Petteway et al v. Galveston County, Texas et al

Filing 78

Ruling on Bench Trial (Signed by Judge Gregg Costa) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4)

Case 3:13-cv-00308 Document 78 Filed on 08/31/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
August 31, 2022

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
TERRY PETTEWAY, DERRECK
ROSE, MICHAEL MONTEZ, PENNY
POPE, SONNY JAMES, and
ROOSEVELT HENDERSON,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
GALVESTON COUNTY and MARK
HENRY,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-13-308

RULING ON BENCH TRIAL
During the bench trial in this case, the Court orally ruled in favor of the
Defendants on Plaintiffs’ vote dilution claims. The crux of that ruling is that while
the 2013 Plan reduced the number of majority-minority JP/Constable precincts in
Galveston County, it increased the percentage of Galveston County residents living
in a majority-minority district. When the County had nine precincts, two of them
(Precincts 2 and 3) were majority-minority. The 2013 Plan provided for four
precents, one of which was majority-minority. The Voting Rights Act is aimed at
protecting the rights of minority citizens, not at protecting elected officials. The
Plaintiffs thus failed to show vote dilution as the voting power of minority voters
was not diminished.
That left the Plaintiffs statutory and constitutional claims that the 2013 Plan
was motivated by discriminatory intent. The Court regrets the delay.
Having reviewed the testimony, exhibits, and law, the Court now also rules in
favor of the Defendants on the intent claims. Both sides presented evidence that
1/3

Case 3:13-cv-00308 Document 78 Filed on 08/31/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

supports their position. There are two main reasons why the Court concludes
Plaintiffs have not proven discriminatory intent.

The first is the reason that

motivated the ruling on the dilution claim. The 2013 Plan did not reduce the
influence of minority voters. As a result, it is hard to ascribe discriminatory intent
to the change when it left minority voters with control of a greater percentage of the
JP/Constable precincts.
The second factor distinguishes this case from most other voting rights cases.
The reduction in the number of precincts achieved significant cost savings and
brought the caseloads of the JPs more into line with the caseloads of JPs in other
urban areas. Evidence indicated that the reduction in precincts would save the
county roughly $1 million in the JP budget and similar dollars in the Constable
budget. Jan16 Trial Tr. at 105:8–16. With nine JPs, Galveston County JPs had much
lighter dockets than JPs in other populous counties. The pre-2013 caseload was such
that a single JP in Harris County handled the same volume of cases in a single month
that all 9 JPs in Galveston County handled in an entire year! Jan. 14 Tr. Transcript
249:11–14. What is more, the volume of cases handled by JPs in Galveston County
decreased significantly from 2004 to 2011. The 2013 Plan thus generated substantial
savings for the county and brought the county more in line with other Texas counties
(many of which had fewer JP/Constable precincts despite having much larger
populations than Galveston County). Indeed, the Galveston County Daily News had
advocated for a reduction in the number of precincts, demonstrating this was a
longstanding concern about efficiency.
If the reduction in size had been accompanied by a decrease in the percentage
of majority-minority precincts, then there might be an argument that the efficiency
rationale was pretext for decreasing the power of minority voters. But as discussed,
creating one minority-majority precinct out of four meant that there was no reduction
in the percentage of Galveston County citizens living in an area where minority
2/3

Case 3:13-cv-00308 Document 78 Filed on 08/31/22 in TXSD Page 3 of 3

voters had the power to elect a JP and Constable of their choice. So the cost-savings
rationale along with the preservation (if not augmentation) of minorities voting
power leads the Court to reject the intent claims. Other evidence also points in this
direction, including County Commissioner Dennard’s inviting the Chair of the
County Democratic Party, Lloyd Criss, to participate in the drawing of the new
precinct lines.
For these reasons, the Court will enter judgment in favor of the Defendants
on all claims.
SIGNED August 31, 2022.

___________________________________

Gregg Costa
United States Circuit Judge1

1

Sitting by designation

3/3