Texas v. United States

887 F.Supp.2d 133

State of TEXAS, Plaintiff,

v. UNITED STATES of America, and Eric H. Holder, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendants,andWendy Davis, et al., Intervenor–Defendants.

Civil Action No. 11–1303 (TBG–RMC–BAH).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Aug. 28, 2012.

Angela Veronica Colmenero, David John Schenck, Matthew Hamilton Frederick, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, Adam K. Mortara, Ashley C. Keller, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Chicago, IL, John M. Hughes, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.

Bryan L. Sells, Daniel J. Freeman, Janie Allison Sitton, Michelle Andrea McLeod, Olimpia E. Michel, Thornton Russell Nobile, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

John M. Devaney, Marc Erik Elias, Perkins Coie, LLP, Mark A. Posner, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, Karen M. Soares, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Washington, DC, Joseph Gerald Hebert, Alexandria, VA, Chad W. Dunn, Brazil & Dunn, Houston, TX, Joaquin Avila, Law Office of Joaquin G. Avila, Kevin J. Hamilton, Perkins Coie, LLP, Seattle, WA, Jose Garza, Law Office of Jose Garza, Nina Perales, Karolina J. Lyznik, Marisa Bono, Rebecca McNeill Couto, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., San Antonio, TX, Renea Hicks, Law Offices of Max Renea Hicks, Gary L. Bledsoe, Law Office of Gary L. Bledsoe and Associates, Robert Stephen Notzon, Austin, TX, Jorge Martin Castillo, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, NY, Allison Jean Riggs, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, Durham, NC, for Intervenor–Defendants.

Before GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge, COLLYER and HOWELL, District Judges.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge:

+-----------------+
¦Table of Contents¦
+-----------------¦
¦                 ¦
+-----------------+

+---------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Background                                ¦138 ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦Principles of Section 5 Analysis          ¦139 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦A.¦Retrogression                  ¦139 ¦
+------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Texas's Burden of Proof             ¦140 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Election Analysis Methodologies     ¦141 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦Types of Elections                ¦141 ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦Election Analysis Sample Sets     ¦143 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Statewide Retrogression Analysis    ¦144 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦4.¦Coalition and Crossover Districts   ¦147 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦Section 5 Analysis                ¦147 ¦
+---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦Standard of Proof                 ¦149 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦B.¦Discriminatory Intent          ¦151 ¦
+------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
+----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦Congressional Plan                                     ¦152   ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A. ¦Retrogression in the Congressional Plan¦152 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦   ¦1.¦Congressional District 27                 ¦153  ¦
+----+---+--+------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦    ¦   ¦2.¦Congressional District 23                 ¦154  ¦
+----+---+--+------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦    ¦   ¦3.¦Retrogression with New Congressional Seats¦156  ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦B. ¦Discriminatory Intent in the Congressional Plan¦159  ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦IV.¦State Senate Plan                         ¦162 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦Retrogression in the Senate Plan        ¦162  ¦
+---+--+----------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦B.¦Discriminatory Intent in the Senate Plan¦163  ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+
¦  ¦                            ¦   ¦
+--+----------------------------+---¦
¦V.¦State House Plan            ¦166¦
+-----------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.¦Retrogression in the State House Plan ¦166 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Alleged Retrogressive Districts     ¦167 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦State House District 33                ¦167  ¦
+---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦State House District 35                ¦167  ¦
+---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦c.¦State House District 41                ¦169  ¦
+---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦d.¦State House District 117               ¦170  ¦
+---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦e.¦State House District 149               ¦172  ¦
+---+---+--+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦f.¦State House Districts 26, 106, and 144 ¦175  ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Alleged New Ability Districts       ¦175 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦B. ¦Discriminatory Intent in the State House Plan¦177  ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦VI.¦Conclusion                                ¦178 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+

The latest Census reports that since 2000 the population of Texas grew by over four million. This dramatic increase required the Texas legislature to create new voting districts for the four seats added to the State's congressional delegation, U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3; id. amend. XIV, § 2, and draw new boundaries for the state and congressional voting districts to comply with the mandate of one-person, one-vote, see Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 488 n. 2, 123 S.Ct. 2498, 156 L.Ed.2d 428 (2003).

Because Texas is a covered jurisdiction under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965(VRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1973, the Attorney General of the United States or a three-judge panel of this Court must approve, or “preclear,” any redistricting plan before it can take effect. Id.§ 1973c(a). Texas chose not to seek administrative preclearance and instead seeks from this Court a declaratory judgment that its redistricting plans will neither have “the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or [language minority group].” Id. The United States opposes preclearance of the redistricting plans for Texas's congressional delegation and the State House of Representatives, but has no quarrel with the plan for the Texas Senate. Seven Intervenors raise a variety of challenges that collectively encompass all three plans. We conclude that Texas has failed to show that any of the redistricting plans merits preclearance.¹

I. Background

On July 19, 2011, Texas filed a complaint in this Court seeking a declaratory judgment that its newly enacted redistricting plans for the U.S. House of Representatives (Plan C185 or Congressional Plan), the Texas House of Representatives (Plan H283 or House Plan), and the Texas Senate (Plan S148 or Senate Plan) comply with section 5 of the VRA. This Court has been properly convened as a three-judge court, 28 U.S.C. § 2284; 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(a), and we took jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1973c and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a)(2), 2201. After the United States and several Intervenors ² filed answers, Texas moved for summary judgmentfor all three plans on September 14, 2011. We heard argument on the motion on November 2, 2011, and issued an order denying summary judgment on November 8, 2011, 2011 WL 5402888. Our memorandum opinion followed on December 22, 2011.

The same three redistricting plans have been challenged under section 2 of the VRA before a three-judge district court in the Western District of Texas. The State's population growth and the addition of four seats to its congressional delegation make it impossible for Texas to conduct elections using the district boundaries...