OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Veasey v. Perry

Case Information

Date Filed: June 26, 2013
State: Texas
Issues: Voter ID, Voter Registration, Voter Supression
Current Court: US Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit (Case 14-41127)

Issue:

Issue 1:

Does SB 14 violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, by denying the right to vote on account of race and language minority?

Issue 2:

Does SB 14 violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by purposely denying minority voters equal protection for registration and voting?

Issue 3:

Does SB 14 violate the Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by prupsely denying minority voters the right to vote?

Issue 4:

Does SB 14 severly burden or facially discriminate a class of voters without a legitimate governmental interest and violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Issue 5:

Does SB 14 restrict freedom of speech and association in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Issue 6:

Does SB 14 create a poll tax in violation of the Fourteenth and Twenty-First Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?

Status:

Complaint filed 6/26/13. Amended Complaint filed 8/22/13. Motion to dismiss filed 10/25/13. U.S. memorandum in opposition to motion to dismiss filed 11/22/13. Order to Consolidate Cases filed 1/10/14. Amended Intervenor Complaint filed 2/3/14. Plaintiff Intervenors' First Amended Complaint filed 2/4/14. United States' Motion to Compel Production of Legislative Documents filed on 2/11/14. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff-Intervenors' Amended Complaint filed 2/18/14. Defendants' Response to Motion to Compel filed 2/24/14. Order on Motion to Compel filed 4/3/14. Defendants' Motion to Compel the Production of Documents filed 4/7/14. Third Party Legislators' Motion to Quash Subpoenas filed 4/25/14. US' Request for Judicial Notice filed 4/25/14. United States' Motion for Protective Order filed 5/12/14. Order regarding Discovery filed 6/6/14. Defendants' Motion to Compel filed 6/10/14. Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order filed 6/17/14. Order denying Motion to Quash filed 6/18/14. United States' Motion for a Protective Order filed 6/26/14. Order Granting Motion for Judicial Notice filed 7/10/14. Defendants' Answer to Veasey-LULAC's Amended Complaint filed 7/16/14. Defendants' Answer to United States' Complaint filed 7/16/14. Defendants' Answer to MALC's Complaint filed 7/16/14. Defendants' Answer to Oritz's Complaint filed 7/16/14. Defendants' Answer to Texas Association of Hispanic County Judges filed 7/16/14. Veasey-LULAC Plaintiff's Motion to Compel filed 7/18/14. Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Compel filed 7/21/14. Veasey-LULAC Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Compel filed 7/22/14. Order granting in part, denying in part Motion for Protective Order filed 7/24/14. Defendant's Motion to Compel Production filed 7/25/14. Judgment filed 8/5/14. Joint Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Affirmative Defenses filed 8/11/14. Defendant's Motion to Compel filed 8/22/14. Defendant's Proposed Finding of Facts filed 8/22/14. United States' Notice of Stipulations filed 8/28/14. Plaintiff's Proposed Finding of Facts filed 9/18/14. Opinion striking down voter ID law filed 10/9/14. Notice of Appeal filed 10/11/14. Fifth Circuit's order granting emergency motion for stay pending appeal filed 10/14/14. LULAC plaintiffs' Emergency Application to Vacate Stay filed 10/15/14. Texas Chapter of NAACP et al plaintiffs' Emergency Application to Vacate Stay filed 10/15/14. DOJ's Emergency Application to Vacate Stay filed 10/15/14. Order denying Stay filed 10/18/14. Order granting Motion for Disbursement of Funds filed 1/23/15. Corrected Appellant's Brief filed 2/27/15. Appellee LULAC's Brief filed 3/3/15. MALC and NAACP's Brief filed 3/3/15. United States' Brief filed 3/3/15. Oral argument heard on 4/28/15. Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed 7/10/15.

Supreme Court Documents

Circuit Court of Appeals Documents

District Court Documents


Circuit Court of Appeals Documents



Commentary

Edward B. Foley

The Constitution Needed a Judicial Assist

Edward B. Foley

“The majority contends that its counterintuitive reading of ‘the Legislature’ is necessary to advance the ‘animating principle’ of popular sovereignty.” With this sentence in his dissent (at page 14), Chief Justice Roberts gets to the heart of the debate in today’s 5-4 decision in the Arizona redistricting case.

more commentary...

In the News

David  Stebenne

Can Kasich win all 88 Ohio counties?

Professor David Stebenne was quoted in an Ohio Watchdog article about the possibility of Governor John Kasich winning all 88 Ohio counties in his re-election bid.

“It’s really hard to do,” he said. “As popular as the governor is and as weak as his opponent is, I doubt he’ll carry all 88 (counties).”

Stebenne said Ohio has some unusual counties, which tend to be really Democratic or really Republican.

He said a good example was the election of 1956, when President Dwight Eisenhower carried 87 of 88 Ohio counties.

“He lost one of the Appalachian counties — a poor county where the residents tend to vote Democratic no matter what,” Stebenne said. “There was even some humorous discussion in the Oval Office about that one county.”

Glenn and Voinovich were “the two most popular candidates in modern history,” he added, “and they each only did it once. While Kasich is popular, he really doesn’t have the broad appeal that these two did.”

Stebenne said that both Voinovich and Kasich come from communities that tend to be more Democratic in voter registration, but that Kasich’s first race for governor was more divisive than the races for Voinovich.

“Voinovich had electoral success in Cleveland and as governor because he was able to persuade Democrats to vote Republican,” he said. “Glenn had national appeal across party lines.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

D.C. Circuit Upholds Campaign Finance Statute

In an opinion issued today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a federal statute barring individuals who have government contracts from making political campaign contributions. The case is Wagner v. FEC.

more info & analysis...