Beaumont Chapter of NAACP v. Jefferson Cnty.

685 F.Supp.3d 414

BEAUMONT CHAPTER OF the NAACP and Jessica Daye, Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS; Jefferson County Commissioners Court;Roxanne Acosta-Hellberg, in her official capacity as the Jefferson County Clerk;and Mary Beth Bowling, in her official capacity asthe Presiding Judge of the John Paul Davis Community Center, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-CV-00488

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division

Signed August 4, 2023

Jeffrey G. Homrig, Madeleine A. Ball, Pro Hac Vice, Benjamin Joseph Behrendt, Pro Hac Vice, Daniel Stephenson Todd, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, Austin, TX, Sadik Huseny, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, Ezra D. Rosenberg, Sofia Fernandez Gold, Jon Greenbaum, Pooja Chaudhuri, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Heather Szilagyi, Washington, DC, L. Allison Herzog; Rachel L. Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, Nathaniel Bass, Latham & Watkins LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Kathleen Marie Kennedy, Quentin Dean Price, Jefferson County District Attorney's Office, Beaumont, TX, for Defendants Texas Jefferson County, Jefferson County Commissioners Court.

Kathleen Marie Kennedy, Jefferson County District Attorney's Office, Beaumont, TX, for Defendants Mary Beth Bowling, Roxanne Acosta-Hellberg.

ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Michael J. Truncale, United States District Judge

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint Pursuant to 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). [Dkt. 40]. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendants' motion, and dismisses Plaintiffs' case, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I. BACKGROUND

The Beaumont Chapter of the NAACP and Jessica Daye (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege that black voters were intimidated and discriminated against at the John Paul Davis Community Center ("Community Center") in Beaumont during the early voting period of the 2022 general election.¹ Their Amended Complaint is largely comprised of allegations that Beaumont NAACP member, Airon Reynolds, Jr., heard from members of his church, and allegations from unidentified sources that involve unidentified black voters who are not named plaintiffs and, to the Court's knowledge, are not Beaumont NAACP members.

According to the Amended Complaint, Mr. Reynolds received complaints during early voting about conduct at the Community Center. These complaints purportedly alleged that white poll workers repeatedly asked black voters to recite their addresses aloud within earshot of other voters; that white poll workers and watchers² followed black voters around the polling place, including one that stood two feet behind a black voter and his voting assistant while the voter cast his ballot; and that white poll workers helped white voters scan their marked ballots into ballot scanning machines while neglecting to help black voters. [Dkt. 32 at 2]. Mr. Reynolds primarily attributes this conduct to Defendant, Mary Beth Bowling, the Republican-appointed presiding judge at the Community Center for the 2022 election. See id. at 7, 14.

On October 27th, Mr. Reynolds reported these complaints to the county judge, Jeff Branick. Judge Branick informed Mr. Reynolds that he did not have supervisory authority over the poll workers, as that is within the county clerk's purview. Id. at 14. The following day, Mr. Reynolds went to the Community Center to inform Ms. Bowling that asking black voters "to recite their addresses aloud and publicly was intimidating," and to ask her to "stop the intimidating conduct" and to "adjust her behavior" when speaking with black voters. Id. Ms. Bowling allegedly refused, so Mr. Reynolds contacted then-county clerk, Laurie Leister, apprised her of the situation, and asked her to remove Ms. Bowling from her position as the presiding judge. Id. at 15. Ms. Leister denied his request. Id.

A few days later, on October 31st, Mr. Reynolds went to the Community Center to vote himself. Id. at 19. The Amended Complaint alleges that when he arrived at the Community Center, two white poll workers "suspiciously look[ed] at him," "watch[ed] every step he took," and "stood about five feet behind [him] as he proceeded through the Community Center and cast his ballot." Id. Mr. Reynolds allegedly "felt intimidated" but apparently otherwise casted his vote without issue. Id. He presented his concerns to Defendant, the Jefferson County Commissioner Court, on November 1st, but Judge Branick again expressed that this is outside his jurisdiction. Id. at 15.

The next day, Ms. Daye—the only named individual plaintiff in this case—went to the Community Center to vote. Id. at 17. Ms. Daye is the elected Democrat precinct chair for a different precinct in Jefferson County.³ [Dkt. 5]. While in line to check in, Ms. Daye observed a black voter check in, which included confirming her address and signing the poll pad. [Dkt. 32 at 17-18]. The voter then proceeded to the poll worker who directs voters to machines to cast their vote. Id. at 18. Ms. Daye alleges that the poll worker then asked the voter to take out her identification and recite her address aloud. Id. According to Ms. Daye, the poll worker appeared to be "attacking" the voter, "as if she was lying about her identity." Id. Ms. Daye was allegedly "so alarmed and frustrated" after witnessing this interaction that she "immediately decided not to vote at the Community Center and left." Id.

Then, on the eve of Election Day—November 7, 2022—at 1:33 p.m., Plaintiffs petitioned this Court for an emergency temporary restraining order. [Dkt. 3]. They alleged that Defendants' conduct violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment, and requested that the Court: (1) prohibit Ms. Bowling from serving as the presiding election judge or in any capacity at a polling location on Election Day; (2) prohibit all election judges, clerks, workers, volunteers, or watchers at the Community Center from: (a) requesting or ordering voters to publicly recite their addresses before allowing them to vote; (b) positioning themselves so that they could view voters' ballots; (c) refusing to assist voters in scanning their completed ballots; and (d) turning away voters who are duly eligible to vote for any reason; and (3) order Ms. Leister to send notice of the TRO, if granted. [Dkt. 3]. The Court held an emergency hearing that evening at 6:30 p.m. that lasted over three hours. [Dkt. 15]. Ms. Daye did not attend.

The right to vote is one of the most sacred privileges of American citizenship. If this invaluable right is improperly denied, no amount of compensation could provide a sufficient remedy. Given this risk of irreparable harm, the limited burden on Defendants, the public's interest in those who are entitled to vote being able to exercise that right, and the time constraint that limited the Court's ability to fully consider the novel legal issues presented, the Court ultimately granted Plaintiffs' motion for an emergency TRO in part, and made four general rulings. First, it denied Plaintiffs' request to prohibit Ms. Bowling from appearing or serving as the presiding election judge. [Dkt. 14 at 1-2]. Second, it granted Plaintiffs' request to prohibit "all election judges, clerks, workers, volunteers, or watchers at the John Paul Davis Community Center from requesting or ordering any voters to publicly recite their addresses before allowing them to vote."⁴ Id. at 2. Third, it granted Plaintiffs' request to prohibit all election judges, clerks, workers, volunteers, or watchers at the Community Center from: (1) positioning themselves near voters who are marking their ballots such that they can view voters' selections; (2) refusing to assist any voters in inserting or scanning their completed ballot into the appropriate voting machine; and (3) turning away voters who are duly eligible to vote. Id. Fourth, the Court ordered "County Clerk Laurie Leister to send notice of this order to all affected election judges, clerks, workers, volunteers, and watchers, and to fully implement this order, no later than 7:00 a.m. Central Time on November 8, 2022." Id. at 3. Critical to the present motion, the Court expressly emphasized that it did not make any findings of fact before entering this TRO, and that the TRO was to expire on November 9, 2022. Id. at 1, 3.

Over a month after Election Day, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint. [Dkt. 32]. In this Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs, for the first time, notify the Court that Defendants did not comply with the November 7th TRO. Plaintiffs apparently sent multiple emails and telephone messages to Defendants on Election Day asking them to send the required noticed, but Defendants did not oblige. Id. at 22. The Amended Complaint also updates the Court that Ms. Daye voted without issue on Election Day. Id. at 18.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) challenges a court's subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A district court must dismiss a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction "when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). "When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits." Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (citing Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam)). "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs' claims are moot.

"The doctrine of mootness arises from Article III of the Constitution, which...