[EL] Texas swagger

[Justin Levitt]

Actually, Rick's link below isn't the only way in which swagger has cost 
Texas attorneys fees.

The Davis matter referenced (docs here 
<http://redistricting.lls.edu/cases-TX.php#TXSenate>) was about Texas's 
state Senate maps.  The suit posture unfolded as it did, with a federal 
court in Texas imposing interim compromise maps for 2012, largely 
because Texas opted to skip administrative preclearance with the DOJ 
entirely, and head directly to court.  (Michigan was the only other 
state <http://redistricting.lls.edu/who-preclear.php> subject to 
preclearance to do so this cycle.) Although DOJ would have objected to 
Texas's state House and Congressional maps, DOJ said 
<https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeOfQQnUr_gMTY3NDRlZmYtYTg4MC00ODA4LWEwYTMtNDNjMmQ3MzI0NzFh/edit?hl=en_US> 
that it would not have objected to preclearance of the state Senate plan 
... and that would have been the end of the story for preclearance, with 
litigation facing an uphill path.  Instead, intervenors in the judicial 
preclearance proceeding forced a very different outcome.

Had Texas submitted first to the DOJ, rather than heading straight to 
court, it's likely that any litigation over the state Senate plan would 
have taken a _very_ different path, and perhaps yielded no liability at 
all.  Instead, either bravado or bad legal advice (or both) cost them 
both time and money.

-- 
Justin Levitt
Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321

On 6/19/2014 10:34 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
>     Texas Swagger Costs It Attorneys Fees in Voting Rights Case
>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62537>
>
> Posted on June 19, 2014 10:21 am 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62537>by Rick Hasen 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See this order 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/texas-order.pdf> in 
> /State of Texas v. Davis/:
>
>     This matter presents a case study in how not to respond to a
>     motion for attorney fees and costs. At issue is whether
>     defendant-intervenors, who prevailed in Voting Rights Act
>     litigation before a three-judge panel, may recoup attorney fees
>     and costs even though the Supreme Court vacated that opinion in
>     light of the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in a different
>     lawsuit that declared a section of the Voting Rights Act
>     unconstitutional. A quick search of the Federal Reporter reveals
>     the complexity of this narrow question. Yet, rather than engage
>     the fee applicants, Plaintiff Texas basically ignores the
>     arguments supporting an award of fees and costs. In a three-page
>     filing entitled "Advisory," Texas trumpets the Supreme Court's
>     decision, expresses indignation at having to respond at all, and
>     presumes that the motion for attorney fees is so frivolous that
>     Texas need not provide further briefing in opposition unless
>     requested. Such an opposition is insufficient in this
>     jurisdiction. Circuit precedent and the Local Rules of this Court
>     provide that the failure to respond to an opposing party's
>     arguments results in waiver as to the unaddressed contentions, and
>     the Court finds that Texas's "Advisory" presents no opposition on
>     the applicable law. Accordingly, the Court will award the
>     requested fees and costs.
>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140619/b2738893/attachment.html>