Tex. Alliance for Retired Ams. v. Hughs
| Decision Date | 25 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-128 |
| Parties | TEXAS ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ruth HUGHS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Bruce Spiva, Daniel Osher, Emily Brailey, Lalitha Madduri, Marc Elias, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC, Skyler Michelle Howton, Perkins Coie LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Todd Lawrence Disher, William Thomas Thompson, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendant.
Marina Garcia Marmolejo, United States District Judge Every day federal judges are called upon to make important decisions that impact people's lives. While these decisions may come to bear on political processes, they are wholly based on the law, the facts, and are devoid of political and personal preferences. The Constitution leaves decisions about the administration of elections to the states. But it assigns to the courts the duty to decide whether those laws cross constitutional boundaries. With that duty, the Court carefully and impartially considers all matters before it, including the one before it today.
We are a month away from the general election, and Texas, like the rest of our nation, is reeling from the effects of an ongoing pandemic. COVID-19 has strained our health systems, ravaged small businesses, and fundamentally altered the way we lead our day to day lives. In these extraordinary times, Plaintiffs call upon this Court to uphold the fundamental right to vote. This right, so necessary for our democracy to function and flourish, is guaranteed to all citizens regardless of race, color, ethnicity, gender, income, or political affiliation.
Plaintiffs renew their challenge of House Bill 25, a Texas election law which will eliminate straight-ticket voting, a century-old practice that allows Texan voters to cast their votes for all candidates of their preferred political party with the click of a single box at the top of their ballot. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the State of Texas from implementing House Bill 25 and seek a declaration that this Bill places undue burdens on the rights of voters, contravenes Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and intentionally discriminates against the viewpoints of the Democratic Party (Dkt. No. 1). They also seek a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 5). The State of Texas, through Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs, is opposed (Dkt. Nos. 26, 29, 39).
The Court has carefully reviewed the parties’ arguments, the record, and the applicable law, and for the reasons below Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 5) is GRANTED ; Secretary Hughs’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 26) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ; and the Secretary's Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 39) is DENIED.
In a vote largely divided along partisan lines, Texas passed HB 25, see H.B. 25, 85th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2017), which eliminates a 100-year-old practice that allows Texans to cast their votes for all candidates running under the banner of their preferred political party with a single punch. This practice, known as straight ticket voting ("STV") or one-punch voting, allows a voter to efficiently cast her votes by making an initial selection corresponding to her preferred party, which then automatically selects the party's nominee in each race. The voter could then modify her choice in any individual race. As such, STV allowed not only for expedited straight-ticket voting, but also for expeditious split-ticket voting. Although Texas was not alone in its use of STV, most states no longer provide the option. See Straight Ticket Voting States , Nat'l Council of State Legislators (Mar. 25, 2020), https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/straight-ticket-voting.aspx (listing six states that will allow STV in 2020 elections). Still, Texas voters and election administrators have come to rely on STV as an integral component of the State's elections. For example, in the 2018 general election, approximately two-thirds of voters—over 5.6 million Texans—used STV to cast their ballots (Dkt. No. 1 at 12). Texans’ reliance on STV likely stems from Texas’ exceptionally lengthy ballots, which sometimes list as many as 95 races in a single county (id. ).
Proponents of HB 25 claimed it would lead to a more educated and engaged electorate, reasoning that if voters are required to make an individual selection in every partisan race, voters will be more likely to seek out information about those individual races. The Bill's proponents also asserted that the elimination of STV would make races more competitive, lead to better qualified candidates, reduce confusion, and decrease unintentional "roll-off," the phenomenon of voters voting in the partisan races, but not the nonpartisan ones, which are often relegated to the end of the ballot (Dkt. No. 26 at 39–40).
Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to challenge HB 25. Plaintiffs are three organizations—the Texas Alliance for Retired Americans ("TARA"), the national senatorial committee of the Democratic Party ("DSCC"), and the national congressional committee of the Democratic Party ("DCCC") (collectively, "Organizational Plaintiffs")—and one individual, Sylvia Bruni, the Chair of the Webb County Democratic Party (Dkt. No. 1 at 7–10). Defendant Ruth Hughs is the Texas Secretary of State and is sued in her official capacity as the State's chief election officer (id. at 11 (citing Tex. Elec. Code § 31.001(a) )).
In March 2020, Plaintiffs Bruni, DSCC, DCCC, along with the Texas Democratic Party ("TDP") and Jessica Tiedt, a candidate for the Texas State House of Representatives, challenged HB 25's validity under the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. See Bruni v. Hughs , No. 5:20-CV-35, 468 F.Supp.3d 817, 819 (S.D. Tex. June 24, 2020). In brief, Plaintiffs predicted HB 25 would cause longer lines at polling places, increased roll-off, voter confusion, and lower turnout from Democratic Party voters. After careful scrutiny of the pleadings in that case, this Court dismissed the suit without prejudice, finding that Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because their "alleged injuries fail[ed] to satisfy the imminence requirement of Article III because they are premised on numerous predicted ‘effects’ of HB 25 which [were] uncertain to occur." Id. at 824.
Plaintiffs have now dropped Tiedt and TDP as parties, added TARA, and filed this suit (see Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiffs still allege that the enforcement of HB 25 will cause long lines, burden Texan voters, have a disproportionate effect on the African-American and Hispanic population, and decrease turnout for the Democratic Party, all in violation of the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (id. at 6–7). They filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 against Secretary of State Hughs, who is tasked with adopting rules for the elimination of STV. See 2017 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 404. Ultimately, Plaintiffs seek an injunction to stop HB 25 from taking effect and a declaration that the Bill violates the above-named provisions of the Constitution and Voting Rights Act (Dkt. No. 1). For now, they seek a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 5).
The Court addresses Plaintiffs’ pertinent factual allegations with the required legal presumption that at this stage of the litigation—Plaintiffs’ allegations must be accepted as true. Stratta v. Roe , 961 F.3d 340, 349 (5th Cir. 2020). Plaintiffs point out that that Texans endure long lines when casting votes at polling places (Dkt. No. 1 at 13-15). They have several detailed studies and articles to support this allegation (id. at 13-14). These long lines, they allege, disparately impact minorities who "overwhelmingly" support the Democratic Party (id. at 27). They reason that minorities are more likely to "(1) live in poverty, (2) have less flexible job schedules, (3) lack access to transportation, and (4) lack access to child care assistance," which causes them to "leave polling-place lines" and avoid "attempting to vote" altogether (id. ). In short, Plaintiffs allege that minorities are "less able to withstand long polling-place lines" (id. at 38).
Plaintiffs contend that STV "reduces voting time and minimizes wait times at polling places" (id. at 2). Stated differently, Plaintiffs reason that straight-ticket voting helps prevent long lines and increase the speed at which citizens cast their votes by permitting them to do so for all races on a given ballot with a single punch. This is especially important because, as Plaintiffs point out, ballots in Texas elections are generally lengthy and may include up to 95 races (id. at 12).
Thus, the elimination of STV, Plaintiffs allege, will significantly increase the length of lines at polling places and increase the risk voters will leave the line or choose to make no attempt at voting. Plaintiffs cite to a state legislator who summarizes their position:
[L]ong waits at polling places already are huge problems in some parts of Texas, especially in urban areas where many voters line-up to vote for many races on the ballot. On the first day of early voting for the November 2016 election, for example, long waits—sometimes hours—were reported in Bexar, Harris, Nueces, and Denton counties. Lines and ballot fatigue can exhaust voters’ patience, and eliminating the straight-party option would only make things worse and cause many either to skip down-ballot races altogether or not go to the polls at all. The effect would be to suppress voting and voter turnout.
(id. ) (citing Tex. S.J., 8th Leg., Reg. Sess., Sen. Zaffirini (May 18, 2017)).
Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that "by unsettling a century-old reliance on STV" HB 25 will confuse voters and will frustrate Plaintiffs’ missions at turning out voters who support their candidates and causes (id. at 9–12).
Significantly, Plaintiffs allege that the current public health...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tex. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Abbott
...that some of them intended to vote using the ballot return boxes and were injured. See Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs , No. 5:20-CV-128, 489 F.Supp.3d 667, 683–84 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2020) (finding standing where "TARA's membership is composed of 145,000 Texans, a portion of whom are ......
- Rawls v. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Grp., Inc.
-
APFA Inc. v. UATP Mgmt., LLC
...of its organization ... have been harmed." Summers , 555 U.S. at 499, 129 S.Ct. 1142 ; see, e.g., Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs , 489 F. Supp. 3d 667, 683–84 (S.D. Tex. 2020). Here, the Court finds the pleadings sufficient to show, at this stage, that Plaintiff's members would otherwi......
-
APFA Inc. v. UATP Mgmt.
...members of its organization . . . have been harmed." Summers, 555 U.S. at 499; see, e.g., Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs, 489 F. Supp. 3d 667, 683-84 (S.D. Tex. 2020). Here, the Court finds the pleadings sufficient to show, at this stage, that Plaintiff's members would otherwise have s......