Veasey v. Abbott, 265 F. Supp. 3d 684

Background

In 2014 the district court found Texas SB 14 (a strict photo‑ID law) had a discriminatory effect on Hispanics and African‑Americans and was enacted with a discriminatory purpose (Veasey I).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the results claim but remanded the discriminatory‑purpose finding for reconsideration (Veasey II) and instructed the district court to craft an interim remedy for upcoming elections.
Parties agreed to an interim plan (required SB 14 ID or a Declaration of Reasonable Impediment (DRI) allowing a regular ballot) for the 2016 election; that did not resolve the discriminatory‑purpose claim.
The Texas Legislature enacted SB 5 in 2017, modifying SB 14 (e.g., expanding expiration rules, mobile ID units, formal DRI with enumerated reasons and criminal penalties). Defendants argued SB 5 cured SB 14’s constitutional and VRA defects.
The district court reconsidered in light of SB 5, denied Defendants’ motion to reconsider the discriminatory‑purpose finding, evaluated whether SB 5 remedied SB 14 under Section 2, and concluded SB 5 did not cure the violations.
The court granted declaratory relief, permanently enjoined enforcement of SB 14 and SB 5, and declined to retain post‑judgment jurisdiction under VRA § 2 (reserving § 3(c) issues).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should reconsider its finding that SB 14 was enacted with a discriminatory purpose in light of SB 5	Veasey: SB 5 does not erase SB 14’s original discriminatory purpose; legislative action after liability does not negate past intent	Texas: SB 5 is a post‑enactment cure that removes the discriminatory purpose and thus should defeat reconsideration	Denied reconsideration; SB 5 does not purge SB 14’s discriminatory purpose
Whether SB 5 cures SB 14’s Section 2 discriminatory effects	Veasey: SB 5 leaves intact the key discriminatory features (types of ID, obstacles, DRI structure, education/training) and imposes new burdens (limited DRI reasons; enhanced perjury penalties)	Texas/DOJ: SB 5’s changes (longer expiration, mobile EICs, DRI) ameliorate SB 14’s burdens and warrant deference to the legislature	SB 5 does not fully ameliorate discriminatory effects or purpose; DRI tradeoffs and unchanged ID selection remain unlawful
Appropriateness of injunctive relief and scope (SB 14 alone or also SB 5)	Veasey: Full injunction needed to eliminate discriminatory legal regime and return voters to status quo ante; court should enjoin both SB 14 and SB 5	Texas/DOJ: Court should defer to legislative remedy; if SB 5 suffices, injunctive relief is unnecessary or limited	Permanent injunction granted against enforcement of SB 14 and SB 5; court declines to craft its own photo‑ID scheme
Whether the court should retain jurisdiction post‑injunction under Section 2	Veasey: No continued monitoring required for this injunction; reserve §3(c) for later	Texas/DOJ: Argued against retention as unnecessary if SB 5 cures defects	Court denied retention of post‑judgment jurisdiction under §2; reserved consideration of §3(c) relief

Key Cases Cited

Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (appellate decision affirming discriminatory‑results finding and remanding purpose claim)
Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (district court liability opinion finding SB 14 had discriminatory effect)
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework for assessing discriminatory intent)
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (remedy must place victims in position they would have occupied absent discrimination)
North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016) (upholding injunction against voter‑ID law where DRI did not cure discriminatory burdens)
Operation Push v. Mabus, 932 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1991) (discusses deference to state remedial action but places burden on state to show cure)
Dillard v. Crenshaw County, 831 F.2d 246 (11th Cir. 1987) (remedy must itself conform with Section 2)