Filed Date: Sept. 13, 2020
Closed Date: April 19, 2023
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about alleged racially motivated efforts to fix the outcome of a recall election that would deny minority voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process by voting on a city-wide basis rather than by city council district. On September 13, 2020, a city councilmember in McKinney, Texas who was the subject of a recall election originally scheduled for May 2020 but postponed to November 2020 along with two minority voters in his district filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and was assigned to Judge Sean D. Jordan. The plaintiffs sued the City of McKinney, Texas under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sought (i) declaratory relief declaring a charter amendment to the City Charter as discriminatory, (ii) enjoining the city from conducting the November 2020 recall election, (iii) limit the voters eligible to vote in the recall election to just the voters of the City Councilman/Plaintiff's district rather than city wide and (iv) attorney's fees and other costs. They claimed that City's charter amendment, which required recall elections to be conducted on a city-wide or at-large basis (rather than by council district) was discriminatory because it diluted the strength of minority voters given that the city at-large was approximately 77% white whereas the council district was a majority-minority district.
In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the Councilman Plaintiff's criticisms of the City's inaction on race issues caused friction between him and the mayor and other city council members (all of whom are white). The Councilman Plaintiff was elected in 2017 to represent the City's District 1 on the City Council.
In May 2019, the City amended its city charter pursuant to ballot initiative approved by a majority of the City's voters which changed the number of signatures required for a recall petition from 15 percent of registered voters citywide to 30 percent of votes cast in the last regular city election and clarified that all recall elections were to be citywide.
In December 2019, a group of City residents submitted a recall petition to remove the Councilman Plaintiff from office which was approved by the City and set for election on May 2, 2020. The election was postponed to November 2020 in light of the COVID pandemic (and in response to the Texas Governor's proclamation encouraging local elections to be postponed).
On October 5, 2020, the City filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the case arguing that (i) the Plaintiffs had not pled under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the City adopted any municipal policy that the directly caused injury to themselves or others because the city's voters submitted the recall petition and approved the charter amendment, not the City itself and (ii) that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not apply to recall elections.
On October 6, 2020, the Court set a hearing date of October 22, 2020 and noted that in the Plaintiff's complaint they inexplicably failed to file a motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered that if the Plaintiff's wanted to seek injunctive relief prior to the election they needed to file such a motion on or before October 9, 2020. The Plaintiff failed to file such a motion.
On October 22, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the Defendant's motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement and requested sur-replies from each of the parties.
On November 17, 2020, the Court noted that the Plaintiff's declined to preliminary injunctive relief prior to the recall election which took place on November 3, 2020 (in which a majority of the City's voters, including a majority of voters in the Plaintiff Councilman's district, voted in favor of the recall) and requested supplemental briefing on which, if any, of the Plaintiffs' claims were moot.
On September 27, 2021, the Court issued an opinion and order approving the City's motion to dismiss and ruled the Plaintiff's claims were moot given that the recall election had passed and the Plaintiff's only sought prospective declaratory relief. The Court rejected Plaintiff's arguments that another recall election would occur in the future as a theoretical possibility insufficient to satisfy the requirement that a reasonable expectation existed that the local officials would be subjected to the same allegedly unconstitutional action again.
On October 21, 2021, the Plaintiff's submitted a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. No pleadings were filed before the Court of Appeals per the court records.
On April 19, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (acting in a three judge panel consisting of Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod and Judge Andrew S. Oldham) affirmed the District Court's ruling, holding that the case was moot (63 F.4th 480).
Summary Authors
Austin Elder (11/10/2023)
Shemwell v. Mckinney, Texas City Of, Eastern District of Texas (2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18433170/parties/shemwell-v-mckinney-texas-city-of/
Jordan, Sean D. (Texas)
Elahi, Shayan (Texas)
Elmazi, Blerim (Texas)
Brown, Robert Franklin (Texas)
Hofmeister, Kent Stanley (Texas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18433170/shemwell-v-mckinney-texas-city-of/
Last updated Oct. 30, 2025, 11:14 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 13, 2020
Closing Date: April 19, 2023
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A black city council member in McKinney, Texas representing the only majority-minority district in the city who was recalled from his position by the city's residents.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
City of McKinney, Texas (McKinney, Collin), City
Defendant Type(s):
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):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Texas 4:20-cv-00687
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 21-40798
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Preliminary relief request withdrawn/mooted
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Race(s):
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Voting: