Filed Date: Feb. 2, 2006
Closed Date: May 31, 2006
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about whether the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and Texas state law require the direct election of members of the Board of Trustees of the San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority.
On February 2, 2006, a pro se plaintiff filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging that the Board of Trustees of the San Antonio Transit Authority violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Voting Rights Act of 1964 claiming that the Defendant intentionally deprived Plaintiff and the affected qualified voters who reside within the Rapid Transit Tax District ("RTTD") of their fundamental and constitutionally protected right to elect all 11 members of the Board, in that it knowingly, deliberately, and willingly evaded compliance with the Right to Vote Law of 1964.
On February 27, 2006, The Board Answered Ehm's Complaint and moved to dismiss the case with Prejudice arguing that it is under no obligation to hold elections rather than install its members by appointment.
On May 31, 2006, U.S. District Judge W. Royal Furgeson issued an order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss. In his opinion, Judge Furgeson cited U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit precedent in holding that the Texas Transportation Code, which authorizes the appointment of the 11-member board, employs a purely appointive system for its members. And, as the defendant performs an administrative function, rather than a legislative one, the Court found no "infirmity" with The Board selection process.
On June 30, 2006, Ehm appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit arguing that the defendant's selective process violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the "one person, one vote" principle under it. The plaintiff also argued, for the first time on appeal, that the defendant's selective process violated his rights under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
On November 11, 2007, following full briefing, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court finding that all of plaintiff's arguments on appeal were without merit.
The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Derek Centola (2/14/2024)
Last updated March 17, 2024, 3:21 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Texas
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 2, 2006
Closing Date: May 31, 2006
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A resident of San Antonio, Texas
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Criminal Violation of Federal Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: