Motion to Dismiss Or Affirm of Appellees Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Et Al
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
No. 17-626 IN THE GREG ABBOTT, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, ET AL., Appellants, v. SHANNON PEREZ, ET AL., Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM OF APPELLEES MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, ET AL. David Richards Pamela S. Karlan RICHARDS, RODRIGUEZ & Counsel of Record SKEITH, LLP Jeffrey L. Fisher 816 Congress Ave., Ste. 1200 David T. Goldberg Austin, TX 78701 STANFORD SUPREME COURT Counsel for Appellees Shannon LITIGATION CLINIC Perez, et al. 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 Anita S. Earls (650) 725-4851 Allison J. Riggs [email protected] SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE Jose Garza 1415 W. Highway 54, Ste. 101 Martin Golando Durham, NC 27707 Michael Moran Counsel for Appellees Texas LAW OFFICE OF JOSE GARZA State Conference of 7414 Robin Rest Drive NAACP Branches, et al. San Antonio, TX 78209 Counsel for Appellee Mexican American Legislative Caucus Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover Robert Notzon Joaquin G. Avila LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT S. 1160 N. 192d Street, Apt. 3-124 NOTZON Shoreline, WA 98133 1507 Nueces Street Additional Counsel for Appellee Austin, TX 78701 Mexican American Legislative Caucus Victor L. Goode NAACP Luis R. Vera, Jr. 4805 Mt. Hope Drive LAW OFFICES OF LUIS ROBERTO Baltimore, MD 21215 VERA, JR. Gary L. Bledsoe 1325 Riverview Towers 111 Soledad POTTER BLEDSOE, LLP 316 West 12th Street San Antonio, TX 78205 Ste. 307 Counsel for Appellee League of Austin, TX 78701 United Latin American Additional Counsel for Citizens Appellees Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al. i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction over the present appeal because the appeal fails to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1253. 2. Whether, if this Court has jurisdiction, it should affirm the district court’s ruling that Texas violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, when its legislature intentionally discriminated on the basis of race in drawing eight state legislative districts. 3. Whether, if this Court has jurisdiction, it should affirm the district court’s ruling that Texas violated the results standard in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act with respect to the districts drawn in Nueces County. ii RULE 29.6 STATEMENT The Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas House of Representatives (MALC) is an official caucus of the Texas House of Representatives. MALC is also incorporated as a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(6) corporation titled Mexican American Legislative Policy Council. MALC has no parent corporation or publicly held company owning 10% or more of the corporation’s stock. The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is a 501(c)(3) organization. LULAC has no parent company and issues no stock. The Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches is a nongovernmental corporation. It has no parent corporations and no stock. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................................... i RULE 29.6 STATEMENT ........................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ v MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM ......................... 1 OPINIONS BELOW .................................................... 1 JURISDICTION........................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................... 2 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION .......... 16 I. The Court should dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction ....................................................... 18 II. If the Court concludes it has jurisdiction, it should affirm the district court’s decision .......... 22 A. The district court’s findings of fact with respect to the legislature’s intent are entitled to significant deference ................... 24 B. This Court should affirm the district court’s analysis of appellees’ intent claims .. 25 C. This Court should reject Texas’s attempt to import the preconditions for a Section 2 “results” claim into cases involving intentional racial discrimination ................. 30 D. This Court should affirm the district court’s holding that the configuration of HD32 and HD34 violates Section 2’s “results” test .................................................. 33 iv CONCLUSION .......................................................... 34 APPENDIX Fact Findings — Plan H283, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, April 20, 2017 .................................... 1a v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Abbott v. Perez, No. 17A245, 2017 WL 4014810 (U.S. Sept. 12, 2017) .............................................. 16 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) ........................................... 24, 25 Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) ..................................................... 31 Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) ............................................. 19, 22 Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017) ................................. 24, 25, 29 Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (2016) ............................................. 21 Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................... 32 Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003) ................................................. 10 Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U.S. 471 (1970) ................................................. 22 Gunn v. Univ. Comm. to End the War in Viet Nam, 399 U.S. 383 (1970) ............................... 18, 19, 20, 21 Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233 (1977) ................................................. 17 Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737 (1976) ................................................. 21 Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. 388 (2012) (per curiam) ............... 2, 3, 4, 28 vi Pleasant Grove v. United States, 479 U.S. 462 (1987) ................................................. 31 Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982) ................................................. 24 Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982) ........................................... 24, 31 Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) ..................................... 14, 17, 30 Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) ............................................... 6 Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S. 74 (2007) ................................................... 28 Texas v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2012) (three-judge court), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 133 S. Ct. 2885 (2013) ..................... 3, 5, 29 Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) ............................................passim Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) ................................................. 28 White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973) ........................................... 18, 24 Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535 (1978) ................................................. 18 Constitutional Provisions U.S. Const. amend. XIV ......................................passim Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1253 ..................................................passim vii 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) .............................................. 19, 21 Voting Rights Act, § 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 ..........passim Voting Rights Act, § 3(c), 52 U.S.C. § 10302(c) ..... 6, 27 Voting Rights Act, § 4(b), 52 U.S.C. § 10303(b) .......... 6 Voting Rights Act, § 5, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 ............. 3, 12 2011 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. ch. 1271 (H.B. 150).............................................................. 1, 4 2013 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 1st Called Sess. ch. 2 (S.B. 3) ......................................................... 1, 6 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) ................................. 23, 24, 25, 29 Sup. Ct. R. 15.2 ............................................................ 2 Other Authorities U.S. Census Bureau, Voting Age Population by Citizenship and Race (CVAP), https://tinyurl.com/CVAPData (last visited Nov. 27, 2017) ...................................... 8 Wright, Charles Alan, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure: Jurisdiction and Related Matters (3d ed. 2012) ................................................................. 21 MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM Appellees in the above-captioned case respectfully move that the Court dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 or, alternatively, that the Court affirm the district court’s order. OPINIONS BELOW The appendix to the Jurisdictional Statement omits the district court’s opinion issuing findings of fact on Plan H283: Perez v. Abbott, No. SA-11-CV-360, 2017 WL 1406379 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017). That opinion is included in the appendix to this motion (M.D.A. App. 1a-301a). JURISDICTION The Jurisdictional Statement invokes this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 with respect to claims regarding Plan H358 but asserts that claims regarding Plan H283 are “moot.” J.S. 5. As explained below, both assertions are incorrect. At present, this Court lacks jurisdiction over claims regarding Plan H358. See infra pp. 18-22. And while any challenge to the continued use of Plan H283 would be moot, other claims resting on the district court’s analysis of Plan H283 remain live, although they are not yet properly before this Court. See infra pp. 27-28 & n.10. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED The appendix to the Jurisdictional Statement omits the statutes appellees challenged.