The Veasey-LULAC Appellees hereby move the Court, pursuant to Fifth Circuit Local Rules 27.5 and 34.5, to expedite consideration of this appeal of a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas striking down Texas’s voter ID law, SB 14 of 2011. For the reasons explained below, this Court should seek to resolve this appeal as promptly as possible in order to ensure that a constitutional system of voter identification is implemented for upcoming elections, including municipal elections scheduled in many Texas cities for May 9, 2015, 1 municipal elections scheduled in many other Texas cities for November 3, 2015, 2 and state and national primary elections scheduled in Texas for March 1, 2016. See App’x A (timeline of key upcoming Texas election dates). Pursuant to Local Rule 27.4, counsel for Veasey-LULAC Appellees have contacted counsel for Defendants-Appellants, who have indicated that Defendants-Appellants oppose this motion.

The applications to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on October 14, 2014, presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the Court are denied. The motion for leave to file the response to the applications under seal with redacted copies for the public record is granted. 

The District Court’s reasoned opinion and the three Applications fully address the vast majority of the State’s arguments. 

By this order, the district court enjoined the implementation of Texas Senate Bill 14 (“SB 14”) of the 2011 Regular Session, which requires that voters present certain photographic identification at the polls. The district court also ordered that the State of Texas (“State”) instead implement the laws that were in force before SB 14’s enactment in May of 2011. Based primarily on the extremely fast-approaching election date, we STAY the district court’s judgment pending appeal.

This expedited appeal, which included briefing and oral argument, involves Texas’s recently enacted Voter ID law, which True the Vote supported and sponsored as a public-interest group. Various plaintiffs’ groups and the United States have sued the state, claiming the law violates the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Several other groups were permitted to intervene on behalf of the plaintiffs. True the Vote timely moved to intervene as of right to defend the statute. The United States opposed the motion, and the district judge, without issuing an independent opinion but relying almost exclusively on a Florida court order in a different case, denied intervention. Because True the Vote has not shown that the State of Texas cannot adequately represent its interests in this litigation, we affirm the order denying intervention as of right. 

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.