Laroque v. Holder
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147064
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs challenge Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the 2006 amendments (sections 5(b)-(d)) as facially unconstitutional; Count I challenges both the reauthorization and the amendments under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, Count II challenges equal protection effects under the Fifth Amendment.
- Kinston referendum to replace partisan municipal elections with nonpartisan ones submitted to DOJ for preclearance; DOJ objected, citing likely reduction in black voters' ability to elect candidates of choice; Kinston did not seek reconsideration; plaintiffs filed suit in 2010.
- Court previously dismissed for lack of standing; DC Circuit reversed on standing for Count I and remanded for merits; Shelby County decision discussed as backdrop upholding Section 5 constitutionality; this opinion focuses on two-part Count I (amendments) and Count II challenges.
- Court finds the 2006 amendments are a proper, congruent-and-proportional response to discrimination in voting under Boerne v. Flores; the amendments are severable from the general preclearance regime; Nix has standing to challenge subsections (b) and (d) but not (c); litigation not moot and facial validity upheld.
- Ultimately, the court denies summary judgment for plaintiffs and grants summary judgment for the Attorney General and intervenors on Counts I and II to the extent described above.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the 2006 amendments to Section 5 within Congress's enforcement power? | Nix argues amendments exceed power under Fourteenth/Fifteenth Amendments. | Court previously upheld power; amendments restore pre-Bossier II and Beer analysis. | Yes; amendments satisfy Boerne congruence and proportionality. |
| Do the amendments violate equal protection? | Amendments impermissibly infuse race and create a quota/preference. | Remedial race-conscious measures allowed to remedy past discrimination; narrowly tailored. | No; amendments pass equal-protection scrutiny. |
| Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge amendments (b)-(d)? | Nix directly harmed by preclearance changes and suspension of referendum. | Causation and redressability unclear; some subsections lack standing. | Nix has standing to challenge subsections (b) and (d); no standing for (c). |
| Are subsections (b)-(d) severable from subsection (a)? | Yes; subsections (b)-(d) severable; general preclearance regime remains valid. | ||
| Are the amendments narrowly tailored to address the identified discrimination? | Yes; subsections (b)-(d) are narrowly tailored within Boerne framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976) (purpose/retrogression focus of §5)
- Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (congruence and proportionality test for enforcement power)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (racial considerations in redistricting; standing/strict scrutiny context)
- Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003) (retrogression framework; Ashcroft fix rationale)
- LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) (community of interest; concerns about race-based remedies)
- City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980) (upholding §5 preclearance under original framework)
- Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009) (statutory bailout discussion; preclearance context)
- Katzenbach v. Morgan, 383 U.S. 821 (1966) (upholding remedial power of §5)