CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/31/2023 1

Spanish-Language Ballots in Philadelphia 

United States v. City of Philadelphia 

(Petrese B. Tucker, E.D. Pa. 2:06-cv-4592) 

Twenty-five days before the November 2006 general election, the 

Justice Department filed a civil complaint against Philadelphia for 

failure to provide Spanish-language election resources in violation 

of sections 203 and 208 of the Voting Rights Act. Twelve days later, 

the Justice Department moved for a temporary restraining order or 

a preliminary injunction enforcing the Voting Rights Act and appointing federal election observers. The court declined to order federal observers because of the government’s weak case dilatorily 

brought. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Ballot language; laches; 

three-judge court. 

Twenty-five days before the November 2006 general election, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint against Philadelphia for failure to provide 

Spanish-language election resources in violation of sections 203 and 208 of 

the Voting Rights Act.1

Pursuant to section 203(b), the Director of the Census made the unreviewable determination that Philadelphia County was among the political 

subdivisions in the U.S. whose citizens were more than 5% Spanish speakers.2

Section 203, therefore, required the county to provide election materials in 

Spanish.3 Section 208 entitled a voter who could not read or write to assistance from a person of the voter’s choice.4

 The circuit’s chief judge appointed 

a three-judge district court to hear the section 203 claims, as required by section 204.5

On October 20, one week after the complaint was filed, Judge Petrese B. 

Tucker set a status conference for October 24.6

 On October 25, the Justice 

Department moved for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction enforcing the Voting Rights Act and appointing federal election observers.7

 Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith and District Judges Tucker and Harvey Bartle III heard the motion on Friday, November 3.8

 That day, they de1. Complaint, United States v. City of Philadelphia, No. 2:06-cv-4592 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 

2006), D.E. 1; see Amended Complaint, id. (Apr. 26, 2007), D.E. 35. 

2. 67 Fed. Reg. 48,871, 48,875 (July 26, 2002).

3. Voting Rights Act § 203, Pub. L. No. 94-73, 89 Stat. 400, 402 (1975), as amended, 52 

U.S.C. § 10503. 

4. Id. § 208, Pub. L. No. 97-205, 96 Stat. 131, 134 (1982), 52 U.S.C. § 10508. 

5. Designation, City of Philadelphia, No. 2:06-cv-4592 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2006), D.E. 5; see

Voting Rights Act § 203, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10504. 

6. Order, City of Philadelphia, No. 2:06-cv-4592 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2006), D.E. 7. 

7. Motion, id. (Oct. 25, 2006), D.E. 9; see Marcia Gelbart, Phila. Opposes U.S. Observers at 

Polls, Phila. Inquirer, Oct. 27, 2006, at B1. 

8. See Notice, City of Philadelphia, No. 2:06-cv-4592 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 2006), D.E. 19. 
Spanish-Language Ballots in Philadelphia 

2 Federal Judicial Center 8/31/2023 

nied the motion,9 and they issued an opinion supporting their decision on 

election day.10

The court declined to order federal observers because of the government’s weak case dilatorily brought.11 On June 1, 2007, Judge Tucker approved a stipulated dismissal of the case.12

9. Order, id. (Nov. 3, 2006), D.E. 25. 

10. Opinion, id. (Nov. 8, 2006), D.E. 27, 2006 WL 3922115. 

11. Id. 

12. Order, City of Philadelphia, No. 2:06-cv-4592 (E.D. Pa. June 1, 2007), D.E. 37.