Case: Jefferson County Drainage District No. 7 v. Holder

This is a case about a County seeking to remove itself from the preclearance procedures under the Voting Rights Act.

Jefferson County Drainage District Number 7 is a political subdivision of the State of Texas subject to the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including Section 5, 42 U.S.C.  § 1973c.  This was based on a coverage determination made pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act.  Under Section 5, the District is required to obtain preclearance from either the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or the Attorney General of the United States for any change in voting qualifications, standards, practices and procedures since the Act's 1975 coverage date for Texas.  Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act provides that a covered jurisdiction, such as the District, may seek to "bailout" or remove itself from Section 5's preclearance procedures by seeking a declaratory judgment before a three-judge panel in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. Such a bailout judgment can be issued only if the court determines that the jurisdiction meets certain eligibility requirements for bailout contained in the statute, including a 10-year record of nondiscrimination in voting-related actions. The act also provides that the attorney general can consent to entry of a judgment of bailout if, based upon investigation, the attorney general is satisfied that the jurisdiction meets the eligibility requirements. 

On March 2, 2011, District 7 filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a declaratory judgment that the District was entitled to a "bailout" from the special remedial provisions of the Voting Rights Act.  District 7 also requested a three-judge panel to hear the case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973b.  District 7 was represented by two private attorneys, J. Gerald Herbert and David Richards.  Defendants were Eric H. Holder, the Attorney General for the United States, and Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice.  On March 15, 2011, Judge David B. Sentelle, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, designated a three-judge panel consisting of Judge David S. Tatel of the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Richard W. Roberts of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and Judge Richard J. Leon of the United States District Court of the District of Columbia.  

District 7 is wholly within Jefferson County, Texas and includes four municipalities:  Port Arthur, Port Neches, Nederland, Groves, and a small unincorporated portion of Jefferson County. Initially, District 7 was governed by a three-member board appointed by the Commissioners Court of Jefferson County.  District 7 was subsequently placed under the governance of the Texas Water Code and provided for a five-member board elected from each of the communities in District 7.  In 1987, Port Arthur annexed Griffing Park and since then, District 7 has had two members from Port Arthur.  Annexation and consolidation of neighboring communities by Port Arthur resulted in Section 5 litigation, culminating in City of Port Arthur v. U.S., 459 U.S. 159 (1982).  The Complaint alleged that historically, there have been African-American members of District 7's board.  As of the 2010 elections, two of the five board members were African-American.

Before it filed its lawsuit, the District contacted the United States Department of Justice and provided it with information demonstrating the District qualified for bailout.  The Department of Justice conducted its own investigation to determine the District's eligibility for bailout and concluded that the District met the requirements for bailout.  On April 20, 2011, the District and the Department jointly moved the Court for entry of a Consent Judgment and Decree approving the District's bailout from the preclearance requirements of Section 5.  

On June 3, 2011, the Court entered the Consent Judgment and Decree.  The Decree recited the history of the Voting Rights Act in Texas.  As of November 1972, over five percent of the voting-age population in the State of Texas was Latino. Its election materials were in English only and fewer than 50% of all of its voting-age citizens were registered to vote or turned out to vote.  As a result, the State of Texas and all of its political subdivisions, including the District, were required to receive preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for all changes enacted or implemented after November 1, 1972 that affected voting. 

The Court made the following findings of fact that during the ten years preceding the filing of the case, and during the pendency of the case:

1. No test or device has been used either for the purpose or with the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, within the District;
2. No final judgment has been entered by any court determining that the District has denied or abridged the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group;
3. No Federal examiners or observers have been assigned to the District;
4. The District has complied with the preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act;
5. The Attorney General has not interposed any objection to any proposed voting changes within the District and no declaratory judgment has been denied with regard to such a change under Section 5;
6. The District has not employed voting procedures or methods which inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process;
7. No one in the District's elections has been subject to intimidation or harassment in the course of exercising their right to participate in the political process;
8. The District has engaged in other constructive efforts to expand the opportunity for voting for every person of voting age through the District's numerous election-related contacts and coordination of election activities in Jefferson County; 
9. While the District was unable to present evidence directly measuring minority voter participation rates over time because the District does not engage in voter registration, in the last contested election in the District (2010), two African-American candidates won election to the District's five member Board of Commissioners; 
10. The District has not engaged in violations of any provision of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State or political subdivision with respect to discrimination in voting on account of race or color or in contravention of the guarantees of Section 4(f)(2) of the Voting Rights Act. 
11. The District publicized its intent to commence the declaratory judgment action by placing advertisements in local newspapers, in the appropriate post office, and in the local courthouse, and by conducting a public hearing in the matter.
12. The District publicized notice of the proposed settlement of the action.  

The Court issued a declaratory judgment that the District was entitled to a bailout under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act and granted the parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment and Decree, thereby exempting the District from the preclearance procedures of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  The Court closed the case and placed it on its inactive docket.  The Court retained jurisdiction over the case for ten years (June 3, 2021).  There was no further activity in the case after the Court entered the Consent Judgment and Decree.  

In 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), which determined that the coverage provisions of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act were unconstitutional because they were based on outdated data.  While the Supreme Court did not decide that Section 5 was unconstitutional, without Section 4(b), Section 5 no longer had any practical effect.  In essence, Shelby County v. Holder made the Consent Decree and Judgment in Jefferson County moot. 

The case is now closed.