OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

 

Perez v. Texas

Case Information

Date Filed: May 9, 2011
State: Texas
Issues: Redistricting, Vote Dillution
Current Court: US District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case 5:11-cv-00360)

Issue:

Whether Texas' redistricting plan violates the Constitution because it does not make a good faith effort to maintain population equality and treats inmates as residents of the counties in which they are incarcerated.

Status:

Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Debbie Allen et al filed 10/14/15. Order denying preliminary injunction filed 11/16/15. Order for supplemental briefing in light of Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission filed 4/20/16. Non-U.S. Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment filed 12/30/16. Order denying motion for entry of judgment filed 1/5/17.

See also Davis v. Perry and Texas v. United States

 

District Court Documents

Supreme Court Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral Fix We Really Need

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral College winner should be the majority choice in each state that counts towards that Electoral College victory.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Anti-Trumpersí Most Futile Effort Yet to Stop Trump from Being Sworn In

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in Law Newz about efforts to persuade Chief Justice John Roberts to decline conducting Donald Trump’s Oath of Office on Inauguration Day. Even though the U.S. Constitution requires the President to take an oath of office, the the Chief Justice is not required to administer it. It is unlikely that such attempts will prevent Trump from being sworn in, Foley said.

“I think the main point is that the oath doesn’t need to be administered by the Chief Justice,” he said. “After Kennedy’s assassination, a federal district judge in Texas administered the oath to Johnson.”
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Federal District Court Panel Finds Unconstitutional Gerrymandering in Alabama

In an opinion released today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama found unconstitutional gerrymandering in 12 Alabama districts. In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, one judge on the panel would have found more districts unconstitutionally drawn. The case is Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama.

more info & analysis...