Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Voting Rights Act in North Carolina

ACLU Had Intervened in Challenge to Key Provision that Ensures Minorities’ Right to Vote FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org WASHINGTON – A District of Columbia federal court today rejected a challenge in North Carolina to a key part of the Voting Rights Act that helps ensure minorities’ right to vote. The American Civil Liberties Union, along with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, had intervened in the case, Laroque v. Holder , on behalf of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and six minority residents. “The right to vote has been under attack across the country, with many states passing laws that will keep minorities, seniors and low-income residents away from the polls,” said Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “Today’s decision recognizes the importance of the Voting Rights Act for protecting everyone’s right to vote. States that challenge the constitutionality of a law that is so critical for ensuring eligible voters can participate in our democracy are not acting responsibly.” The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark civil rights law that helps protect the right to vote for language and racial minorities. Under Section 5 of the VRA, certain states with a history of voter suppression – including North Carolina – must have changes to their election laws approved to ensure they are not discriminatory. Today’s ruling expressly rejected a constitutional challenge to the extension of Section 5 of the VRA by Congress in 2006. The ACLU has also intervened in a case filed by Shelby County, Ala., where the state is challenging the constitutionality of the VRA, and filed motions to intervene in similar cases filed by Arizona and Georgia. Additionally, the ACLU has sent comment letters to the Department of Justice seeking to block discriminatory laws in South Carolina and Texas, and last week filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin’s voter ID law. To read the court’s opinion in Laroque v. Holder , go to: www.aclu.org/voting-rights/laroque-v-holder-opinion .

Twitter Follow

Follow us on

Contact Us

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT:  This communication or portions thereof may be considered "advertising" as defined by Section 6157(c) of the California Business and Professions Code or within the jurisdiction in which you are viewing this.  Nothing in the discussion above is intended to be a representation or guarantee about the outcome of any legal proceeding in which you may be involved.  By providing the information above in this format, Michel & Associates is not soliciting you to hire it to handle a specific legal matter you may currently have or be anticipating commencing in the future.  Notwithstanding the discussion above, you should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content on this site without seeking appropriate legal advice regarding your particular circumstances from an attorney licensed to practice law.  This communication is informational only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Michel & Associates.  Michel & Associates's attorneys are licensed to practice in California, Texas, and the District of Columbia.