OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Veasey v. Perry

Case Information

Date Filed: June 26, 2013
State: Texas
Issues: Voter ID, Voter Registration, Voter Supression
Current Court: District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case 2:13-cv-00193)

Issue:

Issue 1:

Does SB 14 violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, by denying the right to vote on account of race and language minority?

Issue 2:

Does SB 14 violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by purposely denying minority voters equal protection for registration and voting?

Issue 3:

Does SB 14 violate the Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by prupsely denying minority voters the right to vote?

Issue 4:

Does SB 14 severly burden or facially discriminate a class of voters without a legitimate governmental interest and violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Issue 5:

Does SB 14 restrict freedom of speech and association in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Issue 6:

Does SB 14 create a poll tax in violation of the Fourteenth and Twenty-First Amendments of the U.S. Constitution?

Status:

Complaint filed 6/26/13. Amended Complaint filed 8/22/13. Motion to dismiss filed 10/25/13. U.S. memorandum in opposition to motion to dismiss filed 11/22/13. Order to Consolidate Cases filed 1/10/14. Amended Intervenor Complaint filed 2/3/14. Plaintiff Intervenors' First Amended Complaint filed 2/4/14. United States' Motion to Compel Production of Legislative Documents filed on 2/11/14. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff-Intervenors' Amended Complaint filed 2/18/14. Defendants' Response to Motion to Compel filed 2/24/14. Order on Motion to Compel filed 4/3/14. Defendants' Motion to Compel the Production of Documents filed 4/7/14. Third Party Legislators' Motion to Quash Subpoenas filed 4/25/14. US' Request for Judicial Notice filed 4/25/14. United States' Motion for Protective Order filed 5/12/14. Order regarding Discovery filed 6/6/14. Defendants' Motion to Compel filed 6/10/14. Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order filed 6/17/14. Order denying Motion to Quash filed 6/18/14. United States' Motion for a Protective Order filed 6/26/14. Order Granting Motion for Judicial Notice filed 7/10/14. Defendants' Answer to Veasey-LULAC's Amended Complaint filed 7/16/14. Defendants' Answer to United States' Complaint filed 7/16/14. Defendants' Answer to MALC's Complaint filed 7/16/14. Defendants' Answer to Oritz's Complaint filed 7/16/14. Defendants' Answer to Texas Association of Hispanic County Judges filed 7/16/14. Veasey-LULAC Plaintiff's Motion to Compel filed 7/18/14. Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Compel filed 7/21/14. Veasey-LULAC Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Compel filed 7/22/14. Order granting in part, denying in part Motion for Protective Order filed 7/24/14. Defendant's Motion to Compel Production filed 7/25/14. Judgment filed 8/5/14.

District Court Documents

 


Circuit Court Documents


Commentary

Daniel P. Tokaji

What's the Matter with Kobach?

Daniel P. Tokaji

By "Kobach," I mean the Kobach v. EAC case in which the Tenth Circuit heard oral argument Monday – rather than its lead plaintiff, Kansas’ controversial Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who argued the position of his state and the State of Arizona. This post discusses what’s at issue in the case, where the district court went wrong, and what the Tenth Circuit should do.

more commentary...

In the News

Daniel P. Tokaji

Ohio treasurer receives OK to host town halls

Professor Daniel Tokaji was quoted in an article from the Associated Press about an attorney general opinion that allows the Ohio treasurer to conduct telephone town halls using public money. The opinion will likely have broad ramifications for the upcoming elections, Tokaji said.

“As a practical matter, while that legal advice is certainly right, very serious concerns can arise about whether these are really intended to inform Ohio constituents about the operations of his office or if they’re campaign events,” he said.

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Judge Denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction in NC Case

U.S. District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder denied the motion for a preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs in a case challenging a new North Carolina voting law as violating the Voting Rights Act and the federal Constitution. Judge Schroeder also denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case is North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory.

more info & analysis...