Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50581
L ULAC OFT EXAS ; MEXI CA N AM ER I CA N B AR A S S OC IAT I ON O F HO UST ON, T EXAS (M ABAH) ; ANGELAGARCIA; BER NARDO J GARCIA; ELVI RA R I OS; ROGER R OCHA; ROS ARI O VERA ; RAYM UN DO VELARDE P l ai n t i f fs- A pp el l an t s v. S TA TE OF TE XAS ; T EXAS DEM OCRAT I C PARTY D efen da n t s- A pp el l ee s

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 5: 08- c v- 00389
B ef ore R E AV L E Y , B A R K S D A L E , an d G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * Pl ai nt i f fs- A ppel l ant s LU LA C of Texas, th e M exi c an A m er i c an B ar Ass o c i at i o n o f H o us t o n, Tex as , and s e ve r al i ndivi dua l s w ho r e s i de i n var i o us T exas sena t ori aldi st ri ct s app ealf rom t h e di sm i ssalby a s i n gl e-j u dg e di st ri ct court of

t h ei r c l ai m s un der S e ctio n 5 o f t h e V ot i n g R i gh t s A ctagainst D e fe nda nt s - Appe l l e e s t he St at e o f T e xa s and t he T e xa s D e m o c r at i cP ar t y (t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 17, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50581

2 “ P art y”) , contending t h at the j u dg e sh ou l d h ave referred t h ei r c l ai m s t o a t h reej u dg e court. P l ai n t i f

fs’ sui t cha l l en ges t h e P art y’ s m et h od of al l ocat i n g del egates t o it s nom i nat i ng c onvent i ons based on raw vot ertur nout , a pr oc edur e thatw as n otprecl eared byt h e U n it ed S t ates A t t orney G en eralor t h e D i st ri ct C ou rtf or th e D is tr ic t o f C o lu m b i a . R e v ie w in gth e d is m is s a l de no vo , s e eI n reKat r i na CanalB r e ache s Li t ig. , 495 F
. 3d 1 91 , 2 05 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7) , w e AFF I RM t he di sm i ssalf

or th e State, R E V E R S E t h e di sm i ssal f or t h e P art y, an d R E M A N D f or t h e f ol l ow i n g reasons: 1 . W e a g r e e wi t h Pl a i n t i f fs t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e ’ s f i n d i n g o f

no di scr i m i n ati on against L ati n o voter s r esul t i n g f rom t h e P art y’ s del egateall o c at i o n m e t ho d d o e s no ts upp o r tdi s m i s s alo f t he i r§ 5 c l ai m a ga i ns tt he Part y. Sec t i on 5 pr ec l ear ance ac t i ons ge ner al l y m u st be r es olved by a th ree -j u d ge cou rt, w h ose de ci sion i s appea l a b l e on l y to th e S u p rem e C ou rt. S ee 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 7 3 c ; LU LA C v. Texas , 113 F. 3d 53, 55 ( 5t h C i r . 1997) (pe rc ur i am )
. Si nc e t he c hall e nge d p r ac t i c e w as no tpr ecl ear e d, t he i n qu i ry by a three-j u dg e di st ri ctcourti s li m i t ed to w h et h er § 5 covers a c o n te s te dch a n g e , a n d , if so , th e a p p r o p r ia te r e m e d y . L opez v. Mon t erey Co u n ty , 5 19 U
. S. 9 , 2 3, 1 17 S
. C t . 3 40, 3 49 ( 19 96 )
. The c o ve r ag e i s s ue t ur ns o n: ( 1) w he t he rt he de l e ga t e - all o c at i o n m e t ho d i s a“ ‘ s t and ar d, p r a c tic e , o rp r o c e d u r e w ith re s p e c t t o v o tin g ’w ith in t h e m e a n in go f § 5 ,” D o ugh er ty Co u n ty, G a ., B d
. of E d u c. v. W h ite , 43 9 U
. S
. 32 , 33

– 3 4 , 99 S
. C t. 36 8, 3 70 ( 19 78 ) ; ( 2) w he t he rt he m e t ho d c o ns t i t ut e s a“ c hang e ” t o t he c o v e r e dju r is d ic tio n ’ s b a s e lin e , i
. e. , “the m ost rece n t p ra cti ce t h a t w a s bo th pr e c l e ar e d a nd ‘i n f o r c e o re f

fe c t ’

— o r , a bs e nta ny c hang e s i nc e t he j uri sdi c t i on’ s c ove r age dat e, t he pr ac t i c e thatw as ‘i n f or c e o ref

fec t ’on t hat d a te, ” R i leyv . Ken ne dy , — U
. S. — , 128 S. C t . 1970, 1982 ( 2008) (i nt er nal c i t at i o n o m i t t e d) ; a nd ( 3) w h et he rt he Par t y i s a“ po l i t i c als ubd ivi s i o n” s u bje c t t o § 5 , D o ugh er ty Co u n ty , 439 U
. S
. at 34, 99 S
. C t . at 370 . Th u s,N o. 08- 50581

3 e v e n a t h r e e -j u d g e c o u r t c a n n o t a s s e s s t h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i m p a c to f t he cha l l en ged m et h od; t h at determ i n ati on i s reserved f or t h e U n i t ed S t ates A tt o r n e yG e n e r a l o rth e D is tr ic t C o u r t fo rth e D is tr ic t o f C o lu m b ia
. S ee L opez , 5 19 U
. S. a t2 3, 1 17 S. Ct
. a t3 48–4 9 ( “ O n ac o m pl ai nta l l e gi ng fai l u re to p reclea r electi on ch a n ge s u n d er § 5 , th[e] [th ree -j u d ge distri ct] court l acks au t h orit y t o con si der t h e di scr i m i n ator y pu rpose or n ature of th e ch a n g e s .”). 2 . N o rca n d is m is s a l b e a ffir m e do n t h e a lte r n a tiv e g r o u n dth a t t h e P a r tyis n ot a “p o litic a lsu b d ivisi on ” su bj ect to § 5’ s p reclea ra n ce re q u i rem en t. W h e n d e te r m in in gw h e th e rto co n v e n e ath r e e -ju d g e co u r t , a s in g le di s t r i c tj udg e m aydi s m i s s a§ 5 c l ai m t hati s “ ‘ w ho l l y i ns ubs t ant i al ’a nd com pl et el y w i t h ou tm erit , such a s w h ere t h e cl ai m [] [i s] f rivol ou s, ess en ti a l l y fi cti ti ou s, or d eterm i n ed bypr i or ca se law
. ” LULAC , 113 F. 3d a t5 5 (i n t e r n a lc i t a t i o n o mit t e d)
. A s t h e P a r t yc o n c e d e s , t h e S u p r e me Cour tha s no tre s o lve d w he t he rand unde rw hatcir c um s t anc e s t he Vot i ng R i ght s Ac tr e q uir e s ap o l i t i c a lp a r t yt o o b t a i n p r e c l e a r a nc e o f i nt e r nal par t y r ul es , and i n fac thas ext ended § 5’ s r equi r em entt o apoli t i c al p a rty’ s i m p ositi on of areg i stration f ee f or d e le g a te s to the pa rty’ s state n o m i n a t in gco n v e n tio n . Se ege ne r al l yMo rs ev . Rep ubl i c an Pa r tyof Va. , 51 7 U
. S. 186 , 116 S. Ct
. 1 18 6 ( 19 96 ) (pl ur ali t y o pi ni o n)
. W i t ho utb i ndi ng pr e c e de ntc l e ar l y f

o r e c l o s i ng Pl ai nt i f

fs ’c o nt e nt i o n t hat§ 5 a ppli e s t o t he P a r ty ’ s d e le g a t e a l l o c a tio n m e th o d , it ca n n o t b e s a idth a t t h e cla im is w h o llyin s u b s ta n tia l o rfr iv o lo u s . S ee G oosby v. O sse r , 409 U
. S. 512, 518; 93 S
. C t . 854 , 859 ( 197 3) (“Acl ai m i s i n sub st an t i alonl y i f i t s s ou n dn ess so cl ea rl y re su lts fr om the pr ev i ou s d ecisi on s of [th e S u p rem e C ou rt] as to f orecl ose t h e subj ect. . . . ” (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m ar k s a n d ci t ati on o m itted )); cf. L aR ou che v. F ow ler , 1 5 2 F. 3 d9 7 4 , 9 7 5

– 7 7 , 9 8 3

– 8 6 , 9 9 8 (D. C. C i r. 19 9 8 ) (con cl u d i n g th a t Morse di d n otcl earl y an d i n escapab l y f orecl oseN o. 08- 50581

4 t h e pl ai n t i f

f ’ s § 5 cha l l en ge t o a party r u l e conditi on i n g el i gibi l i t y as a p resid en ti a ln om i n ee on th e cha i rm a n ’ s d eterm i n a ti on th a t t h e ca n d i d a te i s a bo na- f

i de part y m em ber , an d reve r si ng i t s di sm i ss alby a s i ngl e-j udge d is tr ic t c o u r t). 3. F or s i m i l ar reasons, w e rej ectt h e P art y’ s asser t i on t h at it s del egates e l e c t i o n pr o c e s s i s no tj us t i c i ab l e . N o ne of t he a ut ho r i t i e s c i t e d b y t he Part y i nvolves a § 5 c hal l enge, and t he Part y’ s as se r t i on t hati t s i nt er nal procedu res are exem pt f rom j u di ci alrevi ew m erely repri ses i t s c on t en t i on t h at th e precl earan ce r e quir e m e ntdo es not ap pl y t o i t s del egate- al l ocat i on r u le

— a n is s u e th a t m u s t b e re s o lv e db yath r e e -ju d g e d is tr ic t c o u r t. 4. Pl ai nt i f

fs have notw aived t hei rpr es entr eques tf ora t hre e-j udge c our tby fai l i ng t o m ov e for o ne be l ow . Sec t i on 5 i nco r por at es 28 U
. S. C
. § 2284, w h i ch pres cribes, “ [ a] di st ri ctcourtof t h ree j u dg es s hal lb ec o nv e ne d w h en o th e r w is e re q u ir e db y A c t o f C o n g r e s s . . . .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 8 4 (a ) (e m p h a s is added)
. W e a gr ee w i t h ours i st erc ir c ui t s t hatt he te r m “s hal l” i n § 2 284 is m a n d a to r ya n dju r is d ic tio n a l. S ee K als on v. Pate rson , 542 F. 3d 281, 287 (2dC i r. 20 0 8 ) (ap p ortion m en t case ); A r m o u rv . O h io , 925 F. 2d 987, 989 ( 6t h C i r . 1991) ( en banc) ( sa m e)
. Al t hough t he 1976 am endm entt o § 2284 r e d u c edthe categ ories of case s su bj ect to the thre e-j u d ge req u i rem en t, n oth i n g inthe l eg i slative h i storysu gg ests a n i n ten t t o a l ter i ts ju r is d ic tio n a l n a tu r e . S ee K als on , 5 4 2 F .3 d a t 2 8 7 . T h e a b se n ce of a fo r m a l re q u e s t fo rath r e e -ju d g e co u r t d o e s n o t c o n s tit u te w a iv e r . 4. L astly, w h et h e r Pl ai n t i f fs un reasona bl y del ayed t h ei r c h al l en ge t o a p roce d u re a d op tedbythe P a rty in 1 9 8 8 arg u a b l y a ff ects th e a p p rop ri a te rem edy i f coverage i s f ou n d by t h e t h ree-j u dg e court, bu t i t does n ot p r o v id e g r o u n d s fo r d is m is s a l. Se eB ro o ksv. S t at eBd. of Ele c t i o ns , 7 7 5 F. S u p p . 1 4 7 0 , 1 4 7 4

– 7 5 , 1 4 8 1 ( S
. D
. G a . 1 9 8 9 ) (t h r e e -j u d g e c o u r t) (p e rc u r i a m) (c o nc l udi ng t hate quit abl e a r gum e nt s c an be c o ns i de r e d “ o nl y i n t heN o. 08- 50581

5 l i m i tedcon tex t of

fa sh i on i n g a n ap p rop ri a te rem ed y,” an drefu singto “e q u ita b lyp r e c le a r” t h e ch a n g e s b a s e do n la c h e s ), af f’ dme m. , 4 98 U
. S. 91 6, 1 11 S. Ct
. 2 88 ( 19 90 )
. H av i ng f o und no bas i s i n t he r e c o r d s upp o r t i ng th e d is tr ic t ju d g e ’ s ru lin g , w e re v e r s e th e d is m is s a l o f P la in tiffs ’§ 5 cla im a g a in s t t h e P a r tya n dre m a n dfo rth e co n v e n in go f ath r e e -ju d g e co u r t. 5. P l ai n t i f

fs’§ 5 c l ai m againstt h e S t ate f or a vot i n g procedu re t h at itnei t h er en act e d o ra dm i ni s t e r e d, ho w e ve r , w as pr o pe r l y di s m i s s e d. Se c t i o n 5 st ates, “ [w ] h en ever a [covered] State or pol i t i cal sub divi si on . . . sha l lena ct or s eek to ad m i n i st er any. . . st an da rd, pract i ce, or procedu re w i t h res pect t o v ot i ng di f

fer entf r om t hati n f

or c e or effect” on t he r el evantc ove r age d a te , “such S t ateor sub d i vi si on ” m ustob t ai n pre c l ear ance eit herby i n st i t u t i n g an act i on i n t h e D i st ri ct C ou rtf or t h e D i st ri ctof

C ol u m bi a, or f r o m t he U ni t e d St at e s At t o r ne y G e ne r al
. § 1 97 3c( e m pha s i s a dde d)
. The st at ut e pl ai nl y i m pos es a pr ec l ear ance ob l i gat i on o nl y o n t he par t i c ul ar
“ S t ate or pol i t i cal sub divi si on ” t h at “ en act [ s] ” or “ seek[ s] t o a d m i n i st er” t h e di spu t ed c h an ge. In t h i s case, t h e cha l l en geddel egate- al l ocat i on procedu re w as ena ct ed an d ad m i n i st e re d by the P art y, not t h e State. T e x a s l a w r e q u i r e s t he Par t yt o a d o p tr u l e s , c o n s i s t e n twit h s t a t e l a w, govern i n g t h e condu ctof it s con ven t i on s, m an da t es that such ru l es be f i l ed w ith th e S ta te , a n dp r o v id e s am e c h a n is m fo rth e ire n fo r c e m e n t. S ee T EX . E L EC . C ODE A NN . §§ 163
. 002 ; 163 . 003 ; 163 .00 5 ; 163 . 007 . B u tt h ese p rov i s io n s d o n ot i m p u te to the S tate th e P a rty’ s ob l i ga ti on , if a n y, t o precl ear t h ose r u l es un der § 5. W e af f i rm t h e di sm i ssalof P l ai n tiffs’ w h o llyin s u b s ta n tia l cla im a g a in s t t h e S ta te . AF F I RMED I N P AR T ; R EV ER S ED I N P AR T; C AU S E RE M AND ED F OR FU RT H ER PRO CE ED I N G S.N o.

I a m u n a w a r e o f

a n y c a s e i n t h i s Ci r c u i to ra n y o t h e rd e a l i n g w i t h t h e i s s u e . T h e S u p r e me 1 C ourt ’ s V ot i ng R i gh t s A ctj uri s pruden ce does n otfor ecl os e t he poss ibi l i t y t hatpol i t i ca lpar t y ac t ivi t i es m ay be gi ve r i s e t o s om e obl i gat i on on t he partof t he s t at e, es peci al l y w here, as h ere, s t at e l aw m and at es th at t h e p ar ty ru l e s be fil e d w i th t h e st ate an d p ro v i d e s a m e ch an i sm of en forc e m e n t for th o se ru l e s. S ee T EX . E L EC . C OD E A NN . §§ 163. 002 , 163. 005 (requ i ri n g p ol i t i calpa rt i es t o ad op trul es t h atare co n si st e n t w i th st ate l aw ); § 1 63 . 00 7 (m ak i n g p o l i ti c a l p a r ty r u le s en forc e ab l e by w ri t o f m an d am u s). T h u s, w h i l e I m ak e n o st ate m e n t as t o th e m e ri ts o f th i s cl aim , i t d o e s n o t m e e t th e “w h o lly i n s u b s t a n t i a l” s t a n d a r d s o a s t o b e e x c l u d e d f r o m r e ma n d t o a t h r e e - j u d g e p a n e lfo rr e v i e w. 6 E M IL IO M . G A R Z A , co n c u r r in gin p a r t a n dd is s e n tin gin p a r t. I concu r w i t h t h e m aj ori t y’ s hol di n g t h at LU LA C ’ s Sect i on 5 cl ai m against t h e T exas D em ocrat i c Pa rt y shou l d be rem an ded t o a t h ree-j u dg e pan elf or consi derati on . H ow ever, Ires pectf u l l y di ssent f

rom t h e m aj orit y’ s af f i rm an ce of th e d i st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof L U LA C ’ s c l ai m againstt h e State of T exas. Bec aus e t he q ue s t i o n o f w he t he rt he D e m o c r at i cPar t y’ s i n t e r nalv o t i ng p r o c e d u r e s ca n b e im p u te dto th e S ta te o f T e x a s is n o t “ ‘ w h o llyin s u b s t a n t i a l’ an d com pl et el y w i t h ou tm erit , such a s w h ere t h e cl ai m [] [i s] f rivol ou s, ess en ti a l l y fi cti ti ou s, or d eterm i n ed bypr i or ca se law , ” LULAC v . Te x as , 113 F .3 d5 3 , 5 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), it sh o u ldb e co n s id e r e db yath r e e -ju d g e p a n e l. 1