Filed Date: Sept. 26, 2012
Closed Date: Feb. 4, 2013
Clearinghouse coding complete
On September 26, 2012, the Browns Valley Irrigation District (BVID) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a declaratory judgment under Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act to “bail out” from coverage under Section 4(b), which would end its Section 5 preclearance obligations. The complaint also sought injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of Section 5 against the District upon the grant of bailout.
BVID was a political subdivision in Yuba County, California, with a primary function to deliver water to agricultural lands and administer a groundwater management program. It is known as an "irrigation district" under California law. Plaintiff alleged that, as a political subdivision within a covered jurisdiction, it was subject to certain special remedial provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including the provisions of Section 5. Plaintiff further alleged that it has met all of the requirements necessary for a "bail out", and that no person in the District has been denied the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group for at least the preceding ten years.
The case proceeded before a three‑judge district court convened for Voting Rights Act bailout actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(a)(5) and 28 U.S.C. § 2284. Consistent with statutory notice requirements, Plaintiff publicized its intent to pursue a bailout and the proposed settlement, including postings on the District’s website, at the Browns Valley post office, in Yuba County public offices, and publication in the Appeal‑Democrat newspaper on October 25, 2012.
Following a comprehensive and independent investigation by the Attorney General into Plaintiff’s eligibility for bailout, the United States consented to the entry of a declaratory judgment. The parties jointly moved for entry of a Consent Judgment and Decree and asked the Court to wait thirty days after filing to allow the public notice to run.
On February 4, 2013, the three‑judge court granted the joint motion and entered a Consent Judgment and Decree. The Court issued a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff qualified for a bail out under Section 4(a)(1) and is exempted from coverage under Section 4(b), thereby terminating its Section 5 preclearance obligations. The Court retained jurisdiction for ten years under Section 4(a)(5), closed the action, and placed it on the inactive docket subject to reactivation upon application by the Attorney General or any aggrieved person. Each party bore its own fees, expenses, and costs.
Post‑judgment, the decree did not impose separate ongoing reporting, notice, or record‑keeping obligations beyond the ten‑year retention of jurisdiction and inactive‑docket status.
As of February 4, 2013, the case is closed.
Summary Authors
LFAA (1/7/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12951075/parties/browns-valley-irrigation-district-v-holder/
Roberts, Richard W. (District of Columbia)
Hebert, Joseph Gerald (District of Columbia)
Westfall, Elizabeth Stewart (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12951075/browns-valley-irrigation-district-v-holder/
Last updated Dec. 4, 2025, 3:14 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 26, 2012
Closing Date: Feb. 4, 2013
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Browns Valley Irrigation District (BVID) is a special district and political subdivision of the State of California located in Yuba County. It is governed by a five‑member board elected at‑large, and election administration is handled by the Yuba County Elections Department. It was subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by virtue of Yuba County’s coverage and sought a Section 4(a) bailout in this action.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Voting Rights Act, unspecified, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq (previously 42 U.S.C § 1973 et seq.)
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:12-cv-01597
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: N/A
Order Duration: 2013 - 2013
Issues
Voting: