Filed Date: Nov. 14, 2011
Closed Date: Aug. 6, 2015
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about redistricting plans for certain local election districts in Galveston County, Texas, following the 2010 Census and whether those plans violated the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
Seven Galveston County, Texas, elected officials (six of whom were minorities and one of whom was not) and one minority Galveston County resident filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, on November 14, 2011. Defendants were Galveston County, Texas, and a Galveston County Judge in his capacity as the Chief Officer of Galveston County. Plaintiffs were represented by private counsel. Plaintiffs asserted four causes of action: (1) under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction prohibiting the implementation of the unprecleared redistricting plan for the 2012 election, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, for a three-judge court to hear the cause of action under Section 5; (2) for violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973; (3) for intentional discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (4) for racial gerrymandering in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case was initially assigned to Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt, was temporarily reassigned to a three-judge District Court comprising Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt, Judge Melinda Harmon (of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas), and Judge Emilio Garza (of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit) (the “Panel Court”) by Order dated November 28, 2011, and later remanded to the single convening judge (Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt) by Order dated March 23, 2012.
According to Plaintiffs, in 1992, a Consent Judgment and Election Order was entered in the case of Hoskins v. Hannah, Civil Action No. G-92-12 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division. That Order provided for the creation of a Constable and Justice of the Peace Precinct on Galveston Island and a Constable and Justice of the Peace Precinct on the mainland of Galveston County, and specifically stated that the creation of those precincts “will create the opportunity for minority voters to participate in the political processes leading to the nomination and election of Justices of the Peace and Constables in Galveston County.” Plaintiffs alleged that on August 30, 2011, the Galveston County Commissioners Court adopted an order establishing boundaries of the Commissioners, Constables and Justices of the Peace Precincts in Galveston County. According to Plaintiffs, the redistricting plan allegedly reduced the number of Constables and Justice of the Peace Precincts in Galveston County from eight to five and altered the boundaries of the Commissioner, Constable, and Justices of the Peace precincts in Galveston County. More specifically, Plaintiffs alleged the redistricting plan eliminated the Constable Precincts and Justice of the Peace Courts that were created by the 1992 Order by merging them in to one single larger Constable and Justice of the Peace Precinct and also reduced the percentage of African American and Latino voting age population in all of the newly proposed precincts. Plaintiffs allege that on October 14 and 19, 2011, Galveston County made submissions under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to the Department of Justice for pre-clearance of the redistricting plan. Plaintiffs filed their action on November 14, 2011, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from using the newly enacted but not precleared plan in any election. Plaintiffs contend that the redistricting plan constitutes an unlawful dilution of minority voting strength under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and unlawful retrogression under Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In light of the interaction between deadlines established in respect of the 2012 primary election for federal, state, county, and local offices, and the preclearance process then-pending before the Department of Justice, Plaintiffs sought an injunction against the implementation of the redistricting plan for the 2012 primary election and a hearing to consider evidence for the construction of an interim plan as well as order adopting such interim plan for use during the 2012 primary election.
On November 21, 2011, Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (i) enjoining Galveston County from implementing the redistricting plans for Galveston County Commissioners, Constables, and Justices of the Peace precincts because the plans were not precleared pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and (ii) relieving all persons or entities that would otherwise have a duty under Section 42.032 of the Texas Election Code, or a duty to issue voter registration certificates under Section 14.001 of the Election Code, from those duties until further order of the court. On the same day, Judge Hoyt denied Plaintiffs’ application for the designation of a district court of three judges to Plaintiffs’ Section 5 claims, but the next day issued an Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for a District Court of three judges in light of Plaintiffs’ request for an Order enjoining the use of the adopted map for the 2012 election.
On November 30, 2011, and December 1, 2011, the Panel Court held an evidentiary hearing, after which the parties filed exhibits and post-hearing briefs. On December 9, 2011, the Panel Court issued an Order vacating, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284, the previous order granting a temporary restraining order and holding the motion for a preliminary injunction until after December 13, 2011. 2011 WL 6148674; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142186. The Panel Court found that any action on plaintiffs’ motion was premature until after December 13, 2011, because Galveston County had submitted the redistricting plan for preclearance by the Department of Justice, and also sought preclearance from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:11-CV-01837), and the Panel Court could not properly consider what temporary remedy, if any, was appropriate without first allowing the Department of Justice or the District of Columbia District Court to assess the validity of Galveston County’s plans. The Panel Court also ordered that “[a]ny person wishing to stand for election as county commissioner, justice of the peace, or constable of Galveston County, Texas in the primary currently scheduled for March 6, 2011 [sic] may file for election under the unprecleared plan, with the understanding that if the U.S. Department of Justice or U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia disallow preclearance by the end of the day on December 15, 2011, their filing fees will be refunded, and this three-judge court will determine what temporary remedy to adopt at that time.” Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt dissented. On November 12, 2011, the Panel Court amended the majority opinion in the December 9, 2011 Order to reflect that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction was held for resolution until after December 19, 2011.
On December 29, 2011, Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the December 9, 2011 Order (as amended). On January 20, 2012, the Panel Court issued an Order on Motion for Reconsideration. The Panel Court determined that injunctive relief was appropriate, but the implementation of an interim plan was premature, and enjoined Galveston County, it agents, contractors, and assigns from doing any act that begins the process of implementing an unprecleared election plan for the 2012 primary election without prior approval of the Panel Court.
On March 6, 2012, Plaintiffs’ filed a motion for reconsideration of the January 20, 2012 Order. On March 20, 2012, Plaintiffs’ moved to dissolve the three judge panel. On March 23, 2012, the United States filed a Statement of Interest to advise the Court of the United States’ view with respect to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on the redistricting plan for the commissioners court, the redistricting plan for the justices of the peace and constables, and Galveston County’s proposals to reduce the number of justice of the peace and constables. In that Statement of Interest, the United States also informed the Panel Court that on March 5, 2012, the Attorney General denied preclearance under Section 5 for all three of these voting changes.
On March 23, 2012, the Panel Court held a hearing. The same day, the Panel Court ordered that (i) the 2001 benchmark redistricting plan for the Galveston County Constables and Justices of the Peace was to be used for the 2012 Primary and General Election in Galveston County (because the justice of the peace and constable election were not subject to the “one person, one vote” principle, the 2001 maps could be used notwithstanding the changes in population distribution), (ii) the districting plan for the Galveston County Commissioners Court that was precleared pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1973c on March 23, 2012, shall be used for the 2012 Primary and General Elections in Galveston County, (iii) Galveston County should use certain delineated deadlines for filing periods and a drawing for candidate order on the ballot, (iv) Galveston County was relieved of compliance with certain aspects of the Texas Election Code and directed to use county election precincts as they were configured on January 1, 2011, (v) the Panel Court’s order enjoining the use of unprecleared voting changes, including the reduction of constables and justices of the peace, and redistricting of the same was modified and made permanent, and (vi) the Three Judge Panel was dissolved and all remaining matters were remanded to the single convening judge.
On April 5, 2012, Plaintiffs (in two groups) moved for attorney’s fees. Defendants opposed the motions. On May 22, 2012, Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt granted the Plaintiffs’ motions for attorney’s fees. On May 31, 2012, the Court entered a Judgement for Plaintiffs with regard to their claims under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and adjudged Plaintiffs as the prevailing parties entitled to attorney’s fees and costs as awarded by the Court. On June 27, 2012, Defendants moved to amend the Judgment. Plaintiffs opposed the motion. On July 10, 2012, Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt issued an Order denying Defendants’ motion to amend the Judgment and again concluded that Plaintiffs were the prevailing parties entitled to attorney’s fees and costs as awarded by the Court.
On July 26, 2012, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the final Judgment entered May 31, 2012, and all orders that had been merged, or would be merged, into the Final Judgment, including the May 22, 2012, Orders granting attorney’s fees and the July 10, 2012 Order denying Defendants’ motion to alter or amend the Judgment.
On August 28, 2012, the parties filed an Agreed Motion to Amend Judgment, whereby the parties agreed that Galveston County may maintain its current voting district precincts for the November 2012 General Election without harm to the voters or anyone’s right to vote and limit the amount of voter confusion, particularly among minority voters. On September 4, 2012, Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt entered an Order providing that “[i]n order to timely and efficiently conduct the 2012 General Election, Galveston County is relieved of compliance with Texas Election Code §§ 42.001, 42.005, and 42.032 and shall use the county election voting precincts as they were configured on January 1, 2011, including, but not limited to, allowing the Galveston County Elections Officials to prepare multiple ballot styles within voting precincts as necessary to effectuate the changes reflected in the districting plan for the Galveston County Commissioners Court which was precleared pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1973c on March 21, 2012.”
On December 17, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Circuit Judges Jolly, DeMoss, and Southwick) reversed the District Court’s decision and remanded for entry of judgment for Galveston County. 738 F.3d 132. The Court of Appeals held that, although Plaintiffs obtained judicially sanctioned relief flowing from their Complaint (the injunction) and the injunction altered the legal relationship between the parties, there was no evidence that the injunction materially affected Galveston County’s conduct or, if it did, that the injunction directly or materially benefitted the Plaintiffs. The Circuit Court also held that the outcome of the preclearance process before the DOJ was not sufficient evidence of Plaintiffs’ prevailing party status. On the same date, the Circuit Court entered its Judgment, which included that Plaintiffs pay to Defendants the costs on appeal as taxed by the Clerk of the Court (which amount was $582.00).
On March 17, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition. 573 U.S. 931, 134 S.Ct. 2841.
On July 7, 2014, Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt entered an Order Pursuant to Mandate that provided that Plaintiffs pay the costs on appeal. On August 6, 2015, Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt entered a Final Judgment.
Summary Authors
Christopher Gray (9/26/2024)
Petteway v. Galveston County, Southern District of Texas (2013)
Petteway v. Galveston County, Southern District of Texas (2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5711190/parties/petteway-v-galveston-county-texas/
Baron, Neil G (Texas)
Adams, Noel Terry
Broussard, John Koetting
Berkower, Risa (Texas)
DuCote, Jeremy B (Texas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5711190/petteway-v-galveston-county-texas/
Last updated Sept. 25, 2024, 3:03 p.m.
State / Territory: Texas
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 14, 2011
Closing Date: Aug. 6, 2015
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Seven Galveston County, Texas, elected officials (six of whom were minorities and one of whom was not) and one minority Galveston County resident.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Galveston County, Texas (Galveston), County
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Voting Rights Act, section 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973)
Voting Rights Act, section 5, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973c)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2012 - 2012
Issues
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Affected Race(s):
Voting: