CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/28/2023 1

Preclearance for a Zoning Election 

Watson v. Fuhrmeister 

(Karon O. Bowdre, N.D. Ala. 2:03-cv-1960) 

One week before a special election, voters filed a federal complaint 

alleging that the special election was in violation of section 5 of the 

Voting Rights Act because the election’s question, whether a county 

precinct would be subject to zoning by a county planning commission, pertained to zoning laws that had not been precleared. Defendants acknowledged that the laws in question had not been precleared, 

so the court enjoined the election. The action was dismissed on notice of preclearance. 

Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Enjoining elections; section 5 

preclearance; ballot measure. 

One week before an August 5, 2003, special election, three voters filed a federal 

complaint in the Northern District of Alabama against the three members of 

Shelby County’s election-canvassing board, alleging that the special election 

was in violation of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act1 because the election’s 

question, whether a county precinct would be subject to zoning by a county 

planning commission, pertained to zoning laws that had not been precleared.2

Among other relief, the complaint sought a preliminary injunction.3 The court 

assigned the case to Judge Karon O. Bowdre, who requested appointment of a 

three-judge district court.4

On Thursday, July 31, the parties filed stipulations that included a stipulation that the laws in question had not been precleared.5

 That day, Judge 

Bowdre issued a temporary restraining order against the holding of the election.6

The canvassing board decided to seek preclearance, and it consented to a 

sixty-day extension of the restraining order.7 The extension was expanded to 

October 28 to accommodate the Justice Department’s expected response to 

1. 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); see Robert Barnes, Court Blocks Key Part 

of Voting Rights Act, Wash. Post, June 26, 2013, at A1; Adam Liptak, Justices Void Oversight 

of States, Issue at Heart of Voting Rights Act, N.Y. Times, June 26, 2013, at A1. 

2. Complaint, Watson v. Fuhrmeister, No. 2:03-cv-1960 (N.D. Ala. July 29, 2003), D.E. 1; 

see Nancy Wilstach, County Attorney Suggests Election Dilemma Solutions, Birmingham 

News, Sept. 10, 2003, at 2. 

3. Complaint, supra note 2, at 5. 

4. See Order, Watson, No. 2:03-cv-1960 (N.D. Ala. July 31, 2003), D.E. 2. 

5. Stipulation, id. (July 31, 2003), D.E. 4. 

6. Temporary Restraining Order, id. (July 31, 2003), D.E. 6; Opinion, id. (July 31, 2003), 

D.E. 5. 

7. Consent, id. (Aug. 8, 2003), D.E. 8. 
Preclearance for a Zoning Election 

2 Federal Judicial Center 8/28/2023 

the preclearance request.8 On notice of October 9 preclearance,9 Judge Bowdre 

dismissed the action on October 29.10

8. Order, id. (Aug. 29, 2003), D.E. 10. 

9. Motion, id. (Oct. 16, 2003), D.E. 13. 

10. Dismissal, id. (Oct. 29, 2003), D.E. 15.