CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 6/22/2023 1

Preclearance of Landowner 

Voter-Registration Requirements 

Shields v. Engelman Irrigation District 

(Ricardo H. Hinojosa, S.D. Tex. 7:08-cv-116) 

In response to an April 3, 2008, federal complaint, a district judge 

and then a three-judge district court enjoined new voter-registration 

requirements for a May 10 election by landowners to an irrigationdistrict board of directors for lack of preclearance pursuant to section 

5 of the Voting Rights Act. 

Subject: Registration procedures. Topics: Registration 

procedures; section 5 preclearance; three-judge court; voter 

identification; matters for state courts; intervention; pro se party. 

On April 3, 2008, a member of the board of directors of an irrigation district 

and a candidate for the board in an upcoming May 10 election filed a federal 

complaint in the Southern District of Texas’s McAllen courthouse objecting 

to registration requirements for landowners to vote in the election.1 The complaint sought a temporary restraining order from the judge assigned the case 

and further declaratory and injunctive relief from a three-judge district court.2

The court assigned the case to Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa,3 and the chief 

circuit judge appointed Circuit Judge Emilio M. Garza and Southern District 

of Texas Judge Randy Crane to join Judge Hinojosa on a three-judge court.4

Following an April 11 conference in chambers,5 Judge Hinojosa issued a temporary restraining order on April 18.6

 New registration requirements were enjoined because they had not been precleared pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.7

 A state court enjoined the new registration requirements on 

the same day.8

1. Complaint, Shields v. Engelman Irrigation Dist., No. 7:08-cv-116 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 

2008), D.E. 1. 

2. Id. 

3. Conference Order, id. (Apr. 4, 2008), D.E. 2. 

4. Order, id. (Apr. 9, 2008), D.E. 3. 

Judge Garza retired on January 15, 2015. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory 

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

5. Docket Sheet, Shields, No. 7:08-cv-116 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2008). 

6. Temporary Restraining Order, id. (Apr. 18, 2008), D.E. 12. 

7. Id.; 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).

8. Order, Shields v. Engelman Irrigation Dist., No. C-356-08-B (Tex. Dist. Ct. 93d Dist. 

Apr. 18, 2008), attached as Ex. 1, Notice, Shields, No. 7:08-cv-116 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2008), 

D.E. 13; see Notice, Shields, No. 7:08-cv-116 (S.D. Tex. May 9, 2008), D.E. 25 (noting affirmance by the state court of appeals). 
Preclearance of Landowner Voter-Registration Requirements 

2 Federal Judicial Center 6/22/2023 

On April 25, the three-judge court issued a preliminary injunction against 

the new identification requirements for landowner voter registration for lack 

of preclearance.9 The court denied a pro se motion to intervene by two plaintiffs seeking to challenge the previous registration requirements for lack of 

previous preclearance.10 On May 9, the court resolved the case with a permanent injunction.11

9. Order, Shields, No. 7:08-cv-116 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2008), D.E. 120. 

10. Order, id. (May 9, 2008), D.E. 26; see Intervention Motion, id. (Apr. 28, 2008), D.E. 21; 

Order, id. (Apr. 25, 2008), D.E. 19 (denying intervention for lack of motion); Intervention 

Request, id. (Apr. 25, 2008), D.E. 18. 

11. Order, id. (May 9, 2008), D.E. 27.