Mi Familia Vota v. Greg Abbott, Governor ( 2020 )

Case: 20-50907 Document: 00515621384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 30, 2020
No. 20-50907 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Mi Familia Vota; Texas State Conference of the
NAACP; Guadalupe Torres,
Plaintiffs—Appellees,
versus
Greg Abbott, Governor of the State of Texas; Ruth
Hughs, Texas Secretary of State,
Defendants—Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:20-CV-830-JKP
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Davis and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
One week before Election Day, and two weeks into early voting in
Texas, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, holding that
“Exemption 8, which exempts from the mask mandate imposed by Executive
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-50907 Document: 00515621384 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2020
No. 20-50907
Order GA-29 those persons who are ‘voting, assisting a voter, serving as a
poll watcher, or actively administering an election’ is invalid and void.” 1 We
stay the district court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal.
I
Mi Familia Vota, the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and
Guadalupe Torres (collectively, the Plaintiffs) brought this suit challenging
certain Texas voting procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, including
Exemption 8 of Executive Order GA-29. The district court initially
dismissed the case, holding that all claims presented political questions that
were not justiciable.
On appeal, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of four of
Plaintiffs’ five causes of action on other grounds, but we reversed and
remanded with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim under the Voting Rights Act. 2 We
held that “[t]he Plaintiffs’ Voting Rights Act claim does not present a
political question and is not barred by sovereign immunity.” 3 We observed
that “it would be a futile act to remand the Voting Rights Act claim for
plenary consideration with regard to the November 2020 election because it
would be inappropriate for the district court to grant much of the requested
relief with the election ongoing.” 4 However, we identified a “possible
exception” with regard to Exemption 8, noting that “[i]t is at least
1
Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, No. SA-20-CV-00830-JKP, 2020 WL 6304991, at *20
(W.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2020).
2
Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, __ F.3d __, 2020 WL 6058290, at *4 (5th Cir. Oct.
14, 2020).
3
Id. at *7.
4
Id.
2
Case: 20-50907 Document: 00515621384 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/30/2020
No. 20-50907
conceivable that [invalidating Exemption 8] would not materially or
substantially affect the ongoing election.” 5
“[M]indful of the Supreme Court’s repeated admonishment that
‘lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve
of an election,’” we remanded for the district court to determine: (1) whether
Exemption 8 violated the Voting Rights Act; (2) whether invalidating
Exemption 8 would remedy Plaintiffs’ alleged injury; and (3) whether
invalidating Exemption 8 would “materially or substantially affect the
ongoing election.” 6
On remand, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, requesting
that the court declare Exemption 8 invalid and grant other relief in order to
ensure that face coverings are mandatory at polling locations. On Tuesday,
October 27, 2020, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for
preliminary injunction in part, holding that Plaintiffs established a likelihood
of success on the merits that Exemption 8 of Executive Order GA-29 violates
the Voting Rights Act by disproportionately affecting the rights of Black and
Latino citizens to vote. 7 The following day, October 28, 2020, the Governor
and Secretary filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal.
II
We commend the district court for holding a hearing and addressing
the issues with alacrity on remand. The issue now before this court is
whether Governor Abbott and Secretary of State Hughs have satisfied the
5
Id.
6
Id. (quoting Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205,
1207 (2020) (per curiam)).
7
Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, No. SA-20-CV-00830-JKP, 2020 WL 6304991, at *19-
20 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2020).
3
Case: 20-50907 Document: 00515621384 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/30/2020
No. 20-50907
requirements for the issuance of a stay pending appeal. In deciding whether
to grant a stay pending appeal, we consider:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that
he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant
will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance
of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested
in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. 8
“The first two factors . . . are the most critical.” 9
Governor Abbott and Secretary Hughs have shown a likelihood of
success on the merits on at least the argument that the district court
improperly altered election rules on the eve of the election. On the merits,
we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error 10 and its
application of legal standards de novo. 11 A finding is clearly erroneous “when
although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” 12 Thus, for a motion for stay pending appeal, we must consider
whether the Governor and Secretary have made a strong showing of
likelihood of success on the merits by showing the district court erred in its
legal conclusions or that the district court’s factual findings are clearly
erroneous.
8
Veasey v. Perry, 769 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556
U.S. 418, 426 (2009)).
9
Nken, 556 U.S. at 434.
10
Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 229 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
11
N.A.A.C.P. v. Fordice, 252 F.3d 361, 364 (5th Cir. 2001).
12
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395
(1948)).
4
Case: 20-50907 Document: 00515621384 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/30/2020
No. 20-50907
“The Supreme Court has ‘repeatedly emphasized that lower federal
courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an
election.’” 13 “Time and time again over the past several years, the Supreme
Court has stayed lower court orders that change election rules on the eve of
an election.” 14 “The principle from these cases is clear: court changes of
election laws close in time to the election are strongly disfavored.” 15 With
these concerns in mind, this court has consistently stayed recent injunctions
altering Texas’s election rules. 16
The district court justified its interference with Texas’s election rules
by concluding that any potential confusion caused by invalidating Exemption
8 would be “minimal and outweighed by the opportunity created for non-
13
Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs, No. 20-40643, 2020 WL 5816887, at *1 (5th
Cir. Sept. 30, 2020) (per curiam) (quoting Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l
Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020) (per curiam)).
14
Id. (first citing North Carolina v. League of Women Voters of N.C., 574 U.S. 927
(2014) (staying a lower court order that changed election laws thirty-three days before the
election); then citing Husted v. Ohio State Conf. of N.A.A.C.P., 573 U.S. 988 (2014) (staying
a lower court order that changed election laws sixty days before the election); then citing
Veasey v. Perry, 135 S. Ct. 9 (2014) (denying application to vacate Court of Appeals’s stay
of district court injunction that changed election laws on eve of election); and then citing
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (staying a lower court order changing election laws
twenty-nine days before the election)).
15
Id. at *2.
16
See, e.g., id. (“[b]earing . . . in mind” that “court changes of election laws close
in time to the election are strongly disfavored” when staying a preliminary injunction
concerning straight-ticket voting); Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 961 F.3d 389, 411-12 (5th
Cir. 2020) (expressing concerns about altering election rules close in time to the election
when staying an injunction regarding eligibility to vote by mail); Richardson v. Tex. Sec’y of
State, __ F.3d__, 2020 WL 6127721, at *18 (5th Cir. Oct. 19, 2020) (Higginbotham,
J., concurring in the stay) (concurring in the stay of an injunction regarding signature
verification of mail-in ballots and noting that “[t]he Supreme Court has consistently
counseled against court-imposed changes to ‘election rules on the eve of an election’”
(citing Repub. Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. at 1207)).
5
Case: 20-50907 Document: 00515621384 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/30/2020
No. 20-50907
discriminatory access to the voting process.” 17 The district court reasoned
that it was “not ordering a drastic change” to the election rules because
“[t]hose citizens who arrive at a polling site while not wearing a facial mask
will be easily recognized and options for compliance or redirection are not
complicated or extensive.” 18 To support this contention, the district court
referred to a declaration from the Elections Administrator for Bexar County
stating that each polling place in the county set up “isolated machines” for
voters without masks “to cast their ballots in relative isolation.” 19 However,
that exact practice would violate GA-29 if Exemption 8 were invalidated.
Texas counties would no longer be able to implement the accommodations
described by the Bexar County Elections Administer. Instead, they would be
required to enforce the general mask mandate of GA-29.
Plaintiffs raised no other evidence, nor did the district court cite to
any, to support the proposition that the disruption to Texas’s election rules
would be minimal. In contrast, the Governor and Secretary offered
declarations from five election officials who unanimously agreed that
changing the election rules to require voters to wear masks this close to the
election would be costly and cause voter confusion. The Moore County
Elections Administrator declared that changing the election rules at this
point would be a “shipwreck,” and that “such a change would cause voters
to become angry and confused, and it would slow down our ability to run
Moore County’s polling places.” Another official stated that “changing the
rules now to make masks mandatory would undoubtedly cause voter
confusion . . . [and] would require our office to train our poll workers on how
17
Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, No. SA-20-CV-00830-JKP, 2020 WL 6304991, at *19
(W.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2020).
18
Id. at *18.
19
Id. at *18-19.
6
Case: 20-50907 Document: 00515621384 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/30/2020
No. 20-50907
to respond to voters who show up to the polls without a mask.” The Director
of Elections for the Texas Secretary of State concluded that “there is not
enough time to . . . effectively” “re-train, re-educate, and re-advise all 254
counties, municipalities, local election officials, poll watchers, and the
millions of voters who have yet to cast their ballots.”
The district court’s reasoning is flawed. The injunction was issued
fourteen days after early voting began and one week before Election Day.
Today, Friday, October 30, 2020, is the last day in Texas for early voting.
General Election Day is four days away. A change in the election rules at this
point alters the status quo established by GA-29 and Exemption 8 on July 2,
2020. More than nine million voters have already cast ballots in Texas during
early voting, 20 which is more than the entire voter turnout of 8,969,226 for
the 2016 election. We acknowledge that requiring voters to wear a mask in
order to vote is not akin to the level of election disruption that would have
resulted from other injunctions this court has stayed. 21 Nevertheless, the
Governor and Sectary’s unrebutted evidence establishes that changing the
election rules in the midst of voting would create disparate treatment of
voters, and significant confusion and difficulty for voters and poll workers.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Governor and Secretary have made a
20
See Election Information & Turnout Data, 2020 November 3rd General Election,
Tex. Sec’y of State, https://earlyvoting.texas-election.com/Elections (last visited
October 30, 2020).
21
See, e.g., Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs, No. 20-40643, 2020 WL 5816887, at
*1-2 (5th Cir. Sept. 30, 2020) (per curiam) (staying a preliminary injunction that would
have required the Secretary to reinstate straight-ticket voting eighteen days before early
voting began); Tex. Democratic Party, 961 F.3d at 394 (staying a “sweeping” preliminary
injunction that would have “require[d] state officials . . . to distribute mail-in ballots to any
eligible voter who wants one”).
7
Case: 20-50907 Document: 00515621384 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/30/2020
No. 20-50907
strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits that the district
court erred by altering Texas’s election rules in the midst of an election.
Further, the Governor and Secretary have met the burden of showing
irreparable injury if we do not stay the district court’s injunction invalidating
Exemption 8, which carries “the force and effect of law.” 22 “When a statute
is enjoined, the State necessarily suffers the irreparable harm of denying the
public interest in the enforcement of its laws.” 23 Given that the Governor
and Secretary have established a likelihood of success on the merits and
irreparable injury, the two “most critical” factors, 24 the alleged harm to the
Plaintiffs cannot outweigh the other factors. 25
* * *
For these reasons, we GRANT the Defendants’ emergency motion
for stay pending appeal.
22
Tex. Gov. Code § 418.012.
23
Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 734 F.3d 406,
419 (5th Cir. 2013).
24
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009).
25
See Planned Parenthood, 734 F.3d at 419 (“While we acknowledge that Planned
Parenthood has also made a strong showing that their interests would be harmed by staying
the injunction, given the State’s likely success on the merits, this is not enough, standing
alone, to outweigh the other factors.”).
8