No. 14A In the Supreme Court of the United States MARC VEASEY, et al., Applicants, V. RICK PERRY, et al., Respondents. EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO VACATE FIFTH CIRCUIT STAY OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION Directed to the Honorable Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit CHAD W. DUNN J. GERALD HEBERT Counsel of Record JOSHUA JAMES BONE K. SCOTT BRAZIL CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER BRAZIL & DUNN 215 E Street NE 4201 Cypress Creek Pkwy. Washington, DC 20002 Houston, Texas 77068 (202) 736-2222 (281) 580-6310 ARMAND G. DERFNER NEIL G. BARON DERFNER, ALTMAN & WILBORN, LLC LAW OFFICE OF NEIL G. BARON P.O. Box 600 914 FM 517 W, Suite 242 Charleston, S.C. 29402 Dickinson, Texas 77539 (843) 723-9804 (281) 534-2748 LUIS ROBERTO VERA, JR. DAVID RICHARDS LULAC NATIONAL GENERAL COUNSEL RICHARDS, RODRIGUEZ & SKEITH, THE LAW OFFICES OF LUIS VERA JR., AND LLP ASSOCIATES 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200 1325 Riverview Towers, 111 Soledad Austin, Texas 78701 San Antonio, Texas 78205-2260 (512) 476-0005 (210) 225-3300 Counsel for the Veasey-LULAC Plaintiffs-Applicants LIST OF ALL PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT BELOW Plaintiffs-Applicants in Veasey, et al. Intervenor-Applicants in United States v. v. Perry, et al. State of Texas, et al. Marc Veasey Texas League of Young Voters Floyd James Carrier Education Fund Anna Burns Imani Clark Michael Montez Penny Pope Plaintiffs-Respondents in Taylor, et al. v. Berry, et al. Jane Hamilton Lenard Taylor Sergio DeLeon Eulalio Mendez Jr. Oscar Ortiz Lionel Estrada Koby Ozias Estela Garcia Espinoza John Mellor-Crummey Margarito Martinez Lara Evelyn Brickner Maximina Martinez Lara Gordon Benjamin La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Inc. Ken Gandy Defendants-Respondents in Veasey, et al. v. League of United Latin Perry, et al. and Taylor, et al. American Citizens v. Berry, et al. Rick Perry Intervenor-Applicants in Veasey, et al. Nandita Berry v. Perry, et al. State of Texas Texas Association of Hispanic Steve McGraw County Judges and County Commissioners Defendants-Respondents in United States v. Texas Association of Hispanic State of Texas, et al. County Judges and County State of Texas Commissioners Nandita Berry Imani Clark Steve McGraw Plaintiffs-Applicants in Texas State Defendants-Respondents in Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al. v. Conference of NAACP Branches, et al. v. Berry, et al. Berry, et al. Texas State Conference of NAACP Nandita Berry Branches Steve McGraw Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas House of Representatives Plaintiffs-Respondents in United States v. State of Texas, et al. (all Defendants in their official capacities) United States of America STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 29.6 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6, the undersigned states that none of the Plaintiffs-Applicants has a parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation holds 10 percent or more of any Plaintiff-Applicant’s stock. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of All Parties to the Proceedings in the Court Below .............................................. i Statement Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6 ......................................................... ii Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................ iv Emergency Application to Vacate Stay .......................................................................... 1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 Reasons to Vacate the Stay ............................................................................................. 4 I. The Balance of the Equities ............................................................................... 5 A. The Stay Order Below Will Cause Chaos at the Polls ................................... 5 B. The State Will Suffer No Other Irreparable Injury if the Stay is Vacated ... 10 C. The Stay Will Disenfranchise Hundreds of Thousands of Voters ................ 11 D. The Stay Allows the State to Enforce an Intentionally Discriminatory Law12 E. The Public Interest Favors Vacating the Stay .............................................. 14 II. The State’s Likelihood of Success on the Merits ................................................ 14 III. This Court Should and Likely Will Grant Review............................................. 18 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 19 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983)................................................................... 18 Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) ......................................................................... 18 City of Memphis v. Hargett, 414 S.W.3d 88, (Tenn. 2013) .............................................. 19 City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980).................................................................... 14 City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 (1975) ................................................. 13 Coleman v. Paccar Inc., 424 U.S. 1301 (1976) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers) ................ 4 Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2005) .................... 19 Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2009) ............................... 19 Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526 (1979) ....................................... 17 Frank v. Walker, 574 U. S. ____ (2014) .......................................................................... 6, 7 Frank v. Walker, No. 14-2058 (7th Cir. Oct. 6, 2014) ...................................................... 18 Frank v. Walker, No. 14-2058, Order Granting Stay Pending Appeal (7th Cir. Sep. 12, 2014)............................................................................................................................... 19 Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) .......................................................... 20 Gonzalez v. Arizona, No. 06-1268, 2006 WL 3627297 (D. Ariz. Sep. 11, 2006) .............. 20 Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) .................................. 20 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S. Ct. 705 (2010) .................................................................. 5 Husted v. NAACP, No. 14A336, Order Granting Stay Pending Appeal (Sep. 14, 2014) .. 6 In re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71, 740 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. 2007) ............................................................................................... 19 Lodge v. Buxton, 639 F.2d 1358 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) .................................................. 14 Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (1985) .............................................................................. 17 Milwaukee Branch v. Walker, 851 N.W.2d 262 (Wis. 2014) ........................................... 18 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) ................................................................................. 4 North Carolina v. League of United Latin American Citizens, 574 U. S. ____ (2014) ..... 6 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) ............................................................................. 5 Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982) ............................................................................... 14 Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013) ....................................................... 1 Veasey v. Perry, No. 13-00193 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2014) ........................................... passim Veasey v. Perry, No. 14-41127 (5th Cir. Oct. 14, 2014) ........................................... passim Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) ............. 14, 17 W. Airlines v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987) (O’Connor, J., in chambers) ..................... 4 Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) ............................................................................ 5 Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535 (1978) ............................................................................ 14 Statutes TEX. ELEC. CODE § 63.001(b) ............................................................................................... 8 Other Authorities Defs’ Responses to Pls’ 2d Interrogs. (Response 2) .......................................................... 10 Trial Tr. (Sep. 10, 2014) (Ingram) ....................................................................................... 9 Trial Tr. (Sep. 8, 2014) (Smith) ........................................................................................ 16 iv Rules FED. R. APP. P. 8(a) .............................................................................................................. 3 v Emergency Application to Vacate Stay To the Honorable Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit: Plaintiffs-Applicants respectfully request an emergency order vacating the October 14, 2014 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that stayed the District Court’s permanent injunction of Texas’s new voter ID law, Senate Bill 14. Background Plaintiffs-Applicants move to vacate the stay because the court of appeals, in granting the stay, fundamentally misapplied this Court’s precedents on voter confusion, including Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), and this Court’s standards