State of Texas v. Holder
888 F. Supp. 2d 113
D.D.C.2012Background
- Texas seeks preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for SB 14, a photo-ID requirement for in-person voting enacted 2011.
- SB 14 restricts acceptable IDs to five photo IDs and creates an Election Identification Certificate (EIC) available for a fee costs; bans expired IDs and non-photo voter registration certificates.
- The Attorney General denied preclearance in March 2012, finding SB 14 would have a retrogressive effect on minority voters and noting data reliability concerns.
- The district court expedited trial after DOI denial, held hearings in July 2012, and considered extensive documentary and expert testimony.
- Texas intervenors and voting-rights groups participated; the court reserved ruling on a separate constitutional challenge pending its findings of the voting-preclearance record.
- The court ultimately denied Texas’s declaratory relief, finding SB 14 likely to have a retrogressive effect and noting the burdens fall most on the poor and minorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 14 lacks retrogressive effect under section 5 | Texas argues effect is not retrogressive; burden on minorities is minimal | United States/Intervenors argue SB 14 imposes retrogression on minorities | SB 14 likely retrogressive; does not lack retrogression |
| Whether Crawford controls the analysis of SB 14’s burden | Crawford supports Texas that ID burdens are minimal | Crawford limited to facial challenges and does not preclearance context | Crawford informs but does not control; Texas bears burden under section 5 to show no retrogression |
| Whether the evidence on ID possession and turnout is reliable | Texas surveys show no racial disparity in ID possession | U.S. challenges reliability of Texas’s data and presents its own studies | Texas failed to establish reliability; record supports potential racial disparities in ID access |
| Whether the burden of obtaining SB 14 IDs disproportionately affects minorities | Burden is neutral or offset by non-discriminatory factors | Burden falls on the poor, who are disproportionately minorities; constitutes retrogression | Burden disproportionately borne by minorities; retrogression likely |
Key Cases Cited
- Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1976) ( retrogression test for section 5)
- Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (U.S. 2009) (federalism costs of section 5)
- Bossier Parish I, 520 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1997) (burden to show no retrogression; evidence of discriminatory purpose considerations)
- Bossier Parish II, 528 U.S. 320 (U.S. 2000) (retrogression analysis and non-discrimination factors)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (U.S. 2008) (limits of facial challenge; free ID cards impact on burden)
- City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1980) (Findings of fact/convictions under section 5 findings)
- Katzenbach v. Morgan, 383 U.S. 301 (U.S. 1966) (context and purpose of Voting Rights Act)
- Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1969) (burden to prove non-retrogression)
- Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 133 (U.S. 1973) (retrogression/purpose analysis under section 5)