Case: James City County, Virginia v. Holder

This case involved a county in Virginia successfully seeking declaratory judgement exempting the county and all governmental units within it from the special remedial provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the “Act”).

On August 5, 2011, the plaintiff, James City County, Virginia, filed a complaint against the Attorney General of the United States of America and the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiff cited Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows States and political subdivisions within those States to exempt themselves from coverage under the Act’s special remedial provisions. The case was assigned to a three-judge court of Judge David S. Tatel, Judge Thomas F. Hogan, and Judge Paul L. Friedman. 

In its complaint, plaintiff stated that it satisfied the eight requirements under the Act to meet the exemption. First, in the last ten years, no test or device had been used within the County 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. Second, in the last ten years, no final judgment had been entered by any court determining that plaintiff denied or abridged the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Third, in the last ten years, no Federal examiners or observers were assigned to plaintiff. Fourth, in the last ten years, all governmental unity within plaintiff complied with the preclearance provision of Section 5 of the Act. Fifth, in the last ten years, defendant had not interposed any objection to any proposed voting change within plaintiff, and no declaratory judgment had been denied pursuant to such change by the Court under Section 5 of the Act. Sixth, plaintiff eliminated voting procedures and methods of election which inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process. Seventh, plaintiff engaged in constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation and harassment of persons exercising rights protected under the Act. Eighth, the County expanded opportunities for convenient registration and voting or it existed with the County.

On October 3, 2011, plaintiff and defendants filed a joint motion for entry of consent judgment and decree. Within the joint motion, the parties noted that the Attorney General conducted an independent investigation to determine if the County satisfied the necessary requirements for an exemption. Based on that investigation, as well as information provided by plaintiff, the Attorney General determined that the County meets the requirements of Section 4 of the Act. The parties requested that the Court wait 30 days after the filing of the joint motion before approving the consent judgment and decree. 

On November 9, 2011, the three-judge court granted the parties’ joint motion for entry of consent judgment and decree. Therefore, plaintiff exempted from coverage pursuant to Section 4 of the Act, provided that the court would retain jurisdiction over the matter for ten years. The action was closed and placed on the court’s inactive docket. There was no appeal.