891 F. Supp. 2d 808
W.D. Tex.2012Background
- On February 28, 2012, the court issued Plan C235 as the interim congressional map for Texas for 2012 elections.
- LULAC sought a stay of interim Plan C235 on the eve of the 2012 general election; the court denied the motion after considering timing and logistical constraints.
- The D.C. Court had not yet issued §5 preclearance determinations when Plan C235 was adopted; the D.C. Court’s later rulings and Perry v. Perez guided interim-plan standards.
- Plan C235 was formed partly as a compromise (C226 was the original compromise) to allow May 29 primaries to proceed with minimal disruption and cost.
- The court found that adopting Plan C235 is consistent with Perry v. Perez’s framework for interim maps when §5 preclearance is pending and there is a need to avoid postponing elections.
- The opinion discusses §5 retrogression analyses, especially regarding District 23, and addresses concerns about minority opportunity districts in South/Central/West Texas and the Dallas–Fort Worth area.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the LULAC stay motion should be granted | LULAC seeks to pause Plan C235 pending preclearance | Delaying elections is infeasible; proceeding with interim map is necessary to avoid confusion and cost | Denied |
| Whether Plan C235 satisfies Perry v. Perez standards for an interim map | Drafting should follow the State's plan unless clearly unlawful; not insubstantial §5 issues exist | Need to adopt an interim map without prejudging §5 merits; use Perry guidance to avoid prejudging | Plan C235 adopted as interim plan, satisfying Perry v. Perez framework |
| Whether §5 retrogression concerns (notably CD 23) are not insubstantial and thus require restoration | Enacted plan retrogresses minority voting strength; CD23 is an ability district and should be restored | Address retrogression concerns through statewide analysis and alternative districts; not insubstantial issues fixed by C235 | CD23 retrogression not insubstantial; C235 restores to benchmark level, addressing §5 concerns |
| Whether the Dallas–Fort Worth area (DFW) configuration in Plan C235 meaningfully remedies §5 concerns | DFW lines cracked/packed to dilute minority strength; needs substantial correction | C235 adjusts DFW districts to address not insubstantial §5 claims while preserving other policy goals | Not insubstantial §5 concerns addressed; C235 accommodates DFW changes within Perry framework |
| Whether CD35 and the Nueces County placement raise likelihood of §2/§5 violations or strict scrutiny concerns | CD35 is a racial gerrymander; Nueces County removal undermines Latino opportunity in South Texas | CD35 involves mixed motives; not a clear strict-scrutiny violation; §2 claims addressed via C235 | Plaintiffs have not shown likelihood of success on strict scrutiny; C235 appropriately addresses concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. -, 132 S. Ct. 934 (2012) (guides interim-map approach when §5 preclearance is pending)
- Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37 (1982) (preclearance context allows elections to proceed under non-identical plans when necessary)
- Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) (recognizes crossover/coalition districts under §2 and mixed-motive considerations)
- Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996) (race predominance and mixed motives in districting; strict scrutiny considerations)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 47 (1993) (race-based districting triggers heightened scrutiny; Congress must show predominant race-neutral criteria)
- LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) (limitations on preserving coalition districts and the balancing of §2 rights with state policy)