Shemwell v. McKinney, Texas, 63 F.4th 480

McKinney, Texas is governed by a seven-member city council with four single-member district seats; District 1 is the only majority-minority district.
La’Shadion Shemwell (Black) was elected District 1 council member in 2017, engaged in controversial activism, and faced a petition to recall him; the petition was certified Jan. 2020.
In May 2019 McKinney amended its charter to (1) lower signature thresholds and lengthen the signature-collection period for recalls and (2) require all recall elections to be voted on citywide rather than only by the recalled member’s district.
Shemwell (joined by voter Debra Fuller) sued in Sept. 2020 under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Section 2 of the VRA seeking declaratory relief challenging the recall procedures; a prior related suit had been dismissed voluntarily in March 2020.
The scheduled May recall was postponed to Nov. 3, 2020 due to COVID guidance; Shemwell was recalled that day. Plaintiffs never moved for a preliminary injunction or sought damages; the district court held the claim moot after the election and dismissed without prejudice.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding the post-election dispute was moot and the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception did not apply because plaintiffs failed to pursue available remedies (injunctive/damages/expedited relief).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness after the Nov. 3, 2020 recall	Shemwell and Fuller sought prospective declaratory relief regarding recall rules; claim remains justiciable	Election ended the contested, prospective injury, so case is moot	Case is moot because the election eliminated any actual or imminent prospective injury
"Capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception	Elections are paradigmatic evasion cases; exception should save the claim	Exception inapplicable because plaintiffs failed to seek injunction/damages or expedite litigation	Exception does not apply; plaintiffs failed prong one (and distrusted to have shown prong two)
Standing as official and as voters after the election	Shemwell (official) and plaintiffs (voters) retained concrete interests that support relief	No ongoing, concrete, imminent injury after recall; speculative possibility of future recall insufficient	No standing for prospective relief post-election; interest ended when election concluded
Availability of remedial relief to avoid mootness	Declaratory prospective relief sufficient	Invalidation of a past election or damages could save a claim, but plaintiffs did not seek those remedies	Declaratory relief alone was moot; plaintiffs did not seek election invalidation or damages that might have preserved jurisdiction

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (Article III justiciability limits)
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (case-or-controversy requirement)
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (mootness and collateral consequences)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing: actual or imminent injury requirement)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (concrete-injury requirement for standing)
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. 162 (2016) (elements of the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception)
Empower Texans, Inc. v. Geren, 977 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2020) (plaintiff diligence and evading-review analysis)
Lopez v. City of Houston, 617 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2010) (invalidating past election can sometimes avoid mootness)
Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87 (2009) (availability of damages can affect mootness analysis)
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (1978) (damages as a means to avoid mootness)