Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Georgia
The Georgia State Conference of the NAACP is challenging two districts in the 2015 state house plan, which is the product of a mid-decade redistricting by Republican lawmakers. The plaintiffs claim Republicans used race as a means for “achieving [a] partisan end” when they redrew the map in order to protect white Republican incumbents and deny African-American voters an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.
The plaintiffs are asking a three-judge panel to declare that the two challenged districts violate the Constitution and Voting Rights Act, order them redrawn, and impose preclearance requirements on Georgia for the next ten years under section 3 of Voting Rights Act.
The state filed a partial motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the plaintiffs’ claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment lack factual allegations that could show discriminatory effect. The state also disputed the plaintiffs’ reliance on the three-part test from Whitford v. Gill for their partisan gerrymandering claim, arguing that the plaintiffs have not shown that the test—which was originally developed to respond to a state-wide gerrymandering challenge—is reliable or appropriate for challenges to single-districts.
On August 25, the court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' section 2 and partisan gerrymandering claims. The order did not address the plaintiffs' racial gerrymandering claims which remain pending.
After the court consolidated this case with Thompson v. Kemp, the court ordered discovery to begin on the racial gerrymandering claims. Discovery in the case concluded on March 9.
- Complaint (April 24, 2017)
- Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss (May 30, 2017)
- Plaintiffs' Opposition to Partial Motion to Dismiss (June 13, 2017)
- Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Partial Motion to Dismiss (June 27, 2017)
- Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan (June 29, 2017)
- Memorandum Opinion and Order (August 25, 2017)
- Scheduling Order (September 6, 2017)
- Defendant Brian Kemp's Answer (September 15, 2017)
- Defendant's Motion to Consolidate and Brief in Support (October 6, 2017)
- Order Staying Discovery (October 18, 2017)
- Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion to Consolidate (October 20, 2017)
- Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases (November 1, 2017)
- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Thompson Plaintiffs' First Amendment Claims in Party (November 13, 2017)
- Proposed Scheduling Order of Defendant Brian Kemp (November 16, 2017)
- Motion for Expedited Entry of Plaintiffs Proposed Scheduling Order and Memorandum in Support (November 17, 2017)
- Scheduling Order (November 20, 2017)
- Defendants' Motion for Slight Modification of Scheduling Order (November 20, 2017)
- Thompson Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (November 27, 2017)
- Scheduling Order (November 28, 2017)
- Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Partial Motion to Dismiss (December 11, 2017)
- Plaintiffs Notice of and Motion for Preliminary Injunction Expedited Treatment and Oral Argument Requested (February 20, 2018)
- Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (February 20, 2018)
- Order (February 21, 2018)
- Defendant's Answer to Thompson Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (March 9, 2018)
- Consent Motion to Extend Deadlines for Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (March 20, 2018)
- Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (March 26, 2018)
- Order on Motion for Extension of Time (March 28, 2018)
- Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan (April 9, 2018)
- Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (April 9, 2018)
- Scheduling Order (April 11, 2018)
- Response to Plaintiffs' Objections to Declarations Offered by Defendant in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (April 18, 2018)