True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]

7/29/2019 True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]

1/24

1

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

______________________________________

)THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:13-CV-00193

)

STATE OF TEXAS and JOHN STEEN, )

in his official capacity as Secretary of State, )

STEVE MCCRAW, in his official capacity )

as Director of the Texas Department of Public )Safety, )

Defendants. )

______________________________________ )

MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF TRUE THE VOTE

AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

True the Vote (Proposed Intervener) respectfully moves this Court for leave to

intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b).1

As grounds

therefore, Proposed Intervener states as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION.

In this case, Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin the State of Texas from continuing to

enforce Senate Bill 14, the states requirement that registered voters establish they are

who they say they are before they cast a ballot by means of a variety of state approved

identification documents. Plaintiff seeks this relief on the grounds that the requirement that

1 A proposed Answer in Intervention is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 1 of 14


2/24

2

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

voters establish identity through various documents violates Section 2 of the Voting

Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 1973), Section 12(d) of the Voting Rights Act, and violates

rights contained in the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment.

Proposed Intervener respectfully submits that Plaintiff is wrong and that Plaintiff

lacks standing to assert any constitutional claims. Plaintiff also notably seeks to re-

impose federal mandates on the entire state of Texas which the Supreme Court recently

invalidated as unconstitutional in Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) under

Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act.

Again, the Plaintiff is attempting to obtain a remedy which this Court does not

have the jurisdiction to grant. This Court does not have the authority to impose statewide

mandates on Texas to submit all future state, county and local election law changes to the

Plaintiff for approval under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. Even if this Court were

to agree that SB 14 violates federal law or is unconstitutional, this Court lacks power to

impose new preclearance requirements on Texas that are permanent, affect counties and

local governments, and most of all, are wholly unrelated to SB 14. It is undisputed that

this Court may impose preclearance mandates on Defendants for any future voting

change relating to voter identification documents, if liability is found, but not for all

future Texas election law changes, and certainly not for all voting changes made by the

thousands of sub-jurisdictions across Texas.

Proposed Intervener seeks to enter this lawsuit in order to demonstrate that SB 14

is consistent with federal law, and that any scheme to recapture Texas under the

preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act must be weighed by this Court, sitting



3/24

3

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

as a court in equity, against the Plaintiffs history of court sanctions and abusive conduct

in the preclearance process over the last two decades. Proposed Intervener has a long

history of publically defending SB 14 and played a significant role in the passage of the

statute. Intervention will ensure that the organizational interests and interests of the

members and volunteers of True the Vote are adequately protected and preserved.

II. BACKGROUND.

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on August 22, 2013. In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges

that the defendants are violating various federal statutes and asks this Court to declare

that Texas enacted the voter identification requirement of SB 14 because Texas elected

officials sought to discriminate against black and Hispanics. Plaintiff asks this Court to

declare that SB 14 violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment, and provisions of

the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiff has asked this Court, as a remedy, to give Plaintiff the

power to approve or reject all voting changes in Texas.

III. PROPOSED INTERVENER TRUE THE VOTE

True the Vote is a non-profit organization organized and headquartered in

Houston, Texas, that seeks to restore truth, faith, and integrity to local, state, and federal

elections. True the Vote seeks to intervene in this action in its individual, organizational

capacity.

As an integral part of its public interest mission to ensure the integrity of the

nations electoral system,2

Proposed Intervener True the Vote conducts a wide variety of

2See True the Vote Mission Statement, available at http://truethevote.org/about/.



4/24

4

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

activities to promote election integrity in Texas. It trains poll watchers who monitor

elections for compliance with state and federal law. The monitors also identify and

catalog possible instances of voting irregularities or fraud in the polling place, including

potential voter impersonation or failure of election officials to verify the identity of

voters. True the Vote also obtains and examines official lists of eligible voters and other

voter registration data from states, counties, and localities across the United States,

including the State of Texas, to carry out its various programs. As part of this program,

True the Vote has identified significant numbers of ineligible voters who have been

registered to vote in Texas. These include registered voters who profess on voter

registration forms obtained by True the Vote not to be United States citizens.3

True the Vote also trains volunteers to review official lists of eligible voters and

voter registration data and to compare these lists and data to other publically available

data to identify possible inaccuracies and deficiencies. Registrations that appear to be

duplicates or registrations of persons who are deceased, have relocated, or otherwise are

ineligible to vote in a particular jurisdiction are flagged and citizen complaints are filed

with the appropriate elections officials. This particular program is an integral part of

True the Votes public interest mission. The program has demonstrated that vast

numbers of improper voter registrations remain on rolls across Texas, including voters

who have died. This circumstance supports the need for SB 14.

3 These improper registrations by non-citizens constitute criminal violations of federal law. True

the Vote has brought some of these false registrations to the attention of the Plaintiff, yet

Plaintiff has seemingly taken no action.



5/24

5

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

If Texas is prevented from validating the identity of voters attempting to vote, then

the significant efforts to ensure that only eligible voters are participating in Texas

elections is impaired.

True the Vote has made multiple criminal referrals to law enforcement agencies

about ineligible voters who have appeared to register to vote, or have actually voted,

including referrals to the Plaintiff. Rooting out and aiding the prosecution of election

fraud is a core mission of True the Vote.

Failure to require photo identification impairs the ability of prosecutors to

prosecute these voter fraud cases. In states without photo identification requirements, the

accused can simply claim the person who voted under their name was not them. In states

with photo identification requirements, the prosecutor can inform the fact-finder of the

states photo identification requirement, thus effectively foreclosing a defendants false

defense that the actual person who engaged in illegal conduct was someone else. A photo

identification law deters voter fraud, but also helps prosecutors obtain convictions when

it occurs.

If successful, Plaintiffs attempt to invalidate SB 14 will impair the ability of True

the Vote to carry out its public interest mission of promoting election integrity in Texas.

IV. MATTER OF RIGHT

To intervene of right under Rule 24(a)(2), an applicant must meet the following

requirements:

(1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant

must have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the

subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the



6/24

6

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his

ability to protect that interest; (4) the applicant's interest must be

inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit.

New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, 463 (5th

Cir.) (en banc) (quoting International Tank Terminals, Ltd. v. M/V Acadia Forest,

579 F.2d 964, 967 (5th Cir. 1978)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1019, 105 S. Ct. 434, 83

L. Ed. 2d 360 (1984). Failure to satisfy any one requirement precludes

intervention of right. Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1205 (5th Cir. 1994);

Kneeland v. NCAA, 806 F.2d 1285, 1287 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 817,

108 S. Ct. 72, 98 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1987). Proposed Interveners easily meet these

criteria. Nonetheless, "the inquiry under subsection (a)(2) is a flexible one, which

focuses on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding each application.

[and] intervention of right must be measured by a practical rather than technical

yardstick." Texas E. Transmission Corp., 923 F.2d at 413 (quoting United States v.

Allegheny-Ludlum Indus., Inc., 517 F.2d 826, 841 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied,

425 U.S. 944, 944, 96 S. Ct. 1684, 1684, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 187 (1976)). Allowing

parties to intervene serves the interests of judicial efficiency, since intervention

allows courts to resolve related disputes in a single action. See Stallworth v.

Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 265 (5th Cir. 1997).

A. Intervention is Timely.

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on August 22, 2013. This motion to intervene is being

submitted a mere month after Plaintiff initiated this action. Accordingly, there is no

delay and hence no prejudice to the existing parties. Stallworth, 558 F.2d at 262.



7/24

7

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

(intervention request filed after one month was timely); In re Babcock & Wilcox., 2001

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23378 (E.D. La.) (five month delay not untimely); Poynor v.

Chesapeake Energy Ltd. Pship (In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig.), 570 F.3d 244, (5th Cir.

Tex. 2009) (two year delay not untimely). However, Proposed Intervenerwouldbe

prejudiced if it is not allowed to intervene, as they would be left without a reasonable

opportunity to protect their interests. Stallworth, 558 F.2d at 264-65.

B. Proposed Interveners Have a Direct and Protectable Interest.

If Texas is unable to verify the identity of proposed voters and if Texas and all

sub-jurisdictions within Texas are forced to seek Plaintiffs approval before making any

changes to laws affecting elections, True the Votes members and volunteers

confidence in the integrity of the election process will be undermined. Moreover, True

the Votes attempts to ensure that only eligible voters are casting ballots in Texas will be

impaired.

The organizational injury True the Vote may suffer is direct and protectable. An

independent basis for organizational standing exists when a defendants conduct makes it

difficult or impossible for the organization to fulfill one of its essential purposes or goals.

See generally Voting for Am., Inc. v. Andrade, 888 F. Supp. 2d 816, 2012 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 108303, 2012 WL 3155566 (S.D. Tex. 2012) Furthermore, an organization has

standing to sue on its own behalf if it suffered an injury in fact that was fairly . . .

trace[able] to the challenged action. Louisiana ACORN Fair Hous. v. LeBlanc, 211 F.3d

298 (5th Cir. 2000), citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

Thus, True the Vote will show that the enjoining of Texas to stop the enforcement of



8/24

8

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

SB14 will be an injury-in-fact, that that injury will be caused by Plaintiff, and that the

requested relief will redress that injury. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560; Ass'n for Retarded

Citizens of Dallas v. Dallas County Mental Health & Mental Retardation Ctr. Bd. of

Trustees, 19 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 1994). The challenged acts will frustrate and hamper

its ability to engage in its mission. Voting for Am., Inc. v. Andrade, 888 F. Supp. 2d 816,

(S.D. Tex. 2012), citing Havens v. Coleman, 455 US 363, 379 (1982) (illegal acts impair

its ability to engage in its projects by forcing the organization to divert resources to

counteract those illegal acts), and those acts will be a drain on [True the Votes]

resources. Cleburne Living Ctr. v. Cleburne, 726 F.2d 191, 204 (5th Cir. Tex. 1984).

True the Vote may intervene on behalf of its members and volunteers to protect

their interest in election integrity and to combat vote dilution because such an action is

core to True the Votes public interest mission. Havens, 455 U.S. at 379. As the Carter-

Baker Report observed, the electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no

safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Crawford,

v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 197 (2008).

Furthermore, True the Votes members and volunteers also have a direct and

protectable interest in ensuring their votes are not diluted as a result of Plaintiffs actions.

Vote dilution as directly related to voting, the most basic of political rights, is

sufficiently concrete and specific. FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 25 (1998). That injury is

both provable and traceable to the Plaintiffs actions.



9/24

9

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

C. The Disposition in This Case Will Directly Affect Proposed

Intervener

As described above in Sections III and IV.B., an unfavorable disposition in this

action will directly harm True the Vote. An adverse Court ruling, either in the liability or

the remedial phase of this case, will have a direct impact on True the Vote, and Proposed

Intervener therefore has a direct, substantial and legally protected interest in the subject

matter of this litigation. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co.,

732 F.2d 452, 452 (5th Cir. La. 1984).

D. Adequacy of Representation.

The burden under this prong has been described as minimal, as a party seeking

to intervene needs to show only that representation of his interest may be inadequate.

Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972). Defendants

representation is inadequate to protect Proposed Interveners interest for two reasons.

First, in the previous case concerning SB 14, Tex. v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C.

2012), Plaintiff conducted discovery about True the Votes political and legislative

activities, ostensibly to demonstrate that SB 14 was enacted by the Texas Legislature

with an impermissible intent. Second, the Defendants do not possess the wellspring of

data about improper voter registrations throughout Texas and other irregularities in the

conduct of elections across Texas.

During litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

regarding SB 14, Plaintiffs engaged in intrusive discovery regarding True the Votes

constitutionally protected political speech and legislative activities, particularly



10/24

10

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

pertaining to the enactment of SB 14. In that case, the United States pried into the

Proposed Interveners First Amendment rights of free association, rights to petition for

redress and rights of political speech throughout depositions. This probe extended even

to discussions between True the Vote members and Texas legislators. No objections

were made to these inquiries by the Defendants in this case (who were also Plaintiffs in

Tex. v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2012), the Section 5 case Texas initiated to

obtain preclearance of SB14). Plaintiffs inquiries in the previous case were likely made

because Plaintiff improperly considered constitutionally protected activities by True the

Vote to be relevant to Plaintiffs allegation that SB 14 was enacted with a racially

discriminatory purpose. Plaintiff has again made the allegation that SB 14 was enacted

with a racially discriminatory purpose, and True the Votes interest in defending its

constitutionally protected activities, and rebutting Plaintiffs possible false inferences as

to the intent of SB 14 may again be inadequately represented by the Defendant.

Second, in this case, Texas does not possess the wellspring of data which True the

Vote has accumulated about ineligible voter registrations on the rolls in Texas and how

these statewide problems with voter registrations provided a motivation for enactment of

SB 14 other than the racially infused motivation Plaintiff alleges. 4 Indeed, Texas

introduced no evidence in the previous case demonstrating that voter rolls in Texas are

infested with ineligible, dead and duplicate voters. This is understandable, and cleanly

4 In fact, the District Court in the District of Columbia placed essentially no weight whatsoever

on data offered by Texas relating to other matters at issue. See Tex. v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d

113, 127-129, (D.D.C. 2012), disregarding all expert statistical data by Texas. No data wasoffered by Texas regarding corrupted voter rolls or data about election irregularities derived from

True the Vote election monitoring in the previous case.



11/24

11

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

demonstrates the inadequacy of Defendants representation in the case before this Court.

Naturally, Defendants are severely impaired in their ability to assert defenses regarding

corrupted voter rolls, if not foreclosed, because doing so may constitute admissions that

Defendants, or counties within Texas, are failing to comply with Section 8 of the

National Voter Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6). If significant problems exist

with voter registration rolls in Texas, Defendants are unlikely to say so because the

Plaintiff has the power to sue Texas for failure to conduct adequate list maintenance.

Nevertheless, inadequately maintained voter rolls provide a key purpose for enactment of

SB 14 and the citizens of Texas have no advocate positioned to provide this Court with

the data relating to faulty election administration True the Vote has accumulated, faulty

administration that SB 14 would mitigate.

Moreover, Defendants cannot adequately represent the many local governments

and interests which would be affected by an overbroad reading of Section 3 of the Voting

Rights Act by this Court. The Plaintiff seeks to capture every single entity in the State of

Texas for renewed preclearance obligations for every conceivable election law change,

not just the voter identification requirements of SB 14. Renewed preclearance

obligations would impose enormous costs on entities inadequately represented by the

Defendants. Moreover, the damage to federalism by such an overbroad reading of

Section 3 would not stop merely at the damage done to Defendants, but would extend

across the state. Plaintiffs previous exercise of preclearance powers over these smaller

governmental entities in Texas has been abusive and far beyond the scope of federal law.

Proposed Intervener has a broad membership and volunteer base comprised of taxpayers



12/24

12

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

from these local governmental units which currently have no interests represented in this

case. True the Vote represents the interests of volunteers and members in small

communities in Texas who do not wish the outcome of this case to reassert federal power

over all local election matters, a position the Defendants inadequately represent as

statewide officials.

V. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION SHOULD

BE GRANTED.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1) governs permissive intervention and provides:

On timely motion, the Court may permit anyone to intervene who: (A) isgiven a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a claim

or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or

fact.

As the Fifth Circuit has declared that permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

24(b) requires a consideration of whether the intervenors' interests are adequately

represented by other parties" and whether they "will significantly contribute to full

development of the underlying factual issues in the suit." New Orleans Public Service,

Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, (5th Cir. La. 1984). As demonstrated

above, this test is satisfied here.

Rule 24(b)(3) also requires the Court to consider whether permissive intervention

will cause undue delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the existing parties.

As described above, in this instance no prejudice or delay will result from intervention.

Proposed Interveners intend to comply with the schedule already in place in this matter,

and their participation will not affect the scheduling of this case in any way. Thus, at a



13/24

13

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

minimum, Proposed Interveners respectfully request that they be granted permissive

intervention.

This is a cause of action and a remedy which the United States has no standing to

seek. Constitutional violations must be redressed by aggrieved individuals, not the

Voting Section of the Department of Justice.

VII. CONCLUSION.

For the forgoing reasons, Proposed Intervener respectfully requests that this Court

grant them leave to intervene in this action.

Dated: September 25, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joseph M. Nixon___________

Joseph M. Nixon attorney-in-charge

State Bar No. 15244899

James E. (Trey) Trainor, III


BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS, L.L.P.

1300 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2500Houston, TX 77056

Telephone: (713) 623-0887

Facsimile: (713) 960-1527

Email: [email protected]

J. Christian Adams

South Carolina Bar No. 7136

ELECTION LAW CENTER, PLLC300 N. Washington Street

Suite 405

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Telephone: (703) 963-8611


(Pro Hac Vice application to be filed)



14/24

14

1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I did serve a copy of this Motion for Intervention of True the

Vote and Memorandum in Support on all counsel who have made appearance in this case

and consented to service by electronic means through the Electronic Case Filing system

on this 25th day of September 2013.

/s/ Joseph M. Nixon___________

Joseph M. Nixon



15/24

1

1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763

Exhibit 1

Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38-1 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 1 of 10


16/24

2

1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

______________________________________

)THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:13-CV-00193

)

STATE OF TEXAS and JOHN STEEN, )

in his official capacity as Secretary of State, )

STEVE MCCRAW, in his official capacity )

as Director of the Texas Department of Public )Safety, )

Defendants. )

______________________________________ )

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENER TRUE THE VOTE

Defendant-Intervener True the Vote (Interveners) hereby submits this Answer in

the above-captioned case and state as follows:

ANSWER

1. Admitted, except that the Attorney General of the United States has no

standing to assert constitutional claims under the 14th

or 15th

Amendments as the Plaintiff

may not press a claim which only an aggrieved individual may press. Instead, the

Attorney General may only bring claims under specific statutes which codify

constitutional claims and permit actions pertaining to intentional discrimination which

violates a statute, not the Constitution.



17/24

3

1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Admitted in part, and denied in part. This Court has jurisdiction to hear various

statutory claims, but does not have subject matter jurisdiction to impose various remedies

sought by the Plaintiff, including statewide imposition of federal preclearance obligations

for any jurisdiction other than the Defendant itself. Further, this Court does not have

subject matter jurisdiction to impose various remedies sought by the Plaintiff, including

the imposition of federal preclearance obligations for any election law change other than

changes relating to voter identification requirements.

3. Admitted.

PARTIES

4. Admitted.

5. Admitted.

6. Admitted.

7. Admitted.

ALLEGATIONS

8. Admitted, except to the extent that citizens voting age population (CVAP) is the

only demographic metric with any relevance to this case.

9. Admitted, except to the extent that citizens voting age population (CVAP) is the

only demographic metric with any relevance to this case.

10. Admitted.

11. Defendant-Intervener lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the specific

allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny them. To the extent that a response is



18/24

4

1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763

required, Spanish surname analysis, due to a variety of factors including inter-marriage

across generations, is notoriously unreliable and carries little to no weight in this dispute.


allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny them.

13. Denied. To the extent any further response is necessary, economic circumstances

do not give rise to a protected class under the Voting Rights Act.

14. Denied. To the extent any further response is necessary, automobile ownership

does not give rise to a protected class under the Voting Rights Act.

15. Denied. Furthermore, any history of discrimination in Texas is not relevant

evidence for whether or not imposition of federal preclearance obligations may be

imposed by this Court because of the ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612

(2013), which precluded discrimination which was no longer current or pervasive from

the question of whether federal preclearance obligations were appropriate or

constitutional.

Requirements of SB 14

16. Admitted.

17. Admitted.

18. Admitted.

19. Denied.

20. Denied.

21. Denied.

22. Denied.



19/24

5

1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763

23. Admitted.

24. Denied.

25. Denied.

Passage of SB 14 Was Motivated By Discriminatory Intent

26. Denied.

27. Denied, and Plaintiff is alleging that anti-immigrant rhetoric characterized

passage of SB 14 which would relate to valid Texas voters and United States citizens

when Plaintiff more correctly should allege anti-illegal immigration rhetoric. Admitted

in so far as SB 14 is designed to prevent non-citizens from registering and voting in

contravention to laws enforced by the Plaintiff, activity which has occurred in Texas and

which Plaintiff has not prosecuted.

28. Denied.

29. Denied, and the Supreme Court has deemed such evidence of voter fraud as

unimportant and unnecessary for the adoption of prophylactic voter identification

statutes. Moreover, any instance of illegal voting or non-citizen registration constitutes a

serious problem, and Plaintiff is in possession of evidence regarding voter registrations of

non-citizens in Texas.

30. Denied.

31. Denied, except to the extent that the Defendant making no inquiry into any racially

disparate impact is evidence supporting Defendant and demonstrating that no racially

discriminatory intent affected the passage of SB 14.

32. Denied.



20/24

6

1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763

33. Denied.

34. Denied, as the conclusions in the case cited by the Plaintiff has no relevance to the

voting changes in SB 14 now before this Court.

Implementation and Enforcement of SB 14 Will Have a Discriminatory Result

35. Denied.

36. Denied, is so far as substantial is undefined by Plaintiff. Admitted in part that

some will lack identification.

37. Denied.

38. Denied.

39. Denied, and Defendants have been highly responsive, cohesion coefficients among

minority voters far surpasses coefficients by white voters thus rendering polarization

pattern evidence as favorable to Defendants, the recent history of official discrimination

is almost non-existent in Texas and Senate Factor One evidence of outreach and other

activities will be favorable to Defendants, socioeconomic differences among racial

groups are not statistically significant enough to carry any weight and have no relevance

to voting matters, and racial appeals are used primarily in Democratic primaries among

members of various racial minority groups against other racial minority groups to the

degree they have no relevance to SB 14.

40. Denied, and that evidence will demonstrate that SB 14s relationship to existing

election integrity needs is not tenuous, but rather consistent with Supreme Court

precedent on prophylactic measures and demonstrated fraud.

41. Denied.



21/24

7

1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763

42. Denied.

Administrative and Judicial Review of SB 14 Under Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act

43. Denied in so far as SB 14 has been used in Texas, otherwise Admitted.

44. Admitted.

45. Admitted.

46. Admitted.

47. Admitted, except that the District Court gave the dataset little to no weight.

48. Admitted, except that the District Court gave the dataset little to no weight.



50. Admitted, except that such objection has no weight or relevance to this case

because the statutory standards were such that Texas bore the burden of proof to

demonstrate a complete absence of disparate impact, a burden and standard of proof

which has no relationship to the burden carried by Plaintiff in this case.



52. Admitted.

53. Admitted, in so far as no objection was interposed for discriminatory purpose, the

rest is Denied.

54. Admitted.

55. Admitted, except that such decision has no weight or relevance to this case




22/24

8

1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763















59. Admitted.

60. Admitted.

61. Admitted.

62. Admitted.

63. Admitted.



23/24

9

1857270v.2 IMANAGE 106763

The Need for Section 3(c) Relief

64. Denied, in so far as Texas has not done so during any time relevant to whether or

not this Court may impose preclearance obligations on the Defendant as required by

Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013).

65. Denied.

Cause of Action

66. Denied, in so far as a denial has been made.

67. Admitted.

68. Denied.

69. Denied.

70. Denied.

Dated: September 25, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joseph M. Nixon___________Joseph M. Nixon


James E. (Trey) Trainor, III


BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS, L.L.P.

1300 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2500

Houston, TX 77056

Telephone: (713) 623-0887

Facsimile: (713) 960-1527




24/24

10

J. Christian Adams

South Carolina Bar No. 7136

ELECTION LAW CENTER, PLLC300 N. Washington Street

Suite 405

Alexandria, Virginia 22314Telephone: (703) 963-8611


(Pro Hac Vice application to be filed)


Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	true-the-vote
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]

Documents