Filed: Aug. 18, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-50864 Summary Calendar SAVE OUR AQUIFER, Etc., ET AL., Plaintiffs, LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, District 15, Intervenor-Appellant, versus CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; ED GARZA, In His Official Capacity as Mayor of San Antonio; TERRY BRECHTEL, In Her Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of San Antonio; YOLANDA L. LEDE
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-50864 Summary Calendar SAVE OUR AQUIFER, Etc., ET AL., Plaintiffs, LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, District 15, Intervenor-Appellant, versus CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; ED GARZA, In His Official Capacity as Mayor of San Antonio; TERRY BRECHTEL, In Her Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of San Antonio; YOLANDA L. LEDES..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50864
Summary Calendar
SAVE OUR AQUIFER, Etc., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, District 15,
Intervenor-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; ED GARZA, In His Official Capacity as Mayor
of San Antonio; TERRY BRECHTEL, In Her Official Capacity as City
Manager of the City of San Antonio; YOLANDA L. LEDESMA, Official
Capacity, Acting City Clerk of the City of San Antonio; BEXAR
COUNTY TEXAS; CLIFFORD R. BOROFSKY, In His Official Capacity as
Elections Administrator, Bexar County, Texas,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(SA-02-CV-618)
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Intervenor-Appellant League of United Latin American Citizens,
District 15 ("LULAC") appeals the district court's dismissal of its
action brought under Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965, 42 U.S.C. ยง 1973, et seq. The amended complaint, which LULAC
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
initially joined, alleged that the defendants violated the Voting
Rights Act when verifying the signatures on a referendum petition
that was designed to force the City either to repeal an ordinance
known as the PGA Village Ordinance or put it to a vote. LULAC
subsequently realigned itself as an intervenor to focus on the
City's use of a computer-referenced procedure for validating the
signatures. The district court dismissed the case as moot after
the City repealed the ordinance at issue, thereby providing the
remedy sought by the plaintiffs.
LULAC argues that the case is not moot because the district
court may grant the relief that LULAC sought in the form of an
injunction barring the implementation of the City's procedure for
verifying voters' qualifications. As the ordinance that the
referendum petition sought to challenge was repealed, however, no
live case or controversy concerning the City's procedure is
currently before the court. See Harris v. City of Houston,
151
F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Amar v. Whitley,
100 F.3d
22, 23 (5th Cir. 1996)(federal courts lack jurisdiction and the
judicial resources to issue advisory opinions).
LULAC further contends that the case is not moot because the
City's procedures remain in effect, and the challenged election
practice is capable of repetition yet evading review. Our review
of the briefs and the record satisfies us that there has not been
a sufficient showing that (1) the challenged action is too short in
duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or
2
expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same
complaining party will be subject to the same action again. See
Benavides v. Housing Auth. of City of San Antonio,
238 F.3d 667,
671 (5th Cir. 2001). We also conclude that any claims against
Bexar County and Clifford R. Borofsky have been abandoned because
they were not adequately briefed. See Cinel v. Connick,
15 F.3d
1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
3