Testimony of Peyton McCrary
Professorial Lecturer in Law
George Washington University Law School
Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary
Oversight of the Voting Rights Act: Potential Legislative Reforms
August 16, 2021

Chair Cohen, Vice Chair Ross, Ranking Member Johnson, and distinguished Members,
thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.
My name is Peyton McCrary. Although I have retired from 20 years of full-time
university teaching and 26 years of government service in the U.S. Department of Justice, I still
co-teach a course on voting rights law each fall at the George Washington University Law
School, where adjunct faculty bear the title Professorial Lecturer in Law. My testimony today isoffered in my personal capacity as a historian, not as a representative of any organization.
The focus of my testimony is evidence regarding the jurisdictions that would be coveredby a new form of federal preclearance of voting changes, which I understand is being
contemplated by this chamber. Representatives of the Brennan Center for Justice and theLeadership Conference Education Fund asked me some months ago to investigate thepreclearance coverage formula that is being considered for inclusion in the John Lewis Voting
Rights Advancement Act (VRAA). An earlier version of the VRAA passed the House ofRepresentatives December 6, 2019, as HR 4 and is now under consideration in a new Congress.1
The VRAA is designed to restore the preclearance provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act by1

For the record, I have performed the analysis as a consultant for these organizations, not as astaff member for either organization.
1

revising the coverage formula invalidated by the Supreme Court in its 2013 decision in Shelby
County v. Holder. Preclearance refers to the process of receiving prior federal approval from the
Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before
implementing any change affecting voting. My task was to identify the jurisdictions that would
be subject to preclearance should the VRAA become law. This task required the use of researchmethods I have employed – both in my scholarly publications and in expert witness testimony –over the last four decades. For example, it calls among other things for methodology I applied in
my sworn Declaration filed by the United States in Shelby County v. Holder in 2010.2
The new formula for determining the jurisdictions that would be subject to preclearance
under the VRAA would be triggered by the record of voting rights enforcement. My analysis
generally focuses on the last 25 years, currently from 1996 through 2020, although theconclusions would change if the review period changed. Under some circumstances entire states
would be covered; even if the entire state is not subject to preclearance, any individual politicalsubdivision within a state could be covered if the record of voting rights violations in that
subdivision fits meets the criteria of the VRAA.
My understanding of the current version of the bill’s coverage formula is that an entire
state would be subject to preclearance if either of two patterns of violations applied: a) if 15 ormore voting rights violations occurred within the state during the previous 25 years; or b) if 10 ormore violations occurred in the state, at least one of which was committed by the state itself,
rather than by local subdivisions within the state. I also understand that even if an entire state
were not subject to preclearance, any political subdivision would be covered if it had three or2

Declaration of Dr. Peyton McCrary, Shelby County, Alabama, C.A. No. 1:10-cv-00651-JDB(D.D.C.), November 15, 2010.
2

more violations during the previous 25 years. My count of violations includes: a) final
judgments of a voting rights violation by the federal courts; b) objections to voting changes by
the Attorney General; and c) a consent decree or other settlement causing a change favorable tominority voting rights.
I understand that Congress may consider other specifics for the coverage formula. WhileI am not testifying as to any approach Congress should take, I note that changes to the formula
could lead to different conclusions than those I have reached.
Qualifications
I am an historian by training and taught history at the university level from 1969 until
1990. During the 1980s I served as an expert witness in numerous voting rights cases in theSouth. I was employed as a social science analyst by the Voting Section, Civil Rights Division,of the U.S. Department of Justice, from 1990 until my retirement in December 2016. My
responsibilities in the Civil Rights Division included the planning, direction, coordination, andperformance of historical research and empirical analysis for voting rights litigation, including
the identification of appropriate expert witnesses to appear for the government at trial. In someinstances, I was asked to provide written or courtroom testimony on behalf of the United States.
Since retiring from government service, I have served as an expert in several voting rights cases
brought by private plaintiffs.
I received B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Virginia in 1965 and 1966,
respectively, and obtained my Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1972. My primary training
was in the history of the United States, with a specialization in the history of the South during the
19th and 20th centuries. For 20 years I taught courses in my specialization at the University of
Minnesota, Vanderbilt University, and the University of South Alabama. In 1998-99 I took3

leave from the Department of Justice to serve as the Eugene Lang Professor of Social Change inthe Department of Political Science at Swarthmore College. For the last fourteen years, bothduring government service and since retiring from the Department of Justice, I have co-taught acourse on voting rights law as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law
School.
I have published a prize-winning book, Abraham Lincoln and Reconstruction: The
Louisiana Experiment (Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1978), six law review
articles, seven articles in refereed journals, and seven chapters in refereed books. Over the last
three and a half decades my published work has focused on the history of discriminatory election
laws in the South, evidence concerning discriminatory intent or racially polarized voting
presented in the context of voting rights litigation, and the impact of the Voting Rights Act in theSouth. One of these studies was made part of the record before Congress regarding the adoptionof the 2006 Voting Rights Reauthorization Act.3 I continued to publish scholarly work in myareas of expertise while employed by the Department of Justice and expect to continue myscholarly writing now that I have retired from government service. A detailed record of myprofessional qualifications is set forth in the attached curriculum vitae (Attachment 1), which I
prepared and know to be accurate.
Although I write about the history of voting rights law in my scholarly publications andteach in a law school, I am not an attorney. However, the findings reflected in court opinions“The End of Preclearance as We Knew It: How the Supreme Court Transformed Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act,” co-authored with Christopher Seaman and Richard Valelly, Michigan
Journal of Race & Law, 11 (Spring 2006), 275-323. [An unpublished version was printed in
Voting Rights Act: Section 5 Preclearance and Standards: Hearings Before the Subcomm. On
the Constitution, H. Comm. On the Judiciary, 109th Cong., 96-181 (2005) (Serial No. 109-69).]3

4

often provide valuable evidence for investigations by experts. I routinely utilize the factual
evidence provided by court decisions in my scholarly writing. As I observed in a recent journal
article: “The factual evidence presented in court proceedings – in voting rights cases key
evidence often comes in through expert witness testimony by political scientists or historians – isan invaluable resource for historical and social science research.”4
The Methodology I Have Employed in This Investigation
Identifying final judgments in reported cases – and Section 5 objections interposed by the
Attorney General – was my first task. In my files I already had both hard copies and electronic
copies of many of the Section 2 cases from 1982 to the present, and of the voting rights cases
decided under the 14th Amendment before the amendment of Section 2 in 1982. I utilized thedetailed study by Professor Ellen Katz and her students at the University of Michigan Law
School, which became part of the record before Congress for the 2006 Reauthorization Act (andsubsequently published as a law review article).5 The website of the Civil Rights Division’s
Voting Section – where I worked for 26 years – gave ready access to the large number of final
judgments and settlement documents in cases involving the United States (under Section 2,
Section 4(e), Section 5, Section 11(b), and Section 203). Access to Westlaw through GW Law
School facilitated identification of other reported decisions brought on behalf of private plaintiffs
that I counted as violations. The Voting Section’s website also included links to all the Attorney
General’s Section 5 objections from the 1960s through the Shelby County decision in 2013.

Peyton McCrary, “The Interaction of Policy and Law: How the Courts Came to Treat
Annexations under the Voting Rights Act,” Journal of Policy History, 26 (No. 4, 2014), 429-58(quoted sentence at p. 431).
5
Ellen Katz, et.al., “Documenting Discrimination in Voting: Judicial Findings Under Section 2of the Voting Rights Act Since 1982,” 39 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 643 (2006).
5
4

Identifying consent decrees and other settlements in voting rights cases was perhaps themost time-consuming part of the investigation. The library resources of GW Law School gaveme access to LexisNexis Court Link, a database with a comprehensive collection of dockets fromvoting rights litigation. This was the same database I had used to identify settlement documents
in my 2010 declaration in Shelby County v. Holder (cited in Note 1 above). Many Court Link
dockets included links to electronic copies of consent decrees, consent orders, and othersettlement documents. Where no links were available through Court Link, I had to pursue
further research to locate the needed evidence of violations (for which the internet proved
invaluable).6 Numerous publicly available reports and scholarly publications also helped
document court-ordered settlements of voting rights lawsuits.
I expect to finalize a more detailed report to the Brennan Center and the Leadership
Conference soon. In my testimony today, however, I will summarize my findings and attach alisting of the key facts regarding each violation. I hope the subcommittee finds this testimony
useful in considering how to proceed with the VRAA.
Findings
Let me begin by focusing on the eight states that – according to my analysis – are most
likely to be subject to preclearance of voting changes. Recall that under my working
understanding of the coverage formula, an entire state would be subject to preclearance if eitherof two patterns of violations applied: a) if 15 or more voting rights violations occurred within
the state during the previous 25 years; or b) if 10 or more violations occurred in the state, atleast one of which was committed by the state itself, rather than by local political subdivisions

6

Brennan Center staff have also been helpful in locating documentary evidence of settlements,
but the assessment of whether any document demonstrated evidence of a violation was entirely
my own.
6

within the state. I consider as a violation: a) a final judgment that a jurisdiction has violated the14th or 15th Amendments, violated a provision of the Voting Rights Act, or been denied
preclearance by a three-judge federal district court in the District of Columbia; b) an objection tovoting changes by the Attorney General; or c) a consent decree or other settlement in a lawsuit
where the defendants agreed to change the challenged election practice at issue in a manner thatwas favorable to minority plaintiffs. The following exhibit summarizes the number and type ofviolations that in my analysis would require federal preclearance of states if the current versionof the coverage formula were enacted into law. Those states are Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. Exhibit 1 identifies theviolations in each of these states that I counted.
Although I believe they are likely to be covered, there are several states that could dropout of coverage depending on how Congress drafts the bill. Those states are Florida, North
Carolina, and South Carolina. Each is close to the minimum threshold, so minor changes in whatcounts as a violation could make a difference.
On the other hand, barring wholesale changes to the coverage formula as I applied it, I
have concluded that Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas are highly likely to be covered.
There are also several states that I do not think will be covered but may be depending on drafting
choices or the occurrence of a small number of additional violations.7 Virginia could meet thethreshold of 10 violations with at least one by the state if what counts as a violation is altered,although I currently have it at 8 violations. New York and California are each between 10-15
violations, but none were committed by the State. If either State were to commit one violation, it
would likely bring the State into coverage.

7

Exhibit 2 provides a breakdown of violations in states that I concluded would not be covered.
7

As I understand the current formula, even if an entire state would not be subject topreclearance, any political subdivision of that state in which three or more violations occurred in
the preceding 25 years would be covered. The relevant political subdivision under this provision
is the governmental unit responsible for voter registration – in most instances a county.8 Fivepolitical subdivisions in non-covered states which have three or more violations – which would
therefore need to preclear voting changes – are itemized in Exhibit 3. The five counties are: Los
Angeles County, California; Cook County, Illinois; Westchester County, New York; Cuyahoga
County, Ohio; and Northampton County, Virginia.
Conclusion
I hope my analysis of the proposed coverage formula is helpful to the subcommittee’s
current deliberations. My testimony today has focused on empirical analysis of court decisions,
Section 5 objections, and consent decrees favorable to minority voters. For a moment, however,I want to emphasize the importance of the challenge Congress currently faces. When the Section
5 preclearance process was still functional – before June 2013 – it was a powerful tool for
protecting minority voting rights. The bill you are considering can play a key role in confronting
current efforts to limit voter registration and voting by minority citizens, as well as diluting
minority voting strength. Based on my 41 years of experience in voting rights litigation, I
believe firmly that strengthening enforcement of the Voting Rights Act is a critical need for our
democracy.

8

In Louisiana the equivalent of a county is called a parish. In the state of Virginia independent
cities – in addition to counties – conduct voter registration. Virginia’s independent cities are
geographically separate from counties. All other municipalities are, as in the rest of the country,
located within a county.
8

Exhibit 1: States Covered Under the Preclearance Formula in HR 4 If Enacted into Law
Alabama: 14 violations – 3 violations by the state
Court Decisions: (4)Ward v. State of Alabama, 31 F. Supp. 2d 968 (M.D. Ala. 1998) State of Alabama.
Boxx v. Bennett, 50 F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Ala. 1999), State of Alabama.
Allen v. City of Evergreen, Alabama, 2014 WL 12607819 (S.D. Ala.).
Ala. Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 231 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (M.D. Ala. 2017), State of
Alabama.
Section 5 Objections: (3)02-06-1998: Tallapoosa County (Redistricting Plan), 97-1021.
08-16-2000: Shelby County (City of Alabaster), Annexations, 2000-2230.
08-25-2009: Shelby County (City of Calera), Annexations and redistricting plan, 2008-1621.
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (7)Dillard v. City of Greensboro, Ala., 956 F. Supp. 1576 (M.D. Ala. 1997) (consent decree).
Jenkins v. City of Ozark, Alabama, No. 1:97cv1450 (M.D. Ala.), Consent Judgment and Decree,
December 10, 1997 (Section 5 enforcement action).
Baker v. Rainbow City, Alabama, No. CV-97-3014 (N.D. Ala.), Consent Judgment and Decree,
January 12, 1998.
Wilson v. City of Attalla, Alabama, No. CV-97-AR-3195 (M.D. Ala.), Consent Judgment andDecree, February 25, 1998.
Dillard v. Chilton County Commission, 495 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (consent decree).
Jones v. Jefferson Bd. Of Education, 2019 WL 7500528 (N.D. Ala. 2019) (court-approved
settlement).
Ala. State Conf. NAACP v. Pleasant Grove, Ala., 2019 WL 5172371 (N.D. Ala.) (consent
decree).

9Florida: 10 violations - 3 violations by the state
Court Decisions: (3)Stovall v. City of Cocoa, Fla., 117 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 1997).
U.S. v. Osceola County, Fla., 475 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (M.D. Fla. 2006).
Florida v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 299 (D.D.C. 2012). State of Florida.
Section 5 Objections/Settlements: (2)08-14-1998: State of Florida. (Changes in absentee voting certificate & absentee ballot), 981919.
07-01-2002: State of Florida. (2002 redistricting plan for state house), 2002-2637.
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (5)U.S. v. Orange County, FL, No. 6:02-cv-787 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Osceola County, FL, No. 6:02-cv-738 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (consent decree).
U.S. v. School Board of Osceola County, FL, No. 6:08-cv-582 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (consent
decree).
U.S. v. Town of Lake Park, FL, C.A. No. 09-80507 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (consent decree).
Perez-Santiago v. Volusia County, No. 6:08-cv-1868 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (court-orderedsettlement).

Georgia: 25 violations - 4 violations by the state
Court Decisions: (4)Cofield v. City of LaGrange, Ga., 969 F. Supp. 749 (N.D. Ga. 1997).
Common Cause v. Billups, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D. Ga., 2005).
Wright v. City of Albany, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (M.D. Ga., 2003).
Wright v. Sumter County Bd. Of Elections, 301 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (M.D. Ga. 2018).

10

Section 5 Objections: (13)03-15-1996: State of Georgia (1995 redistricting plans, state house & senate), 95-3656.
01-11-2000: Webster County (Redistricting plan, county school district), 98-1663.
03-17-2000: Wilkes County (MOE Tignall city council members), 99-2122.
10-01-2001: Turner County (MOE change, Ashburn), 94-4606.
08-09-2002: Putnam County (2001 redistricting plans, county commission & school board),
2002-2987, 2002-2988.
09-23-2002: Dougherty County (2001 Albany city council redistricting plan), 2001-1955.
10-15-2002: Marion County (2002 school district redistricting plan), 2002-2643.
09-12-2006: Randolph County (Change in voter registration & candidate eligibility), 2006-3856.
05-29-2009: State of Georgia (Voter verification program), 2008-5243.
11-30-2009: Lowndes County (2009 redistricting plan), 2009-1965.
04-13-2012: Greene County (2011 redistricting of commission & school board), 2011-4687.
08-27-2012: Long County (2012 redistricting of commission & school board), 2011-4687.
12-21-2012: State of Georgia (Change of election date), 2012-3262.
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (8)McIntosh County NAACP v. McIntosh County, Ga., No. 2:77CV70 (S.D. Ga. 1977) (consent
decree).
Stafford v. Mayor & Council of Folkston, Ga., No. 5:96CV00111 (S.D. Ga. 1997) (consent
decree).
Simpson v. Douglasville, No. 1:96-cv-01174 (N.D. Ga. 1999) (consent decree).
McBride and U.S. v. Marion County, No. 4:99cv151 (M.D. Ga. 2000) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Long County, GA (S.D. Ga. 2006), No. CV206-040 (S.D. Ga. 2006) (consent decree).
Georgia State Conf. NAACP v. Fayette County, Ga., 118 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (N.D. Ga. 2015)(consent decree).
11Georgia State Conf. NAACP v. Kemp, N. 2:16CV219 (N.D. Ga. 2017) (settlement agreement).
State of Georgia.
Georgia State Conf. NAACP v. Hancock County, Ga., No. 5:15-CV-00414 (M.D. Ga. 2018)(consent decree).

Louisiana: 16 – 1 violation by the state
Court Decisions: (2)St. Bernard Citizens for a Better Govt. v. St. Bernard Parish School Board, 2002 WL 2022589(E.D. La. 2002).
Guillory v. Avoyelles Parish School Board, 2011 WL 499196 (W.D. La. Feb. 7, 2011).
Section 5 Objections: (13)10-06-1997: St. Martin Parish (1997 redistricting, St. Martinsville council elections), 97-0879.
04-27-1999: Washington Parish (redistricting plan), 98-1475.
07-02-2002: Webster Parish (2001 Minden city council redistricting plan), 2002-1011.
10-04-2002: Pointe Coupee Parish (2002 redistricting, school district), 2002-2717.
12-31-2002: DeSoto Parish (2002 redistricting plan, school district), 2002-2926.
05-13-2003: Richland Parish (2002 redistricting plan, school district), 2002-3400.
10-06-2003: Tangipahoa Parish (2003 redistricting plan), 2002-3135.
12-12-2003: Iberville Parish (2003 redistricting plan, city of Plaquemine), 2003-1711.
06-04-2004: Evangeline Parish (2003 redistricting plan, city of Ville Platte), 2003-4549.
04-25-2005: Richland Parish (2003 redistricting, city of Delhi), 2003-3795.
08-10-2009: State of Louisiana (designating length of time when parish precinct boundaries arefrozen during the preparation of the U.S. decennial census), 2008-3512.
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (1)U.S. v. Morgan City, LA, No. CV00-1541 (W.D. La. 2000) (consent decree).

12Mississippi: 18 – 2 violations by the state
Court Decisions: (7)Teague v. Attala County, MS, 92 F.3d 283 I5th Cir. 1996).
Clark v. Calhoun County, MS, 88 F.3d 1393 (5th Cir. 1996).
Gunn v. Chickasaw County, 1997 WL 1:02CV33426761 (N.D. Miss. 1997).
Citizens for Good Govt. v. Quitman, Ms., 148 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 1998).
Houston v. Lafayette County, Ms., 20 F. Supp. 2d 996 (N.D. Miss. 1998).
U.S. v. Ike Brown, 494 F. Supp. 2d 440 (S.D. Miss. 2007).
Jamison v. Tupelo, 471 F. Supp. 2d 706 (N.D. Miss. 2007).
Section 5 Objections: (8)09-22-1997: State of Mississippi (NVRA implementation plan), 95-0418.
06-28-1999: Pike County (McComb, changing polling place to American Legion), 97-3795.
12-11-2001: Montgomery County (Cancellation of election, Kilmichael), 2001-2130.
03-24-2010: State of Mississippi (majority vote requirement for county school boards, etc.),
2009-2022.
10-04-2011: Amite County (2011 redistricting plan for supervisor & election commission),
2011-1660.
04-30-2012: Adams County (2011 Natchez redistricting plan), 2011-5368.
12-03-2012: Hinds County (Redistricting plan, city of Clinton), 2012-3120.
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (3)Coffee v. Calhoun City, MS., No. 300-cv-00103 (N.D. Miss. 2000) (consent decree).
Thornton v. City of Greenville, No. 4:93CV276 (N.D. Miss. 1998) (settlement agreement).
Tryman v. City of Starkville, No. 1:02-cv-111 (N.D. Miss. 2003) (consent decree).

13North Carolina: 11 – 4 violations by the state
Court Decisions: (3)North Carolina Conf. NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F. 3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016), State of North
Carolina.
Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017), State of North Carolina.
Covington v. North Carolina, 138 S. Ct. 2548 (2018), State of North Carolina..
Section 5 Objections: (6)02-13-1996: State of North Carolina prohibits state legislative & congressional districts fromcrossing precinct lines, absent Section 5 objections, 95-2922.
07-23-2002: Harnett County (2001 redistricting plan for school district), 2001-3769.
07-23-2002: Harnett County (2001 redistricting plan for commissioners), 2001-3768.
06-25-2007: Cumberland County (Change in MOE for Fayetteville city council), 2007-2233.
08-17-2009: Lenoir County (Change to non-partisan election, City of Kinston), 2009-0216.
04-30-2012: Pitt County (Change in MOE, county school district), 2011-2474.
Consent Decrees/Settlements (2)Wilkins v. Washington County Commissioners, No. 2:93-cv-00012 (E.D.N.C. 1996) (consent
decree).
Hall v. Jones County Bd. Of Commissioners, No. 4:17-cv-00018 (ED.N.C. 2017) (consent
decree).

South Carolina: 15 – 1 violation by the state
Court Decisions: (1)U.S. v. Charleston County, SC, 365 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2004).
Section 5 Objections: (13)03-05-1996: Cherokee County (Change in method of electing Gaffney Bd. Of Public Works),95-2790.
14

04-01-1997: State of South Carolina (1997 senate redistricting plan), 97-0529.
05-20-1998: Horry County (1997 county council redistricting plan), 97-3787.
10-12-2001: Charleston & Berkeley Counties (2012 Charleston council redistricting), 20011578.
11-02-2001: Greenville & Spartanburg Counties (2001 redistricting for town of Greer), 20011777.
06-27-2002: Sumter County (2001 redistricting plan), 2001-3865.
09-03-2002: Union County (2002 redistricting plan for county school board), 2002-2379.
12-09-2002: Laurens County (Annexations & district assignment, Clinton), 2002-1512, 20022706.
06-16-2003: Cherokee County (Reduction in size of school board), 2002-3457.
09-16-2003: Orangeburg County (Annexations by town of North), 2002-5306.
02-26-2004: Charleston County (From nonpartisan to partisan school board elections), 20032066.
06-25-2004: Richland & Lexington Counties (MOE change for School District No. 5), 20023766.
08-16-2010: Fairfield County (MOE & number of members, county school board), 2010-0970.
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (1)U.S. v. Georgetown County School District, SC, No. 2:08-889 (D.S.C. 2008) (consent decree).

Texas: 34 – 3 violations by the state
Court Decisions: (5)
LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006).
Benevidez v. City of Irving, TX, 638 F. Supp. 2d 709 (N.D. Tex. 2009).
Fabela v. City of Farmers’ Branch, 2012 WL 3135545 (N.D. Texas).
Benevidez v. Irving ISD, 2014 WL 4055366 (N.D. Texas).
15

Patino v. City of Pasadena, TX, 230 F. Supp. 3d 667 (S.D. Tex. 2017).
Section 5 Objections: (18) – 3 violations by the state
01-16-1996: State of Texas (Authorizing employees to determine voter eligibility based on
Citizenship information in files), 95-2017.
03-17-1997: Harris County (Annexations, town of Webster), 95-2017.
12-04-1998: Galveston County (Adding numbered posts to at-large seats, Galveston), 98-2149.
07-16-1999: Dawson County (De-annexation, city of Lamesa), 99-0270.
06-05-2000: Austin County (Adding numbered posts, Sealy ISD), 99-3828.
09-24-2001: Haskell Consolidated ISD (Cumulative voting with staggered terms), 2000-4426.
11-16-2001: State of Texas (2001 redistricting, state house), 2001-2430.
06-21-2002: Waller County (Redistricting plans, commissioners court, constable districts), 20012430.
08-12-2002: Brazoria County (MOE, Freeport city council), 2002-1725.
05-05-2006: North Harris Montgomery Community College District (reduction in polling place& early voting locations), 2006-2240.
03-24-2009: Gonzales County (Bi-lingual election procedures), 2008-3588.
03-12-2010: Gonzales County (Bi-lingual election procedures), 2009-3078.
06-28-2010: Runnels County (Bilingual election procedures), 2009-3672.
02-07-2012: Nueces County (Redistricting, county commissioners court), 2011-3992.
03-05-2012: Galveston County (Redistricting, county commissioners court), 2011-4317.
03-12-2012: State of Texas (Voter registration & photo id procedures, SB 14), 2011-2775.
12-21-2012: Jefferson County (Beaumont ISD, reduction in single member districts), 2012-4278.
04-08-2013: Jefferson County (Beaumont ISD, change in term of office, qualification
procedures), 2013-0895.

16

Consent Decrees/Settlements: (11)U.S. v. Ector County, TX, No. M005CV131 (W.D. Tex. 2005) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Brazos County, TX, No. H-06-2165 (S.D. Tex.2006) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Hale County, TX, No. 5:06-CV-43 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (consent decree).
U.S. v. City of Earth, TX, 5:07-CV-144 (N.D. Tex. 2007) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Galveston County, TX, No. 3:07-CV-377 (S.D. Tex. 2007) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Littlefield ISD, TX, No. 5:07-cv-145 (N.D. Tex. 2007) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Post ISD, TX, No. 5:07-CV-146-C (N.D. Tex. 2007) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Seagraves ISD, TX, No. 5:07-CV-147 (N.D. Tex. 2007) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Smyer ISD, TX, No. 5:07-CV-148-C (N.D. Tex. 2007) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Waller County, TX, No. 4:08-cv-3022 (S.D. Texas 2008) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Fort Bend County, TX, No. 4:09-cv-1058 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (consent decree).

17

Exhibit 2: States Not Covered Under the Current Preclearance Formula in HR 4
Alaska: 2 violations
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (2)Nick v. Bethel, No. 3:07-cv-00098 (D. Alaska) (consent decree).
Toyukak v. Treadwell, No. 3:13-CV-00137 (D. Alaska) (court-approved settlement).

Arkansas: 2 violations
Court Decisions: (0)Consent Decrees/Settlements: (2)Cox v. Donaldson, No. 5:02CV319 (E.D. Ark. 2003) (consent decree)Townsend v. Watson, No. 1:89-cv-1111 (W.D. Ark. 2013) (consent decree).

Arizona: 4 violations
Section 5 Objections: (2)05-20-2002: State of Arizona (2001 legislative redistricting plan), 2002-0276.
02-04-2003: Coconino County (MOE, Coconino Association for Vocations, Industry, andTechnology), 2002-3844.
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (2)U.S. v. Cochise County, AZ, No. CV 06-304 (D. Ariz. 2006) (consent decree).
Navajo Nation v. Brewer, No. CV 06-1575 (D. Ariz. 2008) (court-approved settlement).

California: 12 violations
Court Decisions: (1)Luna v. County of Kern, CA, 291 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (E.D. Cal. 2018).

18

Section 5 Objections: (1)03-29-2002: Monterey County (MOE, Chualar Union Elementary School District), 2000-2967.
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (10)U.S. v. San Benito County, CA, No. 5:04-cv-2056 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Ventura County, CA, No. CV04-6443 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (consent decree).
U.S. v. City of Azusa, CA, No. CV05-5147 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (consent decree).
U.S. v. City of Paramount, CA, No. 05-05132 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (consent decree).
U.S. v. City of Rosemead, CA, No. CV05-5131 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (consent decree).
U.S. v. City of Walnut, CA, No: CV 07-2437 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Riverside County, CA, CV 10-1059 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Alameda County, CA, No. 311-cv-3262 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (court-approved settlementagreement).
U.S. v. San Diego County, CA, No. 04cv1273 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, No. CV 00-07903 (C.D. Cal. 2000)(consent decree).

Colorado: 2 violations
Court Decisions: (2)Sanchez v. State of Colorado, 97 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 1996).
Cuthair v. Montezuma-Cortez School District, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D. Colorado 1998).

Hawaii: 1
Court Decisions: (1)Arakaki v. Hawaii, 314 F. 3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002).

19

Illinois: 4
Court Decisions: (3)U.S. v. Town of Cicero, Illinois, 2000 WL 34342276 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
Barnett v. City of Chicago, 17 F. Supp. 2d 753 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
Harper v. Chicago Heights, IL, 223 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 2000).
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (1)U.S. v. Kane County, IL, No. 07-v-5451 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (memorandum of agreement).

Massachusetts: 5
Court Decisions: (1)Black Political Task Force v. Galvin, 300 F. Supp. 2d 291 (D. Mass. 2004).
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (4)U.S. v. City of Boston, No. 1:05-cv-11598 (D. Mass. 2005) (consent decree).
U.S. v. City of Springfield, MA, No. 06-30123 (D. Mass. 2006) (consent decree).
Huot v. City of Lowell, Mass., No. 1:17-cv-10895 (D. Mass. 2019) (consent decree).
City of Lawrence, No. 98cv12256 (D. Mass. 1998) (settlement agreement).

Michigan: 3
Section 5 Objections: (1)12-26-2007: Saginaw County (Buena Vista Township, closure of voter registration branch
office), 2007-3837.
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (2)U.S. v. City of Hamtramck, MI, No. 00-73541 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (consent decree).
U.S. v. City of Eastpointe, MI, No. 4:17-CV-10079 (2019) (consent decree).

20Missouri: 1
Court Decisions: (1)Missouri State Conf. NAACP v. Ferguson-Florrissant School District, 201 F. Supp. 3d 1006
(E.D. Mo. 2016).

Montana: 5
Court Decisions: (1)U.S. v. Blaine County, MT, 363 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2004).
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (4)Matt v. Ronan School District, No. 99-94 (D. Mont. 2000) (settlement agreement).
U.S. v. Roosevelt County, MT, No. 00-50 (D. Mont. 2000) (consent decree).
Alden v. Rosebud County Board of Commissioners, No. 99-148 (D. Mont. 2000) (consent
decree).
Blackfeet Nation v. Stapleton, No. 4:20-cv-95 (D. Mont. 2020) (consent decree).

Nebraska: 2
Court Decisions: (1)Stable v. Thurston County, NE, 129 F. 3d 1015 (8th Cir. 1997).
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (1)U.S. v. Colfax County, NE, No. 8:12-CV-84 (D. Neb. 2012) (consent decree).

Nevada: 1
Court Decisions:
Sanchez v. Cevaske, 214 F. Supp. 3d 961 (D. Nevada 2016).

21

New Jersey: 2Consent Decrees/Settlements: (2)U.S. v. Salem County and Borough of Penns Grove, N.J., No. 1:08-cv-03276 (D.N.J. 2008)(court-approved settlement).
U.S. v. Passaic City and Passaic County, N.J., No. 99-2544 (D.N.J. 1999) (consent decree).

New Mexico: 3
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (3)U.S. v. Bernalillo County, N.M., No. CV-98-156 (D.N.M. 1998) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Cibola County, N.M. No. CIV 93 1134 (D.N.M. 2004) (court-approved settlement).
U.S. v. Sandoval County, N.M., No. 88-CV-1457 (D.N.M. 2004) (consent decree).

New York: 12
Court Decisions: (5)Goosby v. Town of Hempstead, NY, 180 F.3d 476 (2nd Cir. 1999).
New Rochelle Voter Defense v. New Rochelle, NY, 308 F. Supp. 2d 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
U.S. v. Village of Port Chester, NY, 704 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
Pope v. County of Albany, N.Y., 94 F. Supp. 3d 302 (N.D.N.Y. 2013).
Molina v. Orange County, NY, 2013 WL 3009716 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
Objections: (2)11-15-1996: Temporary replacement of all nine elected board members of Community School
District 12 by three appointed trustees and their permanent replacement by five appointed
trustees: 96-3759.
02-04-1999: Change in method of election from single transferable vote to limited voting withfour votes per voter for community school boards in Bronx, Kings, and New York Counties: 983193.

22

Consent Decrees/Settlements: (5)U.S. v Suffolk County, NY, No. CV 04-2698 (E.D. N.Y. 2004) (consent decree).
Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens v. Albany County, NY, 281 F. Supp. 2d 456 (N.D.N.Y. 2004)(consent decree).
U.S. v. Westchester County, NY, No. 05 CIV. 0650 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Orange County, NY, 12 Civ 3071 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (consent decree).
Flores v. Town of Islip, NY, No. 2:18-cv-3549 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (consent decree).

North Dakota: 2
Court Decisions: (1)Spirit Lake Tribe v. Benson County, N.D., 2010 WL 4226614 (D.N.D. 2010).
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (1)U.S. v. Benson County, N.D., No. A2-00-30 (D.N.D. 2000) (consent decree).

Ohio: 4Court Decisions: (1)U.S. v. City of Euclid, Ohio, 580 F. Supp. 2d 584 (N.D. Ohio 2008).
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (3)U.S. v. Euclid City School Board, 632 F. Supp. 2d 740 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (court-approved
settlement).
U.S. v. Cuyahoga County, OH, No.1:10-cv-1940 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (court-approved settlement).
U.S. v. Lorain County, OH, No. 1:11-cv-02122 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (memorandum of agreement).

Pennsylvania: 2
Court Decisions: (1)U.S. v. Berks County, PA, 277 F. Supp. 2d 570 (E.D. Pa. 2003).
23

Consent Decrees/Settlements: (1)U.S. v. City of Philadelphia, PA, No.2:06cv4592 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (settlement agreement).

South Dakota: 2
Court Decisions: (1)Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, 336 F. Supp. 2d 976 (D.S.D. 2004).
Section 5 Objections: (1)02-11-2008: Charles Mix County (Increase in size & redistricting of county commission), 20076012.

Tennessee: 2
Court Decisions: (1)Rural West Tenn. v. Sundquist, 29 F. Supp. 2d 448 (W.D. Tenn. 1998).
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (1)U.S. v. Crockett County, TN, No. 1-01-1129 (W.D. Tenn. 2001).

Virginia: 8 – 2 by State
Personhuballah v. Alcorn, 155 F. Supp. 3d 552 (E.D. Va. 2016), State of Virginia.
Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. Of Elections, 326 F. Supp. 3d 128 (E.D. Va. 2018), State of
Virginia.
Section 5 Objections: (6)10-27-1999: Dinwiddie County (Polling place change), 99-2229.
09-28-2001: Northampton County (MOE & redistricting, board of supervisors), 2001-1495.
04-29-2002: Pittsylvania County (Redistricting, county supervisors & school board), 2001-2026,
2501.
24

07-09-2002: Cumberland County (Redistricting plan, county supervisors), 2001-2374.
05-19-2003: Northampton County (2002 redistricting plan, county supervisors), 2002-5693.
10-21-2003: Northampton County (2003 redistricting plan, county supervisors), 2003-3010.
Consent Decrees/Settlements: (0)Washington: 3
Court Decisions: (1)Montes v. City of Yakima, 40 F. Supp. 3d 1377 (E.D. Wash. 2014).
Consent Decrees/Settlements:
U.S. v. Yakima County, WA, No. CV-04-3072 (E.D. Wash. 2004) (settlement agreement).
Glatt v. City of Pasco, WA, No. 4:16-CV-5108 (E.D. Wash.2017) (consent decree).

Wisconsin:1
Court Decisions:
Baldus v. Wisc. Govt. Accountability Bd., 849 F. Supp. 2d 840 (E.D. Wisc. 2012).

Wyoming: 1
Court Decisions:
Large v. Fremont County, Wy., 709 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (D. Wyo. 2010).

25

Exhibit 3: Political Subdivisions Covered Under the Preclearance Formula in HR 4
California:
Los Angeles County: 5 violations
U.S. v. City of Azusa, No. CV05-5147 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (consent decree).
U.S. v. City of Paramount, No. 05-05132 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (consent decree).
U.S. v. City of Rosemead, No. CV05-5131 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (consent decree).
U.S. v. City of Walnut, No. CV 07-2437 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (consent decree).
U.S. v. Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, No. CV 00-07903 (C.D. Cal. 2000)(consent decree).
_________________________________________________________________________
Illinois:
Cook County: 3 violations
Barnett v. City of Chicago, 17 F. Supp. 2d 753 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
Harper v. Chicago Heights, 223 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 2000).
U.S. v. Town of Cicero, 2000 WL 34342276 (N.D. Ill. 1996).

New York:
Westchester County: 3 violations
New Rochelle Voter Defense v. New Rochelle, 308 F. Supp. 2d 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
U.S. v. Village of Port Chester, 704 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
U.S. v. Westchester County, No. 05 CIV. 0650 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (consent decree).
_____________________________________________________________________________

26

Ohio:
Cuyahoga County: 3 violations
U.S. v. Cuyahoga County, No. 1:10-cv-1940 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (court-approved settlement).
U.S. v. Euclid, 580 F. Supp. 2d 584 (N.D. Ohio 2008).
U.S. v. Euclid City School Board, 632 F. Supp. 2d 740 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (court-approved
settlement).
_____________________________________________________________________________
Virginia:
Northampton County: 3 violations
09-28-2001: Northampton County (MOE & redistricting, board of supervisors), 2001-1495.
05-19-2003: Northampton County (2002 redistricting plan, county supervisors), 2002-5693.
10-21-2003: Northampton County (2003 redistricting plan, county supervisors), 2003-3010.

27