There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 _ Commonwealth of Virginia,
Case 1:06-cv-00977-HHK Document8 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 1 of 7
ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT POR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
YUL 2-7 zope
TANGY Maven
HTTiNGTOR
-S. DISTRICT COUR ay Cea
erry OF SALEM, VIRGINIA,
# political subdivision of the
ii4 North Broad Sree
Chy of Salem, Virginia 24153
Plaintiff,
ey
Attorney General of the
United States of Ancerica,
WAN J, KIM,
Assistant Auiorney General,
Civil Rights Division, United Sunes
Deparment of Justice, Washington, DC,
Civil Action Ne, bOG-0v-77
(BM, RIL, HER
Three-Jodge Court
Defendants.
‘This action was initiated by the City of Salem, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia (hereafter “the City}. The City is subject to the provisions of
Seetion 5 of the Voting Righw Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C, §1973c,
{
|
The City seeks adeclaratery judgment under Section 4.of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. $1973b.A three-judge court has been convened as provided m4 |
U.S.C, S1973b(aVS) and 28 WSC. 92284. |
Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act provides that estate or political subdivision |
|
subject io the special provisions of the Act may be exempted from those provisions fit
|
can demonsirate- in. at action for a. declarsiory judgement before the United StatesPage 2 Case 1:06-cv-00977-HHK Document8 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 2of7
District Court for the District of Columbia that for the ten-year period prior to Gling the
action and during its pendency, it has both 1) complied with the Voting Rights Act, and
2} taken positive steps both t6 encourage minority political participation and te remove
structural barriers to minority electoral influence. bx order to demonstrate corp hance,
with the Voting Rights Act during the ten-year petiod prior to commencement ofa
declaratory judgment action under Section 4{a}, the City must satisfy five conditions:
1) the City has not used any test or device during that
ten-year period for the purpose or with the effect of denying or
abridging the right fo vote on account of race or color;
2) no court of the United States has issued a final judement
during that ten-year period ihat the right to. vote has. been
denied or abridged on account of race or eolor witliin the
territory of the City, 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
oa such grounds; and no such claims may be pending at the time
the declaratory yadgment action is commenced;
3) no Federal examiners have been assigned to the City
pursuant to the Voting Rights Act during the ten-year period
preceding commencement cf the declaratory judgment action;
4) the City and all governmental units within its
territory must have complied with Section 5 of the Voting Righis
Act, 42 U.8,.C.$1973c, during that ten-year period, including the
requirement that voting changes covered under Section 5 not be
enforced without Section 5 preclearauce, and that all voting
changes denied Section 5 preclsarance by the Attormey General or
ihe District Court for the District of Columbia have been.
repealed; and
5) netther the Attomey General nor the District Court for
the District.of Columbia have denied Section 5 preclearance to a
sabmission by the City or any governmental unit within its
territory during that ten-year period, nor may any Section 5
submissions or declaratory judgment actions be pending. 42
ULS8.C. $1973 b(a}(1 WA-B).
In addition, te abtain the declaratory judgment, the City and all govermmental
units within its territory must have: 1) eliminated voting procedures and methods of
slection that inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process, 42 U.S.C.Page 3 Case 1:06-cv-00977-HHK Document8 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 3 of 7
£,07aba PMs and 2)-engaged In constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation
or harassment of persous exercising voting rights, and to expand the opportunity for a
convenient registration and voting for every person of voting age, and the appointteni of
it the jorisdiction and of all stages
munority persons ag election officials thrausha
ofthe election and registration pracess,42 U.S.C. $197Sb(a)(1 (PF MiL-a), The Ciy is
required to present evidence of minority participation in the eleoworal process, ineluding
the levels of minority group rewistration and voting, chenyes in-such levels over time, andl
disparities between minority group and non-minerity group participation, cr USL.
$1973b(aK(2). In the ten years preceding bailout, the City amst not have engaged in
violations of any provision of the Constitetion er laws of the United States ar ay State or
political subdivision with respect tc discrimination in voting on zcoowat of rave or colo
42 US.C, §1973b(aK3). Finally, the City must provide public notice of its intent to sock a
Section 4{a} declarate
ry judgment. 42 0.220. HOTSMais}.
‘Fhe United States, and the Defeadants herein, aller investigation, have agreed that
the Plaintiff has filfilled ail conclitions required by Section 4f4) and is entitled to the
‘requested declaratory judgmeet. The parties have fied a joint motion, accompanied bya
. |
‘Stipulation of Pacts, for entry of this Consent Judgment and Decres.
Pursuant to the parties’ stipelations and joint motion, this Court finds as follows:
1. Fhe City is a political sats
livision.of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a
political subdivision of'a slate within the meaning of Section afa) of the Voting Rights —
Act, 42 USC. S1973bGM).Page 4 Case 1:06-cv-00977-HHK Document8 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 4of7
2.. There gre we other electéd governmental wits within the meaning of4z URE.
§P973b(a)(1} that exist within the City of Salem.
3, The City is a covered juniedistion sublect to tie special provisions of ihe Voting.
Rights Act, including Section 5 ofthe Act, 42-U.8.C § 1973c.
4, The City was designated as a parisdiction subject to the special provisions of
the Voting Rights Act on tt basis of the determinations made by the Attaraey General -
that Virgidia maintained a “test or device” as defined by section 4{b) of the Au, 42 |
U.S.C. § 1973b(b), on November 1, 1964, and bythe Director of the Censuschet fewer |
than 50-percent of the persons of voting age residing in the stete voted in the 1964 :
presidential dlection.
5, No discriminatory test.or device has been used by the City during the fen yours
‘prior tn the commencement of this action for the purpose or with the effect of denying on
abridsing the right te vote on account of race or color.
6. No pérson in the City bay been denied the right te vote on account of race or
color during the past ten yeurs. |
7. No court of the United States has issued a final judement daring the last ten
years prior to the commencement of this. action that the right t vote has been deiied or 7
abridged on nceount of race: or color in the City of Salemi, and no consent decree, |
went has been entered inte resulting hi any abandonment of a voting |
“settlement, or agre
_ «practice challenged on such grounds daring that thne. No such claims currently are
pending er were pending at the time this action was filed.
$8. No Federal Examiners have been assigned to the City within the ten-year
period preceding tis. action.
Jen pa NLA i ona nC 2Page 5 ig Meapaertep rman ee tt meena
see: peter a
‘procedures would have either the purpose or the eflect of denying the right to vate on
~ additional hours and locations for persons to register to vole and by adding additional
- peesent.evidence directly measuring minority voter partitipation, but the City has
highest in. the City in presidential election years. For exaraple, in the last thrte
Case 1:06-cv-00977-HHK Document8 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 5of7—
9. The City has not enfrced any voting changes prior te receiving Section $
preclearance during the tem year period preceding tlds action.
10. AH voting changes submitted by the City under Section 5 ofthe Voting Rigizs
Ach, 42 U.S.C. §1973e, have been. precleared by the Aftemay General, NoSection S
submissions bythe City arc pending before the Attomtey General. The Cliy has never |
sought Seotion 5 judicial préeclearance freni dhis Court. |
iL. No woling practices or procedures have been abandoned by the City by
consent decree of other agrecrment or challenged on the grounds that such practices or |
account of race or color during the ten-year period preceding this action.
12. The City does not employ voting procedures or siethods of election which
imhibit or dilute equal access io the electoral process by the City’s minority citizens.
13. There ie no indication that in the past ten years any persons in the City ef
‘Salem -have been subject to intimidation or herassment fn the course of exercising their |
tight to participate in the political process.
i4. The City has engaged in constructive efforts over the vears to eae
registration and voting opportunities for all of is citizens of voting age by adding
polling locations for persona te cast ballots as necessary.
13. Since the City does not record fhe race of its registered voters, it is.unablete -
provided evidence of voter participation forciections simee (990, Turnout has beenPage 6 Case 1:06-cv-00977-HHK Document8 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 6 of 7
4. forensinepls, 91.2%, 72% and 73.7% of
‘Presidential elections in. 1996, 2000, and 200:
the City’s registered voters fumed out to vote, respectively.
16, The City has not engaged, within the ten years prior to the commencement of
this action, in any violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State.
or political subdivision with respect to discrimination in voting on account of rece or
ecoler.
TT, The City har publicized the intended. commencement and proposed seltiement
Of this action in the media and in appropriate United States post offices-as required under
42 3.0. S973b WA). No agarieved party has sought to intervene in this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1973b{a3(4).
Accondinaly, itis herechy ORDERED, ADA
L. The Plalotiff, City of Salem, Virginia is entitled fo a declaratory judgement in |
avcondanes with Section A(a\(1) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. $1973 oak D; |
2. The parties Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgement and Decree is
GRANTED, and the City of Salem shall be exempt from coverage pursuant to Section |
“A(by of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973b(b), provided that this Court shall retain]
jurisdiction over this matter for a period of ten years. This action shall be closed and :
subject ts being reactivated apn application iy
placed on this Court's inactive docket
‘either the Attorney: Ceneral-or any agerieved person in accerdance wilh the procedures |
got forth mm 42 W540. $1973 aS),
3. Phe parties sali bear their awn costs.Page 7 = hme
Case 1:06-cv-00977-HHK Document8 _ Filed 07/27/2006 Page 7 of
ope
7
UNITED STATRE DiprRicT JUDGE
. ‘Approved as to fore and content:
For the Plaintiff City of Salem, Virginia
ACRES
DC Bar Ne. 318873
CHRISTY A. McCORMIOK
VA Bar No. 44928
Attomeys, Veting: Section,
Civil Rights Division
United States Dephelinent of usties
Room 7254 - MVE .
950 Penneyivenia Ave. NOW.
Washington, DC 20530
(207) 314-2386
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
_ Commonwealth of Virginia,
Case 1:06-cv-00977-HHK Document8 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 1 of 7
ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT POR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
YUL 2-7 zope
TANGY Maven
HTTiNGTOR
-S. DISTRICT COUR ay Cea
erry OF SALEM, VIRGINIA,
# political subdivision of the
ii4 North Broad Sree
Chy of Salem, Virginia 24153
Plaintiff,
ey
Attorney General of the
United States of Ancerica,
WAN J, KIM,
Assistant Auiorney General,
Civil Rights Division, United Sunes
Deparment of Justice, Washington, DC,
Civil Action Ne, bOG-0v-77
(BM, RIL, HER
Three-Jodge Court
Defendants.
‘This action was initiated by the City of Salem, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia (hereafter “the City}. The City is subject to the provisions of
Seetion 5 of the Voting Righw Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C, §1973c,
{
|
The City seeks adeclaratery judgment under Section 4.of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. $1973b.A three-judge court has been convened as provided m4 |
U.S.C, S1973b(aVS) and 28 WSC. 92284. |
Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act provides that estate or political subdivision |
|
subject io the special provisions of the Act may be exempted from those provisions fit
|
can demonsirate- in. at action for a. declarsiory judgement before the United States
PDF Page 3
Case 1:06-cv-00977-HHK Document8 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 2of7
District Court for the District of Columbia that for the ten-year period prior to Gling the
action and during its pendency, it has both 1) complied with the Voting Rights Act, and
2} taken positive steps both t6 encourage minority political participation and te remove
structural barriers to minority electoral influence. bx order to demonstrate corp hance,
with the Voting Rights Act during the ten-year petiod prior to commencement ofa
declaratory judgment action under Section 4{a}, the City must satisfy five conditions:
1) the City has not used any test or device during that
ten-year period for the purpose or with the effect of denying or
abridging the right fo vote on account of race or color;
2) no court of the United States has issued a final judement
during that ten-year period ihat the right to. vote has. been
denied or abridged on account of race or eolor witliin the
territory of the City, 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
oa such grounds; and no such claims may be pending at the time
the declaratory yadgment action is commenced;
3) no Federal examiners have been assigned to the City
pursuant to the Voting Rights Act during the ten-year period
preceding commencement cf the declaratory judgment action;
4) the City and all governmental units within its
territory must have complied with Section 5 of the Voting Righis
Act, 42 U.8,.C.$1973c, during that ten-year period, including the
requirement that voting changes covered under Section 5 not be
enforced without Section 5 preclearauce, and that all voting
changes denied Section 5 preclsarance by the Attormey General or
ihe District Court for the District of Columbia have been.
repealed; and
5) netther the Attomey General nor the District Court for
the District.of Columbia have denied Section 5 preclearance to a
sabmission by the City or any governmental unit within its
territory during that ten-year period, nor may any Section 5
submissions or declaratory judgment actions be pending. 42
ULS8.C. $1973 b(a}(1 WA-B).
In addition, te abtain the declaratory judgment, the City and all govermmental
units within its territory must have: 1) eliminated voting procedures and methods of
slection that inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process, 42 U.S.C.
PDF Page 4
Case 1:06-cv-00977-HHK Document8 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 3 of 7
£,07aba PMs and 2)-engaged In constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation
or harassment of persous exercising voting rights, and to expand the opportunity for a
convenient registration and voting for every person of voting age, and the appointteni of
it the jorisdiction and of all stages
munority persons ag election officials thrausha
ofthe election and registration pracess,42 U.S.C. $197Sb(a)(1 (PF MiL-a), The Ciy is
required to present evidence of minority participation in the eleoworal process, ineluding
the levels of minority group rewistration and voting, chenyes in-such levels over time, andl
disparities between minority group and non-minerity group participation, cr USL.
$1973b(aK(2). In the ten years preceding bailout, the City amst not have engaged in
violations of any provision of the Constitetion er laws of the United States ar ay State or
political subdivision with respect tc discrimination in voting on zcoowat of rave or colo
42 US.C, §1973b(aK3). Finally, the City must provide public notice of its intent to sock a
Section 4{a} declarate
ry judgment. 42 0.220. HOTSMais}.
‘Fhe United States, and the Defeadants herein, aller investigation, have agreed that
the Plaintiff has filfilled ail conclitions required by Section 4f4) and is entitled to the
‘requested declaratory judgmeet. The parties have fied a joint motion, accompanied bya
. |
‘Stipulation of Pacts, for entry of this Consent Judgment and Decres.
Pursuant to the parties’ stipelations and joint motion, this Court finds as follows:
1. Fhe City is a political sats
livision.of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a
political subdivision of'a slate within the meaning of Section afa) of the Voting Rights —
Act, 42 USC. S1973bGM).
PDF Page 5
Case 1:06-cv-00977-HHK Document8 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 4of7
2.. There gre we other electéd governmental wits within the meaning of4z URE.
§P973b(a)(1} that exist within the City of Salem.
3, The City is a covered juniedistion sublect to tie special provisions of ihe Voting.
Rights Act, including Section 5 ofthe Act, 42-U.8.C § 1973c.
4, The City was designated as a parisdiction subject to the special provisions of
the Voting Rights Act on tt basis of the determinations made by the Attaraey General -
that Virgidia maintained a “test or device” as defined by section 4{b) of the Au, 42 |
U.S.C. § 1973b(b), on November 1, 1964, and bythe Director of the Censuschet fewer |
than 50-percent of the persons of voting age residing in the stete voted in the 1964 :
presidential dlection.
5, No discriminatory test.or device has been used by the City during the fen yours
‘prior tn the commencement of this action for the purpose or with the effect of denying on
abridsing the right te vote on account of race or color.
6. No pérson in the City bay been denied the right te vote on account of race or
color during the past ten yeurs. |
7. No court of the United States has issued a final judement daring the last ten
years prior to the commencement of this. action that the right t vote has been deiied or 7
abridged on nceount of race: or color in the City of Salemi, and no consent decree, |
went has been entered inte resulting hi any abandonment of a voting |
“settlement, or agre
_ «practice challenged on such grounds daring that thne. No such claims currently are
pending er were pending at the time this action was filed.
$8. No Federal Examiners have been assigned to the City within the ten-year
period preceding tis. action.
Jen pa NLA i ona nC 2
PDF Page 6
ig Meapaertep rman ee tt meena
see: peter a
‘procedures would have either the purpose or the eflect of denying the right to vate on
~ additional hours and locations for persons to register to vole and by adding additional
- peesent.evidence directly measuring minority voter partitipation, but the City has
highest in. the City in presidential election years. For exaraple, in the last thrte
Case 1:06-cv-00977-HHK Document8 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 5of7—
9. The City has not enfrced any voting changes prior te receiving Section $
preclearance during the tem year period preceding tlds action.
10. AH voting changes submitted by the City under Section 5 ofthe Voting Rigizs
Ach, 42 U.S.C. §1973e, have been. precleared by the Aftemay General, NoSection S
submissions bythe City arc pending before the Attomtey General. The Cliy has never |
sought Seotion 5 judicial préeclearance freni dhis Court. |
iL. No woling practices or procedures have been abandoned by the City by
consent decree of other agrecrment or challenged on the grounds that such practices or |
account of race or color during the ten-year period preceding this action.
12. The City does not employ voting procedures or siethods of election which
imhibit or dilute equal access io the electoral process by the City’s minority citizens.
13. There ie no indication that in the past ten years any persons in the City ef
‘Salem -have been subject to intimidation or herassment fn the course of exercising their |
tight to participate in the political process.
i4. The City has engaged in constructive efforts over the vears to eae
registration and voting opportunities for all of is citizens of voting age by adding
polling locations for persona te cast ballots as necessary.
13. Since the City does not record fhe race of its registered voters, it is.unablete -
provided evidence of voter participation forciections simee (990, Turnout has been
PDF Page 7
Case 1:06-cv-00977-HHK Document8 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 6 of 7
4. forensinepls, 91.2%, 72% and 73.7% of
‘Presidential elections in. 1996, 2000, and 200:
the City’s registered voters fumed out to vote, respectively.
16, The City has not engaged, within the ten years prior to the commencement of
this action, in any violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State.
or political subdivision with respect to discrimination in voting on account of rece or
ecoler.
TT, The City har publicized the intended. commencement and proposed seltiement
Of this action in the media and in appropriate United States post offices-as required under
42 3.0. S973b WA). No agarieved party has sought to intervene in this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1973b{a3(4).
Accondinaly, itis herechy ORDERED, ADA
L. The Plalotiff, City of Salem, Virginia is entitled fo a declaratory judgement in |
avcondanes with Section A(a\(1) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. $1973 oak D; |
2. The parties Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgement and Decree is
GRANTED, and the City of Salem shall be exempt from coverage pursuant to Section |
“A(by of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1973b(b), provided that this Court shall retain]
jurisdiction over this matter for a period of ten years. This action shall be closed and :
subject ts being reactivated apn application iy
placed on this Court's inactive docket
‘either the Attorney: Ceneral-or any agerieved person in accerdance wilh the procedures |
got forth mm 42 W540. $1973 aS),
3. Phe parties sali bear their awn costs.
Back to 
