Federal Court dismisses major portion of Dallas County Election Case

by PegNews wire

DALLAS — A federal court has dismissed part of a lawsuit that the Texas Democratic Party brought against Dallas County over the use of an electronic voting machine called iVotronic.

In the Texas House District 105 race last fall, Republican Linda Harper-Brown defeated the Democratic challenger Robert Romano by 19 votes, which allowed Republicans to maintain a 76-74 majority among Texas House members. The Texas Democratic Party later sued, claiming vote-counting procedures used by Dallas County violated portions of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. At the same time, the party abandoned its complaint about the results of the District 105 race, allowing Rep. Harper-Brown to retain her seat.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis dismissed portions of the plaintiffs’ claim concerning whether Dallas County’s vote-counting procedures denied or abridged any voter’s right to vote based on race, color or membership in a language minority group. The court also dismissed the claims brought by the two individual plaintiffs against Dallas County. The court declined to dismiss a more procedural claim dealing with whether Dallas County had cleared its election procedures with the Department of Justice, as required by law. A three-judge panel, yet to be appointed, will review that component of the case.

“I view this as significant progress for Dallas County and I expect we will prevail on the only remaining issue,” says attorney E. Leon Carter of Munck Carter in Dallas, who along with attorney Jamil N. Alibhai, represents Dallas County in the litigation. “Dallas County did what it was required to do and I believe the three-judge panel will see that.”

Coincidentally, today the U.S. Supreme Court is due to hear arguments in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Eric Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al. That case involves the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the same section that is at issue in the remaining portion of the Dallas County case.

Source: Munck Carter