down and from having to live under it again 
while they did so.

Congress also considered numerous reports from 
witnesses, many of them lawyers on the front lines of 
voting rights litigation, documenting examples of 
new or additional discriminatory actions that Section 
5 effectively blocked, often without first demanding 
that the victims suffer the discriminatory voting 
practice.

For example, Albany, Georgia submitted a 
proposed redistricting plan following the 2000 census 
that was rejected by the DOJ under Section 5. In its 
objection, the DOJ noted that the black population in 
Ward 4 had steadily increased over two decades, but 
redistricting had decreased the black population in 
Ward 4 “‘in order to forestall the creation of a 
majority black district.’” Continued Need at 400 
(ACLU Reporti) (quoting Letter from J. Michael 
Wiggins, Acting Assistant Attorney General, to A1 
Grieshaber Jr. (Sept. 23, 2002). The DOJ’s objection 
concluded that the plan was implicitly designed 
‘“with the purpose to limit and retrogress the 
increased black voting strength in Ward 4.”’ Id. 
Absent Section 5, these “elections would have gone 
forward under a plan in which purposeful 
discrimination was ‘implicit,’ and which could only 
have been challenged in time consuming vote 
dilution litigation under Section 2.” Id. at 400-01; 
see also H.R. Rep. No. 109-478 at 37-38.

In another example, in Kilmichael, Mississippi, 
three weeks before a 2001 municipal election with an 
“unprecedented number” of black candidates, “the 
town’s mayor and the all white five-member Board of 
Aldermen canceled the election.” Continued Need at 
1282 (“Promises to Keep' The Impact of the Voting 
Rights Act in 2006”). In objecting to this change



24

under Section 5, the DOJ found “that the 
cancellation occurred after Census data revealed 
that African Americans had become a majority in the 
town.” Id. After the town failed to reschedule the 
election, DOJ directed it to hold one in 2003, where 
Kilmichael’s first black mayor was elected. Id.’, see 
also H.R. Rep. No. 109-478 at 36-37.

As a final example, in Waller County, Texas, two 
students at historically black Prairie View A&M 
University were candidates for local office in 2004. 
“[A] month before the election, the Waller County 
Commissioners’ Court voted to reduce the 
availability of early voting at the polling place closest 
to campus, from seventeen hours over two days to six 
hours in one day.” Continued Need at 185 (Report by 
the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act). 
Early voting was crucial, because the election was 
scheduled during spring break. After a Section 5 
action was filed seeking to prevent the county from 
implementing this change without preclearance, 
“[clounty officials abandoned the change and 
restored the additional eleven hours,” which mooted 
the suit but provided relief before the election. Id. at 
186. As a result, “[albout three hundred Prairie 
View students took advantage of the early voting 
period, compared to the sixty who would vote on the 
day of the primary, and the Prairie View student 
running for a seat on the commissioners’ court 
narrowly prevailed.” Id.

As these examples and all the others in this brief 
reinforce, the record Congress compiled in 2006 
documents in detail the continuing need for Section 5 
and the reasons that victims of voting discrimination 
cannot rely solely on Section 2 litigation to fight 
discrimination in covered jurisdictions. Based on the 
record it compiled, Congress reasonably concluded



25

that there remains a continuing need for Section 5 
preclearance.

As Chairman Sensenbrenner aptly put it, “[t]here 
is no more fundamental right than the right to vote 
because in a democracy, only the right to vote can 
protect all the other rights.” H.R. Rep. No. 109-478 
at 117. The ABA agrees that no right is more 
“central to our system of Government” than the right 
to vote, id., and it urges the Court to uphold the VRA 
reauthorization.

CO N CLU SIO N

For the foregoing reasons and those in 
Respondents’ briefs, the Court should affirm the 
decision of the D.C. Circuit and uphold the 
constitutionality of the 2006 Voting Rights Act 
reauthorization.

* *

Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel:
Jessica L. Ellsworth 
Katie D. Burke

Laurel G. Bellows* 
President
A merican Bar A ssociation 
321 North Clark Street 
Chicago, IL 60654 
(312) 988-5000
abapresident@americanbar.org

* Counsel o f Record

Counsel for  Am icus Curiae the Am erican B ar A ssociation

mailto:abapresident@americanbar.org




Hogan
Lovells

Hogan Lovells US LLP 
Columbia Square 
555 Thirteenth Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20004 
T +1 202 637 5600 
F +1 202 637 5910 
www.hoganlovells.com

February 1, 2013

BY MESSENGER

Honorable William K. Suter 
Clerk
Supreme Court of the United States 
One First Street, NE 
Washington, DC 20543

Re: Shelby County. Alabama v. Eric H. Holder. Jr.. Attorney General
of the United States of America, et al.. Case No. 12-96

Dear General Suter:

Enclosed for filing are forty copies of a Brief of Amicus Curiae the American Bar Association in 
Support of Respondents (on the merits) in the above-referenced case, together with the requisite 
Certificates of Compliance and Service. Also enclosed are extra copies of the Brief to be file 
stamped and returned to our messenger.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Sincerely,

^J
Jessica L. Ellsworth 

Partner
jessica.ellsworth@hoganlovells.com 
D 202-637-5886

Enclosures

Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. 'Hogan Lovells' is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US 
LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP, with offices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Brussels Caracas Colorado Springs Denver 
Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York 
Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Washington DC Associated 
offices: Budapest Jakarta Jeddah Riyadh Zagreb. Formoreinformationseewwwhoganlovells.com

http://www.hoganlovells.com
mailto:jessica.ellsworth@hoganlovells.com


No. 12-96

IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Shelby County, Alabama,

v.
Petitioner.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General 
of the United States of America, et al.,

Respondents.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I, Jessica L. Ellsworth, a member of the Bar of this Court, hereby certify 

under Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h) that the Brief of Amicus Curiae the American 

Bar Association in Support of Respondents (on the merits) contains 6,443 words, 

excluding the parts of the Brief that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

QaA&ca. 4<jcsirut̂
Jessica L. Ellsworth 
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 
555 Thirteenth Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20004 
(202) 637-5886

February 1, 2013 jessica.ellsworth@hoganlovells.com

mailto:jessica.ellsworth@hoganlovells.com


No. 12-96

IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Shelby County, Alabama, 

v.
Petitioner.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General 
of the United States of America, et al.,

Respondents.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jessica L. Ellsworth, a member of the Bar of this Court, hereby certify that

on this 1st day of February, 2013, three copies of a Brief of Amicus Curiae the

American Bar Association in Support of Respondents (on the merits) were served by

first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, om

Bert W. Rein 
Wiley Rein LLP 
1776 K Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
(202) 719-7000 
brein@wileyrein.com

Counsel for Petitioner

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.
Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530-0001 
(202) 514-2217
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Counsel for Eric H. Holder. Jr., Attorney General

mailto:brein@wileyrein.com
mailto:SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov


<

Jon M. Greenbaum
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 
1401 New York Avenue, NW 
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005 
(202) 662-8315
jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org

Counsel for Respondent-Intervenor Bobby Lee Harris

Laughlin McDonald
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
230 Peachtree Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303-1504
(404) 523-2721
lmcdonald@aclu.org

Counsel for Respondent-Intervenors Bobby Pierson, et al. 

Debo P. Adegbile
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street 
16th Floor
New York, NY 10013 
(212) 965-2249 
dadegbile@naacpldf.org

Counsel for Respondent-Intervenors Earl Cunningham, et al.

I further certify that all parties required to be served have been served.

Jfessica L. Ellsworth 
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 
555 Thirteenth Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20004 
(202) 637-5886
jessica.ellsworth@hoganlovells.com

2

mailto:jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org
mailto:lmcdonald@aclu.org
mailto:dadegbile@naacpldf.org
mailto:jessica.ellsworth@hoganlovells.com