CASE SUMMARY

On January 10, 2017, the U.S. Attorney General filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Eastpointe, Michigan, Eastpointe’s Mayor, City Clerk, City Council, and City Council members challenging the at-large, multiple-vote method of electing City Council members as diluting Black voters’ voting strength in violation of § 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act. They sought a judicial declaration the election method violated § 2, an injunction barring the defendants from conducting future elections using that method, and an order requiring the city to adopt a new, VRA-compliant method of election.

• On June 5, 2019, the parties jointly requested a consent judgment and decree be entered declaring that the at-large election method violates VRA § 2 and providing that the City would implement a ranked-choice voting system for future elections, starting November 5, 2019. The court entered the requested judgment and decree on June 26, 2019.
• On November 18, 2019, and again on October 26, 2020, the court entered supplemental orders exempting the City from application of various provisions in Michigan’s Election Code which otherwise conflicted with their court-approved ranked-choice voting scheme.

CASE LIBRARY

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division - No. 4:17-cv-10079

• Complaint - 1/10/17
• Answer - 3/9/17
• Joint Discovery Plan - 4/5/17
• Defendants' Motion to Exclude Any Evidence, Opinion, or Testimony Related to the BISG Methodology and Data; or in the Alternative, Its Motion for the Court to Appoint an Independent Expert to Evaluate the BISG Methodology and Data Offered by Plaintiff - 4/9/18
• Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment - 4/10/18
• United States' Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Exclude Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) Evidence - 4/26/18
• Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Exclude Any Evidence, Opinion, or Testimony Related to the BISG Methodology and Data; or in the Alternative, Their Motion for the Court to Appoint an Independent Expert to Evaluate the BISG Methodology and Data Offered by Plaintiff - 5/7/18
• United States' Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment - 5/10/18
• Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment - 5/24/18
• United States' Motion to Strike - 5/29/18
• Notice of Supplemental Exhibit - 5/31/18
• Defendants' Motion to Strike Notice of Supplemental Exhibit - 6/5/18
• Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike - 6/7/18
• Reply Brief in Support of United States' Motion to Strike - 6/14/18
• United States' Response to Defendants' Motion to Strike - 6/18/18
• Transcript of Proceedings on Motions to Strike and for Summary Judgment - 8/1/18
• Opinion and Order - 3/27/19
• Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment and Decree - 6/5/19
• Consent Judgment and Decree - 6/26/19
• Joint Motion for Supplemental Order - 10/16/19
• Supplemental Order - 10/18/19
• Motion for Injunctive, Declaratory, Monetary Relief and/or to Set Aside Consent Judgment and Decree - 10/21/19
• Proposal to Settle Pursuant to the City of Eastpointe Voluntarily Dismissing All Future Use of Rank Choice Voting - 10/29/19
• United States' Brief in Opposition to Third-Party Motion for Injunctive, Declaratory, or Monetary Relief or to Set Aside Judgment - 11/13/19
• Motion to Strike Motion for Injunctive, Declaratory, Monetary Relief and/or to Set Aside Consent Judgment and Decree - 11/14/19
• Response to Third-Party's Motion for Injunctive, Declaratory, or Monetary Relief, or to Set Aside Judgment - 11/26/19
• Response to United States' Brief in Opposition to Third-Party Motion for Injunctive, Declaratory, or Monetary Relief or to Set Aside Judgment - 12/4/19
• Order Striking Third-Party's Motion - 1/10/20
• Joint Motion for Supplemental Order - 8/25/20
• Supplemental Order - 8/26/20