Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott
Decision Date | 14 October 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 20-50793,20-50793 |
Citation | 977 F.3d 461 |
Parties | MI FAMILIA VOTA; Texas State Conference of the NAACP; Guadalupe Torres, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Greg ABBOTT, Governor of the State of Texas; Ruth Hughs, Texas Secretary of State, Defendants—Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Ben Clements, Free Speech For People, Newton, MA, Kelly M. Dermody, Evan J. Ballan, Yaman Salahi, Mike K. Sheen, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P., San Francisco, CA, Sean M. Lyons, Esq., Lyons & Lyons, P.C., San Antonio, TX, Avery S. Halfon, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein, L.L.P., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Matthew Hamilton Frederick, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Solicitor General, William Thomas Thompson, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Division, Todd Lawrence Disher, Patrick K. Sweeten, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Special Counsel Unit, Eric Alan Hudson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Financial Litigation & Charitable Trusts Division, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Davis and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
Mi Familia Vota, the Texas State Conference of the NAACP (NAACP), and Guadalupe Torres (collectively the Plaintiffs) appeal the dismissal of their claims challenging certain Texas voting procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. We affirm the judgment of the district court in part, reverse the judgment with respect to the Voting Rights Act claim, and remand that claim.
Texas officials have taken steps to mitigate the risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic that voters may encounter. Among these are advisories from the Secretary of State1 and an Executive Order issued by Texas Governor Greg Abbott.2
The Secretary of State's office issued an advisory urging poll workers to wear face masks; recommending the use of signs to urge voters to wear face masks while at the polls; advising how to use markings or tape to facilitate social distancing; advising how to disinfect electronic voting equipment; suggesting that polling locations provide styluses or swabs or pencils with erasers or coffee stirrers for voters to use instead of touching electronic voting devices; and explaining that if a poll worker could not identify a masked voter, the worker could ask the voter to lower the mask briefly to facilitate identification. Other advice was offered concerning efforts that could and should be taken to mitigate exposure to and spread of COVID-19.
That Executive Order, which went into effect July 3, 2020, provided:
Every person in Texas shall wear a face covering over the nose and mouth when inside a commercial entity or other building or space open to the public, or when in an outdoor public space, wherever it is not feasible to maintain six feet of social distancing from another person not in the same household.4
Failure to wear a mask under these conditions is punishable by a fine, but there are eleven enumerated exceptions or exemptions, including children younger than ten, those with medical conditions or disabilities, while eating or drinking or while seated at a restaurant to eat or drink, while engaging in exercise outdoors and maintaining social distancing, while voting or assisting in the voting process, and while engaging in religious worship, "though a face covering is strongly recommended."5
The Plaintiffs filed suit in July, after this Executive Order issued. They allege that Black and Latino communities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 because these communities have experienced higher infection, hospitalization, and death rates. They assert that Texas's policies and laws, "individually and cumulatively, operate to deny voters the right to vote in a safe, free, fair, and accessible election." Plaintiffs posit that long lines, the use of electronic voting devices rather than paper ballots, limited curbside voting, and the permissiveness of mask-wearing at polling locations present substantial health risks that create fear of voting and therefore infringe upon the right to vote. The Plaintiffs asserted causes of action under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the First Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, and section Two of the Voting Rights Act.
Plaintiffs seek robust judicial involvement in Texas's elections, requesting an injunction ordering that Governor Abbott and Secretary of State Hughs take specific, affirmative actions, identified in the prayer for relief in their Complaint, which we quote in its entirety:
In their motion for a preliminary injunction, the Plaintiffs made clear that the bases for the request for injunctive relief were only the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They explained that "[a]lthough Plaintiffs’ complaint also alleges violations of the Equal Protection Clause, Fifteenth Amendment, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act based on race or ethnicity, Compl. ¶¶ 202-07, those claims do not form the basis of this motion."
In their brief before this court, the Plaintiffs have abandoned their request that early voting be ordered to begin on October 5, 2020, and have narrowed their challenge to Executive Order GA-29 and four sections of the Texas Election Code:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tex. Voters Alliance v. Dall. Cnty.
...5, 166 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006) (per curiam).We are not on the eve of the election—voting is underway. See Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott , 977 F.3d 461, 470–71, No. 20-50793 (5th Cir. Oct. 14, 2020) (refusing election-related injunctive relief because "it would be inappropriate for the district court t......
-
Tex. Alliance for Retired Americans v. Scott
..."the particular statutory provision that is the subject of the litigation." Ibid. (citation omitted); see also Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott , 977 F.3d 461, 467–68 (5th Cir. 2020). "Th[at] is especially true here because the Texas Election Code delineates between the authority of the Secretary ......
-
E.T. v. Morath
...Texas Administrative Code. See 19 Tex. Admin. Code, Part 2 (Tex. Edu. Agency Rules).19 City of Austin , 943 F.3d 993 ; Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott , 977 F.3d 461, 467 69 (5th Cir. 2020) ; Morris v. Livingston , 739 F.3d at 745 46 ; Okpalobi v. Foster , 244 F.3d 405, 414 16 (5th Cir. 2001). Se......
-
Russell v. Harris Cnty.
...have the authority to enforce that law or rule. See e.g. , In re Abbott , 956 F.3d 696, 709 (5th Cir. 2020) ; Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott , 977 F.3d 461, 466-68 (5th Cir. 2020). The Fifth Circuit has recently found, for example, that the Louisiana Governor and Attorney General did not have th......
-
The 'weaponized' First Amendment at the Marble Palace and the Firing Line: Reaction and Progressive Advocacy Before the Roberts Court and Lower Federal Courts
...appeal, and reversing relief granted against refusal to provide COVID-19 accommodations to voters pursuant to Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, 977 F.3d 461, 463, 471 (5th Cir. 2020)).42. SawariMedia LLC v. Whitmer, No. 20-cv-11246, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210877, at *1-2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2020),......
-
Restoring the Proper Role of the Courts in Election Law: Toward a Reinvigoration of the Political Question Doctrine
...2509092 (N.D. Ga. May 14, 2020); Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, 484 F. Supp. 3d 435 (W.D. Tex. 2020), rev’d in part,Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, 977 F.3d 461 (2020). 104. See Jacobson v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 974 F.3d 1236, 1260 (11th Cir. 2020); Miller v. Hughs, 471 F. Supp. 3d 768, 778 (W.D. Tex......
-
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.
...visited Mar. 21, 2021). (106.) See, e.g., Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Bostelmann, 977 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2020); Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, 977 F.3d 461,470-71 (5th Cir. 2020); Feldman v. Ariz. Sec'y of State's Off., 843 F.3d 366 (9th Cir. 2016); Tex. Voters All. v. Dall. Cnty., No. 4:20-CV-00......