Filed Date: Nov. 3, 2011
Closed Date: Feb. 28, 2012
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case involved the State of Michigan successfully seeking a declaratory judgment that its Senate, House of Representatives, and Congress redistricting plans did not deny or abridge voting rights in two townships pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the “Act”).
On November 3, 2011, the State of Michigan (the “State”), filed a Complaint on behalf of Clyde Township and Buena Vista Township (collectively the “Townships”) and against the United States of America and the Attorney General of the United States of America in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The State brought the action due to changes in the State’s population which led to the Redistricting Plans being passed and signed by the governor in August 2011. The State cited Section 5 of the Act, which states that any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction—or any political subunit within it—cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. Therefore, because the Townships were covered jurisdictions, proof that the proposed voting change did not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group was required. The case was assigned to a three-judge court of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and Judge Richard J. Leon.
In its Complaint, the State demonstrated the changes in the total population and Hispanic population from 2000 to 2010 in the Townships. The State also showed the total population and Hispanic population in the relevant Congressional Districts, Senate Districts, and House Districts under the 2000/2001 apportionment plans for the years 2000 and 2010. Finally, the State compared the total population and Hispanic population in the relevant Congressional Districts, Senate Districts, and House Districts under the 2000/2001 apportionment plans and the 2010/2011 apportionment plans for the year 2010.
The State argued that the State’s Senate, House of Representatives and Congressional Redistricting Plans did not (1) lead to retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise, (2) diminish their ability to elect their preferred candidates of choices, (3) have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Therefore, the State requested the court declare that the Redistricting Plans satisfied the requirements of Section 5 and the Redistricting Plans may be implemented immediately.
On January 12, 2012, the United States filed a Notice of Consent stating that it determined the State can meet its burden of proof under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and can show, with respect to the Townships, that the Redistricting Plans “neither ha[ve] the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in [42 U.S.C.] 1973b(f)(2) . . . .”
On February 28, 2012, the State and the defendants filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Order. Within the joint motion, the parties concluded that the Redistricting Plans did not violate Section 5 of the Act.
On February 28, 2012, the three-judge court declared that the Redistricting Plans did not have the purpose nor effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, and otherwise satisfied the requirements of Section 5. Therefore, the three-judge court ordered that the State was entitled to declaratory judgment under Section 5 and the Redistricting Plans may be implemented immediately. The matter was terminated on March 1, 2012, and no appeal was filed.
Summary Authors
(11/29/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4211391/parties/state-of-michigan-v-united-states/
Leon, Richard J. (District of Columbia)
Gordon, Gary P. (District of Columbia)
Nobile, T. Russell (District of Columbia)
Rogers, Joshua L. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4211391/state-of-michigan-v-united-states/
Last updated Jan. 26, 2026, 7:48 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 3, 2011
Closing Date: Feb. 28, 2012
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
State of Michigan
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
United States of America (- United States (national) -), Federal
Eric H. Holder, Jr. (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Voting Rights Act, section 5, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973c)
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:11-cv-01938
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Voting: