Filed Date: April 20, 2011
Closed Date: July 15, 2021
Clearinghouse coding complete
On April 20, 2011, Alta Irrigation District, a political subdivision of the State of California (“Alta”), filed suit against Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United State of America, and Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division. Alta sought a declaratory judgment, pursuant to Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. §1973b, that it is exempt from coverage under Section 4(b) of the Act and resultingly exempt from the preclearance provision of Section 5 of the Act.
Section 4(a) of the Act provides that a political subdivision subject to the special provisions of the Act may be exempted or "bailed out" from those provisions through a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia if the political subdivision can demonstrate fulfillment of the specific statutory conditions in Section 4(a) for a period of time starting ten years prior to filing of the action and continuing through pendency of the action. Further, Section 4 of the Act states that the Attorney General may consent to entry of a declaratory judgment granting such exemption if the Attorney General is satisfied that the statutory conditions are met.
After conducting a “comprehensive and independent investigation,” the Attorney General agreed with Alta that it had fulfilled the conditions required under Section 4 and was therefore entitled to exemption. On June 15, 2011, Alta and the Attorney General submitted a Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment and Decree.
The Court made several factual findings, including but not limited to Alta’s status as a special district of the State of California, Alta’s population and census data, Alta’s governing board structure and racial makeup, Alta’s participation in electoral processes, and the materials reviewed by the Attorney General in its investigation. Further, the Court made several legal findings on Alta’s satisfaction of statutory bailout criteria, including but not limited to the fact that Alta did not use a test or device with the purpose or effect of abridging any individual’s right to vote on account of race, color, or language minority statute.
Ultimately, the Court determined that Alta met all requisite statutory conditions for exemption under Section 4 of the Act. The Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment and Decree and deemed that Alta was exempt from coverage pursuant Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973b, by Consent Judgment and Decree, filed July 15, 2011.
Summary Authors
(11/27/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12697113/parties/alta-irrigation-district-v-holder/
Leon, Richard J. (District of Columbia)
Hebert, Joseph Gerald (District of Columbia)
Freeman, Daniel J. (District of Columbia)
Heffernan, Brian F. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12697113/alta-irrigation-district-v-holder/
Last updated Aug. 10, 2025, 10:42 p.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 20, 2011
Closing Date: July 15, 2021
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A political subdivision of the State of California
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
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:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: