Filed Date: Nov. 15, 2012
Closed Date: March 1, 2013
Clearinghouse coding complete
Pursuant to Section 4(a)(1) of the Voting Rights Act, the State of New Hampshire on November 15, 2012 filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a declaratory judgment exempting ten New Hampshire towns and townships from coverage under Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, also known as a “bailout” from the requirements contained therein. New Hampshire and the ten covered towns and townships were represented by private counsel in addition to the New Hampshire Attorney General. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 2284 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(a)(5), the matter was heard by a three-judge panel.
The action involved very little litigation, as the Attorney General of the United States of America did not contest the action and determined based upon independent investigation that the municipalities were in fact entitled to the requested bailout. A private individual did, however, seek to intervene to stop the bailout by motion filed on December 5, 2012. The individual asserted merely that, as a registered voter in New Hampshire (though not in any of the towns or townships covered by the suit), he had standing to intervene. Determining that the prospective intervenor lacked any standing and because his intervention would only delay the adjudication of the matter, the Court on March 1, 2013 denied the motion to intervene.
By final order on the same day, the Court entered an order granting the parties’ Consent Judgment and Decree and determining the New Hampshire towns and townships of Antrim, Benton, Boscawen, Millsfield, Newington, Pinkham’s Grant, Rindge, Stewartstown, Stratford, and Unity were exempted from preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act. Specifically, the Court noted the Attorney General’s consent to the entry of declaratory judgment granting bailout following “comprehensive and independent investigation to determine the eligibility for bailout.” The Court did note evidence of potential voting changes which had not been submitted for preclearance to the Attorney General, but noted that any such deficiencies had since been remedied and did not appear to be the result of deliberate discriminatory intent. Due to a failure of any adjudications or other determinations that any of the concerned towns or townships had enacted voting laws with a discriminatory intent and had otherwise fully complied or made every effort to comply with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, the Court accepted the Attorney General’s findings and granted the municipalities the requested bailout. Each party was ordered to cover its own costs in the action. The matter was then closed.
Summary Authors
Connor Hicks (11/27/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5024804/parties/state-of-new-hampshire-v-holder/
Sullivan, Emmet G. (District of Columbia)
Hebert, Joseph Gerald (District of Columbia)
Pershing, Stephen B. (District of Columbia)
Donovan, SaraBeth (District of Columbia)
Rosman, Michael E. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5024804/state-of-new-hampshire-v-holder/
Last updated May 8, 2025, 12:03 a.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 15, 2012
Closing Date: March 1, 2013
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
State of New Hampshire
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
United States Attorney General (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)
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Issues
Voting: