Perez v. Perry
835 F. Supp. 2d 209
W.D. Tex.2011Background
- Interim plan for 2012 Texas House elections adopted as PLAN H302 with Exhibit A (map), Exhibit B (textual description), and Exhibit C (statistics); viewed on TLC sites.
- This interim map is not a merits ruling on Plaintiffs’ or consolidated cases’ claims, nor on the D.C. Court preclearance issues.
- The 82nd Texas Legislature enacted Plan H283 (HB 150); preclearance for H283 was pending in the D.C. Court, which queried discriminatory purpose and retrogressive effects.
- The D.C. Court denied summary judgment, took up proceeding on preclearance issues, and the Texas Court drafted an interim plan to allow timely elections.
- Court aimed to preserve the status quo while neutral principles (compactness, contiguity, respect for boundaries) guided the interim map.
- Dissent argues for greater deference to the enacted plan and criticizes the majority’s expansive interim changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court-drawn interim plan is appropriate here | Plaintiffs argue for minimal deviation from the status quo | State argues for adopting enacted plan where possible | Interim plan appropriate to enable elections while awaiting preclearance |
| Whether the interim map complies with the Voting Rights Act and Constitution | Plan violates §2 and §5 protections by altering minority districts | Plan preserves minority protections and avoids retrogression | Interim map crafted to preserve status quo and neutral criteria pending D.C. ruling |
| Whether deference to the Legislature’s plan is warranted | Legislature’s map should be largely deferred to | Deference limited where preclearance unresolved and rights at risk | Moderate deference appropriate; court may adjust where strong likelihood of violations exists |
| Whether population deviations were excessive | Deviations show gerrymandering and discrimination | Deviations allowed to achieve neutrality and population equality | Deviations kept within de minimis/remedial boundaries; plan aimed at equality with status quo |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Monterey County, 519 U.S. 9 (1996) (remedial action when preclearance not satisfied)
- Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37 (1982) (deference to enacted plans limited; but not rubber stamp)
- Balderas v. Texas, 536 U.S. 919 (2002) (limits on creating additional minority districts; neutrality required)
- Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997) (population equality standards in court-drawn plans)
- Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146 (1993) (limits on creating districts under §2; caution with race-based plans)