Texas v. United States
| Decision Date | 28 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 11–1303 (TBG–RMC–BAH). |
| Citation | 887 F.Supp.2d 133 |
| Parties | State of TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, and Eric H. Holder, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendants, and Wendy Davis, et al., Intervenor–Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Angela Veronica Colmenero, David John Schenck, Matthew Hamilton Frederick, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, Adam K. Mortara, Ashley C. Keller, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Chicago, IL, John M. Hughes, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.
Bryan L. Sells, Daniel J. Freeman, Janie Allison Sitton, Michelle Andrea McLeod, Olimpia E. Michel, Thornton Russell Nobile, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
John M. Devaney, Marc Erik Elias, Perkins Coie, LLP, Mark A. Posner, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, Karen M. Soares, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Washington, DC, Joseph Gerald Hebert, Alexandria, VA, Chad W. Dunn, Brazil & Dunn, Houston, TX, Joaquin Avila, Law Office of Joaquin G. Avila, Kevin J. Hamilton, Perkins Coie, LLP, Seattle, WA, Jose Garza, Law Office of Jose Garza, Nina Perales, Karolina J. Lyznik, Marisa Bono, Rebecca McNeill Couto, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., San Antonio, TX, Renea Hicks, Law Offices of Max Renea Hicks, Gary L. Bledsoe, Law Office of Gary L. Bledsoe and Associates, Robert Stephen Notzon, Austin, TX, Jorge Martin Castillo, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, NY, Allison Jean Riggs, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, Durham, NC, for Intervenor–Defendants.
Before GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge, COLLYER and HOWELL, District Judges.
The latest Census reports that since 2000 the population of Texas grew by over four million. This dramatic increase required the Texas legislature to create new voting districts for the four seats added to the State's congressional delegation, U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3; id. amend. XIV, § 2, and draw new boundaries for the state and congressional voting districts to comply with the mandate of one-person, one-vote, see Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 488 n. 2, 123 S.Ct. 2498, 156 L.Ed.2d 428 (2003).
Because Texas is a covered jurisdiction under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965(VRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1973, the Attorney General of the United States or a three-judge panel of this Court must approve, or “preclear,” any redistricting plan before it can take effect. Id.§ 1973c(a). Texas chose not to seek administrative preclearance and instead seeks from this Court a declaratory judgment that its redistricting plans will neither have “the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or [language minority group].” Id. The United States opposes preclearance of the redistricting plans for Texas's congressional delegation and the State House of Representatives, but has no quarrel with the plan for the Texas Senate. Seven Intervenors raise a variety of challenges that collectively encompass all three plans. We conclude that Texas has failed to show that any of the redistricting plans merits preclearance.1
On July 19, 2011, Texas filed a complaint in this Court seeking a declaratory judgment that its newly enacted redistricting plans for the U.S. House of Representatives (Plan C185 or Congressional Plan), the Texas House of Representatives (Plan H283 or House Plan), and the Texas Senate (Plan S148 or Senate Plan) comply with section 5 of the VRA. This Court has been properly convened as a three-judge court, 28 U.S.C. § 2284; 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(a), and we took jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1973c and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a)(2), 2201. After the United States and several Intervenors 2 filed answers, Texas moved for summary judgmentfor all three plans on September 14, 2011. We heard argument on the motion on November 2, 2011, and issued an order denying summary judgment on November 8, 2011, 2011 WL 5402888. Our memorandum opinion followed on December 22, 2011.
The same three redistricting plans have been challenged under section 2 of the VRA before a three-judge district court in the Western District of Texas. The State's population growth and the addition of four seats to its congressional delegation make it impossible for Texas to conduct elections using the district boundaries...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perez v. Abbott
...in the § 5 preclearance litigation when it found the plan to have a retrogressive effect and denied preclearance.128 Texas v.United States, 887 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 133 S. Ct. 2885 (2013). It found:[T]he representation gap in Texas has increa......
-
Veasey v. Perry
...prior to that opinion, a three-judge court had found that two of Texas's 2011 redistricting plans violated the VRA. Texas v. United States, 887 F.Supp.2d 133 (D.D.C.2012), vacated and remanded on other grounds, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2885, 186 L.Ed.2d 930 (2013). The 2011 redistricting pl......
-
Perez v. Abbott
...in the § 5 preclearance litigation when it found the plan to have a retrogressive effect and denied preclearance.128 Texas v. United States , 887 F.Supp.2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012), vacated and remanded on other grounds , ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2885, 186 L.Ed.2d 930 (2013). It found:[T]he repres......
-
Veasey v. Abbott
...dilution as to African–Americans in the drawing of a different district. Id. at 444, 126 S.Ct. 2594. The third case, Texas v. United States, 887 F.Supp.2d 133 (D.D.C.2012), vacated and remanded on other grounds, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2885, 186 L.Ed.2d 930 (2013), was a preclearance case ......
-
The Constitutional Structure of Voting Rights Enforcement
...discrimination against minority legislators and voters during the 2010-2011 round of redistricting. Texas v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 2d 133, 178 (D.D.C. 2012), vacated, __U.S.__, 133 S. Ct. 2885 (2013). 268. See generally Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003). 269. Compare Crawford v......
-
RANKED-CHOICE VOTING AS REPRIEVE FROM THE COURT-ORDERED MAP.
...787,813 (2015). (2.) See infra Section I.B. (3.) See Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. 388, 390-92 (2012) (per curiam); Texas v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 2d 133, 178 (d.d.C. 2012) (noting that "the incredible testimony of the lead House mapdrawer reinforc[ed] evidence suggesting mapdrawers cracke......