Texas v. United States , Civil Action No. 11–1303 (TBG–RMC–BAH).
| Court | United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia) |
| Citation | 887 F.Supp.2d 133 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 11–1303 (TBG–RMC–BAH). |
| 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. |
| Decision Date | 28 August 2012 |
887 F.Supp.2d 133
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.
Civil Action No. 11–1303 (TBG–RMC–BAH).
United States District Court,
District of Columbia.
Aug. 28, 2012.
[887 F.Supp.2d 136]
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,
[887 F.Supp.2d 137]
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.
GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge:
+-----------------+
¦Table of Contents¦
+-----------------¦
¦ ¦
+-----------------+
+---------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Background ¦138 ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦Principles of Section 5 Analysis ¦139 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Retrogression ¦139 ¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Texas's Burden of Proof ¦140 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Election Analysis Methodologies ¦141 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a.¦Types of Elections ¦141 ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b.¦Election Analysis Sample Sets ¦143 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦3.¦Statewide Retrogression Analysis ¦144 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦4.¦Coalition and Crossover Districts ¦147 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a.¦Section 5 Analysis ¦147 ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b.¦Standard of Proof ¦149 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦B.¦Discriminatory Intent ¦151 ¦
+------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦Congressional Plan ¦152 ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦Retrogression in the Congressional Plan¦152 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Congressional District 27 ¦153 ¦
+----+---+--+------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Congressional District 23 ¦154 ¦
+----+---+--+------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦3.¦Retrogression with New Congressional Seats¦156 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦B. ¦Discriminatory Intent in the Congressional Plan¦159 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦IV.¦State Senate Plan ¦162 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Retrogression in the Senate Plan ¦162 ¦
+---+--+----------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦B.¦Discriminatory Intent in the Senate Plan¦163 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--+----------------------------+---¦
¦V.¦State House Plan ¦166¦
+-----------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Retrogression in the State House Plan ¦166 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1.¦Alleged Retrogressive Districts ¦167 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a.¦State House District 33 ¦167 ¦
+---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦b.¦State House District 35 ¦167 ¦
+---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦c.¦State House District 41 ¦169 ¦
+---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦d.¦State House District 117 ¦170 ¦
+---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦e.¦State House District 149 ¦172 ¦
+---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦f.¦State House Districts 26, 106, and 144 ¦175 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦2.¦Alleged New Ability Districts ¦175 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦B. ¦Discriminatory Intent in the State House Plan¦177 ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦VI.¦Conclusion ¦178 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+
[887 F.Supp.2d 138]
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 judgment
[887 F.Supp.2d 139]
for 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 last approved under section 5. Our denial of Texas's motion for summary judgment required the district court in the section 2 litigation to draw interim maps for the State's fast-approaching primaries and the ensuing general election. After the Supreme Court invalidated those maps, see Perry v. Perez, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 934, 181 L.Ed.2d 900 (2012), the court issued a second set, which have not been challenged. See Feb. 28, 2012 Order, Perez v. Perry, No. 11–cv–360 (W.D.Tex. filed May 9, 2011), ECF No. 681 (Congressional Plan interim map); Feb. 28, 2012 Order, Perez, No. 11–cv–360, ECF No. 682 (House Plan interim map); Feb. 28, 2012 Order, Davis v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perez v. Abbott, SA-11-CV-360
...litigation when it found the plan to have a retrogressive effect and denied preclearance.128 Texas v.Page 139 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 increased. The Black ......
-
Davis v. Perry
...for the 2012 elections. In August 2012, the D.C. Court issued a decision denying preclearance of Plan S148. Texas v. United States, 887 F.Supp.2d 133 (D.D.C.2012). The D.C. Court concluded “that Texas has not shown that the Senate Plan was enacted without discriminatory intent” and found “t......
-
Veasey v. Perry, Civil Action No. 13–CV–00193.
...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 plans ar......
-
Perez v. Abbott
...253 F.Supp.3d 958litigation 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 representatio......
-
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......