CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 7/8/2023 1

Electronic Bingo and Voting Rights 

Johnson v. Riley 

(Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, N.D. Ala. 7:10-cv-2067) 

Voters filed a federal complaint challenging police actions against 

electronic bingo operations as a violation of the voting rights of the 

voters who approved the operations. The complaint included a 

claim that executive orders and police actions violated the Voting 

Rights Act because they had not received section 5 preclearance. 

The district judge denied as moot a motion for a temporary restraining order preserving a state-court injunction, because the 

state court had denied a motion to dissolve its order. The following 

year, the court accepted a voluntary dismissal. 

Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Section 5 preclearance; matters 

for state courts; ballot measure. 

On Thursday, July 29, 2010, thirty-one voters filed a federal complaint in the 

Northern District of Alabama challenging Georgia’s police actions against 

electronic bingo operations in Greene and Macon Counties as a violation of 

the voting rights of the voters who approved the operations.1 The complaint 

included a claim that executive orders and police actions violated the Voting 

Rights Act because they had not received section 5 preclearance.2

The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on Monday3

and a motion for a temporary restraining order on Wednesday.4

On the case’s second Friday, Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn denied as 

moot the motion for a temporary restraining order preserving a state-court 

injunction, because the state court had denied a motion to dissolve its order.5

She also asked the circuit’s chief judge to empanel a three-judge district 

court,6 and he empaneled one on August 11.7

1. Complaint, Johnson v. Riley, No. 7:10-cv-2067 (N.D. Ala. July 29, 2010), D.E. 1; see

Charles J. Dean, Electronic Bingo Advocates File Suit in Federal Court, Birmingham News, 

July 30, 2010, at 5. 

2. Complaint, supra note 1, at 15–17; see 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. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Johnson, No. 7:10-cv-2067 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 2, 2010), 

D.E. 3. 

4. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Aug. 4, 2010), D.E. 5. 

5. Order, id. (Aug. 6, 2010), D.E. 7, amended, Order, id. (Aug. 13, 2010), D.E. 11; see Kim 

Chandler, Judge Won’t Allow Raid, Birmingham News, Aug. 6, 2010, at 1. 

6. Docket Sheet, Johnson, No. 7:10-cv-2067 (N.D. Ala. July 29, 2010). 

7. Order, id. (Aug. 11, 2010), D.E. 9. 
Electronic Bingo and Voting Rights 

2 Federal Judicial Center 7/8/2023 

On February 3, 2011, Judge Blackburn accepted the plaintiffs’ voluntary 

dismissal.8

8. Dismissal Order, id. (Feb. 3, 2011), D.E. 27.