OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Perez v. Texas

Case Information

Date Filed: May 9, 2011
State: Texas
Issues: Redistricting, Vote Dillution
Current Court: US District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case 5:11-cv-00360)

Issue:

Whether Texas' redistricting plan violates the Constitution because it does not make a good faith effort to maintain population equality and treats inmates as residents of the counties in which they are incarcerated.

Status:

District Court adopted interim redistricting plan on 11/26/11. U.S. Supreme Court stayed District Court's order pending oral argument scheduled 1/9/11. Election Scheduling Order filed 3/19/12. Interim plan for 2012 Elections entered 9/7/12. Stay denied by Supreme Court 10/3/12. Order granting motion to dismiss defendants Strauss and Dewhurst filed 11/27/13. Defendants' Motion to Modify Legislative Privilege Order filed 12/6/13. Order denying Motion to Modify Legislative Privilege Order filed 1/8/14. Plaintiffs' Sixth Amended Complaint filed 2/25/14. Defendants' Answer filed 2/28/14. Defendants' Motion for Sanctions filed 4/14/14. United States' Motion to Compel the Production of Legislative Documents filed 4/16/14. Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Sanctions filed 4/16/14. Order granting in part, denying in part Motion to Compel filed 5/6/14. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed 5/14/14. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed 5/14/14. Order denying Motion for Reconsideration filed 5/20/14. Defendants' Second Motion for Sanctions against LULAC filed 5/21/14. Defendants' Motion for Protective filed 5/23/14. Quesada Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery filed 5/27/14. Order granting Motion for Protective Order filed 5/20/14. Task Force and MALC's Motion for Protective Order filed 5/30/14. Order granting Motion to Compel Testimony filed 6/2/14. Order granting in part and denying in part Motion to Compel filed 6/5/14. Order granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss filed 6/17/14. Order denying Motion for Reconsideration filed 6/18/14. Order granting United States' Motion for Judicial Notice in part filed 6/20/14. United States' Motion to Compel the Production of Documents filed 6/23/14. Order that Summary Judgment granted for 15th amendment claims filed 6/23/14. Order granting in part and denying in part Motion to Compel filed 7/914. Order granting in part and denying in party Motion to Exclude filed 7/9/14. Order granting in part and denying in part Motion to Compel filed 7/11/14. Defendants' Motion for Judicial Notice filed 7/19/14. Oral Order withdrawing Motion for Discovery, granting Motion to file Sealed Document, and granting Motion for Judicial filed 7/19/14. NAACP's Trial Brief, Defendant's Trial Brief, MALC's Trial Brief,  United States' Trial Brief, and Task Force's Trial Brief  filed 7/25/14. Perez Plaintiff's Post Trial Brief filed 10/21/14. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum filed 4/20/15. Defendant's Response to Briefs filed 5/4/15. Motionfor Preliminary Injunction by Debbie Allen et al filed 10/14/15.

See also Davis v. Perry and Perez v. Texas

 

Supreme Court Documents

District Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents

 

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

Publication of new BALLOT BATTLES book

Edward B. Foley

I'm delighted that Oxford University Press has published my new book Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States. I've collected links to last week's blogging related to the book's release. 

more commentary...

In the News

David  Stebenne

Clinton, Sanders and the changing face of the Democratic Party

Professor David Stebenne wrote an op-ed for The Conversation describing how a recent debate between Democratic Party presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders highlighted changes in the Democratic Party over the past half-century.

“Last week’s debate in New Hampshire between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders over who is the “real progressive” said a lot about how they and the Democratic Party have changed over the past half-century,” Stebenne said.

“When Clinton and Sanders first came of age politically during the mid-1960s, neither was a natural fit for the Democrats as the party was then.

“Taking a look at how these two very different people and the party they now want to lead have evolved can help clarify the philosophical divide on display in the Democratic Party today.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

New state voting laws face first presidential election test

more info & analysis...