CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 5/30/2023 1

Challenge to Voter Registrations in an RV Park 

Curtis v. Smith (Howell Cobb, E.D. Tex. 9:00-cv-241) 

The plaintiffs in this federal action sued to enjoin challenges to 

9,000 voter registrations in an RV park that could hold only a fraction of the voters at any one time. The plaintiffs alleged that procedures on the en masse challenge had not been precleared pursuant 

to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and a three-judge district 

court ultimately agreed. 

Subject: Nullifying registrations. Topics: Section 5 preclearance; 

three-judge court; registration challenges; matters for state courts; 

intervention. 

On the afternoon of October 4, 2000, three residents of an RV park near Livingston, Texas, filed a federal complaint in the Eastern District of Texas’s 

Lufkin courthouse against Polk County’s tax assessor-collector—whose duties include those of the voting registrar—alleging that procedures in place to 

cancel voter registrations for RV-park residents had not received preclearance as required by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.1

 The registration challenge was based on the fact that there were many more voters registered at 

the RV park than could actually lodge there at any one time.2

 Litigation on 

the matter was already pending in state courts.3

With the complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction4

 and a motion to convene a threejudge district court to hear the section 5 claim.5

1. Complaint, Curtis v. Smith, No. 9:00-cv-241 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2000), D.E. 1; Curtis v. 

Smith, 121 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1056–57 (E.D. Tex. 2000); see Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. 

L. No. 89-110, § 5, 79 Stat. 437, 439, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (requiring preclearance 

of changes to voting procedures in jurisdictions with a certified history of discrimination 

and requiring that preclearance disputes be heard by a three-judge district court). 

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court declined to hold section 5 unconstitutional, but the 

Court did hold unconstitutional the criteria for which jurisdictions require section 5 preclearance. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013); see Robert Barnes, Court Blocks Key 

Part of Voting Rights Act, Wash. Post, June 26, 2013, at A1; Adam Liptak, Justices Void Oversight of States, Issue at Heart of Voting Rights Act, N.Y. Times, June 26, 2013, at A1. 

2. Curtis, 121 F. Supp. 2d at 1055–56; see Kathy Walt & James Kimberly, Residents on 

Wheels Add New Spin to Senate Race, Hous. Chron., Sept. 23, 2000, at A1. 

3. Curtis, 121 F. Supp. 2d at 1057; Order, Curtis, No. 9:00-cv-241 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2000), 

D.E. 13 [hereinafter Oct. 6, 2000, Order]; see Challenge to Voting Rights of RV Owners Halted, Dallas Morning News, Sept. 16, 2000, at 40A; Jay Root, RV Travelers Key in E. Texas Political Brawl, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Oct. 1, 2000, at 1; Terrence Stutz, 3rd Court Enters 

Fray Over RV Park’s Voter Eligibility, Dallas Morning News, Oct. 5, 2000, at 31A; Terrence 

Stutz, Judge Upholds RV Residents’ Right to Vote, Dallas Morning News, Oct. 3, 2000, at 21A; 

John Williams, Confusion Rules for RV Voters, Hous. Chron., Oct. 5, 2000, at A31; John Williams, RV Owners Win Right to Vote in Texas, Hous. Chron., Oct. 3, 2000, at A15. 

4. Motion, Curtis, No. 9:00-cv-241 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2000), D.E. 2; Curtis, 121 F. Supp. 

2d at 1057. 

5. Motion, Curtis, No. 9:00-cv-241 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2000), D.E. 3; Curtis, 121 F. Supp. 

2d at 1057. 
Challenge to Voter Registrations in an RV Park 

2 Federal Judicial Center 5/30/2023 

At 4:05 p.m., Judge Howell Cobb convened a telephone hearing on the 

motion for a temporary restraining order.6

 At 4:40, Judge Cobb issued a 

temporary restraining order stopping the county from proceeding with 9,000 

registration challenges.7

 Judge Cobb set another hearing for two mornings 

later in Beaumont.8

On October 6, three persons responsible for challenging the residency 

status of the 9,000 registered voters moved to intervene in the lawsuit.9

 At the 

day’s hearing, Judge Cobb granted intervention.10 He decided to extend the 

temporary restraining order,11 and he recommended that the circuit’s chief 

judge appoint a three-judge court.12

The three-judge court heard the case on October 25.13 On November 3, 

the court issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the en masse challenge 

to voters’ residency statuses required preclearance.14

Preclearance of the en masse challenge never was sought.15 Following the 

2000 general election, however, a trailing candidate for Polk County commissioner challenged votes for his opponent on the grounds that persons 

who were not valid residents were allowed to vote.16 The federal plaintiffs 

asked the federal court to enjoin the state-court contest.17 The federal court 

issued a temporary restraining order on May 23, 2001,18 but the court determined on June 4 that the state-court action could proceed.19 The federal 

court also dissolved its original injunction.20

On October 24, 2002, Texas’s court of appeals for Beaumont determined, 

“The trial court correctly concluded that [the trailing candidate] did not 

6. Minutes, Curtis, No. 9:00-cv-241 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2000), D.E. 8. 

Judge Cobb died on September 16, 2005. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory 

of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

7. Temporary Restraining Order, Curtis, No. 9:00-cv-241 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2000), D.E. 4. 

8. Docket Sheet, id. (Oct. 4, 2000). 

9. Intervention Motion, id. (Oct. 6, 2000), D.E. 5; see also James Kimberly, RV Owners’ 

Polling Place Is Contested, Hous. Chron., Sept. 27, 2000, at A19 (reporting that the challengers had ties to the Polk County Democratic Party). 

10. Minutes, Curtis, No. 9:00-cv-241 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2000), D.E. 10. 

11. Id.; Curtis v. Smith, 121 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1057 (E.D. Tex. 2000); see Richard Stewart, 

RVers Win Once Again in Vote Case, Hous. Chron., Oct. 7, 2000, at A33; Terrence Stutz, 

Judge Reaffirms Order Banning Voting Checks, Dallas Morning News, Oct. 7, 2000, at 33A.

12. Oct. 6, 2000, Order, supra note 3; Curtis, 121 F. Supp. 2d at 1057. 

13. Transcript, Curtis, No. 9:00-cv-241 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2000, filed Nov. 26, 2001), 

D.E. 35; Minutes, id. (Oct. 25, 2000), D.E. 18; Curtis, 121 F. Supp. 2d at 1057. 

14. Curtis, 121 F. Supp. 2d at 1058–63; see Juan A. Lozano, Judges Rule for RV Voters, San 

Antonio Express-News, Nov. 4, 2000, at 1B. 

15. Curtis v. Smith, 145 F. Supp. 2d 814, 815–16 (E.D. Tex. 2001). 

16. Speights v. Willis, 88 S.W.3d 817, 818 (Tex. App. 2002); Curtis, 145 F. Supp. 2d at 

816. 

17. Motion, Curtis, No. 9:00-cv-241 (E.D. Tex. May 8, 2001), D.E. 24; Curtis, 145 F. Supp. 

2d at 816. 

18. Temporary Restraining Order, Curtis, No. 9:00-cv-241 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2001), D.E. 

26. 

19. Curtis, 145 F. Supp. 2d at 816–18. 

20. Id. at 818. 
Challenge to Voter Registrations in an RV Park 

Federal Judicial Center 5/30/2023 3

meet his burden of proving violations of the Election Code that materially 

affected the election.”21

21. Speights, 88 S.W.3d at 821.