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:

District Court adopted interim redistricting plan on 11/26/11. U.S. Supreme Court stayed District Court's order pending oral argument scheduled 1/9/11. Election Scheduling Order filed 3/19/12. Interim plan for 2012 Elections entered 9/7/12. Stay denied by Supreme Court 10/3/12. Order granting motion to dismiss defendants Strauss and Dewhurst filed 11/27/13. Defendants' Motion to Modify Legislative Privilege Order filed 12/6/13. Order denying Motion to Modify Legislative Privilege Order filed 1/8/14. Plaintiffs' Sixth Amended Complaint filed 2/25/14. Defendants' Answer filed 2/28/14. Defendants' Motion for Sanctions filed 4/14/14. United States' Motion to Compel the Production of Legislative Documents filed 4/16/14. Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Sanctions filed 4/16/14. Order granting in part, denying in part Motion to Compel filed 5/6/14. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed 5/14/14. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed 5/14/14. Order denying Motion for Reconsideration filed 5/20/14. Defendants' Second Motion for Sanctions against LULAC filed 5/21/14. Defendants' Motion for Protective filed 5/23/14. Quesada Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery filed 5/27/14. Order granting Motion for Protective Order filed 5/20/14. Task Force and MALC's Motion for Protective Order filed 5/30/14. Order granting Motion to Compel Testimony filed 6/2/14. Order granting in part and denying in part Motion to Compel filed 6/5/14. Order granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss filed 6/17/14. Order denying Motion for Reconsideration filed 6/18/14. Order granting United States' Motion for Judicial Notice in part filed 6/20/14. United States' Motion to Compel the Production of Documents filed 6/23/14. Order that Summary Judgment granted for 15th amendment claims filed 6/23/14. Order granting in part and denying in part Motion to Compel filed 7/914. Order granting in part and denying in party Motion to Exclude filed 7/9/14. Order granting in part and denying in part Motion to Compel filed 7/11/14. Defendants' Motion for Judicial Notice filed 7/19/14. Oral Order withdrawing Motion for Discovery, granting Motion to file Sealed Document, and granting Motion for Judicial filed 7/19/14. NAACP's Trial Brief, Defendant's Trial Brief, MALC's Trial Brief,  United States' Trial Brief, and Task Force's Trial Brief  filed 7/25/14. Perez Plaintiff's Post Trial Brief filed 10/21/14. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum filed 4/20/15. Defendant's Response to Briefs filed 5/4/15. Motionfor Preliminary Injunction by Debbie Allen et al filed 10/14/15.

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

 

District Court Documents

Supreme Court Documents

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

Publication of new BALLOT BATTLES book

Edward B. Foley

I'm delighted that Oxford University Press has published my new book Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States. I've collected links to last week's blogging related to the book's release. 

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

What would it take to find out for sure if Ted Cruz (or others like him) is eligible for the presidency?

Professor Daniel P. Tokaji's research was quoted in a Washington Post article:

The most common route for aggrieved partisans, in this case opponents of Cruz, are the federal courts. But the courts are unlikely to go near the question just because someone brings a lawsuit. If some gadfly, for example, were to sue in federal court to keep Cruz off the ballot, the chances of any judge stepping in to settle the question is close to zero. 

There’s little dispute about that according to, among many others, Ohio State University law professor Daniel P. Tokaji, writing in the Michigan Law Review.

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

New state voting laws face first presidential election test

more info & analysis...