Filed Date: July 8, 2010
Closed Date: Oct. 22, 2010
Clearinghouse coding complete
This suit was filed on July 8, 2010 by the City of Kings Mountain, North Carolina seeking an exemption from the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the “Act”). The City of Kings Mountain extends into two North Carolina counties – Cleveland and Gaston – and is a covered jurisdiction subject to the special provisions of the Act, including Section 5 of the Act. Under Section 5, the City or Kings Mountain is required to obtain preclearance from either the Attorney General of the United States or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for any change in voting standards, practices, and procedures since the Act’s November 1, 1964 coverage date for the state of North Carolina.
Since 1965, the Act has allowed states subject to the special provisions of the Act to exempt themselves from coverage under the Act’s special provisions, but only if such states can satisfy standards established in the Act. The exemption process is known as “bailout.” As amended in 1982, Section 4 of the Act provides that states, as well as political subdivisions within such states, that are covered under the special provisions of the Act are entitled to a declaratory judgement in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia if satisfying certain conditions in the 10 years preceding the filing of the action. These conditions include:
1. No test or device has been used either for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, within the State or political subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment;
2. No final judgment has been entered by any court determining that the political subdivision has denied or abridged the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group;
3. No Federal examiners have been assigned to the political subdivision;
4. All governmental units within the political subdivision have complied with the preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973c; and
5. The Attorney General has not interposed any objection to any proposed voting change within the political subdivision and no declaratory judgment has been denied with regard to such a change by this Court under Section 5.
6. A showing that, during the pendency of the declaratory judgment action seeking such exemption:
a. Any voting procedure or method of election within the state or political subdivision exists which inhibits or dilutes equal access to the electoral process has been eliminated;
b. Constructive efforts have been made by the political subdivision to eliminate any intimidation or harassment of persons exercising rights under the Voting Rights Act; and
c. Expanded opportunities for convenient registration and voting exist within the State or political subdivision.
Section 4(b) of the Act provides that governmental entities and their political subdivisions identified as employing devices infringing on the right to vote are subject to special provisions requiring preclearance before implementing new voting-related laws or devices. By virtue of lying between Cleveland and Gaston County, North Carolina, Kings Mountain was subject to the preclearance requirements.
On July 8, 2010, the City of Kings Mountain filed a complaint and motion to convene a three-court judge, seeking a declaratory judgment from the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division that the City of Kings Mountain fully complied with all conditions of Section 4 of the Act and, accordingly, should be exempted from coverage pursuant to the “bailout” provision of the Act. The relief sought by the City of Kings Mountain included requesting that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia take the following actions:
1. Convene a three-judge court to hear the claims raised in its complaint;
2. Enter a declaratory judgment that the City of Kings Mountain is entitled to a bailout from the special provisions of the Act; and
3. Grant such other relief as may be necessary and proper as the needs of justice may require.
On July 19, 2020, the motion to convene a three-judge court was granted.
On September 21, 2010, the parties jointly moved for approval of a consent judgment and decree. In the joint motion, the parties stipulated that the City of Kings Mountain met all of the requirements of Section 4(a) of the Act, allowing for the bailout pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Act.
On October 22, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered the consent judgment and decree, exempting the City of Kings Mountain from the special provisions of the Act, but retaining jurisdiction over the matter for an additional ten years from the date of the consent judgment and decree.
This case is closed.
Summary Authors
Corey Nevers (10/24/2023)
Geoffrey Fay (11/16/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4892896/parties/city-of-kings-mountain-v-holder/
Friedman, Paul L. (District of Columbia)
Hebert, Joseph Gerald (District of Columbia)
Berkower, Risa (District of Columbia)
Heffernan, Brian F. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4892896/city-of-kings-mountain-v-holder/
Last updated Dec. 21, 2024, 7:39 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 8, 2010
Closing Date: Oct. 22, 2010
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Political Subdivision of the State of North Carolina
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Attorney General of the United States (District of Columbia), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Voting Rights Act, section 5, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973c)
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 2010 - None
Issues
Voting: