TEXAS REDISTRICTING & ELECTION LAW

One of two of the more prominent challenges to the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act may now be moot in light the Justice Department’s decision to grant preclearance to a voting change that it had earlier rejected.

The suit - brought by voters in Kinston, North Carolina after DOJ denied preclearance to the city’s plan to switch from partisan to nonpartisan municipal elections - argued that Congress’ 2006 extension of section 5 coverage for 25 years was unconstitutional because it unfairly burdened some jurisdictions and not others.

In late December 2011, the D.C. district court rejected the challenge, and upheld section 5’s constitutionality, in a 95-page opinion.

The plaintiffs then appealed the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case was put on an expedited schedule, with oral argument set to occur on Monday, February 27.

However, earlier this month, DOJ changed its stance on the city’s non-partisan election plan and granted preclearance and asked the D.C. Circuit to dismiss the appeal as moot.

The three-judge panel has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, but, earlier this week, it did cancel oral argument in the case.

If the court does dismiss the case, the leading remaining direct challenge to the constitutionality of section 5 would be a parallel case brought by Shelby County, Alabama, which was argued in January before the same three judge panel.

Although many observers had expected Texas and South Carolina to use their voter ID laws to bring a broad-based challenge to section 5, both instead have brought narrow suits, asking the court only to find that section 5 does not apply to their laws.

DOJ’s motion to dismiss can be found here.

The Kinston plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss can be found here.

The court’s order canceling Monday’s oral argument can be found here.