Filed Date: May 16, 2006
Closed Date: Feb. 21, 2008
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about proper apportionment of city-council districts in New Albany, Indiana. On May 16, 2006, residents and registered voters of New Albany filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, before Circuit Judge John Daniel Tinder (who sat by designation). The voters sued New Albany, the City Council of New Albany, and members of the City Council of New Albany under 28 U.S.C. 1983. The voters alleged that the city council had failed to redraw and divide city precincts into councilmanic districts that contained, as much as possible, equal population. The voters sought in relevant part: (1) a judgment declaring the current councilmanic districts malapportioned and thus a denial of the voters' equal-protection rights and (2) a special commission of five apolitical citizens of New Albany to divide the city into equal councilmanic districts.
Indiana law provided that the legislative body would adopt an ordinance to divide New Albany into six districts that contain, as much as possible, equal population. Indiana Code § 36-4-6-3(b). Another provision provided that such division would be made in 2002, every ten years after that, and when required to assign annexed territory to a district. Indiana Code § 36-4-6-3(g). The voters alleged that, per the U.S. Census in 2000 and then-current county data, New Albany's districts had unequal population—the equal division would be 4933 registered voters in each district. The voters alleged that this unequal division would cause them irreparable and unconstitutional delusion of their votes in the 2007 primary and general city council elections.
On November 12, 2007, the city council moved the court for an order enforcing a settlement agreement the parties had reached that would dismiss the case in full with prejudice. As part of the settlement, the city council agreed to pass an ordinance under which it would redraw the boundaries of its six voting districts by November 22, 2007, in time for the elections, but without an advisory committee. The city council argued that the voters were attempting to disavow or to revoke their acceptance of the settlement agreement. The district court denied the motion for reasons stated on the record (but not available in print) and gave the city council till December 5, 2007, to comply with the agreement. The court also stated that the voters would have fifteen days to reply after a filing (not identified) by the city council.
On December 4, 2007, the voters filed what they called a response in opposition to a motion to dismiss (though no motion to dismiss was filed in the case). The voters argued that the settlement agreement "fell apart by action of the [city council]." The voters alleged that the city council failed to adhere to the agreement because: the city council did not discuss its redistricting proposal at only public meetings; the ordinance the city council passed was defective because it did not require that the districts contain, as much as possible, equal population and there was a discrepancy of 565 registered voters between the largest district and the smallest district; and the ordinance was passed five days before the municipal elections in New Albany and Indiana law prohibited the passing of any redistricting ordinance for a full year before a municipal election.
On February 20, 2008, the parties jointly moved for the court to enter a proposed consent decree. That decree provided in relevant part: the city council would draw its six districts to contain, as much as possible, equal population; the city council had failed to ensure its districts were of equal population since at least 1992; and that an ordinance of redistricting would be adopted and in effect before the municipal elections of 2011. The decree also provided that the city council would establish an advisory committee on redistricting, composed of three council members and three individuals from a list provided by the voters in the lawsuit; that the council would reimburse counsel for the voters for certain attorneys' fees and costs; and that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the decree. The case closed upon the district court's entry of the consent decree on February 21, 2008.
Summary Authors
Jesse Hogin (10/12/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17987451/parties/vogt-v-the-civil-city-of-new-albany-indiana/
Tinder, John Daniel (Indiana)
Beardsley, Stephen Johnson (Indiana)
Ulrich, Jerry Leo (Indiana)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17987451/vogt-v-the-civil-city-of-new-albany-indiana/
Last updated April 16, 2026, 4:57 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 16, 2006
Closing Date: Feb. 21, 2008
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Lawful permanent residents and registered voters of New Albany, Indiana
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
City
City of New Albany; City Council for the City of New Albany, IN; City Council Members for the City of New Albany, IN
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Indiana 4:06-cv-00076
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Issues
Voting:
Challenges to at-large/multimember district/election
Case Summary of Vogt v. City of New Albany, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/43392/ (last updated 10/12/2022).