This appeal arises from the district court’s denial of True the Vote’s motion to intervene as a matter of right. (ROA.1357) (Ex. A). The United States brought this lawsuit to enjoin and invalidate Texas’ Voter ID law, SB 14, under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. (ROA.6055) TEX. ELEC. CODE § 630101. The case was consolidated with other lawsuits brought by individuals, organizations, and public interest groups who also seek the same result under the Constitution as well as the Voting Rights Act. (ROA.165, 1300).

This memorandum focuses on two topics relevant to the stay application: (1) irreparable injury, including the question whether there will be more confusion by enforcing or enjoining SB 14, and also including the grievous injury to the public interest that would result from enforcing a law found to be racially discriminatory; (2) likelihood of success on the merits, including recognition that SB 14 is not a “neutral” law but results from decisions by Texas to divide voters into two classes, and how this division affects the four claims on which the district court ruled.

A memorandum in opposition to Appellant True the Vote’s motion to expedite its appeal or, in the alternative, stay the proceedings in the lower court.

Defendants the State of Texas, Rick Perry (in his official capacity), John Steen (in his official capacity) and Steve McCraw (in his official capacity) move to dismiss all of the complaints filed in these consolidated cases. 

Plaintiffs Marc Veasey, Jane Hamilton, Sergio DeLeon, Floyd J. Carrier, Anna Burns, Michael Montez, Penny Pope, Oscar Ortiz, Koby Ozias, John Mellor-Crummey, Jane Doe, John Doe, League of United Latin American Citizens (“LULAC”) and Dallas County, Texas, (hereafter, the “Veasey-LULAC Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Defendants Rick Perry, John Steen, Steve McCraw and the State of Texas

Plaintiffs argue that the State of Texas has a long, notorious history of disfranchising voters by various methods and discriminating against classes of voters, especially on account of race and ethnicity. Senate Bill 14 of 2011 (“SB 14”) is another effort to achieve those unlawful ends. Accordingly, this suit seeks to enjoin SB 14 as a violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, as applied to voters and prospective voters who lack one of the few photo IDs listed in SB 14.

The Campaign Legal Center, filed a brief on behalf of plaintiffs in Fairley v. Hattiesburg,urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to reverse the District Court’s erroneous and dangerous rejection of their Voting Rights Act challenge to the 2012 Hattiesburg City Council redistricting plan.  The brief argues that the redistricting plan violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it deprives Black voters of an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice on account of their race. 

Letter written by the Voting Rights Institute to the Department of Justice urging them to investigate Daphe City Council's reduction in the number of polling places and enactment of a new reidstricting plan that may dilute the influence of the Black community in Daphne, Alabama. 

In November 2015, the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in this case.  Oral argument will be heard on March 21, 2016.  The Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiff-appellees. ​

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is representing voters in Quitman County, Miss. against a legal action seeking more than $300K in attorneys’ fees. Longtime civil rights attorney Ellis Turnage brought a lawsuit on behalf of two voters challenging the county’s redistricting plan. Before trial, plaintiffs decided to dismiss the case. The county then turned around and claimed the suit was “frivolous,” seeking attorneys’ fees against Turnage and his clients. 

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is representing voters in Quitman County, Miss. against a legal action seeking more than $300K in attorneys’ fees. Longtime civil rights attorney Ellis Turnage brought a lawsuit on behalf of two voters challenging the county’s redistricting plan. Before trial, plaintiffs decided to dismiss the case. The county then turned around and claimed the suit was “frivolous,” seeking attorneys’ fees against Turnage and his clients. 

In the middle of the night February 1, while everyone focused on the Iowa Caucus results, Brian Newby, the new executive director for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), sent letters to the chief election officers in Kansas, Georgia, and Alabama granting their request that the federal voter registration form require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in those states.  The policy change is an about face for the agency, which previously twice rejected the same requests.  

Campaign Legal Center joined with other good-government, civil rights, and voting rights groups in sending a letter calling for Newby to withdraw his letter unilaterally granting the three states’ request to make this significant change in voter registration requirements in federal elections.  

Statement of Points and Authorities in support of Motion to Intervene as Defendants on behalf of Earl Cunningham, et al. 

Proposed Intervenors seek to participate in this action as parties to defend the constitutionality of Sections 4(b) and (5) of the Voting Rights Act against Plaintiff’s claim that they exceed Congressional authority. Plaintiff’s Complaint, Motion for Summary Judgment, and supporting documents fail to establish, either as a matter of law or fact, that Sections 4(b) and (5) of the Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional.