There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 77
Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC Document 8 Filed 08/28/2006 Paget of 8
oN THE UNITED: STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
ne DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BOTETOURT COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
apolitical subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Attorney General of the
United States of America,
WAN J. KIM,
Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Rights Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washingten, DC,
Civil Action No.
(three-judge court}
Defendants.
This action was initiated by Botetourt County, Virginia, a political see
the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereafter “the County”). The County is subject
provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C,
The County seeks a-declaratory judgment under Section 4 of the Voting Rights .
1965, as. amended, 42 U.S.C, §1973b. A three-judge court has been convened as provided
i 42 U.S.C, $19736(a)G) and 28 U.S.C, §2284,
1:06CV-01052 (KLH, RMC, IR)
Section 4(a) of the Votitig Rights Act provides that a state or political subdivision
subject.to the special provisions of the Act may be exempted from those. provisions ifjit
_ can demonstrate in ae action for a declaratory judgment before the United States'
District Court for the District of Columbia that for the ten-year period prior to-filing the
ation and-daring ity pendericy, it has-both 1) complied with the Voting Rights Aet,and
|
vision 7
to the
§1973¢.
Act of
[Page 2 ‘structural barriers to minority electoral influence. In order to demonstrate complHarice
- election that inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process, 42 U.S.C.
- $1973b¢a)(1)(F)@); and 2) engaged in constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation
| | EE RE
Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC Document8 — Filed 08/28/2006 Page 2 of 8
2) taketi positive steps both to encourage minority political participation and to remove
with the Voting Rights. Act during the ten-year period prior to commencetneutlof a
declaratory judgment action under Section 4{a), the County must satisfy five conditions:
}) the County has not used any test or device during that
teti-year period for the purpose or with the effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of race or color; |
2) no court of the United States bas issued a final judgment
citing that ten-year period that the right to vote has been
denied or abridged on account of race or color within the
territory of the County, and no consent decree, settlement or
agreement may have been entered into during that ten-year period
that resulted in the abandonment of a voting practice challenged
on:such grounds; and no such claims may be pending at the time
‘the declaratory judgment action is commenced;
3) no Federal examiners have been assigned to the County
pursuant to the Voting Rights Act during the ten-year period
preceding commencement of the declaratory judgment action;
4) the County and all governmental units within its .
territory must have complied with Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act, 42. U.8.C.81973c, during that ten-year period, including the
' +requitement that voting changes covered under Section 3 not be
enforced without Section 5 preciearance, and that all voting
changes dénied Section 5 preclearanee by the Attorney General or
the District Court for the District of Columbia have been
repealed; and
5) neither the Attorney General nor the District Court for
the District of Columbia have denied Section 5 preclearance to a
‘subtiiission by the County or any governmental unit within its
territory during that ten-year period, nor may any Section 5
submissions or declarafory judgment actions be pending. 42
U.S.C, §1973b(a)(1){A-E).
In addition, to obtain the declaratory judgment, the County and all governmental
units within its territory must have: 1) eliminated voting procedures and metheds of
a Ss eG FETET EE Hy »Page 3 "| mot
or Harasdinrent-of petsons exercising voting tighits, and to expand the opportunity for
convenient registration and voting for every person of voting age, and the appdintment of
bo
\
mifority persons as election officials throughout the jurisdiction and at ali stages
required to preserit evidence of minority participation in the electoral process, including
| ‘
the levels of minority group registration and voting, changes in such levels over time, and
disparities between minority proup and non-minority group participation. 42 U\S.C. |
|
§1973b(a)(2). In-the:ten years preceding bailout, the County must not have engaged in
. political subdivision with respect to discrimination in voting on account of race
‘geek a Section 4(a) declaratory judgment. 42 U.S.C. §1973b(a)(4).
42 US.C. §1973b(a}(3). Finally, the County must provide public notice of its in
- violations of any provision of the Constitution ot laws of the United States or any State or
ff,
OF CO
tent t
Jor.
0
declaratory judgment. The patties have filed a joint motion, accompanied by a
political subdivision of a state within the meaning of Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights
|
(Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973b(a)¢1)-.
ae
ffoni- districts. There are also four other elected governmental units-that exist completely
The Defendant United States, after investigation, has agreed-that the Plaintiff ‘has
fulfilled all conditions required by Section 4{a) and is entitled to the requested |
|
I
Stipulation of Facts, for entry of this Consent Judgment and Decree. i
FINDINGS
Pursvant to the parties’ stipulations and-joint motion, this Court finds as follows:
1. The County is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of ‘Virginia, and a
I I
2. Botetourt County is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors elect ed
Lomememene
carn pA tenPage 4 |
i
}
in Botetouit County within thie meaning oF 42 U.S.C. $I973b(@)(1). These include te
town governments of Buchanan, Fincastle, and Troutville. The town councils are all
elected at-large. Another governmental unit operating completely within Botetourt
County is the Botetourt County School Board, which became an elected body in 2005.
Menibers of the School Board are elected to four-year terms from the same districts as
- |
members of the County Board of Supervisors. |
3. The County is a.covered jurisdiction subject fo the special provisions of the
fo
Voting Rights Act, including Section 5 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 3 19736.
. - 4, The County was designated as a jurisdiction subject to the special provisionsiof
the Voting Rights Act on the basis of the deterrainations. made by the Attorney'General
|
that Virginia maintained a “test or device” as defined by section 4(b) of the Act, 42 |
USS. § 197366), on Noveinber 1, 1964, and by the Director of the Census that fewer|
“than 50 percent of the persons of voting age residing in the state voted in the 1964
presidential election.
5. No discriminatory test or device has been used by the County during the ten
years prior to the commencement of tits action for the purpose or with the effect of |
:
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.
6. No person in the County has been denied the right to vote on account of race or
color during the past ten years.
7, No court of the United States has issued a final judgment during the last ten
-years priér fo the commencement of this action that the right to-vote has been denied lor
abridged on account of race or color in Botetourt County, and no consent decree,
' setilemetit, or agreement has been entered into resulting in any abandonment of a votingPage 5 re
Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC Document8 _ Filed 08/28/2006 Page 5 of 8
practi¢e:cliatlenged on sudhe grounds during that'fime. No such claims presently are
pending.or were pending at the time this action was filed.
&. No Federal Examiners‘ have béen assigned to the County within the ten-year
period preceding this action. | |
9. The County has not’ enforced any voting chariges prior to receiving Section 5
preclearance during the ten-year period preceding this action. |
10, All voting changes submitted by the County under Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973c, have been precleared by the Attomey General. No
Section 5 submissions by the County are pending before the Attorney General., The |
County has. never sought Section 5 judicial preciearance from this Court.
11. No voting practices or procedures have been abandoned by the County or
challenged on the grounds that such practices or procedures would have either the
purpose or the effect of denying the right to vote on account of race or color during the
ten-year period preceding this action.
12. The County does not employ voting procedures or methods of election which
inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process by the County’s minority citizens,
13, There is no indication that in the past ten years any persons in Botetourt
County lave been subject to intimidation or harassment in the course of exercising thelr
right to participate in thé political process.
14. The County has engaged.in constructive efforts.over the years to enh ance
registration and voting opportunities for all of its citizens of voting age by adding |
additional heurs and locations for persons to register to vote and by adding additional
polling locations for persenis to. cast ballots as necessary.
epunines eratPage 6 |
| | |
example, that a significant proportion of the County’s voting age population is registered
|
‘to vote. As of 2005, there were 21,070 registered voters in Botetourt County, dr |
1996, 2000, and 2004), 87%, 78%, 74%, and 76% of the County’s registered voters
~ “State or political subdivision with respect to discrimination in voting on account of race
in accordance with Section 4(a)(1). of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C, §1973b(a)(1 i
|
“GRANTED, and Botetourt County, including the Botetourt County School Board and ih
towns of Buchattan, Fincastle, and Troutville, shall be exempt from coverage pursuant to
“I pt
Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC. Document8. Filed 08/28/2006 Page 6 of 8
13. Since the County does noi record thesrave of its registered voters, it is unable
to present evidence directly measuring minority voter participation, but the County nas
|
| I
provided evidénce of voter participation for elections since 1990. Current data show’, for
approximately 65% ofthe voting: age population. Tumout has been highest in the County
|
in presidential élection yéats. For example, i in the last four Presidential elections (1 G92.
tumed out to vote, respectively.
16, The County has not engaged, within the ten years prior to the commencerient
of this action, in any violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any
‘or color,
17. The County has publicized the intended commencement and proposed
settlement of this action in the media and in appropriate United States post offices as’
required under 42 U.S.C. §1973b{a)(4). No aggrieved party has sought to interv: ene itt
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C, §1973b(a\(4).
- Acdordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
1. The Plaintiff, Botetourt County, Virginia is entitled to a declaratory judgment
2. The parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment and Decree is |
thPage 7 Séotion 4(B) of tie Voring Rights Act; 42 0.86: §19738(b), provided that this Court
shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for a petiod of ten years. This action shall b
closed-and placed on this Court's inactive docket, subject to being reactivated upon
application by either the Attorney General or any agerieved person. in accordance wi
‘the procedures set forth in42 U.S.C. §1973b(a\(5). :
3. The-parties shall bear their own costs.
Enteréd this HM day of jf wy , 2006.
eo
Kn Sal ck oon
URITED STATES ey JYPGE
\
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ith]
aesPage 8 Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC Document 8
Approvédas tovfotinandl content:
For the Plaintiff Botetourt County, Virginia
. RAED HE ERT
‘ / Altomiey. al Law
4 5019 Waple Lane
fe Alexandria, Va. 22304
& (703) 567-5873 (QO)
ie (703) 567-5876 (fax)
; DBC Bar No. 447676
For the Defendants Alberto R. Gonzales
and Wan J. Kin:
KENNETH L. WAINSTEIN
United States Attormey
et SIA.
JOHN TANNER
CHRISTY A. McCORMICK
Attomeys, Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
United States Department of Justice
Room 7254 - NWB
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC.20530-
(202) 514-2386
Filed 08/28/2006
i. 7
Page q
of 8
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
77
Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC Document 8 Filed 08/28/2006 Paget of 8
oN THE UNITED: STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
ne DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BOTETOURT COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
apolitical subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Attorney General of the
United States of America,
WAN J. KIM,
Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Rights Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washingten, DC,
Civil Action No.
(three-judge court}
Defendants.
This action was initiated by Botetourt County, Virginia, a political see
the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereafter “the County”). The County is subject
provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C,
The County seeks a-declaratory judgment under Section 4 of the Voting Rights .
1965, as. amended, 42 U.S.C, §1973b. A three-judge court has been convened as provided
i 42 U.S.C, $19736(a)G) and 28 U.S.C, §2284,
1:06CV-01052 (KLH, RMC, IR)
Section 4(a) of the Votitig Rights Act provides that a state or political subdivision
subject.to the special provisions of the Act may be exempted from those. provisions ifjit
_ can demonstrate in ae action for a declaratory judgment before the United States'
District Court for the District of Columbia that for the ten-year period prior to-filing the
ation and-daring ity pendericy, it has-both 1) complied with the Voting Rights Aet,and
|
vision 7
to the
§1973¢.
Act of
[
PDF Page 3
‘structural barriers to minority electoral influence. In order to demonstrate complHarice
- election that inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process, 42 U.S.C.
- $1973b¢a)(1)(F)@); and 2) engaged in constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation
| | EE RE
Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC Document8 — Filed 08/28/2006 Page 2 of 8
2) taketi positive steps both to encourage minority political participation and to remove
with the Voting Rights. Act during the ten-year period prior to commencetneutlof a
declaratory judgment action under Section 4{a), the County must satisfy five conditions:
}) the County has not used any test or device during that
teti-year period for the purpose or with the effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of race or color; |
2) no court of the United States bas issued a final judgment
citing that ten-year period that the right to vote has been
denied or abridged on account of race or color within the
territory of the County, and no consent decree, settlement or
agreement may have been entered into during that ten-year period
that resulted in the abandonment of a voting practice challenged
on:such grounds; and no such claims may be pending at the time
‘the declaratory judgment action is commenced;
3) no Federal examiners have been assigned to the County
pursuant to the Voting Rights Act during the ten-year period
preceding commencement of the declaratory judgment action;
4) the County and all governmental units within its .
territory must have complied with Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act, 42. U.8.C.81973c, during that ten-year period, including the
' +requitement that voting changes covered under Section 3 not be
enforced without Section 5 preciearance, and that all voting
changes dénied Section 5 preclearanee by the Attorney General or
the District Court for the District of Columbia have been
repealed; and
5) neither the Attorney General nor the District Court for
the District of Columbia have denied Section 5 preclearance to a
‘subtiiission by the County or any governmental unit within its
territory during that ten-year period, nor may any Section 5
submissions or declarafory judgment actions be pending. 42
U.S.C, §1973b(a)(1){A-E).
In addition, to obtain the declaratory judgment, the County and all governmental
units within its territory must have: 1) eliminated voting procedures and metheds of
a Ss eG FETET EE Hy »
PDF Page 4
"| mot
Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC Document 8 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 3 of 8
or Harasdinrent-of petsons exercising voting tighits, and to expand the opportunity for
convenient registration and voting for every person of voting age, and the appdintment of
bo
\
mifority persons as election officials throughout the jurisdiction and at ali stages
required to preserit evidence of minority participation in the electoral process, including
| ‘
the levels of minority group registration and voting, changes in such levels over time, and
disparities between minority proup and non-minority group participation. 42 U\S.C. |
|
§1973b(a)(2). In-the:ten years preceding bailout, the County must not have engaged in
. political subdivision with respect to discrimination in voting on account of race
‘geek a Section 4(a) declaratory judgment. 42 U.S.C. §1973b(a)(4).
42 US.C. §1973b(a}(3). Finally, the County must provide public notice of its in
- violations of any provision of the Constitution ot laws of the United States or any State or
ff,
OF CO
tent t
Jor.
0
declaratory judgment. The patties have filed a joint motion, accompanied by a
political subdivision of a state within the meaning of Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights
|
(Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973b(a)¢1)-.
ae
ffoni- districts. There are also four other elected governmental units-that exist completely
The Defendant United States, after investigation, has agreed-that the Plaintiff ‘has
fulfilled all conditions required by Section 4{a) and is entitled to the requested |
|
I
Stipulation of Facts, for entry of this Consent Judgment and Decree. i
FINDINGS
Pursvant to the parties’ stipulations and-joint motion, this Court finds as follows:
1. The County is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of ‘Virginia, and a
I I
2. Botetourt County is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors elect ed
Lomememene
carn pA ten
7 re
Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC Document8 _ Filed 08/28/2006 Page 5 of 8
practi¢e:cliatlenged on sudhe grounds during that'fime. No such claims presently are
pending.or were pending at the time this action was filed.
&. No Federal Examiners‘ have béen assigned to the County within the ten-year
period preceding this action. | |
9. The County has not’ enforced any voting chariges prior to receiving Section 5
preclearance during the ten-year period preceding this action. |
10, All voting changes submitted by the County under Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973c, have been precleared by the Attomey General. No
Section 5 submissions by the County are pending before the Attorney General., The |
County has. never sought Section 5 judicial preciearance from this Court.
11. No voting practices or procedures have been abandoned by the County or
challenged on the grounds that such practices or procedures would have either the
purpose or the effect of denying the right to vote on account of race or color during the
ten-year period preceding this action.
12. The County does not employ voting procedures or methods of election which
inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process by the County’s minority citizens,
13, There is no indication that in the past ten years any persons in Botetourt
County lave been subject to intimidation or harassment in the course of exercising thelr
right to participate in thé political process.
14. The County has engaged.in constructive efforts.over the years to enh ance
registration and voting opportunities for all of its citizens of voting age by adding |
additional heurs and locations for persons to register to vote and by adding additional
polling locations for persenis to. cast ballots as necessary.
epunines erat
PDF Page 7
|
| | |
example, that a significant proportion of the County’s voting age population is registered
|
‘to vote. As of 2005, there were 21,070 registered voters in Botetourt County, dr |
1996, 2000, and 2004), 87%, 78%, 74%, and 76% of the County’s registered voters
~ “State or political subdivision with respect to discrimination in voting on account of race
in accordance with Section 4(a)(1). of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C, §1973b(a)(1 i
|
“GRANTED, and Botetourt County, including the Botetourt County School Board and ih
towns of Buchattan, Fincastle, and Troutville, shall be exempt from coverage pursuant to
“I pt
Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC. Document8. Filed 08/28/2006 Page 6 of 8
13. Since the County does noi record thesrave of its registered voters, it is unable
to present evidence directly measuring minority voter participation, but the County nas
|
| I
provided evidénce of voter participation for elections since 1990. Current data show’, for
approximately 65% ofthe voting: age population. Tumout has been highest in the County
|
in presidential élection yéats. For example, i in the last four Presidential elections (1 G92.
tumed out to vote, respectively.
16, The County has not engaged, within the ten years prior to the commencerient
of this action, in any violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any
‘or color,
17. The County has publicized the intended commencement and proposed
settlement of this action in the media and in appropriate United States post offices as’
required under 42 U.S.C. §1973b{a)(4). No aggrieved party has sought to interv: ene itt
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C, §1973b(a\(4).
- Acdordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
1. The Plaintiff, Botetourt County, Virginia is entitled to a declaratory judgment
2. The parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment and Decree is |
th
PDF Page 8
Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC Document 8 Filed 08/28/2006 Page 7 of 8
Séotion 4(B) of tie Voring Rights Act; 42 0.86: §19738(b), provided that this Court
shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for a petiod of ten years. This action shall b
closed-and placed on this Court's inactive docket, subject to being reactivated upon
application by either the Attorney General or any agerieved person. in accordance wi
‘the procedures set forth in42 U.S.C. §1973b(a\(5). :
3. The-parties shall bear their own costs.
Enteréd this HM day of jf wy , 2006.
eo
Kn Sal ck oon
URITED STATES ey JYPGE
\
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ith]
aes
PDF Page 9
Case 1:06-cv-01052-RMC Document 8
Approvédas tovfotinandl content:
For the Plaintiff Botetourt County, Virginia
. RAED HE ERT
‘ / Altomiey. al Law
4 5019 Waple Lane
fe Alexandria, Va. 22304
& (703) 567-5873 (QO)
ie (703) 567-5876 (fax)
; DBC Bar No. 447676
For the Defendants Alberto R. Gonzales
and Wan J. Kin:
KENNETH L. WAINSTEIN
United States Attormey
et SIA.
JOHN TANNER
CHRISTY A. McCORMICK
Attomeys, Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
United States Department of Justice
Room 7254 - NWB
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC.20530-
(202) 514-2386
Filed 08/28/2006
i. 7
Page q
of 8
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
Back to 
