Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/211642/Alberto-Gonzales-Files-h-myfiles-mud-dc-case-filings-draft-answer-10-16-06-wpd-electionlawblog-org-namudno-answer
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 08:58:03
Document Index: 755054224

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'arti075', '§ 1973', '§ 1973', '§ 1973', '§ 1973', '§ 1973', '§\n2284', '§ 1973', '§ 1973']

Answer | Voting Rights Act Of 1965 | U.S. State | Kostenlose 30-Tage-Testversion | Scribd
speichernAlberto Gonzales Files -h- myfiles mud dc case fil... für später speichern
Department of Labor: 04 4026
Notice: Pollution control; consent judgments: Power Poles, Inc.
National Pharmacies, Inc. v. Carmen Feliciano-De-Melecio, Honorable Carmen De Melecio as Secretary of Health of Puerto Rico, Department of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Acting in Her Official Capacity Puerto Rico Department of Justice College of Pharmacists of Puerto Rico Association of Pharmacy Owners of Puerto Rico, Inc., 221 F.3d 235, 1st Cir. (2000)
KJ Violant History in Courts Part 2
Case 3:10 Cv 00277 P
marti075
In Re: Anadigics, Inc. Sec Lit v., 3rd Cir. (2012)
Spending in the Shadows FY19 Executive Budget - Executive Summary
Legislative GO
Trudeau-criminal-case-Document-136-11--05-13-Order-re-admissability-of-Natural-Cures-book-and-infomercial.pdf
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, Subpoenas Duces Tecum "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E", and Subpoenas of Helen Sills and Nancy Doyle. Appeal of Henry J. Cianfrani, Intervenor in 77-1970, 77-2051/2/3. Appeal of Thomas J. Kalman, in No. 77-1971, 563 F.2d 577, 3rd Cir. (1977)
mason govt branches
Case 1:06-cv-01384-PLF Document 8-1 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 12
NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL )
UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-1384
ALBERTO GONZALES, ) Three-judge court (PLF, DST, EGS)
Attorney General of the United States, )
In this action, Plaintiff Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One
(hereinafter “Plaintiff”) seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court, pursuant to Section 4(a) of
the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(a) (hereinafter “Section 4(a)”) for bailout from the
preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c (hereinafter
“Section 5"), or, in the alternative, seeks a declaratory judgment that continued application of
Section 5 is unconstitutional.
Accordingly, Defendant Attorney General of the United States (hereinafter “Defendant”)
hereby answers each of the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff in the
above-styled action as follows:
1. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 1, Defendant admits only that it
describes the claims that the Plaintiff seeks to bring in this action, but denies that the Plaintiff is
entitled to any relief on its claims.
2. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 2, Defendant admits only that
some Texas state courts have held municipal utility districts similar to the Plaintiff to be political
Case 1:06-cv-01384-PLF Document 8-1 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 12
subdivisions as a matter of Texas state law. Defendant denies that the Plaintiff is a political
subdivision entitled to seek bailout, as defined in Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act, 42
U.S.C. 1973b(a), and Section 14(c)(2) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(c)(2).
3. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3.
4. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 only to the extent that the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia is the only Court in which an action can
be brought seeking bailout under Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(a), or
seeking a declaration of the unconstitutionality of a provision of the Voting Rights Act under
Section 14(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(b). Defendant avers that, due to lack
of standing and lack of ripeness, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of some or
all of the Plaintiff’s claims.
5. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 5, Defendant admits that the
convening of a three-judge panel is appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(a)(5) and 28 U.S.C. §
2284(a).
6. Defendant admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 6. In
response to the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 6, Defendant admits
that the Plaintiff was formed in the late 1980's, admits that this sentence describes some, but not
all, of the functions of the Plaintiff, and admits that the Plaintiff exercises local governmental
authority under Texas law, but Defendant denies that the Plaintiff has long been considered a
“political subdivision” under the Voting Rights Act. Defendant avers that the question of
whether the Plaintiff is a political subdivision under the Voting Rights Act is a question of law,
not of fact, and Defendant avers that the Plaintiff is not a political subdivision entitled to seek
Case 1:06-cv-01384-PLF Document 8-1 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 12
bailout, as defined in Sections 4(a) and 14(c)(2) of the Voting Rights Act. In response to the
allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 6, Defendant admits that the Plaintiff
must conduct periodic elections for the selection of its board members under the applicable
election provisions of Texas law, that the Plaintiff must conduct those elections in compliance
with the Voting Rights Act, and that the conduct of those elections is covered by the
preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Defendant lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to whether the Plaintiff has in fact conducted all of its
elections in compliance with the applicable election provisions of Texas law, whether the
Plaintiff has in fact conducted those elections in compliance with the provisions of the Voting
Rights Act, or whether the Plaintiff has in fact sought and obtained preclearance for all changes
in voting practices and procedures under Section 5, and avers that most of the information
regarding those issues is in the hands of the Plaintiff, and Defendant therefore denies those
7. With respect to the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 7,
Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about whether the Plaintiff
supports voting rights for all its residents, and about what the Plaintiff believes regarding the
Section 5 preclearance procedure, and Defendant therefore denies such allegations. Defendant
denies that Section 5 is either unnecessary or constitutionally improper, and Defendant avers that
Section 5 is constitutional. With respect to the allegations contained in the second sentence of
paragraph 7, Defendant admits that this is an action in which the Plaintiff seeks a declaratory
judgment for bailout under Section 4(a), or, in the alternative, through a constitutional challenge,
to terminate its obligation to seek preclearance of voting changes under Section 5, but denies that
Case 1:06-cv-01384-PLF Document 8-1 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 4 of 12
the Plaintiff is entitled to any of the declaratory relief that it seeks.
8. Defendant denies that the allegations contained in paragraph 8 accurately or fully
describe the circumstances under which Texas became covered by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act. Defendant avers that the formula under which Texas became covered by Section 5 is
set forth in the Voting Rights Act, in the third sentence of Section 4(b), 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(b),
and in Section 4(f)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(f)(3), and avers that these provisions speak for
themselves. Defendant avers that Texas became covered by Section 5 for voting changes
enacted or sought to be administered different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1972,
based on determinations made by the Attorney General and the Director of the Census dated
September 18, 1975, and published in the Federal Register on September 23, 1975, 40 Fed. Reg.
43746, and avers that this published determination speaks for itself.
9. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 9, Defendant admits Congress
passed, and the President signed, a bill reauthorizing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in July,
2006. Defendant denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 9.
10. Defendant denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 10. In
response to the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 10, Defendant admits that Texas
remains covered by Section 5 and that this means that the State and every political subunit of the
State, including the Plaintiff (and not just every political subdivision), that enacts or seeks to
administer changes affecting voting is required to seek and obtain preclearance under Section 5
for changes in voting practices and procedures, but Defendant denies that the conditions that
caused Texas to be covered by Section 5 have been remedied for over thirty years. Defendant
further admits that while some state courts have held municipal utility districts to be political
Case 1:06-cv-01384-PLF Document 8-1 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 12
subdivisions under Texas state law, Defendant denies that the Plaintiff is a political subdivision
entitled to seek bailout, as defined in Sections 4(a) and 14(c)(2) of the Voting Rights Act. In
response to the allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 10, Defendant admits
that the Plaintiff did not exist as a political subunit at the time that Texas was designated a
covered jurisdiction under Section 5, but avers that, as a class, districts of the general type to
which the Plaintiff belongs did exist at the time the determination was made that Texas was
covered by Section 5. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
whether the Plaintiff has ever been found to violate voting rights, and Defendant therefore denies
11. In response to the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 11,
Defendant admits that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires covered jurisdictions (as well
as their political subunits) to seek and obtain preclearance for changes in voting practices and
procedures, and admits that making an administrative submission to the Attorney General is one
avenue for obtaining such preclearance, but avers that a covered jurisdiction may in the
alternative institute an action in this Court for a declaratory judgment seeking approval of such
changes in voting practices and procedures. Defendant denies that the allegations contained in
the second sentence of paragraph 11 are a correct statement of law regarding preclearance.
Defendant avers that decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States have interpreted the
Section 5 preclearance requirement to apply to voting changes enacted or sought to be
administered by all political subunits in either a covered State or a covered political subdivision,
and avers that those decisions speak for themselves.
12. Defendant denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 12.
Case 1:06-cv-01384-PLF Document 8-1 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 12
Defendant denies that the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 12
accurately or fully describe the requirements of Section 5. Defendant avers that Section 5
requires the Plaintiff to submit changes affecting voting for review to either the Attorney General
or to this Court, and avers that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States
interpreting Section 5 define the scope of the changes that must be submitted, and avers that
those decisions speak for themselves. Defendant denies that the allegations contained in the
third sentence of paragraph 12 accurately or fully describe the requirements of Section 5.
Defendant avers that the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that a wide range of
changes affecting voting, including statewide redistricting plans and polling place changes, are
covered by Section 5 and must be precleared by either the Attorney General or this Court, and
avers that those decisions speak for themselves. Defendant further avers that the Supreme Court
of the United States has determined that voting changes enacted or sought to be administered by
any political subunit of either a covered State or covered political subdivision must be
precleared, and avers that those decisions speak for themselves. Defendant denies that the
allegations contained in the fourth sentence of paragraph 12 accurately or fully reflect the
practice under Section 5. Defendant avers most jurisdictions have chosen to submit their voting
changes to the Attorney General for review rather than to this Court, that Section 5 gives the
Attorney General 60 days to consider an administrative submission of voting changes, that
voting changes are not effective as law unless and until preclearance is obtained, and that some
but not all jurisdictions build in extra time to seek preclearance. Defendant also avers that the
Attorney General’s procedures allow jurisdictions to request expedited consideration of
submitted voting changes, and that the Attorney General endeavors to meet such requests.
Case 1:06-cv-01384-PLF Document 8-1 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 12
Defendant denies the allegations contained in the fifth and sixth sentences of paragraph 12, but
does aver that most voting changes submitted to the Attorney General are ultimately precleared.
13. Defendant denies that the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 13
accurately or fully describe the alternatives available to a covered jurisdiction in the event of the
Attorney General interposing an objection to a voting change. Defendant avers that if the
Attorney General objects to a submission of a voting change from a covered jurisdiction, then
the jurisdiction has several alternatives available to it, including requesting reconsideration of the
objection from the Attorney General, filing a declaratory judgment action in this Court seeking a
de novo determination on the change, abandoning the change and continuing the benchmark
practice, or devising another plan and resubmitting it to the Attorney General for another
determination. In response to the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 13,
Defendant admits that the percentage of objections interposed by the Attorney General to voting
changes submitted to him is relatively small, but denies the remainder of the allegations in that
sentence. Defendant denies the allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 13.
14. In response to the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 14,
Defendant admits only that the Voting Rights Act contains a provision that authorizes eligible
political subdivisions, as well as covered states, to file a declaratory judgment action seeking to
bailout from preclearance coverage, but avers that the Voting Rights Act, in Sections 4(a) and
14(c)(2), specifically define what jurisdictions may file such bailout actions and that Section 4(a)
further specifically defines the elements that jurisdictions must prove before a bailout can be
granted. Defendant denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 14.
15. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 15(a) and 15(b), Defendant
Case 1:06-cv-01384-PLF Document 8-1 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 8 of 12
lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and
Defendant therefore denies such allegations. Defendant admits the allegations contained in
paragraph 15(c). With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 15(d), Defendant lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and
Defendant therefore denies those allegations. Defendant admits the allegations contained in
paragraph 15(e).
16. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 16, and Defendant therefore denies those allegations.
17. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations contained in paragraph 17, and Defendant therefore denies those allegations.
18. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18.
19. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19.
20. Defendant denies the allegations contained in the first and second sentences of
paragraph 20. In response to the allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 20,
Defendant admits that the Plaintiff had to seek, and did in fact obtain, preclearance to move its
voting location into a public school, but avers that the submitted voting change was greater in
scope than described, in that the change was part of a joint election agreement between the
Plaintiff and Travis County. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding the Plaintiff’s motivation for changing the
voting location, and Defendant therefore denies those allegations. In response to the allegations
contained in the fourth sentence of paragraph 20, Defendant lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and Defendant therefore denies
Case 1:06-cv-01384-PLF Document 8-1 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 9 of 12
21. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 21.
22. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 22.
23. Defendant admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 23, and
avers that the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the constitutionality of Section 5 on
several occasions, as has this Court. Defendant admits the allegations contained in the second
sentence of paragraph 23. Defendant denies the allegations contained in the third and fourth
sentences of paragraph 23.
24. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 24, and avers that Congress
has not reauthorized Section 5 “forever.”
25. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 25, and Defendant therefore denies
those allegations. Defendant denies that the allegations contained in the second sentence of
paragraph 25 accurately or fully reflect the facts. Defendant avers that the Plaintiff was created
in the late 1980's, and avers that the reason the Plaintiff is subject to the preclearance
requirement is because it is a political subunit that enacts and/or administers changes affecting
voting in a State that was determined in 1975 to be covered under Section 4(b) of the Voting
Rights Act, because neither the State nor the County in which the Plaintiff is located have
successfully bailed out under Section 4(a), and because Congress has extended the expiration
date for preclearance coverage on two occasions since 1975. Defendant denies the allegations
contained in the third sentence of paragraph 25.
26. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 26.
Case 1:06-cv-01384-PLF Document 8-1 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 10 of 12
In response to the paragraph in the prayer for relief in the Plaintiff’s complaint,
Defendant responds as follows:
Defendant denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has met the
bailout requirements of Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act. Defendant denies that the
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act no longer apply to the Plaintiff. Defendant denies that the Plaintiff is
entitled to a declaratory judgment that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.
Defendant denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
Any and all allegations not specifically admitted herein are denied.
Defendant avers that the Plaintiff lacks standing, that this matter lacks ripeness, and thus
that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of some or all of the Plaintiff’s claims.
Defendant also avers that the Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be
granted, since the Plaintiff is not a jurisdiction eligible to bailout under Section 4(a) of the
Voting Rights Act, and since the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has been
established by several decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Case 1:06-cv-01384-PLF Document 8-1 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 12
JEFFERY A. TAYLOR WAN J. KIM
JOHN K. TANNER (D.C. Bar No. 417585)
/s/ T. Christian Herren Jr
H. CHRISTOPHER COATES
T. CHRISTIAN HERREN JR
chris.herren@usdoj.gov
sarah.harrington@usdoj.gov
christy.mccormick@usdoj.gov
Case 1:06-cv-01384-PLF Document 8-1 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 12 of 12
I hereby certify that on October 16, 2006, I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing
Answer through the Court’s ECF filing system to the following:
Ferdose al-Taie, Esq.
ferdose.al-taie@weil.com
I also hereby certify that on October 16, 2006, I caused to be served a copy of the
foregoing Answer through email and first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
Gregory S. Coleman, Esq.
Christian T. Ward, Esq.
8911 Capital of Texas Highway
greg.coleman@weil.com
chris.ward@weil.com
Stimmrechtsgesetz von 1965
Dokumente ähnlich wie Alberto Gonzales Files -h- myfiles mud dc case filings draft answer 10 16 06 wpd electionlawblog org-namudno-answer
anon-482315
aronhistory
Asep Rosidin
api-271889317
outcast united final paper
api-244955339
3rd Dept. Decision - 526007
Order-supremecourt-02.05.2016 Tma Pai Judgement
Intro to Cam Gov't & Pol
Motion for Order Clarifying Travel Parameter
Sayson v. Singson
Q Sources Judgment
Daoang Vs Municipal Judge 28 March 1988
MA. TERESA DADIVAS
Mehr von politix
api-237740013
Auden and Shelley: Unacknowledged Legislators
Performance of buried flexible conduits
HED-Personal hygiene for women
VCB Paper
HEMT PPT
Pfeiffer-History of Classical Scholarship_ From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford University Press Academic Monograph Reprints) -Oxford University
End of Chapter Questions Chapter 1
Fizzy_Y
Amer Dardağan
Productivity Improvement in CNC Machining Process by using DCMT 11 T304 Tool Bit