No. 06-41573 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 06-41573 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT WILLIE RAY; JAMILLAH JOHNSON; GLORIA MEEKS; REBECCA MINNEWEATHER; PARTHENIA MCDONALD; WALTER HINOJOSA; TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; ROGER WILLIAMS, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, Defendants-Appellants. On Appeal from the United States District Court Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division BRIEF FOR APPELLEES OTIS W. CARROLL ERIC M. ALBRITTON IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. ALBRITTON LAW FIRM 6101 South Broadway, Suite 500 P.O. Box 2649 Tyler, TX 75703 Longview, TX 75606 Telephone: (903) 561-1600 Telephone: (903) 757-8449 Facsimile: (903) 581-1071 Facsimile: (903) 758-7397 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees (additional counsel listed on next page) J. GERALD HEBERT BRUCE V. SPIVA Attorney at Law KATHLEEN R. HARTNETT J. GERALD HEBERT, P.C. SPIVA & HARTNETT LLP 5019 Waple Lane 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Alexandria, VA 22304 Suite 600 Telephone: (703) 628-4673 Washington, D.C. 20036 [email protected] Telephone: (202) 785-0601 Facsimile: (202) 785-0697 ART BRENDER [email protected] Attorney at Law [email protected] 600 Eighth Avenue Ft. Worth, TX 76104 Telephone: (817) 334-0171 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS The undersigned counsel certifies that the following listed persons and entities have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the judges of this court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal. Plaintiffs-Appellees: Willie Ray, Jamillah Johnson, Gloria Meeks, Rebecca Minneweather, Parthenia McDonald, Walter Hinojosa, Texas Democratic Party Witnesses for Plaintiffs-Appellees: Ruben Hernandez, Jane Hamilton, Rep. Norma Chavez, Rep. Pete Gallego, Rep. Pete Laney, Rep. Garnet Coleman, Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, Sen. Rodney Ellis Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees: Eric M. Albritton, Otis W. Carroll, J. Gerald Hebert, Bruce V. Spiva, Kathleen R. Hartnett, Art Brender Defendants-Appellants: State of Texas, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams Witnesses for Defendants-Appelles: Ann McGeehan, David Boatright, Adrienne McFarland Counsel for Defendants-Appellants: Edward D. Burbach, R. Ted Cruz, Robert B. O’Keefe, Kathlyn C. Wilson, Philip A. Lionberger, Adam W. Aston Kathleen R. Hartnett i STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Appellees respectfully state that oral argument is not necessary in this case. In its present posture – an interlocutory appeal from a narrow preliminary injunction – this case does not, as Appellants (“the State”) erroneously suggests, concern “multiple claims” to “several Texas Election Code provisions.” State Br. at iii. The State’s present appeal must be rejected because substantial evidence received at an evidentiary hearing supports the trial court’s exercise of its broad discretion to craft a limited and carefully tailored preliminary injunction. The other two issues purportedly presented by the State concern denied motions to dismiss and transfer venue which are not properly before this Court on interlocutory appeal and which, in any event, lack merit. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS ......................................................... i STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .............................................. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ...................................... 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 9 A. Appellees And Others Have A History Of Legitimate Efforts To Assist Texas Voters With Mail-In Balloting .............................................................. 9 B. Texas Voter Fraud Law And The Challenged Provisions ............................. 12 C. In Advance Of The 2006 Election, The Challenged Provisions Were Used To Target Legitimate Activities Of Disfavored Groups, Creating A Chilling Effect On Protected Expression And Association ....................... 17 D. The District Court’s Injunction Order ........................................................... 22 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 25 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 27 I. THE STATE’S VENUE CHALLENGE IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT AND LACKS MERIT .......................................................... 27 A. Standard Of Review .................................................................. 27 B. The Heck/Venue Issue Is Not Properly Before The Court On This Interlocutory Appeal ................................................... 28 C. The State’s Heck Argument Fails On The Merits .................... 31 iii II. THE STATE’S 28 U.S.C. § 1971 DISMISSAL ARGUMENT IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT AND LACKS MERIT .................... 35 A. The State’s Dismissal Argument Concerning 28 U.S.C. § 1971 Is Not Properly Before This Court ...................................................... 35 B. Appellees’ Section 1971 Claims Should Not Be Dismissed .............. 37 1. Section 1971 May Be Enforced By Private Parties .................. 37 2. Section 1971 Is Not Limited To Practices Related To Voter Registration ............................................................................... 39 III. THE DISTRICT COURT’S NARROW PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS JUSTIFIED UNDER CONTROLLING LAW ......................................... 41 A. Standard Of Review ............................................................................ 42 B. The District Court Properly Issued A Partial Injunction Of Sections 86.006(f) And (h) Because Appellees Are Likely To Succeed On The Merits Of Their Claim That These Provisions Unjustifiably Infringe On The Fundamental Right to Vote ...................................... 43 1. Section 86.006 (f) And (h) Are Subject To Strict Scrutiny And Violate The Fundamental Right To Vote ......................... 43 2. Even If Strict Scrutiny Does Not Apply, Appellees Are Likely To Prevail On The Merits .............................................. 47 3. The State’s Facial Challenge Argument Is Erroneous .............. 52 C. The District Court Properly Apprehended The Irreparable Harm To Appellees And Balanced The Equities .......................................... 54 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 57 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 58 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 59 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 408 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................... 36 American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974) ......................................... 49 Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) ................................... 3, 43, 44, 47, 53 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) .................................................................. 42 Brown v. Post, 279 F. Supp. 60 (W.D. La. 1968) .................................................... 41 Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) ............................................... 43, 44, 46, 47 Caldwell v. Palmetto State Sav. Bank, 811 F.2d 916 (5th Cir. 1987) ............... 27, 34 Canal Auth. of Florida v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1974) ........................ 42 Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (1945) .......................................................... 28 Center for Individual Freedom v. Carmouche, 449 F.3d 655 (5th Cir. 2006) ........ 53 Chapman v. King, 154 F.2d 460 (5th Cir. 1946) ..................................................... 38 Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 439 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (N.D. Ga. 2006) .......... 45 Cotham v. Garza, 905 F. Supp. 389 (S.D. Tex. 1995) ...................................... 47, 48 Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282 (1940) ................................. 29 Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) ................................................................ 33 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) ............................................................... 54 First Med. Health Plan, Inc. v. Vega-Ramos, 479 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2007) ....... 29, 30 Friedman v. Snipes, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2004) ............................. 39, 40 v Good v. Roy, 459 F. Supp. 403 (D. Kan. 1978) ....................................................... 40 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) ....................................................... 8, 25, 27 Horton v. Bank One, N.A., 387 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2004) .......................................