Skip Navigation
Court Case

Thompson v. Crittenden

On October 3, 2017, eleven Democratic voters filed a suit alleging Georgia’s 2015 mid-decade state house plan violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs also allege that two of the house districts are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.

Published: January 16, 2019

Case Background

Eleven Democratic voters filed a lawsuit against the State of Georgia claiming that the 2015 state house plan violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs claim that Republicans in the General Assembly redesigned two state legislative districts – House Districts 105 and 111— during a mid-decade redistricting to decrease the influence of African-American voting strength. The group also contends that Republicans improperly failed to draw a legislative district in the Atlanta area that could have elected an African-American candidate.

The plaintiffs have asked the court to invalidate the districts and mandate the creation of at least one majority-minority district in the metro-Atlanta area.

On October 6, the defendant, Secretary of State Brian Kemp, filed a motion to consolidate the case with Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Georgia on the grounds that both cases challenge the same legislation and assert claims that are premised on the same or closely related legal theories. 

On November 13, Defendant Brian Kemp filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' discriminatory intent claim and violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act claim, and raised standing objections. The court has yet to rule on the motion. 

After the court consolidated this case with Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Georgiathe court ordered discovery to begin on the racial gerrymandering claims. On March 9, discovery relating to the racial gerrymandering claims concluded. Discovery on the remaining section 2 claims will conclude on October 12. 

On June 1, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.

On September 4, 2018, the court granted the plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint to include partisan gerrymandering claims. 

On January 16, 2019, the court granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.

Documents

District Court