Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01952/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01952-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

 The Honorable Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, United States Circuit Judge, United States 2

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, Senior United

States District Judge, Northern District of California, sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2284.

Case Number C 10-1952 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DISSOLVING

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

(JFLC3)

**E-Filed 5/21/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARIA BUELL; ANTONIO ALVARO

MORALES; and GUADALUPE JOAN PEREZ, 

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; and THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 10-1952 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 1

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

DISSOLVING TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

[re: docket no. 8]

BEFORE: O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, WHYTE, Senior District Judge and FOGEL, District 

Judge:2

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from going forward with a

special election process to fill a vacancy in the Office of Senator from California State Senate

District 15. A special primary election is scheduled for June 22, 2010, and a special run-off

Case 5:10-cv-01952-JF-DFO-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A decision by the Department of Justice to grant preclearance does not bar future 3

litigation under other provisions of the Voting Rights Act, nor does it preclude the Department of

Justice itself from interposing subsequent objections to changes in voting procedures within a

sixty-day period. 28 C.F.R. 51.41 and 51.43.

2

Case Number C 10-1952 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DISSOLVING

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(JFLC3)

election is scheduled for August 17, 2010. The regular primary election for this office was to

occur on June 5, 2012, followed by the general election on November 6, 2012. The special

elections were ordered by the Governor as a result of the appointment of former State Senator

Abel Maldonado as Lieutenant Governor, which created a vacancy in the Office of Senator.

On May 12, 2010, this Court issued an order to show cause why injunctive relief

should not be granted and a temporary order restraining Defendant Monterey County (“the

County”) from sending any absentee ballots to voters registered in Monterey County without first

obtaining preclearance of certain changes in voting procedures pursuant to Section 5 of the

Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c (“Section 5”). Since May 12, 2010, Defendants

have obtained Section 5 preclearance as to all of the changes at issue. The County has

represented to the Department of Justice and to this Court that it does not intend to submit any

further changes for the Department’s review. 

The right to vote is fundamental to a democratic society, and thus litigation to ensure

compliance with the provisions of the Voting Rights Act is of the utmost importance. However,

in cases brought pursuant to Section 5, the role of the three-judge court is limited to a

determination of 1) whether a change in voting procedures triggers the preclearance requirement

of Section 5, 2) whether preclearance has been obtained, and 3) what temporary remedy, if any, is

appropriate. Lopez v. Monterey County, 519 U.S. 9, 23 (1996). The court’s goal “must be to

ensure that the covered jurisdiction submits its election plan to the appropriate federal authorities

for preclearance as expeditiously as possible.” Id. at 24. The court does not assess

independently whether the Department of Justice has acted appropriately in granting

preclearance.

3

Because all changes in voting procedures subject to Section 5 have been precleared, the

Court concludes that there is no factual basis for injunctive relief at the present time. The Court

Case 5:10-cv-01952-JF-DFO-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case Number C 10-1952 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DISSOLVING

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(JFLC3)

nonetheless will retain jurisdiction to grant appropriate injunctive relief in the event that

circumstances change prior to the special primary election on June 22, 2010, or the special

run-off election on August 17, 2010, or if the County for any reason fails to act in accordance

with its representations to the Court and the Department of Justice.

Accordingly, and good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the

motion for preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice. The temporary order restraining

mailing of absentee ballots is dissolved. The Court retains jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief

in the event of a change in circumstances prior to the special primary election on June 22, 2010,

or the special run-off election on August 17, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2010

Case 5:10-cv-01952-JF-DFO-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/21/10 Page 3 of 3