Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
True the Vote Motion for Intervention of True the Vote and Memorandum in Support [38]

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

Ratings: (0)|Views: 580|Likes:
Published by True The Vote
USA v. Texas Voter ID
USA v. Texas Voter ID

More info:

Published by: True The Vote on Sep 25, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/27/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASCORPUS 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 VOTEAND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
True the Vote (“Proposed Intervener”) respectfully moves this Court for leave tointervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b).
1
As groundstherefore, Proposed Intervener states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION.
In this case, Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin the State of Texas from continuing toenforce Senate Bill 14, the state’s requirement that registered voters establish they arewho they say they are before they cast a ballot by means of a variety of state approvedidentification 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
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
voters establish identity through various documents violates Section 2 of the VotingRights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973), Section 12(d) of the Voting Rights Act, and violatesrights 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 recentlyinvalidated 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 nothave the jurisdiction to grant. This Court does not have the authority to impose statewidemandates on Texas to submit all future state, county and local election law changes to thePlaintiff for approval under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. Even if this Court wereto agree that SB 14 violates federal law or is unconstitutional, this Court lacks power toimpose new preclearance requirements on Texas that are permanent, affect counties andlocal governments, and most of all, are wholly unrelated to SB 14. It is undisputed thatthis Court may impose preclearance mandates on Defendants for any future votingchange relating to voter identification documents, if liability is found, but not for allfuture Texas election law changes, and certainly not for all voting changes made by thethousands of sub-jurisdictions across Texas.Proposed Intervener seeks to enter this lawsuit in order to demonstrate that SB 14is 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
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 2 of 14
 
3
1857269v.3 IMANAGE 106763
as a court in equity, against the Plaintiff’s history of court sanctions and abusive conductin the preclearance process over the last two decades. Proposed Intervener has a longhistory of publically defending SB 14 and played a significant role in the passage of thestatute. Intervention will ensure that the organizational interests and interests of themembers 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 allegesthat the defendants are violating various federal statutes and asks this Court to declarethat Texas enacted the voter identification requirement of SB 14 because Texas electedofficials sought to discriminate against black and Hispanics. Plaintiff asks this Court todeclare 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 inHouston, Texas, that seeks to restore truth, faith, and integrity to local, state, and federalelections. True the Vote seeks to intervene in this action in its individual, organizationalcapacity.As an integral part of its public interest mission to ensure the integrity of thenation’s electoral system,
2
Proposed Intervener True the Vote conducts a wide variety of 
2
See
True the Vote Mission Statement, available athttp://truethevote.org/about/.
Case 2:13-cv-00193 Document 38 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/13 Page 3 of 14

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->