LaRoque v. Holder
397 U.S. App. D.C. 93
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Kinston, NC voters approved a referendum switching from partisan to nonpartisan elections, but section 5 preclearance required for covered jurisdictions prevented implementation.
- DOJ objected to the referendum in 2009, citing potential retrogression in black voters’ ability to elect candidates.
- Plaintiffs, including John Nix, sought a declaration that 2006 reauthorization of section 5 is unconstitutional and an injunction against enforcement.
- District Court dismissed for lack of standing and failure to state a claim; court later concluded Nix lacked redressable injury.
- Plaintiffs appeal, contending Nix has standing to challenge the constitutionality of section 5 and the district court’s dismissal of count one; count two (equal protection challenge) was dismissed but later remanded for further consideration.
- The D.C. Circuit vocalizes that Nix has standing and a nonstatutory cause of action to challenge the constitutionality of section 5, and vacates/remands for further proceedings on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nix has standing to challenge the 2006 reauthorization (count one). | Nix has concrete, particularized injuries from ballot-access costs and competitive disadvantages. | Nix’s injuries are too abstract or speculative and not redressable. | Nix has standing to challenge the 2006 reauthorization to the extent of count one. |
| Whether Nix has a nonstatutory cause of action to seek relief against enforcement of section 5. | Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that section 5 exceeds congressional power. | The challenge to enforcement is outside the court’s reach due to Morris-type limitations. | Court recognizes a nonstatutory cause of action to challenge the constitutionality of section 5. |
| Whether prudential standing bars Nix from asserting rights of Kinston and North Carolina. | Nix has a direct interest in invalidating a statute that exceeds Congress’s powers. | Third-party standing limits apply. | Bond v. United States controls; Nix has prudential standing to pursue the claim. |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to pursue count two (equal protection) and if so, how to proceed. | The count-two claim challenges subsections (b)-(d) as unconstitutional race-based rules. | Standing is not adequately briefed; count two may require review of the AG’s objection. | Count two standing is unresolved; district court’s dismissal vacated and remanded for further briefing on count two while addressing count one merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 1992) (establishes injury-in-fact and redressability requirements)
- Shays v. FEC, 414 F.3d 76 (D.C. Cir., 2005) (standing of candidates to challenge election rules; procedural injury)
- Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491 (Supreme Court, 1977) (preclearance reviewability of AG objection)
- Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355 (Supreme Court, 2011) (standing to challenge federal statutes on federalism grounds)
- Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (Supreme Court, 1998) (line-item veto invalid; standing to challenge executive actions)
- Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (Supreme Court, 2003) (totality of circumstances in preclearance analyses)
- Bossier Parish School Bd. v. Reno, 528 U.S. 320 (Supreme Court, 2000) (preclearance of discriminatory but nonretrogressive purposes)
- Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (Supreme Court, 1971) (ballot access permissible under state law)