647 S.W.3d 681
Tex.2022Background:
- 2020 Census data were delayed by COVID and released Sept. 16, 2021; Texas held a special legislative session (Sept. 20) to reapportion and enacted H.B. 1 (House) and S.B. 4 (Senate), signed Oct. 25, 2021.
- MALC sued Governor Abbott and Secretary of State Scott claiming H.B. 1 violated Article III, § 26 (the county-line rule) by splitting Cameron County so it would not contain two wholly internal House districts despite population that could support two.
- The Gutierrez Plaintiffs (two state senators, a House candidate, and Tejano Democrats) sued the State asserting § 26 violations and that §§ 28 was violated because reapportionment occurred in a special session before the “first regular session” after census publication.
- The trial court largely denied governmental pleas to the jurisdiction; defendants appealed directly to the Texas Supreme Court. The parties disclaimed seeking relief that would disrupt the 2022 election cycle.
- The Court held the case is not moot; MALC lacks associational standing; at least one Gutierrez plaintiff (Cortez) has standing for § 26 but not against the State absent a proper enforcement defendant; § 26 claim is not barred by sovereign immunity, § 28 claim is barred by sovereign immunity; remand to allow repleading against proper defendants.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of declaratory relief | Plaintiffs say controversy is live; they seek declarations and injunctions affecting current/future elections and legislative action | Defendants say plaintiffs disclaimed relief that would disturb 2022 elections, so request is advisory/moot | Not moot — a live controversy remains and relief could be effectual; dismissal on mootness rejected |
| MALC associational standing to sue under § 26 | MALC: its members (legislators and county residents) are injured by representational dilution in Cameron County | Gov/SoS: MALC failed to identify specific injured members and its asserted injury is unrelated to MALC’s mission | MALC lacks associational standing; its claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Gutierrez Plaintiffs’ individual standing and proper defendant (traceability) | Cortez (candidate/resident) and Sen. Gutierrez (senator) allege concrete injuries from reapportionment and seek declaratory relief; sued the State | State: injuries are not fairly traceable to or redressable by the State because the State lacks enforcement authority over election administration | Cortez has standing for § 26; Gutierrez has standing re: term impact theory, but claims as pleaded against the State fail traceability; plaintiffs may replead against proper officials |
| Sovereign immunity re: §§ 26 and 28 | Plaintiffs: Section 26 and § 28 claims are valid and not facially invalid; immunity waived under UDJA | State: claims are facially invalid (or not redressable by State), so sovereign immunity bars suit | § 26 claim is not facially invalid and is not barred by immunity; § 28 claim is facially invalid as pleaded and is barred by sovereign immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (one-person, one-vote equal-population principle)
- Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (Texas courts cannot issue advisory opinions; mootness standard)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (federal standing requirements: injury, traceability, redressability)
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (associational standing test)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (need to identify a specific affected member for associational standing)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (organizational standing principles)
- Smith v. Craddick, 471 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. 1971) (interpretation of Tex. Const. art. III, § 26 county-line rule)
- Clements v. Valles, 620 S.W.2d 112 (Tex. 1981) (reapportionment challenges and county entitlement to districts)
- Mauzy v. Legislative Redistricting Bd., 471 S.W.2d 570 (Tex. 1971) (construction of "first regular session following publication" for § 28/LRB jurisdiction)
- Walker v. Baker, 196 S.W.2d 324 (Tex. 1946) (interpretive principle that prescribed means/manner are exclusive)
- Klumb v. Houston Mun. Emps. Pension Sys., 458 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2015) (sovereign immunity bars suits asserting facially invalid constitutional claims)
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016) (mootness: party asserting mootness must show it is impossible to grant any effectual relief)
- In re Abbott, 601 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2020) (Texas standing parallels federal Article III standards)
- In re Khanoyan, 637 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. 2022) (limitations on judicial relief that would disrupt ongoing elections)