Actions & Cases
Explore our cases and actions, including relevant court documents.
Rose v. Raffensperger
The Election Law Clinic filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Sierra Club to the Supreme Court in support of Rose et al.’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The brief argues that the PSC is a policymaking body that does not fit into the Eleventh Circuit’s applied precedent, that the PSC would function efficiently, perhaps even more effectively with districts, and that the current lack of representation at the PSC has detrimental economic and health consequences for Black Georgians.
Kim v. Giordano Hanlon
The brief, filed by the Election Law Clinic in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, argues that New Jersey’s notorious county line ballot design is more distortive than almost all other electoral policies.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
The Election Law Clinic filed an amicus brief on behalf of Professors Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos and Jowei Chen to the Supreme Court in support of Appellees. The brief details the applications and value of computational redistricting in the racial gerrymandering context. Unlike racial vote dilution cases, which hinge on discriminatory effects, racial gerrymandering claims depend on discriminatory intent. Computational redistricting can provide probative evidence of this legislative intent.
The Election Law Clinic filed an amicus brief on behalf of Professors Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos and Jowei Chen to the Supreme Court in support of Appellees. The brief details the applications and value of computational redistricting in the racial gerrymandering context. Unlike racial vote dilution cases, which hinge on discriminatory effects, racial gerrymandering claims depend on discriminatory intent. Computational redistricting can provide probative evidence of this legislative intent.
Allen v. Milligan
The Supreme Court upheld the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to protect the opportunity for communities of color to elect candidates of choice. The Supreme Court’s opinion relied heavily on the amicus brief filed by the Election Law Clinic in its decision. The ELC brief provided the Supreme Court with empirical information about the reach of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and warned that accepting Appellants’ proposal would undermine the election of minority-preferred candidates and governmental responsiveness to minority interests, in violation of Congress’s clear instructions.
The Supreme Court upheld the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to protect the opportunity for communities of color to elect candidates of choice. The Supreme Court’s opinion relied heavily on the amicus brief filed by the Election Law Clinic in its decision. The ELC brief provided the Supreme Court with empirical information about the reach of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and warned that accepting Appellants’ proposal would undermine the election of minority-preferred candidates and governmental responsiveness to minority interests, in violation of Congress’s clear instructions.
League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature
The Election Law Clinic filed an amicus brief on behalf of Professor Charles Fried to the Supreme Court of Utah in support of Plaintiffs. The brief explains that Utah’s Constitution contains provisions distinct from the federal Constitution, in particular, it includes the Free Elections and Uniform Operation of Laws Clauses. The original meaning of these constitutional protections and this Court’s own precedent compels the conclusion that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under Utah’s Constitution.
The Election Law Clinic filed an amicus brief on behalf of Professor Charles Fried to the Supreme Court of Utah in support of Plaintiffs. The brief explains that Utah’s Constitution contains provisions distinct from the federal Constitution, in particular, it includes the Free Elections and Uniform Operation of Laws Clauses. The original meaning of these constitutional protections and this Court’s own precedent compels the conclusion that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under Utah’s Constitution.
Borja v. Nago
The brief, filed by the Election Law Clinic and Campaign Legal Center to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, explains that the district court erred by applying the wrong legal standard.
The brief, filed by the Election Law Clinic and Campaign Legal Center to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, explains that the district court erred by applying the wrong legal standard.
xfbxb
Portugal v. Franklin County
In conjunction with Civil Rights and Justice Clinic University of Washington School of Law, ELC filed a brief of Law School Clinics focused on Civil Rights as Amici Curiae.
xfbxb
Moore v. Harper
The Election Law Clinic filed an amicus brief on behalf of law professors exploring doctrinal and practical problems in the adoption of the so-called “independent state legislature theory” (“ISLT”) would cause in all facets of U.S. elections.
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity v. Raffensperger
The Election Law Clinic, along with Fair Districts GA, filed a friends of the court brief in support of Plaintiffs in Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity v. Raffensperger to demonstrate that it is not hard to draw Georgia districts that respect the legislature’s discretionary choices while complying with the Voting Rights Act.
Harper v. Hall and NCLCV v. Hall
The Election Law Clinic, along with local counsel Poyner Spruill LLP, today filed a friend of the court brief (amicus brief) on behalf of Professor Charles Fried, the Beneficial Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. The brief asked the North Carolina Supreme Court to find partisan gerrymandering justiciable under the state’s Constitution.
West Virginia v. EPA
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear West Virginia v. EPA, a case challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases in certain ways. Several petitioners invoke the major questions doctrine, which holds that courts should not defer to agencies’ statutory interpretation on questions of “vast economic or political significance.” The Court’s decision could also revive the nondelegation doctrine—a nearly defunct principle that Congress cannot delegate to regulatory agencies in overly broad terms.
Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
The Wisconsin Legislature and its allies have asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to redraw the State’s map in a way that would solidify the State’s 2011 partisan gerrymander for the next decade. ELC is representing five plaintiffs from Gill v. Whitford as amici curiae who want to ensure that the Wisconsin Supreme Court does not perpetuate the gerrymander under the guise of a “least-change” approach.