The United States has filed this brief opposing the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in Shelby County v. Eric Holder.  Shelby County is challenging the 45 year old Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which requires some states, but not all, to obtain federal government approval of any change involving voting or elections.  Two challenges are working their way through the courts and more are likely to follow. 

One peculiar thing about the brief is the citation to a law review article by Peyton McCrary.  Peyton McCrary knows a great deal about the Voting Rights Act and is a fine and dedicated historian of civil rights.  The peculiar part, however, is Peyton is a historian for the Defendant in the case; he is a DOJ historian.  I’m not suggesting the citation to his law review article on pages 12 and 39 of the brief is untoward.  Rather, it seems peculiar in light of the recent case of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605, 2626 n.17 (2008).   The Supreme Court said that studies funded by the litigant would be discounted entirely.

More on the Shelby case and the briefs another day.  In the other challenge to Section 5, Laroque v. Holder arising out of Kinston North Carolina, Michael Carvin is piloting a more aggressive attack on Section 5 – namely challenging the reauthorization itself and not just the triggers.  The plaintiffs have asked the court to speed up their decisions so the Shelby and the Laroque case can be heard simultaneously by the Supreme Court.