Last Updated: August 2, 2013 at 9:36 AM
LULAC v. Harris County
Case Information
Date Filed: October 11, 2012
State: Texas
Issues: Voter Registration, Voting Rights Act
Courts that Heard this Case: United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case 4:12-cv-03035)
Issue:
Whether Harris County's rejection of voter registrations solely because the voter's listed address is a commercial address is proper under the Voting Rights Act and a previous consent decree.
Status:
Complaint filed 10/11/12. Answer filed 12/18/12. Unopposed Motion to Dismiss filed 7/29/13. Case Dismissed 8/1/13.
District Court Documents
- Complaint
(filed 10/11/12) - Order for Conference and Disclosure
(filed 10/12/12) - Unopposed Application for a District Court of Three Judges
(filed 10/15/12) - Order Granting District Court of Three Judges
(filed 10/15/12) - Certificate of Interested Parties
(filed 10/25/12) - Certificate of Interested Parties
(filed 12/18/12) - Answer
(filed 12/18/12) - Joint Discovery Report
(filed 1/29/13) - Rule 16 Scheduling Order
(filed 2/8/13) - Plaintiffs' Rule 26 Initial Disclosures
(filed 2/15/13) - Defendant's Initial Disclosures
(filed 2/26/13) - Motion for Extension of Time on Expert Disclosures
(filed 3/19/13) - Agreed Motion to Extend Deadlines
(filed 3/25/13) - Amended Scheduling Order
(filed 4/9/13) - Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline
(filed 4/26/13) - Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline
(filed 6/5/13) - Proposed Order Granting Motion to Extend Deadline
(filed 6/5/13) - Order Granting Motion to Extend Deadline
(filed 6/17/13) - Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadlines
(filed 7/15/13)
- Proposed Order
(filed 7/15/13)
- Proposed Order
- Order Granting Motion to Extend Deadlines
(filed 7/16/13) - Unopposed Motion to Dismiss
(filed 7/29/13)
- Proposed Order Granting
(filed 7/29/13)
- Proposed Order Granting
- Order Granting Dismissal
(filed 8/1/13)


Commentary
Gerrymandering as Viewpoint Discrimination: A "Functional Equivalence" Test
Edward B. Foley
A First Amendment test for identifying when a map is functionally equivalent to a facially discriminatory statute.
more commentary...