The three-judge panel in the Texas Voter-ID Case is now adjudicating claim two of the first amended expedited complaint for declaratory judgment that the Section 5 preclearance obligation violates the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the Federal Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. The facial challenge to Section 5 was added to the first amended complaint for declaratory judgment in addition to SB-14 preclearance. The constitutionality of the Section 5 preclearance obligation would not be adjudicated by this judicial panel unless judicial preclearance is denied to Senate Bill 14 in accordance with the constitutional avoidance doctrine. The State of Texas filled the motion for summary judgment on October 1st, the DOJ and defendant-intervenors filed its motion for summary judgment on October 22nd. Reply briefs on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment on claim two of the plaintiff’s first amended expedited complaint for declaratory judgment are due on November 1st for the State of Texas and November 13th for the DOJ and defendent-intervenors. Oral argument has not been scheduled on preclearance constitutionality. This three-judge panel will affirm the constitutionality of Section 5 and therefore respectfully grant the DOJ and defendant-intervenors’ motions for summary judgment based on Shelby County v. Holder, LaRoque v. Holder, and Northwest Austin v. Mukasey. The State of Texas thereafter would file and submit a jurisdictional statement to appeal denied judicial preclearance on declaratory judgment (claim one)and preclearance constitutionality on summary judgment (claim two) ruling to the Supreme Court thereafter should this occur.

The three-judge panel in the Texas Voter-ID Case is now adjudicating claim two of the first amended expedited complaint for declaratory judgment that the Section 5 preclearance obligation violates the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the Federal Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. The facial challenge to Section 5 was added to the first amended complaint for declaratory judgment in addition to SB-14 preclearance. The constitutionality of the Section 5 preclearance obligation would not be adjudicated by this judicial panel unless judicial preclearance is denied to Senate Bill 14 in accordance with the constitutional avoidance doctrine. The State of Texas filled the motion for summary judgment on October 1st, the DOJ and defendant-intervenors filed its motion for summary judgment on October 22nd. Reply briefs on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment on claim two of the plaintiff’s first amended expedited complaint for declaratory judgment are due on November 1st for the State of Texas and November 13th for the DOJ and defendent-intervenors. Oral argument has not been scheduled on preclearance constitutionality. This three-judge panel will affirm the constitutionality of Section 5 and therefore respectfully grant the DOJ and defendant-intervenors’ motions for summary judgment based on Shelby County v. Holder, LaRoque v. Holder, and Northwest Austin v. Mukasey. The State of Texas thereafter would file and submit a jurisdictional statement to appeal denied judicial preclearance on declaratory judgment (claim one)and preclearance constitutionality on summary judgment (claim two) ruling to the Supreme Court thereafter should this occur.