LaRoque v. Holder
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134464
| D.D.C. | 2010Background
- Plaintiffs challenge Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (facial and as applied) to the Attorney General's preclearance objection to a Kinston, NC referendum.
- Kinston voters passed a 2008 referendum to switch to nonpartisan local elections (no party on the ballot).
- Lenoir County/ Kinston is covered by Section 5; Kinston sought preclearance rather than bail out.
- AG objected (Aug. 17, 2009) that eliminating party affiliation would likely reduce black voters’ ability to elect candidates of choice.
- Kinston City Council chose not to seek reconsideration or declaratory judgment; plaintiffs filed April 7, 2010 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing and lack of a cognizable private right of action under Section 5.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge Section 5 | Plaintiffs argue they have standing as referendum proponents or voters. | Defendant contends plaintiffs lack standing because Section 5 challenges must concern the Attorney General’s actions, not private injuries. | Standing lacking; facial challenge dismissed. |
| Whether private citizens have an implied cause of action to challenge Section 5 as applied | Plaintiffs assert an implied private right to challenge Section 5’s application. | Supreme Court has precluded private challenges to the AG’s discretionary Section 5 decisions. | No implied private right of action; claims dismissed. |
| Whether the plaintiffs’ claims are unreviewable under Morris and related precedents | Plaintiffs frame as facial challenge not challenging AG’s specific preclearance decision. | Morris and Briscoe bar review of AG’s Section 5 objections; claims cannot be reviewed. | Claims unreviewable; dismissed. |
| If standing exists, whether redressability is shown by declaratory relief | A favorable decision would invalidate Section 5 or require preclearance to resurrect nonpartisan referendum. | Redressability lacking because Section 5’s effects are not readily rescinded and the referendum remained nullified. | Redressability lacking; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969) (establishes standing limitations for private challenges to state actions)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (narrowing of legislative standing; institutional injury insufficient)
- Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491 (1977) (no review of Attorney General’s Section 5 discretionary action)
- City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980) (preclearance challenges by private litigants limited; siyasi de novo review doctrine)