Last Updated: April 29, 2013 at 10:28 AM
LULAC v. Harris County
Case Information
Date Filed: October 11, 2012
State: Texas
Issues: Voter Registration, Voting Rights Act
Current Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case 4:12-cv-03035)
Issue:
Whether Harris County's rejection of voter registrations solely because the voter's listed address is a commercial address is proper under the Voting Rights Act and a previous consent decree.
Status:
Complaint filed 10/11/12. Answer filed 12/18/12.
District Court Documents
- Complaint
(filed 10/11/12) - Order for Conference and Disclosure (filed 10/12/12)
- Unopposed Application for a District Court of Three Judges (filed 10/15/12)
- Order Granting District Court of Three Judges (filed 10/15/12)
- Certificate of Interested Parties (filed 10/25/12)
- Certificate of Interested Parties (filed 12/18/12)
- Answer (filed 12/18/12)
- Joint Discovery Report (filed 1/29/13)
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order (filed 2/8/13)
- Plaintiffs' Rule 26 Initial Disclosures (filed 2/15/13)
- Defendant's Initial Disclosures (filed 2/26/13)
- Motion for Extension of Time on Expert Disclosures (filed 3/19/13)
- Agreed Motion to Extend Deadlines (filed 3/25/13)
- Amended Scheduling Order (filed 4/9/13)
- Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline (filed 4/26/13)
PDF files in this site require
Commentary
Silence of the Lambs
Dale A. Oesterle
With the election of 2012 now well over and past the second inauguration of the incumbent President, the historical analysis of the events has begun and will last as long as written human history lasts. An interesting tidbit may already be lost to the majesty of the moment.
The voters of three very different states, Alaska, New Hampshire, and Ohio, all had an opportunity to call state constitutional conventions. In each state the voters turned the opportunity down by very similar votes, 68%, 64% and 68% respectively against.
more commentary...