Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, et al v. The State of Alabama, et al (PANEL)(LEAD), No. 2:2012cv00691 - Document 243 (M.D. Ala. 2015)

Court Description: STATEMENT OF JUDGE THOMPSON: I agree to the adoption of the 53 Order of 12/26/2012. Also, since the majority readopts its opinion and order of 8/2/2013 (doc. no. 174 ), I readopt my opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part (doc. no. 175 ). As to the majority's readoption of parts of its order and final judgment of 12/20/2013 (doc. nos. 203 and 205 ), I did not join in their conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to prove either their claim of vote dilution under § 2 or their claim of intentional discrimination in violation of § 2, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment, and I do not join in those conclusions today. I also do not join in the majority's readoption of part of their findings of fact, for I did not join in them at the time they were entered. Finally, I do not readopt my dissent (including the factual findings set forth) (doc. no. 204 ), for I am obligated to reconsider fully the racial gerrymandering claim in light of the legal principles articulated by the Supreme Court. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/29/2015. (dmn, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS, et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, v. THE STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC CONFERENCE, et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, v. THE STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12cv961 (Three-Judge Court) (WO) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12cv1081 (Three-Judge Court) (WO) STATEMENT OF JUDGE THOMPSON I agree to the adoption of the order of December 26, 2012 (doc. no. 53). Also, since the majority readopts its opinion and order of August 2, 2013 (doc. no. 174), I readopt my opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part (doc. no. 175). As to the majority's readoption of parts of its order and final judgment of December 20, 2013 (doc. nos. 203 and 205), I did not join in their conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to prove either their claim of vote dilution intentional under § 2 discrimination in or their violation claim of of § 2, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment, and I do not join in those conclusions today. I also do not join in the majority's readoption of part of their findings of fact, for I did not join in them at the time they were entered. dissent (including the Finally, I do not readopt my factual findings set forth) (doc. no. 204), for I am obligated to reconsider fully the racial gerrymandering claim in light of the legal principles articulated by the Supreme Court. DONE, this the 29th day of May, 2015. /s/ Myron H. Thompson___ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.