Case: Petteway v. Galveston County
3:22-cv-00057 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Filed Date: Feb. 15, 2022
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case centers around the 2021 Galveston County, Texas redistricting process and is part of a series of cases challenging the redistricting practices in Galveston County over a number of years. This was the first Voting Rights Act (VRA) case decided since the Supreme Court’s decision in Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. 1 (2023).
Following the 2010 Census, county leaders adopted a redistricting plan for the county commissioners’ districts that would have effectively removed the single minority opportunity district and only district represented by a minority commissioner. Still under federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) preclearance at the time, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) objected to the adoption of the map. The DOJ ultimately negotiated a map (the “benchmark plan”) with the county that was adopted in 2012 and left the minority opportunity district intact for the rest of the decade.
When the time came for county leaders again to redraw the commissioners’ districts following the 2020 Census, DOJ preclearance was no longer a factor as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Accordingly, county leaders moved forward with plans to redraw the districts and remove the minority opportunity district. The county commissioners adopted such a map by a 3-1 vote at a hearing on November 12, 2021.
The plaintiffs in this case, five registered voters who were currently serving or had served as elected officials in Galveston County, including the lone dissenting commissioner, were at the time of the 2021 redistricting embroiled in litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas challenging the 2013 redistricting for Galveston County Justices of the Peace (see Petteway v. Galveston County). They filed a motion on January 18, 2022, seeking leave to file a supplemental complaint in that action to challenge the newly adopted county commissioners map. District Judge Gregg Costa issued an order on February 15, 2022, denying the motion. 2022 WL 21727652. Instead, the clerk was directed to initiate a new action, this one, also in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Represented by private counsel and attorneys from the Campaign Legal Center and the UCLA Voting Rights Project, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2022, suing Galveston County and the sitting County Judge, who, in Texas, is the chief county executive. The complaint contained four counts: intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment, racial gerrymandering in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a discriminatory result in violation of Section 2 of the VRA. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and requested that the court enjoin the defendants from calling, holding, supervising, or certifying any elections under the adopted commissioners' court plan; set a reasonable deadline for the county to adopt a valid, nondiscriminatory redistricting plan; and order a new, nondiscriminatory redistricting plan if the county fails to do so by that deadline. The case was assigned to District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs noted that the 2020 Census found that Galveston County’s population increased more than 20 percent over the previous decade and that, as part of that growth, the Black voting age population (VAP) increased by roughly 15 percent while the Latino VAP increased by nearly 30 percent. As a result, the white share of the county’s VAP fell from 62.8 percent in 2010 to 58.0 percent in 2020 while the combined Black and Latino share increased from 33.2 percent to 35.6 percent. Using numbers from the 2020 Census, District 3, the sole minority opportunity district in the benchmark plan, had a VAP that was roughly 60 percent Black and Latino. The plaintiffs did acknowledge that District 3 was slightly malapportioned, but alleged that only a slight reworking of the district’s boundaries would have brought it within an acceptable population deviation. The plaintiffs alleged that rather than taking such a course of action, the commissioners adopted a map that instead “cracked” the Black and Latino population formerly within District 3 and spread them across all four of the districts, thus denying the communities an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice in any of the four districts. The plaintiffs alleged that this decision amounted to intentional racial discrimination.
On May 25, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in which they added a fifth count to their claim: intentional racial discrimination in violation of Section 2 of the VRA. The plaintiffs alleged that the challenged plan was “enacted with the intent to discriminate on the basis of race and national origin, and has a discriminatory effect on that basis, by the intentional dismantling of Precinct 3 as a performing majority-minority precinct through the cracking of Black and Latino voters across four precincts in which they will have no opportunity to elect their preferred candidate because of racially polarized voting.”
On June 1, 2022, Judge Brown issued an order consolidating two other cases challenging the 2021 redistricting process, United States v. Galveston County, et al. and Dickinson Bay Area Branch NAACP, et al., v. Galveston County, et al., with this case and designed this as the lead case. In the weeks thereafter, the defendants filed various motions to dismiss the complaints from the parties in all three consolidated cases. Judge Brown issued three opinions on March 30, 2023, ruling on the outstanding motions. Judge Brown denied in their entirety the motions to dismiss as to the NAACP plaintiffs, 667 F.Supp.3d 447, and as to the United States, 666 F.Supp.3d 655. Regarding the Petteway complaint, Judge Brown dismissed the sole Latino plaintiff’s claims for lack of standing but denied the motion in all other respects. 667 F.Supp.3d 432.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on May 12, 2023, arguing that the VRA and constitutional racial gerrymandering claims fail on three grounds: the VRA does not allow for minority “coalition” districts, the defendants did not satisfy the necessary Gingles preconditions, and the summary judgment record makes clear that race was not considered at all when redrawing the maps. Judge Brown denied the motion in an order issued on July 11, 2023. The case proceeded to a bench trial on August 7, which lasted until August 18, 2023.
Judge Brown issued his findings of fact and conclusions of law on October 13, 2023, holding that the map adopted by the commissioners court violated Section 2 of the VRA by “[denying] Black and Latino voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect a candidate of their choice.” 698 F.Supp.3d 952. Because he found the map violated the VRA, Judge Brown held that he did not need to make findings on intentional discrimination or racial gerrymandering in this case. In an accompanying order, Judge Brown permanently enjoined the defendants from “administering, enforcing, preparing for, or in any way permitting the nomination or election of county commissioners from the commissioners court precinct map” as it was then configured. He further established a schedule for remedial proceedings, which included a requirement for the defendants to file a revised redistricting plan with the court by October 20, 2023, along with sufficient expert analysis establishing it complies with the VRA. The schedule also provided for the implementation of a plan presented by a third-party redistricting expert if the defendants failed or preferred not to submit a revised plan. That plan would take effect on November 1, 2023, at the latest and would remain in effect until the commissioners court adopted a different plan.
The next day, on October 14, 2023, the defendants appealed the district court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Along with their appeal, the defendants also filed with the district court a motion for an emergency stay pending appeal. On October 15, 2023, Judge Brown denied the motion to stay his ruling but did slightly revise the schedule for remedial proceedings to provide additional time for the plaintiffs to submit a revised map. 2023 WL 6812289.
The plaintiffs then filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit on October 17, 2023, requesting a stay pending appeal and a temporary administrative stay. In an unpublished order dated October 18, 2023, a three-judge panel of Circuit Judges Jones, Higginson, and Ho ordered that the appeal be expedited to the next available Oral Argument Calendar and granted a temporary administrative stay until November 2, 2023. 2023 WL 8354700. The next day, the court issued another unpublished order setting the emergency appeal for November 7, 2023, and extending the administrative stay through November 10, 2023. 2023 WL 8290425.
A separate three-judge panel composed of Circuit Judges Jones, Barksdale, and Elrod issued a per curiam opinion on November 10, 2023, affirming the district court’s ruling. 86 F.4th 214. In their opinion, the panel also requested a poll on whether the case should be reheard en banc at the earliest possible date and extended the stay until such a poll could occur. The panel extended the stay pending the en banc poll. 2023 WL 8290715.
The plaintiffs filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court on November 16, 2023, seeking to vacate the stay. On November 28, 2023, a majority of the judges on the Fifth Circuit voted in favor of rehearing the appeal en banc and issued an order vacating the panel decision. 86 F.4th 1146. Because that vote effectively lifted the stay, the Supreme Court rejected the pending application as moot on December 1, 2023. 144 S.Ct. 444.
The plaintiffs then filed an emergency motion with the district court seeking the imposition of a new, remedial map. Judge Brown issued an order on November 30, 2023, granting the motion. The defendants then returned to the Fifth Circuit and sought another stay. The Fifth Circuit issued an order on December 7, 2023, staying the district court’s October 13 and November 30 orders and prohibiting the court from taking any further action altering the boundaries of the Galveston County Commissioners Court precincts during the pendency of the appeal. 87 F.4th 721. The vote to grant the stay was 11-6. The plaintiffs filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court seeking to vacate this stay. Over a dissent from Justice Kagan, the Court rejected this application in an opinion issued on December 12, 2023. 144 S.Ct. 36.
Oral argument for the Fifth Circuit's en banc rehearing occurred on May 14, 2024. The court issued an opinion on August 1, 2024, reversing the district court’s holding as to the VRA claim and remanding the case for further consideration of the intentional discrimination and racial gerrymandering claims. 111 F.4th 596. Again, six judges dissented. In overruling the district court, the Fifth Circuit’s majority overturned its decision in Campos v. City of Baytown, 840 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1988), and held that the VRA does not authorize coalitions of racial and language minorities to claim vote dilution in legislative redistricting.
With the case back in district court, the plaintiffs filed a motion on September 26, 2024, seeking summary judgment on the intentional discrimination and racial gerrymandering claims. The motion remains pending before the court as of November 2024.
Summary Authors
Logan Moore (10/19/2024)
Related Cases
Petteway v. Galveston County, Texas, Southern District of Texas (2011)
Petteway v. Galveston County, Southern District of Texas (2013)
United States of America v. Galveston County, Texas, Southern District of Texas (2022)
Dickinson Bay Area Branch NAACP v. Galveston County, Southern District of Texas (2022)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63008606/parties/honorable-terry-petteway-v-galveston-county-texas/
Attorney, Daniel David
Baron, Neil G (Texas)
Adams, J. Christian (Texas)
Adams, John Christian
Adams, Christian
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63008606/honorable-terry-petteway-v-galveston-county-texas/
Last updated July 28, 2026, 8:09 p.m.
Docket for: Honorable Terry Petteway v. Galveston County, Texas
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 15, 2022
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A group of several Black and Latino current and former elected officials in Galveston County, Texas.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
County
Galveston County
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Voting Rights Act, section 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Texas 3:22-cv-00057
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 23-40582
Supreme Court of the United States 23A449
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Affected Race(s):
Voting:
Redistricting/district composition
Case Summary of Petteway v. Galveston County, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44405/ (last updated 10/19/2024).