You are here: Home > Documents from cases




Table of Contents:

  • Judge enjoins law meant to stop AEA from getting payroll deductions
  • Riley v. Plump: supplemental brief filed
  • Riley v. Plump -- our Motion to Dismiss or Affirm filed
  • Plump v. Riley: Governor seeks further extension of Bowman's term, loses, and asks Justice Thomas for stay
  • Gov. appeals Plump v. Riley
  • Riley v. Kennedy -- Governor's reply brief filed
  • Plump v. Riley, preliminary injunction requested
  • Plump v. Riley filed
  • Riley v. Kennedy (was Kennedy v. Riley) to be heard by Supreme Court
  • Kennedy v. Riley update, in the Supreme Court
  • Gooden v. Worley -- partial stay issued
  • Gooden v. Worley -- judgment issued by the Circuit Court
  • Gooden v. Worley: federal court dismisses case for lack of standing
  • Selected documents from Kennedy v. Riley
  • Selected documents from Gooden v. Worley (federal case)
  • Selected documents from Gooden v. Worley (state court)
  • Judge enjoins law meant to stop AEA from getting payroll deductions

    The Huntsville Times reports: A federal judge issued a temporary injunction this afternoon halting a new state law that could potentially cripple a statewide teachers' organization.

    U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith issued the injunction against a law passed by the Alabama Legislature in December that bans school employees from having their Alabama Education Association membership dues directly deducted from their paychecks. The law was to go into effect on Sunday.

    Dr. Paul Hubbert, executive secretary of AEA, said the organization had been hoping for a ruling on the injunction before the law goes into effect.

    "Once the law goes into effect, we will lose January dues, which are collected in February," Hubbert said shortly before the ruling was filed. "We may also lose February dues, collected in March. A couple of months' worth of loss makes it hard to operate." Hubbert could not be reached immediately after the filing. -- Read the whole story --> Federal judge halts ban on payroll deduction to Alabama Education Association | al.com

    Disclosure: I am one of the attorneys representing the AEA. A copy of the opinion is shown below:

    AEA v. Bentley, Memo Opinion on Prelim Injuction

    This entry was posted by Edward at 7:36 PM, 18 March 2011 | TrackBack (0)

    Riley v. Plump: supplemental brief filed

    My co-counsel and I filed a supplemantal brief in Riley v. Plump, No. 07-1460 in the U.S. Supreme Court, yesterday to bring to the Court's attention the recent developments in the case, including the preclearance of the new law setting a November election to fill the vacancy on the Jefferson County Commission. We argue that these developments moot the Governor's appeal.

    This entry was posted by Edward at 8:04 AM, 23 September 2008 | TrackBack (0)

    Riley v. Plump -- our Motion to Dismiss or Affirm filed

    This morning, my co-counsel and I filed the Motion to Dismiss or Affirm the appeal of Gov. Riley in Riley v. Plump, No. 07-1460, U.S. Supreme Court.

    We also submitted this letter to the Clerk to inform him of additional developments in the case.

    This entry was posted by Edward at 1:12 PM, 23 July 2008 | TrackBack (0)

    Plump v. Riley: Governor seeks further extension of Bowman's term, loses, and asks Justice Thomas for stay

    Governor Riley asked the three-judge court for a stay pending appeal. We (Jim Blacksher and I) opposed the motion. The court has now granted a one-month extension to the stay.

    Riley, not satisfied with one month, has asked Justice Clarence Thomas for a stay for the full time that the appeal is pending.

    This entry was posted by Edward at 9:19 PM, 17 April 2008 | TrackBack (0)

    Gov. appeals Plump v. Riley

    Governor Riley has filed a long-winded notice of appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court from the Judgment in Plump v. Riley.

    This entry was posted by Edward at 5:17 PM, 22 March 2008 | TrackBack (0)

    Riley v. Kennedy -- Governor's reply brief filed

    Gov. Riley has filed his reply brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Riley v. Kennedy.

    This entry was posted by Edward at 1:23 PM, 11 March 2008 | TrackBack (0)

    Plump v. Riley, preliminary injunction requested

    We have filed an amended complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction. The Birmingham News has a story on the new filings.

    The amended complaint adds new theories to the complaint -- that is, new legal claims on which the court can rule. In addition to basing our claim on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (which is based on the idea that there is a change in election laws that must be precleared), we have added claims that the Governor's action -- even if they are precleared -- have a discriminatory effect.

    Amended complaint [pdf]
    Motion for preliminary injunction [pdf]
    Birmingham News article [pdf]

    This entry was posted by Edward at 7:31 AM, 29 November 2007 | TrackBack (0)

    Plump v. Riley filed

    James Blacksher and I have filed on behalf of a Jefferson County voter, Mr. Fred Plump, a suit against Gov. Bob Riley. Despite the earlier ruling in Kennedy v. Riley, the Governor still persists in believing that he has the authority to appoint a county commissioner to fill a vacancy, even when there is a local law to the contrary. Here are the pleadings so far:

    Complaint [pdf]
    Exhibit A [pdf]
    Exhibit B [pdf]
    Exhibit C [pdf]
    Exhibit D [pdf]

    This entry was posted by Edward at 10:50 AM, 21 November 2007 | TrackBack (0)

    Riley v. Kennedy (was Kennedy v. Riley) to be heard by Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court agreed to hear Governor Riley's appeal today in the case known in the Supreme Court as Riley v. Kennedy, No. 07-77. The order from the Court is here.

    The Governor's reply brief was filed a couple of weeks ago. It is here.

    The Questions Presented by the Governor are the following:

    This Section 5 litigation involves two decisions of the Supreme Court of Alabama, Stokes v. Noonan, 534 So. 2d 237 (Ala. 1988), and Riley v. Kennedy, 928 So. 2d 1013 (Ala. 2005). Those decisions concern the manner of filling vacancies on the Mobile County Commission and are based on valid, race-neutral, generally-applicable principles of law. The three-judge district court held that both decisions required preclearance to be enforceable. The State submitted the decisions for preclearance, and the Attorney General of the United States interposed an objection. The district court then entered a remedy order vacating a gubernatorial appointment that had relied on these State court decisions to fill a vacancy that had arisen. This appeal presents the following questions:

    1. Whether the decision of a covered jurisdiction’s highest court that a precleared State law is unconstitutional and, thereby, invalid as a matter of State law is a change that affects voting that must be precleared before it can be enforced.

    2. Whether the preclearance of a trial court’s ruling that affects voting while that ruling is on appeal and subject to possible reversal establishes a baseline such that the reversal of that decision is a change that must be precleared before it may be enforced.

    Earlier information on the case is available here,
    here, here, here, here, and here.

    This entry was posted by Edward at 3:06 PM, 20 November 2007 | TrackBack (0)

    Kennedy v. Riley update, in the Supreme Court

    My co-counsel and I have filed a motion to dismiss or affirm the State of Alabama's appeal in Riley v. Kennedy, No. 07-77 in the U.S. Supreme Court. The State's jurisdictional statement is available here.

    The case was brought by my clients under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for an injunction against the Governor's appointment of a replacement county commissioner in Mobile County. Our suit asserted that the Governor had not obtained preclearance of an Alabama Supreme Court decision before enforcing it.

    Earlier information on the case is available here, here, here, here, and here.

    This entry was posted by Edward at 1:04 PM, 29 October 2007 | TrackBack (0)

    Gooden v. Worley -- partial stay issued

    Judge Robert S. Vance, Jr., has granted a partial stay of his judgment while the State appeals to the Alabama Supreme Court. The plaintiffs, represented by Ryan Haygood of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and me, had urged the court to issue only a partial stay -- although we had a few more bells and whistles in our proposed order.

    The effect of this order is that those convicted of felonies involving moral turpitude may not register to vote unless their right to vote has been restored. Those convicted of a crime not involving moral turpitude may register to vote. For more details on crimes of moral turpitude, see this post

    For details on the judgment, see this earlier post.

    This entry was posted by Edward at 3:45 PM, 01 September 2006 | TrackBack (0)

    Gooden v. Worley -- judgment issued by the Circuit Court

    The Circuit Court of Jefferson County has issued a judgment on a case seeking to restore many felons' voting rights. Ryan Haygood of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and I represent the plaintiffs in this case. Here are the high points of the decree:

  • Certifies a class of "Every citizen of the United States, currently residing in this State and 18 years of age or older, who has at any time been convicted of a felony in anyjurisdiction and who is not, as of the date of this order, registered to vote in this State."
  • Declares that the policy and practice of disfranchising all felons violates the Alabama Constitution.
  • All registrars in the state are ordered to cease the policy immediately and to follow the requirements of the Alabama Constitution.
  • "Unless and until the Alabama Legislature passes, and the Governor signs into law, legislation specifically identifying which felonies involve moral turpitude, and unless and until any such duly-enacted legislation receives the necessary pre-clearance from the U.S. Justice Department, the named defendants, all members of the defendant class, and all those who work with r on behalf of any of the defendants or defendant class members, are ENJOINED from refusing to register any individual, otherwise qualified to vote, on the ground that the individual has previously been convicted of a felony."
  • Stays the order until it has been precleared, and orders the State's lawyers to submit the order for preclearance propmptly.
  • This entry was posted by Edward at 8:26 PM, 23 August 2006 | TrackBack (0)

    Gooden v. Worley: federal court dismisses case for lack of standing

    On 26 May 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissed a challenge to the practice of the Secretary of State of encouraging registrars to bar applicants convicted of any felony from registering. The State Constitution bars only those convicted of felonies involving moral turpitude. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund and I had brought suit under Section of the Voting Rights Act to require the Secretary of State to cease this practice until she obtained preclearance for it. You can download the file here.

    This entry was posted by Edward at 7:35 PM, 30 May 2006 | TrackBack (0)

    Selected documents from Kennedy v. Riley

    Here are documents in Yvonne Kennedy et al v. Governor Bob Riley:

    Complaint

    Defendant's Answer

    Plaintiffs' Trial Brief and Reply Brief.

    Defendant's Trial Brief

    The suit alleges that the Governor and the State violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to preclear a decision of the Alabama Supreme Court which changed the method of filling vacancies on the Mobile County Commission.

    This entry was posted by Edward at 7:27 AM, 30 March 2006 | TrackBack (0)

    Selected documents from Gooden v. Worley (federal case)

    Background: This complaint alleges that the Secretary of State of Alabama has adopted a new procedure or practice relating to voting without obtaining "preclearance" for that practice. The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides that Alabama and many other states may not enforce new voting practices without first showing that the new practice does not have the purpose, and will not have the effect, of discriminating against racial minorities -- this process is called "preclearance."

    Complaint (filed 19 December 2005) [the case has been assigned number 2:05-cv-2562]

    This entry was posted by Edward at 10:11 PM, 21 December 2005 | TrackBack (0)

    Selected documents from Gooden v. Worley (state court)

    Background: This case attacks the refusal of state officials to allow voter registration of persons who have been convicted of any felony -- even though the Alabama Constitution has provided, since 1996, that only those with a felony involving moral turpitude may be barred.

    Complaint (filed 29 September 2005)

    * Exhibits A-C

    * Exhibit D

    First Amended Complaint (filed 19 December 2005)

    This entry was posted by Edward at 10:07 PM, 21 December 2005 | TrackBack (0)


    The picture above was made in 1914 by the Birmingham Engraving Co. This reproduction is from the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

    Information about ...


    Contact me
    Edward Still Law Firm, LLC
    130 Wildwood Parkway
    Suite 108 PMB 304
    Birmingham AL 35209
    tel & fax: 205-320-2882


    View Edward Still's profile on LinkedIn

    Legal Notices

    The Alabama Rules of Professional Responsibility require this statement: "No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers."

    Search


    Recently Changed Information on this Page


    Entire site copyright (c) 2005-14 Edward Still. See the Creative Commons license below.

    Creative Commons License
    This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
    Powered by
    Movable Type 3.35

    Hosted by Hosting Matters






    Newsfeeds


    Click below to move to a news feed:
    Workplace Fairness
    Legal News from Jurist
    Constitution Newswire