Marc Veasey v. Greg Abbott
870 F.3d 387
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Texas district court (Aug 23, 2017) permanently enjoined enforcement of major portions of SB 14 and SB 5 and barred certain elections under its Interim Order; limited stay later allowed some local elections to proceed.
- SB 14 was previously found to have a discriminatory effect in Veasey; Texas enacted SB 5 to add a “reasonable-impediment” declaration allowing voters without qualifying photo ID to cast regular ballots under penalty of perjury.
- State moved for an emergency stay of the district court’s injunctions to allow time for appellate review before printer/registration deadlines for 2017 local elections; the U.S. consented to a stay; appellees opposed.
- Fifth Circuit panel applied the Nken stay factors and granted a stay pending appeal, preserving the district court’s agreed-upon Interim Order and reasonable-impediment procedures for 2017 elections.
- Majority concluded SB 5’s reasonable-impediment procedure likely remedies plaintiffs’ alleged harms and that preserving the status quo (the Interim Order procedures) minimizes voter and election-official confusion.
- Dissent argued the stay erroneously preserves a future (not historical) status quo by allowing SB 5 to take effect and that the State failed to satisfy any Nken factor, emphasizing the risk to voting rights and reliance on precedents invalidating post-hoc remedial amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant stay pending appeal of district court injunctions | Plaintiffs: injunction needed to protect voters from discriminatory ID law; SB 5 does not cure intent/effect and should not be allowed to operate pending review | State: SB 5’s reasonable-impediment declaration lets affected voters cast regular ballots, curing alleged harm; urgent election deadlines justify stay | Stay granted: court found State made a strong showing of likely success because SB 5 remedies alleged harms; interim procedures preserved for 2017 elections |
| Proper status quo to preserve pending appeal | Plaintiffs: status quo ante is the district court’s injunction and pre-SB 5 procedures; allowing SB 5 upends that status quo and risks voters’ rights | State: preserving procedures that parties and district court previously agreed (Interim Order) minimizes confusion; SB 5 operationally remedies harms | Court preserved the Interim Order procedures (parties’ agreed remedy) for 2017; declined to treat district court’s broader injunction as requiring immediate change |
| Irreparable harm from denying stay | Plaintiffs: voters will suffer irreparable injury to voting rights if stay allows enforcement of a potentially discriminatory law | State: enjoining enforcement causes state and public harm by preventing enforcement of duly enacted law and disrupting elections | Court concluded State and public suffer irreparable injury from injunctions and that temporary stay reduces confusion; dissent disagreed, citing presumed irreparable harm to voters |
| Scope of district court’s authority/remand limits | Plaintiffs: district court’s injunction was within remedial powers following Veasey | State: district court exceeded remand scope by enjoining SB 5 wholesale rather than considering only its remedial effect on SB 14 | Court suggested district court went beyond mandate by enjoining SB 5; stayed injunctions to permit appellate consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (sets four-factor stay-pending-appeal test)
- Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (addressing SB 14’s discriminatory effect and shaping remedial proceedings)
- Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (2012) (in chambers opinion recognizing state injury from being enjoined from enforcing statutes)
- North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016) (refused to uphold remedial amendment where law enacted with discriminatory intent)
- Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, 833 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2016) (constitutional voting-rights violations cause presumed irreparable injury)