League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Abbott

• Decision Date: 30 December 2021
• Docket Number: EP-21-CV-00259-DCG-JES-JVB,1:21-CV-00991-LY-JES-JVB
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
• Parties: LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, et al., Defendants. ROY CHARLES BROOKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, et al. Defendants.

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, et al., Defendants.

ROY CHARLES BROOKS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, et al. Defendants.

Nos. EP-21-CV-00259-DCG-JES-JVB, 1:21-CV-00991-LY-JES-JVB

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division

December 30, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DAVID C. GUADERRAMA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

In their Motion to Dismiss the Brooks Plaintiffs' Claims (ECF No. 43), Defendants assert that those Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged standing. We agree with respect to Plaintiff Deborah Spell and in regard to Plaintiff Beverly Powell's standing to bring Counts 3 and 5 but not with respect to the remaining Plaintiffs and claims. Insofar as it addresses the Brooks Plaintiffs' standing to sue, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

In determining whether to dismiss a complaint, “[t]he court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Where, as

1

here, the motion to dismiss implicates subject-matter jurisdiction, the nonmoving party bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists. Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir. 1980). If necessary, this Court may look beyond the complaint to consider undisputed facts presented in the record or may even resolve disputed facts. Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2008). But because the complaint alone, when read favorably to Plaintiffs, is sufficient to resolve the issue of standing for purposes of this motion, we do not reach elsewhere in the record.

Standing is necessary for this Court to have subject-matter jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Plaintiffs must show (1) an injury in fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the defendant's conduct, and (3) a likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the injury. Id. at 560-61.

Defendants put forward three primary objections to Plaintiffs' standing, mostly centering on whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated an injury in fact. Thus, to survive the motion to dismiss for want of standing, Plaintiffs must allege facially plausible facts showing that they are injured by Defendants' challenged redrawing of Senate District (“SD”) 10. Standing analysis proceeds plaintiff-by-plaintiff and claim-by-claim. See, e.g., In re Gee, 941 F.3d 153, 171 (5th Cir. 2019). That means each Plaintiff must show standing for each claim.

First, Defendants point out that, though most Plaintiffs allege they are registered voters, they do not allege that they plan to vote in any elections, making it speculative to conclude that their voting power will be diminished by newly enacted maps. Mot. to Dismiss at 13-14, ECF No. 43. But Fifth Circuit precedent has held that it is “enough” that “each voter resides in a district where their vote has been cracked or packed.” Harding v. Cnty. of Dallas, 948 F.3d 302, 307 (5th Cir. 2020). Because Plaintiffs have alleged that they are voters who (apart from

2

Plaintiff Spell) reside in the relevant districts, they have not failed to allege standing on this basis.^[1]

Second, Defendants urge that Plaintiff Powell, the incumbent state senator in S.D. 10, has not demonstrated standing because she does not allege that she is a registered voter or that she intends to seek reelection, and because she does not allege membership in a racial minority. Mot. to Dismiss at 14-15. Even if, arguendo, it would be speculative to assume that an incumbent elected official is likely to seek reelection, ^[2] we take judicial notice of the fact that the office of Defendant John Scott now lists Powell as a candidate for reelection.^[3] That objection to her standing is thus defeated.

As for Powell's lack of membership in a racial minority, the issue is closer. It is not unusual for elected officials to bring suit alleging racial discrimination in their own districts.

3

See, e.g., Perez v. Texas, No. 11-CA-360, 2011 WL 9160142, at *7 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2011) (three-judge court). We are not aware, however, of any case in which non-Hispanic white officials sued on the theory that they were injured by the diminishment of Hispanic and black voting power within their district. In the absence of clearer authority, we are mindful of United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995), where plaintiffs of different races challenged a district in Louisiana as an impermissible racial gerrymander, see id. at 739; Tr. of Oral Arg., Hays, Nos. 94-558, 94-627, 1995 WL 243450, at *30 (U.S. Apr. 19, 1995). The Court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not live in the district, but it did not remark as to their race. See Hays, 515 U.S. at 745. To the contrary, the Court noted that “[w]here a...