Case: City of Sandy Springs v. Holder

1:10-cv-01502 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Filed Date: Sept. 7, 2010

Closed Date: Oct. 26, 2020

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case about the City of Sandy Springs, Georgia seeking an exemption (“bail out”) from the special remedial provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the “Act”).  In relevant part, the Act provided that governmental entities and their political subdivisions identified as employing devices infringing on the right to vote would be subject to special provisions requiring preclearance before implementing new voting-related laws or devices.  By virtue of being located in the State of Geor…

This is a case about the City of Sandy Springs, Georgia seeking an exemption (“bail out”) from the special remedial provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the “Act”).  In relevant part, the Act provided that governmental entities and their political subdivisions identified as employing devices infringing on the right to vote would be subject to special provisions requiring preclearance before implementing new voting-related laws or devices.  By virtue of being located in the State of Georgia, Sandy Springs was subject to the preclearance requirements.

On September 7, 2010, Sandy Springs filed a complaint for declaratory relief against the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General, seeking a declaration that Sandy Springs was exempted from coverage pursuant to the “bailout” provision in Section 4(a) of the Act.  The bailout provision allowed identified governmental entities to exempt themselves from the preclearance requirements upon a showing that the conditions set forth under Section 4(a) of the Act had been fulfilled over the prior ten years. 

On September 22, 2010, after appointment of a three-judge court, the parties jointly moved for approval of a consent judgment and decree.  In the joint motion, the Parties explained that the Attorney General had determined that Sandy Springs met all of the requirements of Section 4(a), and that the Attorney General would consent to a declaratory judgment granting bailout to the City under Section 4(a).  The court entered the consent judgment and decree on October 26, 2010, exempting Sandy Springs from the preclearance requirements, but retaining jurisdiction over the matter for an additional ten years.

This case is closed.

Summary Authors

Corey Nevers (10/24/2023)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12696608/parties/city-of-sandy-springs-v-holder/


Judge(s)

Huvelle, Ellen Segal (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Chalmers, Douglas Chalmers (District of Columbia)

Torchinsky, Jason B. (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Ahmad, Ali Ijaz (District of Columbia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

1:10-cv-01502

Complaint for Declaratory Relief Under the Voting Rights Act

City Of Sandy Springs V. Holder, Et Al

Sept. 7, 2010

Sept. 7, 2010

Complaint
7

1:10-cv-01502

Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment and Decree

City Of Sandy Springs V. Holder, Et Al

Sept. 22, 2010

Sept. 22, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief
8

1:10-cv-01502

Consent Judgment and Decree

City Of Sandy Springs V. Holder, Et Al

Oct. 26, 2010

Oct. 26, 2010

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12696608/city-of-sandy-springs-v-holder/

Last updated March 9, 2024, 3:01 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against ERIC HOLDER, THOMAS E. PEREZ ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616032456) filed by CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(rdj) (Entered: 09/08/2010)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Sept. 7, 2010

Sept. 7, 2010

Clearinghouse

SUMMONS (3) Issued as to ERIC HOLDER, THOMAS E. PEREZ and U.S. Attorney (rdj)

Sept. 7, 2010

Sept. 7, 2010

PACER
2

MOTION to Convene Three-Judge Court by CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(rdj) (Entered: 09/08/2010)

Sept. 7, 2010

Sept. 7, 2010

PACER
3

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Douglass Chalmers, Jr., :Firm- FSB FisherBroyles, :Address- 3455 Peachtree Road, NE. Phone No. - 770-630-5927. Fax No. - (770) 495-0895 by CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Torchinsky, Jason) (Entered: 09/08/2010)

Sept. 8, 2010

Sept. 8, 2010

PACER

MINUTE ORDER granting 3 Unopposed Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice: it is hereby ORDERED that Douglas Chalmers is admitted pro hac vice for the purpose of appearing in the above-captioned case. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on September 8, 2010. (AG)

Sept. 8, 2010

Sept. 8, 2010

PACER
4

ORDER granting 2 Motion to Convene Three-Judge Court. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 09/08/10. (gdf) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

Sept. 8, 2010

Sept. 8, 2010

PACER
5

USCA ORDER filed in USCA on September 16, 2010 FOR DESIGNATION OF JUDGES TO SERVE ON THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT;designating Janice Rogers Brown, Judge Ellen S. Huvelle, and Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to hear and determine this case. The U.S. Circuit Court Judge to preside over this case. (ds ) (Entered: 09/16/2010)

Sept. 16, 2010

Sept. 16, 2010

PACER
6

NOTICE of Appearance by Ali Ijaz Ahmad on behalf of THOMAS E. PEREZ, and ERIC HOLDER (Ahmad, Ali) Modified on 9/22/2010 to add additional filer (dr). (Entered: 09/22/2010)

Sept. 22, 2010

Sept. 22, 2010

PACER
7

Joint MOTION for Settlement and Entry of Consent Judgment and Decree by THOMAS E. PEREZ (Attachments: # 1 Joint Motion)(Ahmad, Ali) (Entered: 09/22/2010)

1 Joint Motion

View on RECAP

Sept. 22, 2010

Sept. 22, 2010

Clearinghouse
8

CONSENT JUDGMENT AND DECREE. Signed by U.S. Circuit Judge Janice R. Brown, District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle and District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/26/10. (gdf) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

Oct. 26, 2010

Oct. 26, 2010

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 7, 2010

Closing Date: Oct. 26, 2020

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Political Subdivision of the State of Georgia

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

Assistant 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:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Issues

Voting:

Voting: Physical/Effective Access

Voter registration rules