Veasey v. Abbott, 249 F. Supp. 3d 868

Background

Texas enacted SB 14 (2011), a voter photo ID law; plaintiffs challenged it under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act alleging discriminatory purpose and disparate impact.
Bench trial occurred in Sept. 2014; the district court originally found both a discriminatory result and discriminatory intent, invalidating SB 14.
On en banc review the Fifth Circuit affirmed the discriminatory-result finding but remanded the discriminatory-purpose finding, identifying certain evidence the district court had relied on as not probative and directing reweighing of the record without reopening the trial.
On remand (this order), the district court reassessed the existing trial record consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s guidance and Arlington Heights factors to decide whether race was a motivating factor in passage of SB 14.
The court accepted Plaintiffs’ proof of disparate impact, a pattern unexplainable on nonracial grounds, contemporaneous and reasonably contemporaneous historical evidence, departures from normal legislative practices, and a tenuous fit between stated justifications and the law’s terms.
After reweighing the remaining probative evidence and finding the State failed to prove SB 14 would have been enacted absent the discriminatory purpose, the court held SB 14 was passed at least in part with a discriminatory intent in violation of Section 2.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SB 14 was passed with a discriminatory purpose under Arlington Heights	SB 14’s disparate impact, rejected ameliorative amendments, rushed procedures, drafting history, and contemporaneous statements show race was a motivating factor	The State contends evidence the district court relied on is infirm, the law was aimed at combating voter fraud, and any disparate impact was incidental	Court held Plaintiffs met burden: discriminatory purpose was at least one motivating factor; State failed to show the law would have been enacted absent that purpose
Disparate impact as evidence of intent	SB 14 disproportionately burdened Black and Latino voters and many ameliorative measures were rejected	State argues disparate impact alone is insufficient and proponents acted to prevent fraud	Court adopted earlier findings of disparate impact and treated it as probative under Arlington Heights
Relevance of historical and contemporaneous evidence	Historical pattern of Texas voting discrimination and reasonably contemporaneous examples support intent inference	State urges distant history and some anecdotal contemporaneous statements are not probative	Court credited reasonably contemporaneous history and limited weight to some contemporaneous statements but found overall probative weight sufficient
Legislative drafting, procedures, and policy fit	The legislature departed from normal practices, advanced a bill with a tenuous fit to anti-fraud aims, and omitted less restrictive alternatives	State defends procedural choices and substantive design as legitimate anti-fraud policy	Court found departures, tenuous policy fit, and rejection of ameliorative amendments probative of discriminatory purpose

Key Cases Cited

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (establishes factors for proving discriminatory intent)
Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (affirmed disparate-impact result; remanded intent finding for reweighing)
Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (district court’s original findings on disparate impact and intent)
Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985) (burden-shifting: if discriminatory purpose is shown, state must prove law would have been enacted absent that purpose)
Personnel Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979) (discriminatory purpose requires showing decisionmaker selected action at least in part because of its adverse effect on an identifiable group)
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (discusses relevance of historical evidence and contemporaneity)