UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civ. Action No. 4:16-cv-02331 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ) UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION TO HARRIS COUNTY’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Thus, “that is the end of the matter.” Id. at 1874-75 (citing Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842); see also A.R. ex rel. Root v. Dudek, 31 F. Supp. 3d at 1367-68. The United States Has Complied With All Of The Administrative Prerequisites For Filing A Suit Harris County next claims that the United States has not complied with the regulatory procedures for bringing a lawsuit because it has not alleged that the investigation was prompted by a complaint from an individual with a disability, and because it did not issue a separate Letter of Findings after the Department’s survey during the 2016 election. MTD at 8-10. Neither claim is meritorious. First, the investigation was properly begun as a compliance review. Although some Title II investigations are initiated after complaints are filed, see 28 C.F.R. § 35.172(a), the regulation also states that “[t]he designated agency may conduct compliance reviews of public entities in order to ascertain whether there has been a failure to comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of this part.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.172(b). The term “compliance review” is widely understood to mean an investigation that need not be prompted by an individual complaint. See, e.g., 28 C.F.R. § 42.107 (Title VI regulations, providing that the Department of Justice will conduct “[p]eriodic compliance reviews” and will conduct investigations whenever “a compliance review, report, complaint, or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply”). With respect to Harris County’s second argument, the County does not dispute that the United States sent a detailed Letter of Findings (“LOF”) in 2014 after it surveyed polling places during the January 2013 election. Harris County claims, however, that the United States was required to issue a separate LOF after the May 2016 election. Harris County misunderstands both the 2014 LOF and the purpose of the United States’ review of polling places in 2016. The 2014
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Harris County’s motion to dismiss. The United States respectfully requests oral argument on the motion. Respectfully submitted, LORETTA E. LYNCH Attorney General of the United States KENNETH MAGIDSON United States Attorney Southern District of Texas KEITH EDWARD WYATT Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division JOHN A. SMITH, III Assistant United States Attorney Deputy Chief, Civil Division E. PAXTON WARNER Assistant United States Attorney Southern District No. 555957 Texas Bar No. 24003139 USAO-Southern District of Texas 1701 W. Bus. Hwy. 83, Suite 600 McAllen, Texas 78501 Tel. 956-618-8010 Fax. 956-618-8016 Email: paxton.warner@usdoj.gov JIMMY A. RODRIGUEZ Assistant United States Attorney Southern District No. 572175 Texas Bar No. 24037378 USAO-Southern District of Texas 1000 Louisiana, Suite 2300 VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General EVE L. HILL Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division REBECCA B. BOND Chief KATHLEEN WOLFE Special Litigation Counsel AMANDA MAISELS Deputy Chief /s/ Elisabeth Oppenheimer ELIZABETH JOHNSON ELISABETH OPPENHEIMER Trial Attorney Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW-NYA Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-3543 (202) 616-3653 Facsimile: (202) 305-9775