Veasey v. Perry
Citation | 71 F.Supp.3d 627 |
Decision Date | 09 October 2014 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 13–CV–00193. |
Parties | Marc VEASEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Rick PERRY, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Armand Derfner, Charleston, SC, Chad W. Dunn, Kembel Scott Brazil, Brazil & Dunn, Houston, TX, J. Gerald Hebert, Attorney at Law, Alexandria, VA, Joshua James Bone, Washington, DC, Neil G. Baron, Attorney at Law, Dickinson, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Arthur D'Andrea, John Barret Scott, Adam Warren Aston, Gregory David Whitley, Jennifer Marie Roscetti, John Reed Clay, Jr., Jonathan F. Mitchell, Lindsey Elizabeth Wolf, Stephen Ronald Keister, Stephen Lyle Tatum, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, Ben Addison Donnell, Donnell Abernethy Kieschnick, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendants.
The right to vote: It defines our nation as a democracy. It is the key to what Abraham Lincoln so famously extolled as a “government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.”1 The Supreme Court of the United States, placing the power of the right to vote in context, explained: “Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.”2
In this lawsuit, the Court consolidated four actions challenging Texas Senate Bill 14 (SB 14), which was signed into law on May 27, 2011. The Plaintiffs and Intervenors (collectively “Plaintiffs”)3 claim that SB 14, which requires voters to display one of a very limited number of qualified photo identifications (IDs) to vote, creates a substantial burden on the fundamental right to vote, has a discriminatory effect and purpose, and constitutes a poll tax. Defendants4 contend that SB 14 is an appropriate measure to combat voter fraud, and that it does not burden the right to vote, but rather improves public confidence in elections and, consequently, increases participation.
This case proceeded to a bench trial, which concluded on September 22, 2014. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), after hearing and carefully considering all the evidence, the Court issues this Opinion as its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court holds that SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics5 and African–Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose. The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.
The careful and meticulous scrutiny of alleged infringement of the right to vote, which this Court is legally required to conduct, includes understanding the history of impairments that have plagued the right to vote in Texas, the racially discriminatory motivations and effects of burdensome qualifications on the right to vote, and their undeniable legacy with respect to the State's minority population. This uncontroverted and shameful history was perhaps summed up best by Reverend Peter Johnson, who has been an active force in the civil rights movement since the 1960s. 6
State Senator Rodney Ellis testified about the horrific hate crime in the east Texas town of Jasper in the late 1990s in which James Byrd, an African–American man targeted for his race, was dragged down the street until he died.7 A few years later, two African–American city council members spearheaded the effort to name a highly-qualified African–American as police chief in Jasper. Thereafter, those city council members were removed from their district council seats through “a strange quirk in the law” that allowed an at-large recall election.8
This anecdote demonstrating Texas's racially charged communities, the power of the polls, and the use of election devices to defeat the interests of the minority population is, unfortunately, no aberration. Dr. O. Vernon Burton has focused much of his career in American History on the issue of race relations.9 Dr. Burton testified about the use in Texas of various election devices to suppress minority voting from the early days of Texas through today. Other experts, including Dr. Chandler Davidson, a professor emeritus of sociology and political science at Rice University, and George Korbel, an attorney with an expertise in voting rights, corroborated Dr. Burton's findings. This history is summed up as follows:
This history describes not only a penchant for discrimination in Texas with respect to voting, but it exhibits a recalcitrance that has persisted over generations despite the repeated intervention of the federal government and its courts on behalf of minority citizens.
In each instance, the Texas Legislature relied on the justification that its discriminatory measures were necessary to combat voter fraud.24 In some instances, there were admissions that the legislature did not want minorities voting.25 In other instances, the laws that the courts deemed discriminatory appeared neutral on their face. There has been a clear and disturbing pattern of discrimination in the name of combatting voter fraud in Texas. In this case, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Waller Cnty.
...establish historical instances in Waller County of discrimination against PVAMU students. Of recent prominence, the Fifth Circuit in Veasey v. Perry observed:For example, in a state with 254 counties, we do not find the reprehensible actions of county officials in one county (Waller County)......
-
Patino v. City of Pasadena
...for determining whether, if legislation impacts voting in a way that violates § 2, it was enacted with discriminatory intent. In Veasey v. Perry , individuals and advocacy groups challenged the constitutionality of Senate Bill 14 (SB 14), the 2013 Texas voter-identification law. 71 F.Supp.3......
-
Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott
...voter fraud likewise acknowledged the "general agreement that voting fraud exists with respect to mail-in ballots." Veasey v. Perry , 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 653 (S.D. Tex. 2014). In fact, "there appears to be agreement that voter fraud actually takes place in abundance in connection with absen......
-
Veasey v. Abbott
...purpose, has a racially discriminatory effect, is a poll tax, and unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote. See Veasey v. Perry, 71 F.Supp.3d 627, 633 (S.D.Tex.2014).We VACATE and REMAND the Plaintiffs' discriminatory purpose claim for further consideration in light of the discussion be......
-
Reviving the Prophylactic VRA: Section 3, Purcell, and the New Vote Denial.
...officials and third parties, creating a chilling effect on voter outreach and registration drives). (284.) Veasey v. Perry (Veasey I), 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 707 (S.D. Tex. 2014). The district court reaffirmed this finding after the Fifth Circuit invalidated some of the evidence it had relied ......
-
ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS
...I.D. Law, U.S. DEP’T. OF JUST., (Aug. 22, 2013), http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-ag-952.html. 480. See Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 627 (S.D. Tex. 2014), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, vacated in part, remanded in part, judgment rendered in part by 830 F.3d 216 (5th Cir.......
-
Election Law Violations
...I.D. Law , U.S. DEP’T. OF JUST., (Aug. 22, 2013), http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-ag-952.htm l. 488. See Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 627 (S.D. Tex. 2014), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, vacated in part, remanded in part, judgment rendered in part by 830 F.3d 216 (5th Ci......
-
ABUSING EMERGENCY POWERS: HOW THE SUPREME COURT DEGRADED VOTING RIGHTS PROTECTIONS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND OPENED THE DOOR FOR ABUSE OF STATE POWER.
...see also Hasen, supra note 45, at 428 (finding that the Veasey Court applied the Purcell principle). (120.) See Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 633-34 (S.D. Tex. (121.) See id. at 694 (citing the Voting Rights Act of 1965,52 U.S.C. [section] 10301). (122.) See id. at 657-58. A Texas Re......