Fifth Circuit: Marc Veasey, et al v. Greg Abbott, et al

En Banc, Election Law

(Panel of 15)

  (7 + 2 partial* & in the judgment)

*A claim of discriminatory purpose in the passage of a law cannot be based on statements from legislators opposed to the passage of the bill.* (This part not joined by the 2)

In assessing discriminatory effect under the Voting Rights Act, a multi-factor test should be used, as opposed to a bright-line nexus requirement.

No ruling on violations of the 1st and 14th Amendment burden of right to vote, as a finding of statutory violation results in the same remedy.

 Voter ID requirement was not a poll tax before the law was changed to make the ID free, and is still not a poll tax.

Not an abuse of discretion for the District Court to fashion a remedy, as the legislature is out of session.

     Concurrence  (2, both joining plurality, one in part):

Multifactor test good, as 5th invented much of it.

Won't open the floodgates, as courts can closely weigh factors.

                                       Concurrence / Dissent (5)

Not a poll tax.  Opinion otherwise incorrect.  (68pp, mostly findings and merits)

                                       Dissent (3, all in c/d above)

ID requirement still in place, since those who now have the ID must show it.

Judge below made myriad errors.

           Concur/Dissent, Concur in J (1, joining plurality in part)

Discriminatory motive analysis of the plurality re-weighed merits inappropriately.

                                                                        Dissent (6, all non-plurality)

Record justifies reversal on discriminatory purpose.

                                                                        Dissent (2, both in prior dissent)

Record justifies reversal on discriminatory effect.

Dissent (1, Partially joined plurality)

Record justifies affirming on discriminatory intent.

Takeaway (remember, this is quick work) 9 for Remand for multifactor test on discriminatory effect; 8 for affirming on discriminatory purpose (7 for remand); 14 for the lack of Poll Tax violation; 3 for egg salad; 2 for pastrami.


Marc Veasey, et al v. Greg Abbott, et al