Case: Ehm v. Board of Trustees

5:06-cv-00103 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Filed Date: Feb. 2, 2006

Closed Date: May 31, 2006

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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. Constitutio…

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)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

5:06-cv-00103

Plaintiff's Original Complaint

Ehm v. Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority of San Antonio

Feb. 2, 2006

Feb. 2, 2006

Complaint
3

5:06-cv-00103

Defendant's Original Answer

Ehm v. Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority of San Antonio

Feb. 27, 2006

Feb. 27, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
4

5:06-cv-00103

Motion to Dismiss

Ehm v. Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority of San Antonio

Feb. 27, 2006

Feb. 27, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
7

5:06-cv-00103

Brief in Opposition to Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice"

Ehm v. Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority of San Antonio

March 10, 2006

March 10, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
9

5:06-cv-00103

Brief in Support of "Motion for Certification as Class-Action"

Ehm v. Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority of San Antonio

March 17, 2006

March 17, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
8

5:06-cv-00103

Motion for Order Determining That Action be Maintained as Class-Action

Ehm v. Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority of San Antonio

March 17, 2006

March 17, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
10

5:06-cv-00103

Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Order Determining that Action be Maintained as Class-Action

Ehm v. Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority of San Antonio

March 23, 2006

March 23, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
13

5:06-cv-00103

Brief Concerning Judicial Scrutiny of Franchise-Denial

Ehm v. Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority of San Antonio

April 6, 2006

April 6, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
14

5:06-cv-00103

Response to Plaintiff's Brief Concerning Judicial Scrutiny of Franchise-Denial

Ehm v. Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority of San Antonio

April 14, 2006

April 14, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
15

5:06-cv-00103

Brief on "Rational-Basis" Analysis of Franchise-Denial

Ehm v. Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority of San Antonio

April 24, 2006

April 24, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

Last updated March 17, 2024, 3:21 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Texas

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

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):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan rapid Transit Authority of San Antonio (San Antonio, Bexar), City

Defendant Type(s):

Transportation

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Criminal Violation of Federal Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

Voting:

Challenges to at-large/multimember district/election

Voting: General & Misc.