IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMAWESTERN DIVISIONWILLIAM JOHNSON, ANNIE PEARLLEFTWICH, BOBBI MORGAN, DONALDMEANS, ERNEST EDMONDS, FAIRYGORDON, IRIS SERMON, JOHNNY BUTLER,MERJEAN LITTLE, MOSES JONES, VASSIEBROWN, WILLIE MAE REEVES, BEVERLYGORDON, JOHNNY B. MORROW, FANNIEISHMAN, LESLIE CHEATEM, MARGIEJAMES, BOBBY SINGLETON, A. J.MCCAMBELL, JOHNNY FORD, LOUISMAXWELL, MARY RUTH WOODS, LISA M.WARE, CLARA P. GRIMMETT, CHARLESCHAMBLISS, JOHNNIE B. HARRISON, G.DYANN ROBINSON, SHIRLEY W. CURRY,SARAH STRINGER, MILES D. ROBINSON, andWILLIE LEE PATTERSON, individually and onbehalf of others similarly situated,Plaintiffs,v.BOB RILEY, in his individual capacity and in hisofficial capacity as Governor of Alabama, andJOHN M. TYSON, JR., individually and in hisofficial capacity as special prosecutor and task force commander of the Governor’s Task Force onIllegal Gaming,Defendants.********************Civil Action No.*7:10-cv-02067-SLB**3-judge court*******

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATIONAND/OR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDERSCHEDULING ORAL ARGUMENT ON MOTION TO DISMISS

FILED

2010 Aug-30 PM 02:33U.S. DISTRICT COURTN.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 7:10-cv-02067-SLB Document 16 Filed 08/30/10 Page 1 of 4

Plaintiffs have received an order, Doc. 15, setting briefing deadlines ondefendants’ motion to dismiss and oral argument on the motion to dismiss onNovember 17, 2010. This order was entered after plaintiffs had already filed theirbrief opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doc. 14.It is not clear whether the order, which is signed by the single judge towhom this action was assigned, is an order of the three-judge court. Only thethree-judge court has jurisdiction to determine plaintiffs’ claim that defendants’executive order and Task Force raids are changes that affect voting within themeaning of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. And only the three- judge court has jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ renewed motion for an expeditedhearing and for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 12. The order, Doc. 15, does notrefer to or schedule a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. Thesingle-judge court has jurisdiction over the other federal claims alleged in thecomplaint, but the single-judge court will not have jurisdiction to act on those otherclaims unless and until there has been a determination of plaintiffs claim under § 5of the Voting Rights Act and this case has been remanded to the single-judge courtby the three-judge court.WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court will:A. Clarify whether the order entered today, Doc. 15, comes from the three- judge court or from the single-judge court.

Case 7:10-cv-02067-SLB Document 16 Filed 08/30/10 Page 2 of 4

B. Notify the parties whether and when the three-judge court will conduct ahearing on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.C. If the order, Doc. 15, is intended to schedule a hearing on plaintiffs’motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs pray that the Court will reconsider thesetting for November 17, 2010, and schedule a hearing at the earliest date possible.Otherwise, postponing for over two and a half months a decision on plaintiffs’motion for preliminary injunction would effectively deny them the relief theyrequest and would place the burden of time and inertia on the plaintiff votersinstead of on the State, contrary to the explicit terms and Congressional purpose of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and it would allow continuation of the severeeconomic injury now being suffered by the residents of Greene County and MaconCounty.Respectfully submitted this 30

day of August, 2010,Edward StillBar No. ASB-4786-I 47W2112 11

Avenue SouthSuite 541Birmingham, AL 35205205-320-2882fax 205-449-9752E-mail:still@votelaw.coms/James U. BlacksherBar No. ASB-2381-S82JP.O. Box 636Birmingham AL 35201205-591-7238Fax: 866-845-4395E-mail: jblacksher@ns.sympatico.caFred D. GrayBar No. ASB-1727-R63FGray, Langford, Sapp, McGowan,Gray & Nathanson