OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Texas v. United States

Case Information

Date Filed: July 19, 2011
State: Texas
Issue: Redistricting
Courts that Heard this Case: United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Case 1:11-cv-01303); United States Supreme Court (Case 12-496); United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Case 14-5151)

Issue:

Whether Texas' Recently Enacted Redistricting Plans Violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Status:

Trial commenced 1/17/12. Post-trial briefs filed 2/6/12 and 2/7/12. Opinion issued 8/28/12. Notice of appeal to U.S. Supreme Court filed 8/31/12. Jurisdictional statement filed 10/19/12. Mexican-American Legislative Caucus' Motion to Affirm filed 12/6/12. United States' Motion to Affirm in Part filed 12/7/12. Davis' Motion to Affirm filed 12/7/12. Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force's Motion to Affirm filed 12/7/12. Texas' Reply Brief filed 12/13/12. Judgment Vacated and Remanded in light of Shelby County v. Holder filed 6/27/13. Memorandum and Order of Dismissal filed 12/3/13. Order Dissolving Three-Judge District Court on 1/22/14. Order filed 6/18/14. Notice of Appeal filed 6/23/14. Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay filed 6/23/14. Order granting Motion to stay filed 6/24/14. Texas' opening Court of Appeals brief filed 12/15/14. Joint appendix filed 12/15/14. Joint Appellee Brief filed 1/14/15. Appellant Reply Brief filed 1/28/15. Oral argument heard 4/21/15. Opinion affirming district court filed 8/18/15.

See also Davis v. Perry and Perez v. Texas

District Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents

Supreme Court Documents

 

 

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral Fix We Really Need

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral College winner should be the majority choice in each state that counts towards that Electoral College victory.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Gerrymandering Is Headed Back to the Supreme Court

Professor Edward Foley was requoted in Mother Jones about a gerrymandering case in Wisconsin on its way to the Supreme Court. Other legal actions on partisan gerrymandering in Maryland and in North Carolina may be bound for the Supreme Court as well.

While previous Supreme Court cases have noted that partisan gerrymanders are “incompatible with democratic principles,” The New York Times originally reported, the court has never officially struck a case down. While it remains unseen how the Supreme Court will rule in the upcoming cases, a 2004 ruling from a previous gerrymandering case could play a pivotal role in how the court stands in the future. 

“The ordered working of our Republic, and of the democratic process, depends on a sense of decorum and restraint in all branches of government, and in the citizenry itself,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in 2004. Kennedy’s statement is “the most important line” in the decision, Foley told The New York Times, adding,  “He’s going to look at what’s going on in North Carolina as the complete absence of that. I think that helps the plaintiffs in any of these cases.”


 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a gerrymandering case involving Wisconsin state legislative districts. The court also granted a request by the state to temporarily block the lower court\'s decision until the appeal is resolved. The case is Gill v. Whitford.

more info & analysis...