Last Updated: January 4, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Sullivan v. Scott
Case Information
Date Filed: June 3, 2011
State: Florida
Issue: Ballot Access
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 4:11-cv-10047)
Issue:
Whether defendants violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by neglection to submit voting changes for preclearnace to the Department of Justice.
Status:
Complaint Filed 6/03/11. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed 6/20/11. plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss filed 7/06/11. Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed 7/18/11. Order Dismissing Case for Lack of Standing filed 10/18/11.
District Court Documents
- Complaint
(filed 6/03/11)
- Request for 3 Judge District Court
(filed 6/03/11) - Plaintiff's Preliminary Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof
(filed 6/03/11)
- Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Recieve Notices of Electronic Filing
(filed 6/06/11) - Order Granting Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
(filed 6/09/11) - Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
(entered 6/20/11) - Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(entered 6/20/11) - Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaitiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(entered 6/27/11) - Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
(entered 7/06/11) - Defendant's Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss
(filed 7/18/11) - Plaintiff's Notice of Defendant's Filing of Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in D.C. Federal District Court
(filed 8/08/11) - Defendant's Notice of Administrative Preclearance and Suggestion of Mootness
(filed 8/09/11) - Plaintiff Response to Defendant's Notice of Administrative Preclearance and Suggestion of Mootness
(filed 8/10/11) - Order Dismissing Case for Lack of Standing
(filed 10/18/11)


Commentary
Gerrymandering as Viewpoint Discrimination: A "Functional Equivalence" Test
Edward B. Foley
A First Amendment test for identifying when a map is functionally equivalent to a facially discriminatory statute.
more commentary...