Kueber v. City of San Antonio
| Decision Date | 13 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 5:15-CV-382-DAE,5:15-CV-382-DAE |
| Citation | 197 F.Supp.3d 917 |
| Parties | Michael KUEBER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
David E. Kirkendall, Law Offices of David E. Kirkendall, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff.
Shawn K. Fitzpatrick, Fitzpatrick & Kosanovich, P.C., Deborah Lynne Klein, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant.
ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court are two motions: (1) the City of San Antonio, Texas's ("the City" or "Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 19); and (2) Michael Kueber's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 22). The Court held a hearing on the competing motions on July 7, 2016. At the hearing, David E. Kirkendall, Esq., represented Plaintiff, and Shawn K. Fitzpatrick, Esq. and Deborah Lynn Klein, Esq., represented Defendant. After careful consideration of the supporting and opposing memoranda and the arguments presented at the hearing, the Court, for the reasons that follow, (1) GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 19); and (2) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 22).
The facts in this case are undisputed. The City has a Charter that outlines its form of government and its powers. Under the Charter, a city council consisting of 11 members governs the city. The Charter requires election of its council-members from ten single-member districts1 and that the single-member district boundaries be redrawn following each federal decennial census. (San Antonio, Tex., Charter art. II, § 4 (1951).) Additionally, and at the center of the issue before the Court, a 1997 amendment to the City Charter states that single-member districts "shall be as nearly equal in population as practicable."
After the 2010 Census, it became apparent that there was a substantial population imbalance among the various council-member districts as reflected by the new census data. ("Letter to DOJ," Dkt. # 19-7, Ex. G at 5.) At that time, the ideal district population was 132,672, but the 2011 council-member districts consisted of the following populations, with a total deviation of 39.93 percent:
2011 Benchmark Plan
District Persons Deviation from Ideal
1 112,466 -15.23%
2 123,727 -6.74%
3 118,848 -10.42%
4 123,256 -7.10%
5 106,608 -19.65%
6 152,661 15.07%
7 137,292 3.48%
8 159,578 20.28%
9 159,189 19.99%
10 133,096 .32%
Totals 1,326,721 20.28% - (-19.65%) = 39.93%
(Maximum deviation)
(Id.) Due to this imbalance, the City decided to redraw the council-member districts and retained legal counsel to do so. (Dkt. # 19, Ex. D.) On September 15, 2011, the city council passed a resolution providing the criteria and standards by which the redistricting plan would be evaluated and approved. ("2011 Resolution," Dkt. # 19, Ex. E, § 1 ¶ E.) Such criteria were:
(Id.) A redistricting plan was drawn and presented for comment at six separate public hearings where 200 people spoke. (Letter to DOJ.) After public comment, a Revised Illustrative Plan was drawn that reduced the total population variance from 9.95 percent to 9.8 percent and made other "minimal changes" to avoid splitting certain neighborhoods. (Id.) Ultimately, the Revised Illustrative Plan "utilize[d] readily identifiable boundaries," "to the extent possible, maintain[ed] communities of interest and neighborhoods," "use [d] whole voting precincts to the extent practical," "was based on existing districts," resulted in "districts [that were] compact and contiguous," and "minimize[d] retrogression majority-minority districts." (Dkt. # 19, Ex. F.)
On September 20, 2012, the City Council adopted an ordinance approving the Revised Illustrative Plan. (Dkt. # 19, Ex. F.) Under the 2010 census data, the City had a population of 1,326,721; thus the ideal population for each single-member council district was 132,672. (Letter to DOJ.) The populations of the modified districts ranged from 126,228 to 139,227, with a maximum deviation of 9.8 percent between the smallest and largest districts:
Adopted Revised Illustrative Plan
District2 Persons Deviation
1 126,616 -4.56%
2 129,002 -2.77%
3 127,207 -4.12%
4 126,702 -4.50%
5 126,228 -4.86%
6 134,410 1.31%
7 139,081 4.83%
8 139,169 4.90%
9 139,227 4.94%
10 139,079 4.83%
Totals 1,326,721 4.94% - (-4.86%) = 9.8%
(Maximum deviation)
[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference footnote2 ]
(Letter to DOJ.) On November 27, 2012, the Attorney General of the United States affirmatively indicated no objection to the redistricting plan pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10304. (Id.)
On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Original Petition in the 57th District Court of Bexar County, Texas, challenging the redrawn districts. ("Pet.," Dkt. # 1-1.) Plaintiff seeks a declaration under Section 37.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code that the district boundaries, as modified, violate the City Charter and the U.S. Constitution. (Id.¶ VIII.) Plaintiff also seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting the City from conducting the next City Council election until the district boundaries are redrawn. (Id.¶ XII.)
On May 11, 2015, the City removed the action to this Court, invoking its federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Dkt. # 1.) On August 17, 2015, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion to remand. (Dkt. # 10.) The Court concluded it had federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff affirmatively alleged that the present district boundaries did "not pass Constitutional muster," (Orig. Pet. ¶ VIII), and Plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. (Dkt. # 10.)
On February 23, 2016, the City filed its Motion for Summary Judgment seeking relief from all of Plaintiff's claims. (Dkt. # 19.) Plaintiff filed his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking a determination from the Court that the City failed to enforce the applicable provisions of the City Charter. (Dkt. # 22.) Neither party filed a response. On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum of law in support of his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Dkt. # 28.) After the hearing, Plaintiff filed a second Memorandum in Support. (Dkt. # 30.) The Court ordered the City to respond (Dkt. # 31) and the City filed a Motion to Strike and Memorandum in Support of its Motion (Dkt. # 32.)
A movant is entitled to summary judgment upon showing that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see also Meadaa v. K.A.P. Enters., L.L.C., 756 F.3d 875, 880 (5th Cir.2014). A dispute is only genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts that establish the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Distribuidora Mari Jose, S.A. de C.V. v. Transmaritime, Inc., 738 F.3d 703, 706 (5th Cir.2013) (quoting Allen v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 204 F.3d 619, 621 (5th Cir.2000) ). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perez v. Am. Med. Sys. Inc.
...well-reasoned and reflect the faithful application of Texas's framework for statutory interpretation. See Kueber v. City of San Antonio , 197 F. Supp. 3d 917, 927 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (citing Wright v. Ford Motor Co. , 508 F.3d 263, 269 (5th Cir. 2007) ).At least two other courts have drawn the......