IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Transcription

1 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 225 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, 11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR STATE OF TEXAS, et al., [Lead Case] MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated Case] STATE OF TEXAS, et al., TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. SA-11-CA-490-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated Case] RICK PERRY, Defendant. MARGARITA V. QUESADA, et al., Plaintiffs, SA-11-CA-592-OLG-JES-XR RICK PERRY, et al., [Consolidated Case]

2 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 225 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 11 JOHN T. MORRIS, Plaintiff, SA-11-CA-615-OLG-JES-XR STATE OF TEXAS, et al., [Consolidated Case] EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, SA-11-CA-635-OLG-JES-XR RICK PERRY, et al., [Consolidated Case] RODRIGUEZ PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Plaintiffs Eddie Rodriguez, Milton Gerard Washington, Bruce Elfant, Alex Serna, Sandra Serna, Betty F. Lopez, David Gonzalez, Beatrice Saloma, Lionor Sorola- Pohlman, Eliza Alvarado, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Josey Martinez, Nina Jo Baker, Travis County, and City Of Austin, ( Rodriguez Plaintiffs ) respond in opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ( State Dismissal Motion ). I. The State s argument as to the Rodriguez Plaintiffs is limited to one issue. The only part of the State Dismissal Motion pertaining to the Rodriguez Plaintiffs is Part I.G, at pages There, the State argues that the Court does not have Article III 2

3 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 225 Filed 08/23/11 Page 3 of 11 jurisdiction over the Rodriguez Plaintiffs claims (as well as the claims of all other parties) insofar as they are directed at the Texas Lieutenant Governor and the Texas Speaker of the House in their official capacities. II. The Rodriguez Plaintiffs assert claims pertinent to the two officials. The Rodriguez Plaintiffs claims include allegations that Senate Bill 4, enacting Plan C185 for Texas congressional districts, has both the purpose and effect of denying minority voters rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. See Rodriguez Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint These plaintiffs also assert constitutional claims arising from Senate Bill 4 s purposeful evisceration of a working tri-ethnic coalition of voters in the Travis County and City of Austin area. Id , They also include allegations that the failure of the State to put in place in a timely manner a legal plan for congressional redistricting taking into account population growth in the last decade and the reapportionment of congressional seats following release of the 2010 census violates rights guaranteed under Article I, Section 2, of the United States Constitution. Id. 33. For these legal violations, the Rodriguez Plaintiffs seek both declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. 35.be. The Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker are the presiding officers of the Texas Senate and Texas House of Representatives, respectively. They not only preside over legislative deliberations, they must sign enacted bills so that the bills may be forwarded to the Governor for consideration. Tex. Const. Art. III, 38. They presided over the 3

4 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 225 Filed 08/23/11 Page 4 of 11 legislature that enacted Senate Bill 4; they signed it. The claims of the Rodriguez Plaintiffs are directed at what the legislature did in Senate Bill 4. These plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the legislative actions in considering and enacting Senate Bill 4 violated federal law, both constitutional and statutory. The Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker were an integral even vital part of the legislative process for this round of congressional redistricting and for ultimate enactment of the legislation as to which a declaration of illegality is sought. In short, these two state officials were an essential part of the causal connection between what Senate Bill 4 does and how the Rodriguez Plaintiffs claim it harms them. III. The authorities relied on by the State do not support its argument. The State relies primarily on two cases Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405 (5 th Cir. 2001) (en banc), and Larios v. Perdue, 306 F. Supp.2d 1190 (N.D. Ga. 2003) for its argument that the claims against the Lieutenant Governor and Speaker do not fall within the Court s Article III jurisdiction. Neither of the cases supports the State s argument. Okpalobi concerned a constitutional challenge to a private civil scheme established through state legislation. The system established by Senate Bill 4 is decidedly public, involving elections to the United States Congress. In Okpalobi, the court concluded that the two state officials raising the Article III argument (the Governor and Attorney General) had caused no injury to the plaintiffs and could never cause any 4

5 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 225 Filed 08/23/11 Page 5 of 11 such injury through the private civil mechanisms at issue. 244 F.3d at Here, in contrast, the two state officials were a critical part of the legislative enactment which is said to have caused the injury to the plaintiffs. And if legal developments result in invalidation of all or part of Senate Bill 4, these same two officials would be an essential part of any legislative process the State is allowed, and chooses, to bring to bear in connection with remedying the legal deficiencies, either in the short term or a longer term. The State argues that Lieutenant Governor and Speaker cannot be compelled to remedy any violations found by this Court. But, the State, including these two officials, can be compelled to act remedially within a certain time frame or face foregoing an opportunity to remedy the violations through legislative methods. Furthermore, a judicial declaration (which is one of the remedies sought here for the legislative actions at issue) that they have acted illegally is a well-established judicial remedy that provides redress to injured plaintiffs. Okpalobi provides the State no way around this legal reality. The State also cites Larios in support of its argument that the Lieutenant Governor and Speaker should be dismissed because the plaintiffs can obtain complete relief without their presence in the suit. Larios does not support the proposition for which the State cites it. Larios involved a claim that the Georgia Lieutenant Governor was a necessary party under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to redistricting litigation. The court concluded that he was not a necessary party under Rule 19. But, this holding hardly constitutes a determination that a plaintiff cannot assert a claim against the 5

6 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 225 Filed 08/23/11 Page 6 of 11 Lieutenant Governor (or Speaker) in such situations. Larios itself makes this clear: [N]othing in our opinion... precludes plaintiffs from seeking to join him in this action. 306 F. Supp.2d at That is what has happened here. IV. Conclusion Insofar as it is directed at the Rodriguez Plaintiffs, the State Dismissal Motion should be denied. 6

7 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 225 Filed 08/23/11 Page 7 of 11 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Renea Hicks Renea Hicks State Bar No Law Office of Max Renea Hicks 101 West 6th Street Austin, Texas (512) (512) FAX rhicks@renea-hicks.com SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, L.L.P. /s/ Steve McConnico Steve McConnico State Bar No smcconnico@scottdoug.com S. Abraham Kuczaj, III State Bar No akuczaj@scottdoug.com Sam Johnson State Bar No sjohnson@scottdoug.com 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 1500 Austin, Texas (512) (512) FAX ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., TRAVIS COUNTY, AND CITY OF AUSTIN 7

8 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 225 Filed 08/23/11 Page 8 of 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the day of August, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via electronic mail and U.S. Mail to all counsel of record as follows: DAVID RICHARDS Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith LLP 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200 Austin, TX davidr@rrsfirm.com RICHARD E. GRAY, III Gray & Becker, P.C. 900 West Avenue, Suite 300 Austin, TX Rick.gray@graybecker.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS PEREZ, DUTTON, TAMEZ, HALL, ORTIZ, SALINAS, DEBOSE, and RODRIGUEZ JOSE GARZA Texas Bar No Law Office of Jose Garza 7414 Robin Rest Dr. San Antonio, Texas garzpalm@aol.com JOAQUIN G. AVILA P.O. Box Seattle, WA jgavotingrights@gmail.com GERALD H. GOLDSTEIN ggandh@aol.com DONALD H. FLANARY, III donflanary@hotmail.com Goldstein, Goldstein and Hilley 310 S. St. Mary s Street 29 th Floor, Tower Life Bldg. San Antonio, TX VIA U.S. MAIL PAUL M. SMITH MICHAEL B. DESANCTIS JESSICA RING AMUNSON Jenner & Block LLP 1099 New York Ave., NW Washington, D.C J. GERALD HEBERT 191 Somervelle Street, # 405 Alexandria, VA hebert@voterlaw.com VIA U.S. MAIL JESSE GAINES P.O. Box Fort Worth, TX ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS QUESADA, MUNOZ, VEASEY, HAMILTON, KING and JENKINS 8

9 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 225 Filed 08/23/11 Page 9 of 11 MARK W. KIEHNE mkiehne@lawdcm.com RICARDO G. CEDILLO rcedillo@lawdcm.com Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza McCombs Plaza 755 Mulberry Ave., Ste. 500 San Antonio, TX ATTORNEYS FOR MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS NINA PERALES nperales@maldef.org MARISA BONO mbono@maldef.org REBECCA MCNEILL COUTO rcouto@maldef.org Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund 110 Broadway, Suite 300 San Antonio, TX MARK ANTHONY SANCHEZ masanchez@gws-law.com ROBERT W. WILSON rwwilson@gws-law.com Gale, Wilson & Sanchez, PLLC 115 East Travis Street, Ste San Antonio, TX ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, CARDENAS, JIMENEZ, MENENDEZ, TOMACITA AND JOSE OLIVARES, ALEJANDRO AND REBECCA ORTIZ LUIS ROBERTO VERA, JR. Law Offices of Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. & Associates 1325 Riverview Towers 111 Soledad San Antonio, Texas irvlaw@sbcglobal.net GEORGE JOSEPH KORBEL Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Inc North Main San Antonio, TX korbellaw@hotmail.com ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR- PLAINTIFF LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS ROLANDO L. RIOS Law Offices of Rolando L. Rios 115 E Travis Street Suite 1645 San Antonio, TX rrios@rolandorioslaw.com ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR- PLAINTIFF HENRY CUELLAR GARY L. BLEDSOE Law Office of Gary L. Bledsoe 316 W. 12 th Street, Ste. 307 Austin, TX garybledsoe@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR- PLAINTIFFS TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, TEXAS LEGISLATIVE 9

10 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 225 Filed 08/23/11 Page 10 of 11 JOHN T. MORRIS 5703 Caldicote St. Humble, TX JOHN T. MORRIS, PRO SE VIA U.S. MAIL KAREN M. KENNARD 2803 Clearview Drive Austin, TX ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CITY OF AUSTIN DAVID ESCAMILLA Travis County Asst. Attorney P.O. Box 1748 Austin, TX ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF TRAVIS COUNTY CHAD W. DUNN K. SCOTT BRAZIL Brazil & Dunn 4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530 Houston, TX ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR- DEFENDANTS TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY and BOYD RICHIE BLACK CAUCUS, EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, ALEXANDER GREEN, HOWARD JEFFERSON, BILL LAWSON, and JUANITA WALLACE VIA U.S. MAIL JOHN TANNER 3743 Military Road NW Washington, DC ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR- PLAINTIFF TEXAS LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS VICTOR L. GOODE Asst. Gen. Counsel, NAACP 4805 Mt. Hope Drive Baltimore, MD ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR- PLAINTIFF THE TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES ROBERT NOTZON Law Office of Robert S. Notzon 1507 Nueces Street Austin, TX ALLISON JEAN RIGGS ANITA SUE EARLS Southern Coalition for Social Justice 1415 West Highway 54, Ste. 101 Durham, NC

11 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 225 Filed 08/23/11 Page 11 of 11 DAVID SCHENCK Special Counsel to the Attorney General P.O. Box 1254A Capitol Station Austin, TX ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS GOVERNOR RICK PERRY, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DAVID DEWHURST, SPEAKER JOE STRAUS, SECRETARY OF STATE HOPE ANDRADE AND THE STATE OF TEXAS DONNA GARCIA DAVIDSON PO Box Austin, TX ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR- PLAINTIFFS TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, EARLS, LAWSON, WALLACE, and JEFFERSON FRANK M. REILLY Potts & Reilly, L.L.P. P.O. Box 4037 Horseshoe Bay, TX ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STEVE MUNISTERI /s/ Sam Johnson 11

12 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, 11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR STATE OF TEXAS, et al., [Lead Case] MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated Case] STATE OF TEXAS, et al., TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. SA-11-CA-490-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated Case] RICK PERRY, Defendant. MARGARITA V. QUESADA, et al., Plaintiffs, SA-11-CA-592-OLG-JES-XR RICK PERRY, et al., [Consolidated Case]

13 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 2 JOHN T. MORRIS, Plaintiff, SA-11-CA-615-OLG-JES-XR STATE OF TEXAS, et al., [Consolidated Case] EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, SA-11-CA-635-OLG-JES-XR RICK PERRY, et al., [Consolidated Case] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS On this day, came on to be considered the Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and, in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court finds that this motion lacks merit and should be denied. The Court therefore DENIES this motion. SIGNED this the day of, ORLANDO L. GARCIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE