CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/31/2023 1

Spanish-Language Ballots 

in Springfield, Massachusetts 

United States v. City of Springfield 

(Michael A. Ponsor, D. Mass. 3:06-cv-30123) 

The Justice Department filed a civil complaint against Springfield, 

Massachusetts, on August 2, 2006, alleging violations of sections 

203 and 208 of the Voting Rights Act for failure to provide Spanishlanguage election resources for Spanish-language voters. By four 

days before a September 19 primary election, the court and the parties came to agreement on a consent decree, which operated successfully until its expiration early in 2010. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Ballot language; three-judge 

court; primary election. 

The Justice Department filed a civil complaint against Springfield, Massachusetts, on August 2, 2006, alleging violations of sections 203 and 208 of the 

Voting Rights Act for failure to provide Spanish-language election resources 

for Spanish-language voters.1 With its complaint, the department filed a motion for a three-judge district court to hear its section 203 claim.2

 On August 

21, the department moved for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary 

injunction in light of an imminent September 19 primary election.3

Section 203 requires jurisdictions with a threshold quantity of languageminority voters to provide election materials in the minority language.4

 Section 208 entitles a voter who cannot read or write to assistance from a person 

of the voter’s choice.5

On August 28, Judge Michael A. Ponsor granted the department’s motion to file a reply brief and the city’s motion to file a sur-reply brief.6

 Two 

days later, the parties filed a proposed consent decree.7 That day, Judge 

Ponsor signed the agreement with respect to section 2088 and ordered the 

settlement as to section 203 to operate as a temporary restraining order until 

a three-judge court could consider it.9 The circuit’s chief judge appointed a 

three-judge court to preside over the section 203 claim,10 and Judge Ponsor 

1. Complaint, United States v. City of Springfield, No. 3:06-cv-30123 (D. Mass. Aug. 2, 

2006), D.E. 1; see Jo-Ann Moriarty, Springfield Sued Over Voting, Springfield Republican, 

Aug. 3, 2006, at A1; Katie Zezima, City Is Sued Over Voting, N.Y. Times, Aug. 4, 2006, at 

A13. 

2. Motion, City of Springfield, No. 3:06-cv-30123 (D. Mass. Aug. 2, 2006), D.E. 2. 

3. Motion, id. (Aug. 21, 2006), D.E. 5. 

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

U.S.C. § 10503. 

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

6. Docket Sheet, City of Springfield, No. 3:06-cv-30123 (D. Mass. Aug. 2, 2006). 

7. Settlement Motion, id. (Aug. 30, 2006), D.E. 18. 

8. Order, id. (Aug. 30, 2006), D.E. 21. 

9. Order, id. (Aug. 30, 2006), D.E. 20. 

10. Order, id. (Aug. 30, 2006), D.E. 19. 
Spanish-Language Ballots in Springfield, Massachusetts 

2 Federal Judicial Center 8/31/2023 

informed the parties on September 12 that the court’s approval of the section 

203 agreement was contingent on the parties’ resolving one ambiguous passage.11 The court approved the revised consent decree on September 15.12

The decree operated successfully until its expiration on January 31, 2010.13

11. Order, id. (Sept. 12, 2006), D.E. 22. 

12. Order, id. (Sept. 15, 2006), D.E. 24. 

13. Order, id. (Feb. 19, 2010), D.E. 35.