Court Opinion

ID: 9663227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:32:19.17802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:46.841027
License: Public Domain

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part:
I respectfully dissent as to the Senate (Cause No. 91-CA-426). I would:
(1) Order a hearing on the Senate Plan (SB1 2nd CS) for early next week.
(2) Order that if before January 17 the Justice Department has determined that SB1 is not entitled to preclearance, the primary elections be held on the March 10 schedule and in accordance with our prior order.
(3) Order that if before January 17 the Justice Department has not acted with respect to preclearance on SB1, the primary elections be held April 11 pursuant to the schedule fixed in the legislation adopted earlier this month.
(4) Order that if the Justice Department preclears SB1 before January 17, this court should immediately issue its order with respect to whether SB1 complies with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution; if it does, the primary elections should go forward March 10 on the basis of SB1 with appropriate modifications of the filing dates for the Senate; if it does not, this court’s plan should be used for such elections.
Even though SB1 does not maximize minority representation and appears to do so to a lesser extent than the Senate plan previously ordered by this court, that does not necessarily mean that SB1 violates section 2. See Seastrunk v. Burns, 772 F.2d 143 (5th Cir.1985).
(5) If as a result of the above the primary elections are to be held April 11, but if the Justice Department has not pre-cleared SB1 prior to February 18 (the date fixed in the legislation enacted earlier this month), or if we should find SB1 to be invalid under section 2 or the Constitution notwithstanding preclearance by the Justice Department, then the April 11 primary elections should be held using the plan previously ordered by this court.
(6)If the primary elections are to be held April 11 as per the above, and before February 18 the Justice Department preclears SB1 and we do not find it invalid under section 2 or the Constitution, then April 11 primary elections should be held using SB1 for the Senate.
Under McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 101 S.Ct. 2224, 68 L.Ed.2d 724 (1981), we cannot pass on SB1 until the Justice Department has acted on it for preclearance purposes, but if it is precleared and we do not find it invalid, then McDaniel likewise teaches us we should give it appropriate legislative deference, notwithstanding the superiority of the plan ordered by this court.