League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Abbott

604 F.Supp.3d 463

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Greg ABBOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, et al., Defendants.

Voto Latino, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.John Scott, in his official capacity as Texas Secretary of State, et al., Defendants.

Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas House of Representatives, Plaintiff,

v.State of Texas, et al., Defendants.

Texas State Conference of the NAACP, Plaintiff,

v.Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, et al., Defendants.

Fair Maps Texas Action Committee, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, et al., Defendants.

United States of America, Plaintiff,

v.State of Texas, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:21-CV-259-DCG-JES-JVB [Lead Case]

No. 1:21-CV-965-RP-JES-JVB [Consolidated Case]

No. 1:21-CV-988-RP-JES-JVB [Consolidated Case]

No. 1:21-CV-1006-RP-JES-JVB [Consolidated Case]

No. 1:21-CV-1038-RP-JES-JVB [Consolidated Case]

No. 3:21-CV-299-DCG-JES-JVB [Consolidated Case]

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division.

Signed May 23, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

DAVID C. GUADERRAMA, Jeffrey V. Brown, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, Jerry E. Smith, United States Circuit Judge

CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND...479

A. Scope of This Order...479

B. Procedural History...480

II. JURISDICTION...482

A. Standing...482

1. Third-Party Standing...482

a) Organizational Standing...483

b) Associational Standing...484

c) Conclusion on Third-Party Standing...488

2. Individual Standing...489

B. Sovereign Immunity...492

III. MERITS OF THE CLAIMS...492

A. Predicate VRA Issues...492

1. Private Cause of Action...492

2. Application to Redistricting...492

3. The Role of Intent...492

B. Section2 Vote Dilution ( Gingles )...493

1. Governing Law...494

2. Claims...496

a) MALC...496

b) NAACP...500

c) Fair Maps...501

d) The United States...502

(i) CD 23...502

(ii) New Harris County CD...504

(iii) HD 31...505

(iv) HD 118...506

(v) New West Texas HD...506

C. Intentional Vote Dilution (Equal Protection)...507

1. Discriminatory Effect...507

2. Discriminatory Intent...507

D. Racial Gerrymandering...509

E. Malapportionment...510

IV. CONCLUSION...511

I. BACKGROUND

A. Scope of This Order

Before the Court are five motions to dismiss—Dkts. 22, 80, 82, 111, and 181—brought by Defendants in five consolidated actions: (1) Voto Latino v. Scott , No. 1:21-CV-965 (W.D. Tex.); (2) MALC v. Texas , No. 1:21-CV-988 (W.D. Tex.); (3) Texas State Conference of the NAACP v. Abbott , No. 1:21-CV-1006 (W.D. Tex.); (4) Fair Maps Texas Action Committee v. Abbott , No. 1:21-CV-1038 (W.D. Tex.); and (5) United States v. Texas , No. 3:21-cv-233 (W.D. Tex.). Those motions challenge five complaints: (1) Voto Latino's First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 235; (2) MALC's First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 247; (3) NAACP's Complaint, No. 1:21-CV-1006 Dkt. 1; (4) Fair Maps's Complaint, No. 1:21-CV-1038 Dkt. 1; and (5) the United States’ Complaint, No. 3:21-cv-233 Dkt. 1. The Court addresses these motions together because they raise common questions.

Similar motions to dismiss—Dkts. 225, 233, 286, 287, and 290—are also pending before the Court. The Court will address those motions in a future order. Moreover, Defendants have supplemented their motions to dismiss in Voto Latino and MALC. Dkts. 288, 289. Those Plaintiffs will be permitted to amend their complaints within fourteen days of this order, as the Court will explain. Insofar as those motions raise objections not mooted by future amendments or this order, the Court also will address them in a future order.

B. Procedural History

These suits are five components of a larger action consolidated before this three-judge court. The first case was filed on October 18, 2021, by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), along with other organizations. Dkt. 1. The LULAC plaintiffs are individual voters and a coalition of organizations that seek an injunction against the maps for State House, State Senate, Congress, and the State Board of Education. Dkt. 1. The LULAC plaintiffs maintain that the newly enacted plans would violate their civil rights by unlawfully diluting the voting strength of the Hispanic electorate. Dkt. 1. Two days later, because the suit challenges the apportionment of congressional and state legislative districts, a three-judge court was convened in LULAC under 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b). Dkt. 3.

On November 19, the Court issued an order consolidating LULAC with six additional cases.¹ Dkt. 16. Meanwhile, on November 15, Texas filed its first motion to dismiss the LULAC plaintiffs, in part reasoning that Section 2 of the VRA does not confer a private cause of action. Dkt. 12 at 16. Then, on November 19, Texas moved to dismiss another group of plaintiffs, including the organization Voto Latino, again contending in part that Section 2 of the VRA does not confer a private cause of action. Dkt. 22 at 1.

The Brooks plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction as to SD 10 on November 24. Dkt. 39. The motion contended that the legislature unlawfully broke up a minority crossover district. Id. at 3–5. Texas moved to dismiss the Brooks plaintiffs’ claims on November 29, maintaining that the complaint neither alleged facts sufficient to show the legislature's discriminatory intent, Dkt. 43 at 10–13, nor stated a disparate-impact claim, id. at 2.

On November 30, the United States submitted a Statement of Interest under 28 U.S.C. § 517, expressing its desire to support the availability of a private cause of action to enforce Section 2 of the VRA. Dkt. 46 at 1. On December 3, this Court partially denied Texas's motion to dismiss the LULAC plaintiffs for want of a private cause of action, concluding that, under current caselaw, Section 2 includes a private right of action. Dkt. 58 at 1–2.

The Court dismissed the complaint of another plaintiff, Damon Wilson, on December 3, 2021, for lack of standing. Dkt. 63 at 1–3. Wilson tried to amend his complaint on December 13. Dkt. 86. Because he failed to request the Court's leave before filing an amended complaint, and because he would not have been able to establish a concrete injury-in-fact, the Court struck the amendment and dismissed his action on February 8, 2022. Dkt. 187 at 5.

Texas moved to dismiss two more complaints, those of the MALC and NAACP plaintiffs, on December 9. Dkts. 80, 82. The next day, the Court consolidated United States v. Texas , No. 3:21-CV-299 (W.D. Tex.), with the present case. Dkt. 83. On December 15, the court consolidated Fischer v. Abbott , No. 3:21-CV-306 (W.D. Tex.), with LULAC . Dkt. 92.

After receiving proposed scheduling orders from the parties, the Court set the scheduling order for the consolidated cases on December 17. Dkt. 96. A final trial on the merits was set for September 27, 2022. Dkt. 96 at 4. The scheduling order was amended on December 27, 2021, with the trial date changed to September 28, 2022. Dkt. 109.

Defendants moved to dismiss the United States’ complaint on December 27, 2021. Dkt 111. The Court denied Texas's motion to dismiss the Brooks plaintiffs’ complaint on January 18, holding that they had pleaded plausible discriminatory-effects and discriminatory-intent claims. Dkt. 144. Defendants moved to dismiss Fair Maps's complaint on February 5, 2022. Dkt. 181.

On January 11, 2022, the Court allowed four Congresspersons, led by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, to permissively intervene as plaintiffs. Dkt. 132. Two days later, the Court consolidated Escobar v. Abbott , No. 3:22-CV-22 (W.D. Tex.) with LULAC . Dkt. 137.

On February 1, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in a brief order. Dkt. 176 at 3. The Court issued that order promptly to permit the March 1, 2022, primary to be conducted on schedule as designated by statute. The Court followed up with a memorandum opinion explaining the reasons for denying the preliminary injunction on May 4, 2022. Dkt. 258.

Defendants next moved to dismiss the complaints of Fischer, Dkt. 204, and the Intervenor-Plaintiffs, Dkt. 205, on March 14, 2022. Those plaintiffs amended their complaints on April 6, 2022, Dkt. 217, and March 28, 2022, Dkt. 209, respectively. The Court mooted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dkts. 204, 205, in text orders, after reading the amended complaints.

Defendants filed their next motions to dismiss in mid-April. Those motions applied to Escobar , Dkt. 223, the Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 225, and Fischer's First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 233. Plaintiffs then proposed amendments to their complaints, which the Court permitted. Those proceedings led to the filing of the LULAC Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. 237, the Brooks Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 240, the Voto Latino Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 235, and MALC's First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 247.

The Court concluded that the motions to dismiss in Escobar and LULAC were mooted by the amendments. But that wasn't true of those in MALC or Voto Latino , particularly in light of the MALC parties’ agreement that "the pending motion to dismiss should not be treated as moot and that Defendants have an opportunity to file supplements to those motions to dismiss should they feel it necessary." Dkt. 226 at 2. Accordingly, the Court decides that the outstanding motions to dismiss in Voto Latino , Dkt. 22, MALC , Dkt. 80, NAACP , Dkt. 82, United States , Dkt. 111, and Fair Maps , Dkt. 181, are ripe for adjudication.

II. JURISDICTION

A. Standing

The Court begins, as it must, with standing. Ramming v. United States , 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). Standing is a constitutional prerequisite for this Court's jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must show (1) an "injury-in-fact," (2) a "causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of," and (3) a...