29 F. Supp. 3d 896
S.D. Tex.2014Background
- Consolidated cases challenge Texas SB 14 Photo Identification Law enacted 2011, effective 2012, governing in‑person voting photo IDs.
- Defendants Perry (Governor), Steen (Secretary of State), and McCraw (DPS Director) face multiple challenges to standing and merits.
- Plaintiffs allege VRA §2, First, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Twenty-Fourth Amendments, Texas Constitution provisions, and related claims.
- SB 14 lists DPS-issued driver licenses, DPS photo IDs, US military IDs, US citizenship certificates, and US passports as acceptable IDs; EICs available free of charge.
- Exemptions exist for disabilities, religious objections, or six-day provisional ballots with post-election verification; costs and access burdens alleged for obtaining IDs.
- Court addresses standing of associations (LULAC, HJ&C, TLYV, NAACP, MALC, LUPE), counties (Dallas, Hidalgo), and individual plaintiffs; and rules on 12(b)(6) merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do associations have standing to sue? | Associational/representational standing established. | Third‑party/prudential barriers undermine standing. | Associational standing upheld; motions to dismiss denied. |
| Do Dallas County and Hidalgo County have standing? | Counties suffer unfunded mandates, costs, and voter suppression harms. | No redressable injury to counties; sovereign immunity issues. | Counts dismissed for lack of redressable first‑party standing. |
| Are Section 2 claims cognizable against SB 14 under totality of circumstances? | SB 14 causes discriminatory results and potential intentional discrimination; dissemination under Senate Report 97-417 factors. | SB 14 is facially neutral; only intentional discrimination matters; Crawford limits. | Section 2 claims survive; theories of discriminatory results and intentional discrimination viable. |
| Is SB 14 a permissible state prerogative or a protected constitutional violation? | SB 14 violates equal protections; race/ethnicity impact and anti-discrimination provisions apply; SB 14 not a voter qualification issue. | Photo ID is race-neutral; state may set qualifications; relies on Inter Tribal and Crawford. | SB 14 cognizable under constitutional anti-discrimination and Section 2; not immunized by Article I. |
| Are Governors/officials properly named defendants under Ex parte Young Young/Okpalobi principles? | Governor Perry and DPS Director McCraw have enforcement connections; proper defendants. | Limited enforcement authority; improper for some officials. | McCraw properly named; Perry properly named; claims proceed against both. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1986) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances framework for voting rights.)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (U.S. 2008) (photo IDs; balancing interests; standards differ by context.)
- Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1969) (standing of aggrieved voters to enforce voting rights.)
- LULAC v. Clements, 986 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1993) (Section 2 methods constitutional; prophylactic enforcement power.)
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1991) (third‑party standing elements; close relation to third party.)
- Inter Tribal Council of Arizona v. Ariz., 133 S. Ct. 2247 (S. Ct. 2013) (registration vs. photo ID; context of NVRA; not a blanket endorsement.)