League of United Latin American Citizens, District 19 v. City of Boerne
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5359
5th Cir.2012Background
- 1995 Boerne City Charter created at-large, numbered-post council with 3-2 annual elections; no charter amendment.
- 1996 consent decree required cumulative voting and DOJ preclearance under Voting Rights Act §5; city complied with decree while charter remained unchanged.
- 1997 Hispanic council member elected; no Hispanic candidate elected since 2003.
- 2009 Boerne moved toward single-member districts; City and LULAC sought modification of the decree and filed a joint motion for modification.
- District court in 2010-2011 approved a Modified Consent Decree without findings; Morton sought to intervene but was denied standing; on appeal, LULAC I held lack of sufficient record and required Rufo-based modification analysis and supplemental proceedings.
- In January 2012, City and LULAC sought temporary modification; district court granted it for May 2012 election; Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded for compliance with LULAC I and permanent modification decision by May 31, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court complied with LULAC I on remand | Morton argues noncompliance with LULAC I mandate. | City/LULAC contend pending Rufo review allowed interim relief. | Order vacated; remand required full LULAC I compliance. |
| Authority to grant temporary modification after remand | Modification without fulfilling Rufo test and mandate is improper. | Equitable interim relief permitted, but under mandate constraints. | Temporary modification improper; must follow Rufo and mandate. |
| Election timing and pre-election deadlines | Election timing should conform to original schedule. | Modify deadlines to November 6, 2012 per Texas law and remand needs. | Election date set for November 6, 2012; district court to adjust deadlines. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1991) (two-step Rufo test for decree modification)
- LULAC v. City of Boerne, Dist. 19, 659 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 2011) (mandate requiring proper evidentiary record on remand)
- Briggs v. Penn. R.R. Co., 334 U.S. 304 (1948) (mandate compliance and deference to appellate direction)
- Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. HAL, Inc., 500 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2007) (mandate rule limits district court actions on remand)