Filed Date: Sept. 21, 2006
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case involves Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act which allows a state or political subdivision subject to the special provisions of the Act to be exempted from those provisions if it can demonstrate in an action for a declaratory judgment before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that for the ten-year period prior to filing the action and during its pendency, it has both 1) complied with the Voting Rights Act, and 2) taken positive steps both to encourage minority political participation and to remove structural barriers to minority electoral influence.
Plaintiff Essex County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, filed suit on September 21, 2006, in the District Court for the District of Columbia, requesting declaratory relief pursuant to Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C § 1973(b), allowing plaintiff and all governmental within the County to be entitled to a bailout from the special remedial provision of the Voting Rights Act. Defendants include Alberto R. Gonzalez, the attorney general and Wan J. Kim, the assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division of The Department of Justice.
The Complaint also requests, and Plaintiff moved for, a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2284 and 42 U.S.C. §1973b, to hear the claims raised in Plaintiff's complaint. The motion was unopposed. The case was assigned to the Honorable Merrick B. Garland, Honorable Ricardo M. Urbina, and Honorable Reggie B. Walton.
The parties jointly moved on November 2, 2006, for entry of a consent judgment and decree to resolve the action. However, subsection 1973b(a)(4) requires that a covered jurisdiction seeking a declaratory judgment under § 1973b “publicize the intended commencement and any proposed settlement of such action in the media serving such State or political subdivision and in appropriate United States post offices.” As the Joint Stipulation of Facts in support of the motion did not represent that the County had publicized the settlement as required by Subsection 1973b(a)(4), the parties were ordered to show by January 2, 2007, that Plaintiff had in fact publicized the settlement and detail how. If Plaintiff had not done so, Plaintiff was ordered to take such steps necessary to satisfy the requirement and update the court by February 1, 2007.
The parties filed a joint report on December 22, 2006, indicating that Plaintiff had inadvertently failed to comply with the requirements of Subsection 1973b(a)(4), and would do so and report to the court by February 1, 2007. A second stipulation of facts was filed on January 29, 2007, detailing the steps taken to satisfy Subsection 1973b(a)(4) and thereafter, a report filed by Plaintiff on January 30, 2007, indicating same.
The Court ordered, adjudged, and decreed on January 31, 2007 that Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment in accordance with section 4(a)(1) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973b(a)(1) and the parties Joint Motion for entry of Consent Judgment and Decree granted. Essex County, including the Essex County School Board and the Town of Tappahannock, shall be exempt from coverage pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973b(b), provided the Court is to retain jurisdiction for ten years.
The case is ongoing as although it is closed and placed on the inactive docket, it can be reactivated upon application by either the Attorney General or any aggrieved person.
Summary Authors
Ashleigh Gideon (11/15/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4205644/parties/essex-county-virginia-v-gonzales/
Walton, Reggie B. (District of Columbia)
Hebert, Joseph Gerald (District of Columbia)
McCormick, Christy A. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4205644/essex-county-virginia-v-gonzales/
Last updated Aug. 10, 2025, 10:55 p.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 21, 2006
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Attorney General (District of Columbia), Federal
Assistant Attorney General (District of Columbia), Federal
Defendant 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.)
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: $0
Issues
Voting: