Plaintiffs William Johnson et al., through undersigned counsel, respond asfollows to defendants’ motion to dismiss, Doc. 13. As we will show, defendants’motion demonstrates that Governor Riley’s Executive Order 44 and Task Forceraids are changes affecting voting and that plaintiffs are not asking this Court toresolve, as defendants argue, a “question of what constitutes illegal gambling underAlabama law.” Doc. 13 at 3.
I.EXECUTIVE ORDER 44 AND THE TASK FORCE IT AUTHORIZESHAVE EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED CHANGES IN THECOMPOSITION OF THE ELECTORATE WHO MAY APPROVELOCAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 743 AND 744.
Defendants’ state correctly that “the Department of Justice has notprecleared the substance of these amendments under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”Doc. 13 at 7. Rather, when the U.S. Attorney General precleared Amendments 743and 744, he was preclearing the “schedul[ing]” of referendum elections solely bythe voters in Greene County and Macon County to approve their adoption.
Thecomposition of the electorate empowered to adopt local amendments to theAlabama Constitution had been the subject of Amendment 555, which in 1994 for
“This refers to Act Nos. 2003-75, 2003-124, 2003-189, 2003-377, and2003-433, which schedule the November 4, 2003, special constitutionalamendment elections in Conecuh, Macon, Marshall, Tallapoosa, and GreeneCounties, and Act No. 2003-287, which schedules the November 18, 2003, specialconstitutional amendment election in Chambers County, Alabama, submitted to theAttorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.1973c.” Doc. 12-2 at 1.
Case 7:10-cv-02067-SLB Document 14 Filed 08/30/10 Page 2 of 17