No. __________ In the Supreme Court of the United States MARC VEASEY, et al., Applicants, V. GREG ABBOTT, et al., Respondents. APPLICATION TO VACATE FIFTH CIRCUIT STAY OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION Directed to the Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit CHAD W. DUNN J. GERALD HEBERT Counsel of Record DANIELLE LANG K. SCOTT BRAZIL CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER BRAZIL & DUNN 1411K Street NW St. 1400 4201 Cypress Creek Pkwy. Washington, DC 20005 Houston, Texas 77068 (202) 736-2200 (281) 580-6310 ARMAND G. DERFNER NEIL G. BARON DERFNER & ALTMAN , LLC LAW OFFICE OF NEIL G. BARON 575 King Street, Suite B 914 FM 517 W, Suite 242 Charleston, S.C. 29403 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. v. Plaintiffs- Intervenors in United States v. Abbott, et al. State of Texas, et al. Marc Veasey Texas League of Young Voters Education Floyd James Carrier Fund Anna Burns Imani Clark Michael Montez Penny Pope Plaintiffs in Taylor, et al. v. Cascos, et al. Lenard Taylor Jane Hamilton Eulalio Mendez Jr. Sergio DeLeon Lionel Estrada Oscar Ortiz Estela Garcia Espinoza Koby Ozias Margarito Martinez Lara John Mellor-Crummey Maximina Martinez Lara Evelyn Brickner La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Inc. Gordon Benjamin Defendants in Veasey, et al. v. Abbott, et Ken Gandy al. and Taylor, et al. v. Cascos, et al. League of United Latin American Greg Abbott Citizens Carlos Cascos State of Texas Plaintiffs-Intervenors in Veasey, et al. Steve McGraw v. Abbott, et al. Texas Association of Hispanic County Defendants in United States v. State of Judges and County Texas, et al. Commissioners State of Texas Carlos Cascos Plaintiffs in Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al. v. Cascos, et al. Steve McGraw Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches Defendants in Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, et al. v. Cascos, et al. Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Carlos Cascos Texas House of Representatives Steve McGraw Plaintiffs in United States v. State of (all Defendants in their official capacities) Texas, et al. United States of America 1 STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 29.6 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6, the undersigned states that none of the Applicants has a parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation holds 10 percent or more of any Applicants' stock. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of All Parties to the Proceedings in the Court Below ........................................... 1 Statement Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6 ....................................................... 2 Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... 3 Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................... 4 Application to Vacate Stay ............................................................................................ 6 Background .................................................................................................................... 9 a. District Court Opinion ......................................................................................... 9 b. Initial Stay of District Court Injunction ............................................................ 11 c. Continued Deferral of Relief in 2015 and 2016 ................................................. 12 Reasons to Vacate the Stay ......................................................................................... 14 I. Maintenance of the Stay Irreparably Injures Texas Voters. ................................ 15 II. The Stay Cannot Be Justified Under This Court’s Standards. ............................ 17 A. The State Has Not and Cannot Make a “Strong Showing” of Likely Success on the Merits. ...................................................................................... 17 1. Discriminatory Purpose ................................................................................ 18 2. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act's "Results Test". .................................... 18 3. Constitutional Right to Vote Claim. ............................................................. 19 B. The State Will Suffer No Irreparable Injury If the Stay is Vacated. .............. 20 C. The Ongoing Stay Injures Applicants and Texas Voters. ............................... 21 D. The Public Interest Favors Vacating the Stay................................................. 21 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 22 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) ................................................................................................ 19 Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) ................................................................................................ 19 City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 (1975) .................................................................................... 14, 20, 21 Crawford v. Marion County, 553 U.S. 181 (2007) ................................................................................................ 19 Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 443 U.S. 526 (1979) ................................................................................................ 18 Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S. Ct. 705 (2010) .............................................................................................. 14 Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (1985) ................................................................................................ 18 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) .......................................................................................... 17, 12 Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) .............................................................................................. 14, 20 Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) .............................................................................................. 9 Texas v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2012) .......................................................................... 9 Veasey v. Perry, 135 S. Ct. 9 (2014) ........................................................................................ 6, 10, 11 Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627 (S.D. Tex. 2014)................................................................ passim Veasey v. Perry, 769 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... passim 4 Veasey v. Abbott, 796 F.3d 487 (5th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 7, 12 Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) ................................................................................................ 18 W. Airlines v. Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987) (O’Connor, J., in chambers) ................................................ 14 STATUTES Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. ................................................................... 9, 12, 18 Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act ................................................................................ 9 Senate Bill 14 (“SB 14”) ........................................................................................ passim OTHER AUTHORITIES 5th Cir. R. 41.3 ............................................................................................................. 13 Texas Petition for Writ of Mandamus (filed in the Fifth Circuit Oct. 11, 2014) ................................................................ 16 Affidavit of Kieth Ingram, Doc. 40-1, Texas v. Holder, No. 1:12-CV-00128 (D.D.C.) ....................................................... 16 5 Application to Vacate Stay To the Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit: Applicants respectfully request an order vacating an interim Co ur t of Ap pea l s st a y that was entered in October 2014 solely because of the imminence of the 2014 Texas elections, but which has now extended for nearly a year and a half, has injured Texas voters in two more statewide election cycles in 2015 and 2016, and, unless vacated, will very likely cause further injury by allowing enforcement of an invalid state law again during the 2016 Texas general elections, including the election for President of the United States. The order which Applicants ask this Court to vacate is 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 voter photo ID law, Senate Bill 14 of 2011 (“SB 14”). The District Court held, among other things, that SB 14 was adopted with a racially discriminatory purpose and produces a racially discriminatory result. Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 633 (S.D. Tex. 2014). The stay was premised on the “extremely fast-approaching” 2014 elections, Veasey v. Perry,