Chestnut v. Merrill

Note: The Brennan Center is not a participant in this case.

Case Background

Eight Alabama voters filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Alabama’s 2011 congressional map violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The plaintiffs argue the map packs African-American voters into the Seventh Congressional District and significantly cracks African-American voters between three other congressional districts, with the effect of diluting African-American voting. The suit alleges that the African-American population in the three “cracked” congressional districts is sufficient to form a second majority-minority district.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the map violates Section 2 of the VRA and enjoin the state from using the current map in any further congressional elections. The plaintiffs are also asking the court to require that the state adopt a new congressional plan that includes a second majority-minority district.

On March 27, 2019, the court ruled that the plaintiffs would no longer be able to seek to enjoin the current map or to have a new map adopted. The plaintiffs will still be able to seek a declaration that the map violates Section 2 of the VRA. 

Trial took place from November 4 to 8, 2019.

On March 17, 2020, the court declared the case moot and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Documents  

District Court

• Complaint (June 13, 2018)
• Motion to Dismiss (July 9, 2018)
• First Amended Complaint (July 23, 2018)
• Answer to the Amended Complaint (August 6, 2018)
• Motion to Intervene (August 27, 2018)
• Report from Rule 26(f) Conference (September 4, 2018)
• Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene (September 10, 2018)
• Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Motion to Intervene (September 10, 2018)
• Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Intervene (October 16, 2018)
• Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (November 2, 2018)
• Motion for Stay of Discovery (November 2, 2018)
• Amendments to Rule 26(f) Report (November 5, 2019)
• Scheduling Order (November 7, 2018)
• Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (November 30, 2018)
• Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Motion to Stay Discovery (December 4, 2018)
• Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Stay Discovery (December 18, 2018)
• Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (December 21, 2018)
• Order Denying Motion to Stay Discovery (January 9, 2019)
• Amendments to Rule 26(f) Report (January 28, 2019)
• Memorandum Opinion (January 28, 2019)
• Order Denying Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (January 28, 2019)
• Order Setting Scheduling Conference (January 30, 2019)
• Scheduling Order (February 12, 2019)
• Joint Status Report (March 15, 2019)
• Memorandum Opinion (March 27, 2019)
• Order (March 27, 2019)
• Revised Scheduling Order (April 16, 2019)
• Defendant’s Pre-Trial Brief (October 28, 2019)
• Plaintiffs’ Pre-Trial Brief (October 28, 2019)
• Plaintiffs’ Response to Assertion of Mootness (November 22, 2019)
• Defendant’s Post-Trial Brief (December 13, 2019)
• Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Brief (December 13, 2019)
• Memorandum Opinion (March 17, 2020)
• Order (March 17, 2020)