CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 6/13/2023 1

Enjoining an Election for New District Lines 

Morman v. City of Baconton 

(W. Louis Sands, M.D. Ga. 1:03-cv-161) 

The federal district court enjoined an election for city council because the district lines had recently received preclearance pursuant 

to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and a state judge had refused 

to allow a delay to await preclearance of the new lines. The matter 

was heard on the afternoon before the scheduled November election. The election was held instead at the time of the presidential 

primary elections the following March. The matter of attorney fees 

was settled out of court. 

Subject: District lines. Topics: Malapportionment; enjoining 

elections; section 5 preclearance; three-judge court; attorney fees. 

Four days before the 2003 general election, three voters in Baconton, Georgia, filed in the Middle District of Georgia a federal complaint against Baconton and its officials, seeking an injunction against elections to the city council 

based on out-of-date district lines.1 According to the complaint, new district 

lines based on the 2000 census were precleared pursuant to section 5 of the 

Voting Rights Act2 on October 24, but a state judge refused to allow Baconton to delay its city-council elections so that precleared district lines could be 

used.3 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction4

 and a request for the appointment of a three-judge district court to hear their section 5 claim.5

On the day before the election, Judge W. Louis Sands set the matter for 

hearing at 3:30 that afternoon.6 The evidence showed that of the three seats 

up for election, only one was contested, and the incumbent’s challenger for 

that seat resided in the seat’s district only according to the old district lines.7

On the day of hearing, Judge Sands enjoined the election for the city-council 

seats.8

1. Complaint, Morman v. City of Baconton, No. 1:03-cv-161 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2003), 

D.E. 1. 

2. Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, § 5, 79 Stat. 437, 439, as amended, 52 

U.S.C. § 10304 (requiring preclearance of changes to voting procedures in jurisdictions with 

a certified history of discrimination and requiring that preclearance disputes be heard by a 

three-judge district court). 

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court declined to hold section 5 unconstitutional, but the 

Court did hold unconstitutional the criteria for which jurisdictions require section 5 preclearance. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). 

3. Complaint, supra note 1, at 2, 4–7. 

4. Motion, Morman, No. 1:03-cv-161 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2003), D.E. 3. 

5. Request, id. (Oct. 31, 2003), D.E. 2. 

6. Order, id. (Nov. 3, 2003), D.E. 8; see Minutes, id. (Nov. 3, 2003), D.E. 9. 

7. Injunction at 2, id. (Nov. 3, 2003), D.E. 11. 

8. Id. at 3. 
Enjoining an Election for New District Lines 

2 Federal Judicial Center 6/13/2023 

On November 13, the city submitted a plan for a special election to be 

held at the time of the March 2, 2004, presidential primary elections.9

 Judge 

Sands approved the city’s proposal.10 Later, Judge Sands ordered that candidates be able to qualify on February 17 for the election if they could show 

that they attempted to qualify on January 30 when the city clerk’s office was 

improperly closed.11

The city reported election results to the court,12 and Judge Sands closed 

the case.13 The matter of attorney fees was resolved by the parties out of 

court.14

9. Proposed Plan, id. (Nov. 13, 2003), D.E. 12. 

10. Order, id. (Jan. 15, 2004), D.E. 16. 

11. Order, id. (Feb. 13, 2004), D.E. 23. 

12. Report, id. (Mar. 12, 2004), D.E. 25. 

13. Order, id. (Apr. 20, 2005), D.E. 26. 

14. Dismissal, id. (June 24, 2005), D.E. 32.