Three-Judge Panel Finds Voting Rights Act and Constitutional Violations in Creation of Texas House of Representatives DistrictsPosted on April 21, 2017, 1:30 pm
A little over a month after ruling that Texas\' Congressional redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Consistution, a three-judge panel similarly ruled (2-1) with regard to the creation of Texas\' state-level House of Representatives districts. The court issued a 171-page order in which it ruled for the state on some claims. The court also made separate findings of fact. The case is Perez v. Abbott.
On remand from the Fifth Circuit, a U.S. District Judge again determined that Texas\' voter ID law was passed with discriminatory purpose in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The case is Veasey v. Abbott.
In an order released late Friday, U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten dismissed a lawsuit filed against Georgia\'s Secretary of State by the advocacy organization Common Cause, which alleged that Georgia unlawfully removed voters from registration lists preceding the 2016 Presidential election. The case is Common Cause v. Kemp.
In a 2-1 decision, a 3-judge district court panel determined that Texas legislators unlawfully drew some Congressional districts as part of the redistricting process. The court found that geographical boundaries of certain districts were the result of racial gerrymandering in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The case is Perez v. Abbott.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in a Virginia redistricting case, sending the case back to the district court to apply the proper standard for determining whether an unconstitutional racial gerrymander has occurred. According to the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional gerrymander can occur even when a redistricting plan follows traditional principles, if race is nevertheless the predominant consideration. The case is Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections.
Election Law at Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law at Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law at Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.