Veasey v. Abbott
796 F.3d 487
5th Cir.2015Background
- In 2011 Texas enacted SB 14, requiring specified photo ID (e.g., current/near‑current TX driver’s license, U.S. passport, Election Identification Certificate (EIC)) to vote in person; EICs required applicants to show primary/secondary documents and supporting records.
- Plaintiffs sued, alleging SB 14 was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose, had a racially discriminatory effect (violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act), unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote (First and Fourteenth Amendments), and constituted a poll tax (Fourteenth and Twenty‑Fourth Amendments).
- The district court held SB 14 was enacted with discriminatory purpose, had discriminatory effect, was a poll tax, and unconstitutionally burdened voting; it enjoined most of SB 14 and ordered pre‑SB‑14 ID rules reinstated pending remedy.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Section 2 discriminatory‑effect finding, vacated and remanded the discriminatory‑purpose finding for further analysis (finding some of the district court’s considerations legally infirm), vacated the poll‑tax holding and entered judgment for the State on that claim, and declined to resolve the constitutional burden claims (First/Fourteenth) as unnecessary given the Section 2 result.
- After the district court decision but before final appellate briefing, Texas passed SB 983 eliminating the $2–$3 fee for certified birth certificates when needed to obtain an EIC; the Fifth Circuit considered SB 983’s effect on the poll‑tax and remedy analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discriminatory purpose (Equal Protection / §2) | SB 14 was enacted, at least in part, with racially discriminatory intent | Legislature acted to prevent in‑person voter fraud and increase confidence; opponents’ speculation and long‑ago history are not probative of legislative intent | Vacated and remanded — appellate court found some of the district court’s Arlington Heights reasoning infirm and ordered reconsideration under correct legal standards; if discriminatory purpose is found on remand, law must be invalidated |
| Discriminatory effect (Section 2 of Voting Rights Act) | SB 14 disproportionately burdens Black and Hispanic voters (statistics, surveys, No‑Match list); interacts with social/historical conditions to reduce political opportunity | State disputed methods and data but offered no reliable refutation of disparate impact | Affirmed — district court’s statistical findings and application of Senate Factors were not clearly erroneous; SB 14 violates §2; remanded to craft remedy |
| Constitutional burden (First and Fourteenth Amendments) | SB 14 places an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote | State defends as reasonable regulation to prevent fraud; burden justified | Not decided — court invoked constitutional avoidance: because §2 remedy is available and will afford relief, appellate court vacated district court’s burden ruling and dismissed constitutional claims |
| Poll tax (Fourteenth / Twenty‑Fourth Amendments) | Fees and procedural costs to obtain an EIC make SB 14 a poll tax | SB 983 eliminated the certified‑birth‑certificate fee for EIC applicants; process costs do not equal a poll tax | Vacated district court’s poll‑tax holding and rendered judgment for State — even pre‑SB‑983 the court concluded SB 14 was not a facial poll tax; SB 983 further mooted the fee‑based theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework for proving discriminatory legislative purpose)
- Gingles v. Thornburg, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (Senate Factors and results test under §2 of the Voting Rights Act)
- Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (upholding some voter‑ID interests; guidance on assessing burdens on the right to vote)
- Shelby Cnty. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (limits on using long‑past history in voting‑rights analysis; invalidated §4 preclearance coverage formula)
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (historical evidence must be reasonably contemporaneous to be probative of intent)
- Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985) (once discriminatory purpose shown, burden shifts to defenders to show law would have been enacted absent that purpose)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (same as Gingles entry; cited for §2 results analysis)
- Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965) (poll‑tax doctrine and “choice between paying a tax or surrendering vote” analysis)
- Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (poll tax invalidated; limits on state‑imposed costs tied to voting qualifications)
- Pullman‑Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982) (appellate remand required where district findings rest on erroneous legal standards)
- O’Brien v. United States, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (caution against overreliance on stray legislative statements to infer collective legislative intent)
- Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 576 U.S. 519 (2015) (disparate‑impact remedial principles; focus remedies on eliminating offending practice)
- Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng., 546 U.S. 320 (2006) (severability and narrowly tailored remedies for unconstitutional applications)