True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
-
Upload
true-the-vote -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
1/24
1
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
______________________________________
)THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:13-CV-00193
)
STATE OF TEXAS and JOHN STEEN, )
in his official capacity as Secretary of State, )
STEVE MCCRAW, in his official capacity )
as Director of the Texas Department of Public )Safety, )
Defendants. )
______________________________________ )
MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF TRUE THE VOTE
AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
True the Vote (Proposed Intervener) respectfully moves this Court for leave to
intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b).1
As grounds
therefore, Proposed Intervener states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION.
In this case, Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin the State of Texas from continuing to
enforce Senate Bill 14, the states requirement that registered voters establish they are
who they say they are before they cast a ballot by means of a variety of state approved
identification documents. Plaintiff seeks this relief on the grounds that the requirement that
1 A proposed Answer in Intervention is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 1 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
2/24
2
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
voters establish identity through various documents violates Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1973), Section 12(d) of the Voting Rights Act, and violates
rights contained in the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment.
Proposed Intervener respectfully submits that Plaintiff is wrong and that Plaintiff
lacks standing to assert any constitutional claims. Plaintiff also notably seeks to re-
impose federal mandates on the entire state of Texas which the Supreme Court recently
invalidated as unconstitutional in Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) under
Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act.
Again, the Plaintiff is attempting to obtain a remedy which this Court does not
have the jurisdiction to grant. This Court does not have the authority to impose statewide
mandates on Texas to submit all future state, county and local election law changes to the
Plaintiff for approval under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. Even if this Court were
to agree that SB 14 violates federal law or is unconstitutional, this Court lacks power to
impose new preclearance requirements on Texas that are permanent, affect counties and
local governments, and most of all, are wholly unrelated to SB 14. It is undisputed that
this Court may impose preclearance mandates on Defendants for any future voting
change relating to voter identification documents, if liability is found, but not for all
future Texas election law changes, and certainly not for all voting changes made by the
thousands of sub-jurisdictions across Texas.
Proposed Intervener seeks to enter this lawsuit in order to demonstrate that SB 14
is consistent with federal law, and that any scheme to recapture Texas under the
preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act must be weighed by this Court, sitting
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 2 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
3/24
3
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
as a court in equity, against the Plaintiffs history of court sanctions and abusive conduct
in the preclearance process over the last two decades. Proposed Intervener has a long
history of publically defending SB 14 and played a significant role in the passage of the
statute. Intervention will ensure that the organizational interests and interests of the
members and volunteers of True the Vote are adequately protected and preserved.
II. BACKGROUND.
Plaintiff filed its Complaint on August 22, 2013. In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges
that the defendants are violating various federal statutes and asks this Court to declare
that Texas enacted the voter identification requirement of SB 14 because Texas elected
officials sought to discriminate against black and Hispanics. Plaintiff asks this Court to
declare that SB 14 violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment, and provisions of
the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiff has asked this Court, as a remedy, to give Plaintiff the
power to approve or reject all voting changes in Texas.
III. PROPOSED INTERVENER TRUE THE VOTE
True the Vote is a non-profit organization organized and headquartered in
Houston, Texas, that seeks to restore truth, faith, and integrity to local, state, and federal
elections. True the Vote seeks to intervene in this action in its individual, organizational
capacity.
As an integral part of its public interest mission to ensure the integrity of the
nations electoral system,2
Proposed Intervener True the Vote conducts a wide variety of
2See True the Vote Mission Statement, available at http://truethevote.org/about/.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 3 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
4/24
4
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
activities to promote election integrity in Texas. It trains poll watchers who monitor
elections for compliance with state and federal law. The monitors also identify and
catalog possible instances of voting irregularities or fraud in the polling place, including
potential voter impersonation or failure of election officials to verify the identity of
voters. True the Vote also obtains and examines official lists of eligible voters and other
voter registration data from states, counties, and localities across the United States,
including the State of Texas, to carry out its various programs. As part of this program,
True the Vote has identified significant numbers of ineligible voters who have been
registered to vote in Texas. These include registered voters who profess on voter
registration forms obtained by True the Vote not to be United States citizens.3
True the Vote also trains volunteers to review official lists of eligible voters and
voter registration data and to compare these lists and data to other publically available
data to identify possible inaccuracies and deficiencies. Registrations that appear to be
duplicates or registrations of persons who are deceased, have relocated, or otherwise are
ineligible to vote in a particular jurisdiction are flagged and citizen complaints are filed
with the appropriate elections officials. This particular program is an integral part of
True the Votes public interest mission. The program has demonstrated that vast
numbers of improper voter registrations remain on rolls across Texas, including voters
who have died. This circumstance supports the need for SB 14.
3 These improper registrations by non-citizens constitute criminal violations of federal law. True
the Vote has brought some of these false registrations to the attention of the Plaintiff, yet
Plaintiff has seemingly taken no action.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 4 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
5/24
5
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
If Texas is prevented from validating the identity of voters attempting to vote, then
the significant efforts to ensure that only eligible voters are participating in Texas
elections is impaired.
True the Vote has made multiple criminal referrals to law enforcement agencies
about ineligible voters who have appeared to register to vote, or have actually voted,
including referrals to the Plaintiff. Rooting out and aiding the prosecution of election
fraud is a core mission of True the Vote.
Failure to require photo identification impairs the ability of prosecutors to
prosecute these voter fraud cases. In states without photo identification requirements, the
accused can simply claim the person who voted under their name was not them. In states
with photo identification requirements, the prosecutor can inform the fact-finder of the
states photo identification requirement, thus effectively foreclosing a defendants false
defense that the actual person who engaged in illegal conduct was someone else. A photo
identification law deters voter fraud, but also helps prosecutors obtain convictions when
it occurs.
If successful, Plaintiffs attempt to invalidate SB 14 will impair the ability of True
the Vote to carry out its public interest mission of promoting election integrity in Texas.
IV. MATTER OF RIGHT
To intervene of right under Rule 24(a)(2), an applicant must meet the following
requirements:
(1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant
must have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the
subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 5 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
6/24
6
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his
ability to protect that interest; (4) the applicant's interest must be
inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit.
New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, 463 (5th
Cir.) (en banc) (quoting International Tank Terminals, Ltd. v. M/V Acadia Forest,
579 F.2d 964, 967 (5th Cir. 1978)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1019, 105 S. Ct. 434, 83
L. Ed. 2d 360 (1984). Failure to satisfy any one requirement precludes
intervention of right. Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1205 (5th Cir. 1994);
Kneeland v. NCAA, 806 F.2d 1285, 1287 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 817,
108 S. Ct. 72, 98 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1987). Proposed Interveners easily meet these
criteria. Nonetheless, "the inquiry under subsection (a)(2) is a flexible one, which
focuses on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding each application.
[and] intervention of right must be measured by a practical rather than technical
yardstick." Texas E. Transmission Corp., 923 F.2d at 413 (quoting United States v.
Allegheny-Ludlum Indus., Inc., 517 F.2d 826, 841 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied,
425 U.S. 944, 944, 96 S. Ct. 1684, 1684, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 187 (1976)). Allowing
parties to intervene serves the interests of judicial efficiency, since intervention
allows courts to resolve related disputes in a single action. See Stallworth v.
Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 265 (5th Cir. 1997).
A. Intervention is Timely.
Plaintiff filed its Complaint on August 22, 2013. This motion to intervene is being
submitted a mere month after Plaintiff initiated this action. Accordingly, there is no
delay and hence no prejudice to the existing parties. Stallworth, 558 F.2d at 262.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 6 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
7/24
7
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
(intervention request filed after one month was timely); In re Babcock & Wilcox., 2001
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23378 (E.D. La.) (five month delay not untimely); Poynor v.
Chesapeake Energy Ltd. Pship (In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig.), 570 F.3d 244, (5th Cir.
Tex. 2009) (two year delay not untimely). However, Proposed Intervenerwouldbe
prejudiced if it is not allowed to intervene, as they would be left without a reasonable
opportunity to protect their interests. Stallworth, 558 F.2d at 264-65.
B. Proposed Interveners Have a Direct and Protectable Interest.
If Texas is unable to verify the identity of proposed voters and if Texas and all
sub-jurisdictions within Texas are forced to seek Plaintiffs approval before making any
changes to laws affecting elections, True the Votes members and volunteers
confidence in the integrity of the election process will be undermined. Moreover, True
the Votes attempts to ensure that only eligible voters are casting ballots in Texas will be
impaired.
The organizational injury True the Vote may suffer is direct and protectable. An
independent basis for organizational standing exists when a defendants conduct makes it
difficult or impossible for the organization to fulfill one of its essential purposes or goals.
See generally Voting for Am., Inc. v. Andrade, 888 F. Supp. 2d 816, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 108303, 2012 WL 3155566 (S.D. Tex. 2012) Furthermore, an organization has
standing to sue on its own behalf if it suffered an injury in fact that was fairly . . .
trace[able] to the challenged action. Louisiana ACORN Fair Hous. v. LeBlanc, 211 F.3d
298 (5th Cir. 2000), citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
Thus, True the Vote will show that the enjoining of Texas to stop the enforcement of
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 7 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
8/24
8
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
SB14 will be an injury-in-fact, that that injury will be caused by Plaintiff, and that the
requested relief will redress that injury. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560; Ass'n for Retarded
Citizens of Dallas v. Dallas County Mental Health & Mental Retardation Ctr. Bd. of
Trustees, 19 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 1994). The challenged acts will frustrate and hamper
its ability to engage in its mission. Voting for Am., Inc. v. Andrade, 888 F. Supp. 2d 816,
(S.D. Tex. 2012), citing Havens v. Coleman, 455 US 363, 379 (1982) (illegal acts impair
its ability to engage in its projects by forcing the organization to divert resources to
counteract those illegal acts), and those acts will be a drain on [True the Votes]
resources. Cleburne Living Ctr. v. Cleburne, 726 F.2d 191, 204 (5th Cir. Tex. 1984).
True the Vote may intervene on behalf of its members and volunteers to protect
their interest in election integrity and to combat vote dilution because such an action is
core to True the Votes public interest mission. Havens, 455 U.S. at 379. As the Carter-
Baker Report observed, the electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no
safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Crawford,
v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 197 (2008).
Furthermore, True the Votes members and volunteers also have a direct and
protectable interest in ensuring their votes are not diluted as a result of Plaintiffs actions.
Vote dilution as directly related to voting, the most basic of political rights, is
sufficiently concrete and specific. FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 25 (1998). That injury is
both provable and traceable to the Plaintiffs actions.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 8 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
9/24
9
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
C. The Disposition in This Case Will Directly Affect Proposed
Intervener
As described above in Sections III and IV.B., an unfavorable disposition in this
action will directly harm True the Vote. An adverse Court ruling, either in the liability or
the remedial phase of this case, will have a direct impact on True the Vote, and Proposed
Intervener therefore has a direct, substantial and legally protected interest in the subject
matter of this litigation. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co.,
732 F.2d 452, 452 (5th Cir. La. 1984).
D. Adequacy of Representation.
The burden under this prong has been described as minimal, as a party seeking
to intervene needs to show only that representation of his interest may be inadequate.
Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972). Defendants
representation is inadequate to protect Proposed Interveners interest for two reasons.
First, in the previous case concerning SB 14, Tex. v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C.
2012), Plaintiff conducted discovery about True the Votes political and legislative
activities, ostensibly to demonstrate that SB 14 was enacted by the Texas Legislature
with an impermissible intent. Second, the Defendants do not possess the wellspring of
data about improper voter registrations throughout Texas and other irregularities in the
conduct of elections across Texas.
During litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
regarding SB 14, Plaintiffs engaged in intrusive discovery regarding True the Votes
constitutionally protected political speech and legislative activities, particularly
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 9 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
10/24
10
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
pertaining to the enactment of SB 14. In that case, the United States pried into the
Proposed Interveners First Amendment rights of free association, rights to petition for
redress and rights of political speech throughout depositions. This probe extended even
to discussions between True the Vote members and Texas legislators. No objections
were made to these inquiries by the Defendants in this case (who were also Plaintiffs in
Tex. v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2012), the Section 5 case Texas initiated to
obtain preclearance of SB14). Plaintiffs inquiries in the previous case were likely made
because Plaintiff improperly considered constitutionally protected activities by True the
Vote to be relevant to Plaintiffs allegation that SB 14 was enacted with a racially
discriminatory purpose. Plaintiff has again made the allegation that SB 14 was enacted
with a racially discriminatory purpose, and True the Votes interest in defending its
constitutionally protected activities, and rebutting Plaintiffs possible false inferences as
to the intent of SB 14 may again be inadequately represented by the Defendant.
Second, in this case, Texas does not possess the wellspring of data which True the
Vote has accumulated about ineligible voter registrations on the rolls in Texas and how
these statewide problems with voter registrations provided a motivation for enactment of
SB 14 other than the racially infused motivation Plaintiff alleges. 4 Indeed, Texas
introduced no evidence in the previous case demonstrating that voter rolls in Texas are
infested with ineligible, dead and duplicate voters. This is understandable, and cleanly
4 In fact, the District Court in the District of Columbia placed essentially no weight whatsoever
on data offered by Texas relating to other matters at issue. See Tex. v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d
113, 127-129, (D.D.C. 2012), disregarding all expert statistical data by Texas. No data wasoffered by Texas regarding corrupted voter rolls or data about election irregularities derived from
True the Vote election monitoring in the previous case.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 10 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
11/24
11
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
demonstrates the inadequacy of Defendants representation in the case before this Court.
Naturally, Defendants are severely impaired in their ability to assert defenses regarding
corrupted voter rolls, if not foreclosed, because doing so may constitute admissions that
Defendants, or counties within Texas, are failing to comply with Section 8 of the
National Voter Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6). If significant problems exist
with voter registration rolls in Texas, Defendants are unlikely to say so because the
Plaintiff has the power to sue Texas for failure to conduct adequate list maintenance.
Nevertheless, inadequately maintained voter rolls provide a key purpose for enactment of
SB 14 and the citizens of Texas have no advocate positioned to provide this Court with
the data relating to faulty election administration True the Vote has accumulated, faulty
administration that SB 14 would mitigate.
Moreover, Defendants cannot adequately represent the many local governments
and interests which would be affected by an overbroad reading of Section 3 of the Voting
Rights Act by this Court. The Plaintiff seeks to capture every single entity in the State of
Texas for renewed preclearance obligations for every conceivable election law change,
not just the voter identification requirements of SB 14. Renewed preclearance
obligations would impose enormous costs on entities inadequately represented by the
Defendants. Moreover, the damage to federalism by such an overbroad reading of
Section 3 would not stop merely at the damage done to Defendants, but would extend
across the state. Plaintiffs previous exercise of preclearance powers over these smaller
governmental entities in Texas has been abusive and far beyond the scope of federal law.
Proposed Intervener has a broad membership and volunteer base comprised of taxpayers
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 11 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
12/24
12
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
from these local governmental units which currently have no interests represented in this
case. True the Vote represents the interests of volunteers and members in small
communities in Texas who do not wish the outcome of this case to reassert federal power
over all local election matters, a position the Defendants inadequately represent as
statewide officials.
V. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION SHOULD
BE GRANTED.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1) governs permissive intervention and provides:
On timely motion, the Court may permit anyone to intervene who: (A) isgiven a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a claim
or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or
fact.
As the Fifth Circuit has declared that permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
24(b) requires a consideration of whether the intervenors' interests are adequately
represented by other parties" and whether they "will significantly contribute to full
development of the underlying factual issues in the suit." New Orleans Public Service,
Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, (5th Cir. La. 1984). As demonstrated
above, this test is satisfied here.
Rule 24(b)(3) also requires the Court to consider whether permissive intervention
will cause undue delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the existing parties.
As described above, in this instance no prejudice or delay will result from intervention.
Proposed Interveners intend to comply with the schedule already in place in this matter,
and their participation will not affect the scheduling of this case in any way. Thus, at a
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 12 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
13/24
13
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
minimum, Proposed Interveners respectfully request that they be granted permissive
intervention.
This is a cause of action and a remedy which the United States has no standing to
seek. Constitutional violations must be redressed by aggrieved individuals, not the
Voting Section of the Department of Justice.
VII. CONCLUSION.
For the forgoing reasons, Proposed Intervener respectfully requests that this Court
grant them leave to intervene in this action.
Dated: September 25, 2013 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joseph M. Nixon___________
Joseph M. Nixon attorney-in-charge
State Bar No. 15244899
James E. (Trey) Trainor, III
State Bar No. 24042052
BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS, L.L.P.
1300 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2500Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 623-0887
Facsimile: (713) 960-1527
Email: [email protected]
J. Christian Adams
South Carolina Bar No. 7136
ELECTION LAW CENTER, PLLC300 N. Washington Street
Suite 405
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Telephone: (703) 963-8611
Email: [email protected]
(Pro Hac Vice application to be filed)
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 13 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
14/24
14
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I did serve a copy of this Motion for Intervention of True the
Vote and Memorandum in Support on all counsel who have made appearance in this case
and consented to service by electronic means through the Electronic Case Filing system
on this 25th day of September 2013.
/s/ Joseph M. Nixon___________
Joseph M. Nixon
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 14 of 14
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
15/24
1
1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763
Exhibit 1
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 1 of 10
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
16/24
2
1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
______________________________________
)THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:13-CV-00193
)
STATE OF TEXAS and JOHN STEEN, )
in his official capacity as Secretary of State, )
STEVE MCCRAW, in his official capacity )
as Director of the Texas Department of Public )Safety, )
Defendants. )
______________________________________ )
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENER TRUE THE VOTE
Defendant-Intervener True the Vote (Interveners) hereby submits this Answer in
the above-captioned case and state as follows:
ANSWER
1. Admitted, except that the Attorney General of the United States has no
standing to assert constitutional claims under the 14th
or 15th
Amendments as the Plaintiff
may not press a claim which only an aggrieved individual may press. Instead, the
Attorney General may only bring claims under specific statutes which codify
constitutional claims and permit actions pertaining to intentional discrimination which
violates a statute, not the Constitution.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 2 of 10
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
17/24
3
1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Admitted in part, and denied in part. This Court has jurisdiction to hear various
statutory claims, but does not have subject matter jurisdiction to impose various remedies
sought by the Plaintiff, including statewide imposition of federal preclearance obligations
for any jurisdiction other than the Defendant itself. Further, this Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction to impose various remedies sought by the Plaintiff, including
the imposition of federal preclearance obligations for any election law change other than
changes relating to voter identification requirements.
3. Admitted.
PARTIES
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
ALLEGATIONS
8. Admitted, except to the extent that citizens voting age population (CVAP) is the
only demographic metric with any relevance to this case.
9. Admitted, except to the extent that citizens voting age population (CVAP) is the
only demographic metric with any relevance to this case.
10. Admitted.
11. Defendant-Intervener lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the specific
allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny them. To the extent that a response is
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 3 of 10
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
18/24
4
1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763
required, Spanish surname analysis, due to a variety of factors including inter-marriage
across generations, is notoriously unreliable and carries little to no weight in this dispute.
12. Defendant-Intervener lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the specific
allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny them.
13. Denied. To the extent any further response is necessary, economic circumstances
do not give rise to a protected class under the Voting Rights Act.
14. Denied. To the extent any further response is necessary, automobile ownership
does not give rise to a protected class under the Voting Rights Act.
15. Denied. Furthermore, any history of discrimination in Texas is not relevant
evidence for whether or not imposition of federal preclearance obligations may be
imposed by this Court because of the ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612
(2013), which precluded discrimination which was no longer current or pervasive from
the question of whether federal preclearance obligations were appropriate or
constitutional.
Requirements of SB 14
16. Admitted.
17. Admitted.
18. Admitted.
19. Denied.
20. Denied.
21. Denied.
22. Denied.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 4 of 10
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
19/24
5
1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763
23. Admitted.
24. Denied.
25. Denied.
Passage of SB 14 Was Motivated By Discriminatory Intent
26. Denied.
27. Denied, and Plaintiff is alleging that anti-immigrant rhetoric characterized
passage of SB 14 which would relate to valid Texas voters and United States citizens
when Plaintiff more correctly should allege anti-illegal immigration rhetoric. Admitted
in so far as SB 14 is designed to prevent non-citizens from registering and voting in
contravention to laws enforced by the Plaintiff, activity which has occurred in Texas and
which Plaintiff has not prosecuted.
28. Denied.
29. Denied, and the Supreme Court has deemed such evidence of voter fraud as
unimportant and unnecessary for the adoption of prophylactic voter identification
statutes. Moreover, any instance of illegal voting or non-citizen registration constitutes a
serious problem, and Plaintiff is in possession of evidence regarding voter registrations of
non-citizens in Texas.
30. Denied.
31. Denied, except to the extent that the Defendant making no inquiry into any racially
disparate impact is evidence supporting Defendant and demonstrating that no racially
discriminatory intent affected the passage of SB 14.
32. Denied.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 5 of 10
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
20/24
6
1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763
33. Denied.
34. Denied, as the conclusions in the case cited by the Plaintiff has no relevance to the
voting changes in SB 14 now before this Court.
Implementation and Enforcement of SB 14 Will Have a Discriminatory Result
35. Denied.
36. Denied, is so far as substantial is undefined by Plaintiff. Admitted in part that
some will lack identification.
37. Denied.
38. Denied.
39. Denied, and Defendants have been highly responsive, cohesion coefficients among
minority voters far surpasses coefficients by white voters thus rendering polarization
pattern evidence as favorable to Defendants, the recent history of official discrimination
is almost non-existent in Texas and Senate Factor One evidence of outreach and other
activities will be favorable to Defendants, socioeconomic differences among racial
groups are not statistically significant enough to carry any weight and have no relevance
to voting matters, and racial appeals are used primarily in Democratic primaries among
members of various racial minority groups against other racial minority groups to the
degree they have no relevance to SB 14.
40. Denied, and that evidence will demonstrate that SB 14s relationship to existing
election integrity needs is not tenuous, but rather consistent with Supreme Court
precedent on prophylactic measures and demonstrated fraud.
41. Denied.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 6 of 10
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
21/24
7
1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763
42. Denied.
Administrative and Judicial Review of SB 14 Under Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act
43. Denied in so far as SB 14 has been used in Texas, otherwise Admitted.
44. Admitted.
45. Admitted.
46. Admitted.
47. Admitted, except that the District Court gave the dataset little to no weight.
48. Admitted, except that the District Court gave the dataset little to no weight.
49. Defendant-Intervener lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the specific
allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny them.
50. Admitted, except that such objection has no weight or relevance to this case
because the statutory standards were such that Texas bore the burden of proof to
demonstrate a complete absence of disparate impact, a burden and standard of proof
which has no relationship to the burden carried by Plaintiff in this case.
51. Defendant-Intervener lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the specific
allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny them.
52. Admitted.
53. Admitted, in so far as no objection was interposed for discriminatory purpose, the
rest is Denied.
54. Admitted.
55. Admitted, except that such decision has no weight or relevance to this case
because the statutory standards were such that Texas bore the burden of proof to
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 7 of 10
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
22/24
8
1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763
demonstrate a complete absence of disparate impact, a burden and standard of proof
which has no relationship to the burden carried by Plaintiff in this case.
56. Admitted, except that such decision has no weight or relevance to this case
because the statutory standards were such that Texas bore the burden of proof to
demonstrate a complete absence of disparate impact, a burden and standard of proof
which has no relationship to the burden carried by Plaintiff in this case.
57. Admitted, except that such decision has no weight or relevance to this case
because the statutory standards were such that Texas bore the burden of proof to
demonstrate a complete absence of disparate impact, a burden and standard of proof
which has no relationship to the burden carried by Plaintiff in this case.
58. Admitted, except that such decision has no weight or relevance to this case
because the statutory standards were such that Texas bore the burden of proof to
demonstrate a complete absence of disparate impact, a burden and standard of proof
which has no relationship to the burden carried by Plaintiff in this case.
59. Admitted.
60. Admitted.
61. Admitted.
62. Admitted.
63. Admitted.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 8 of 10
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
23/24
9
1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763
The Need for Section 3(c) Relief
64. Denied, in so far as Texas has not done so during any time relevant to whether or
not this Court may impose preclearance obligations on the Defendant as required by
Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013).
65. Denied.
Cause of Action
66. Denied, in so far as a denial has been made.
67. Admitted.
68. Denied.
69. Denied.
70. Denied.
Dated: September 25, 2013 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joseph M. Nixon___________Joseph M. Nixon
State Bar No. 15244899
James E. (Trey) Trainor, III
State Bar No. 24042052
BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS, L.L.P.
1300 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2500
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 623-0887
Facsimile: (713) 960-1527
Email: [email protected]
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 9 of 10
-
7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]
24/24
10
J. Christian Adams
South Carolina Bar No. 7136
ELECTION LAW CENTER, PLLC300 N. Washington Street
Suite 405
Alexandria, Virginia 22314Telephone: (703) 963-8611
Email: [email protected]
(Pro Hac Vice application to be filed)
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 10 of 10