Case: Grant v. Gonzales County, Texas

This is a case about a challenge to Gonzales County, Texas's change of locations of an election polling place without administrative or judicial preclearance.

On December 14, 2006, three African American registered voters in Gonzales County filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division. The plaintiffs sued Gonzales County, Texas under the Voting Rights Act. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that Election Precinct 2 polling place change was legally ineffective, an injunction requiring the defendant to submit the polling place change expeditiously for preclearance, and preliminary injunctive relief that prohibited the candidates elected to Gonzales County Commission Place 2 in the 2006 election from taking office until and unless the challenged polling place change received clearance. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's relocation of the polling place violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires political subdivisions who wish to make this sort of change to obtain preclearance by the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The general election in Gonzales County occurred on November 7, 2006. Russe Grant, a then-elected member of the city council of the City of Gonzales was a candidate for Place 2 on the Gonzales County Commissioners Court for a four-year term that would have commenced on January 1, 2007. If elected, he would have been the first African American member of the Gonzales County Commissioners Court. Grant won the Democratic Party primary in March 2006, defeating the then-incumbent in County Commission Place 2. The Republican Party did not nominate a candidate to run for that position in the November 2006 general election. At some point after the primaries, a white individual, Brzozowski, who identified as an Independent started a write-in campaign, and defeated Grant in the general election. The final results were announced, and the winner declared, on November 28, 2006, following a recount. Brzozowski won by 145 votes.

At the time, County Commissioner Place 2 contained three county election precincts, Nos. 2, 9, and 11. Election precinct No. 2 was the one with the highest concentration of registered African American voters. Prior to the November 2006 general election day, the general election polling place for precinct No. 2 had been the American Legion Hall on North Robertson Street, on a principal street in a predominant African American neighborhood.  However, for the November 2006 election day, the defendant changed the polling place for precinct No. 2 to a private elementary and secondary school that the plaintiffs alleged was "not along a regular and familiar thoroughfare for votes and residents" for the African American community. The defendant made the change on September 22, 2006, without going through the preclearance procedure required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, under which defendant was required to submit such a request to the DOJ or the United States District Court for an advance determination of whether the political subdivision's change would have either the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race. 

In addition to filing their complaint on December 15, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an application for preliminary injunction, requesting that the defendant submit the polling place change for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and requesting that the Court prohibit the defendant from permitting the candidate declared the winner for Gonzales County Commissioner Place 2 to take office unless and until the defendant sought and obtained preclearance for the polling place change. In their filing on December 15, 2006, the plaintiffs also requested the appointment of a three-judge district court, as claims under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act are to be determined by a three-judge district court, as well as requested an expedited hearing on their application for injunctive relief prior to January 1, 2007. 

On January 12, 2007, the court ordered that the defendant must file and serve any response and opposition to the plaintiffs' request for the appointment of three-judge district court and application for a preliminary injunction on or before January 22, 2007. Accordingly, on January 22, 2007, the defendant filed such a reply, requesting that the court deny the plaintiffs' requested relief and also making a request for the plaintiffs to pay for its attorney fees and costs in this action. 

Ultimately, both parties agreed that the question surrounding the location of the polling place and the question of whether a new election was appropriate were ones for the DOJ. Therefore, on January 26, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the action and the court issued an order that further disposition of the case is stayed and the defendant should file an advisory within 30 days of being notified by the DOJ that it made its final determination regarding preclearance so the case may be re-opened if further proceedings are necessary on January 30, 2007. However, on February 13, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion for entry of agreed final judgment, writing that they reached agreement on final disposition of the case. The defendant agreed to pay the attorneys' fees and costs for the plaintiffs bringing the action, and the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the claims with prejudice, however, nothing in the agreement was to prevent the plaintiffs from providing their views and position on the polling place change to the DOJ.  On February 15, 2007, the court entered the agreed upon final judgment as requested by the parties, closing the case.