ORDER

ROBERT PITMAN, District Judge.

Before the Court are Plaintiff OCA-Greater Houston's Motion for Permanent Injunction (Dkt. 61) and Defendants' Response (Dkt. 62). These filings were made at the Court's request in order to assist the Court in rendering appropriate relief pursuant to its August 12, 2016 order ("August 12th Order") granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court intends to issue an order regarding Plaintiff's requested relief later this week, but based on the parties' filings, feels that it needs to clarify its August 12th Order more promptly.

In their filings regarding the appropriate relief, the parties disagree about the scope of the August 12th Order. Defendants assert that this Court only invalidated Texas Election Code Section 61.033, while Plaintiff interprets the August 12th Order more broadly.

Within the August 12th Order, the Court found the Assistance and Interpretation Provisions of the Texas Election Code ("TEC") to be "invalid" because they are inconsistent with Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. (Order, Aug. 12, 2016, at 20, Dkt. 60.) Specifically, it determined that the Assistance Provisions are insufficient to implement Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act because they restrict a voter's access to an assistor of their choice outside the ballot box, and that the Interpretation Provisions are invalid to the extent they both restrict a voter's ability to select an interpreter of their choice if the election officer understands the language spoken by a limited-English voter, and restricts a voter's access to an interpreter who is not registered to vote in the voter's county of registration. (Id. at 19.)

In affording OCA-Greater Houston relief, the Court declared only one provision of the TEC in violation of the Voting Rights Act, Section 61.033. (Id. at 20.) The Court further explained, however, that its Order enjoins "the State Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office, and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in any practice that denies the rights secured by Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act." (Id.) The Court then sought input from both parties regarding the appropriateness of additional remedies. (Id.)

Defendants assert that the Court's August 12th Order was limited to declaring Section 61.033 invalid. (State. Defs.' Resp. at 8, Dkt. 62.) This reading ignores the language of the August 12th Order that declares other specific provisions of the Texas Election Code inconsistent with the Voting Rights Act and enjoins Defendants "from engaging in any practice that denies the rights secured by Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act." (Order, Aug. 12, 2016, at 20, Dkt. 60.) To clarify, this Court declared only Section 61.033 of the TEC invalid in the relief portion of its August 12th Order because each other provision that the Court determined was in violation of the Voting Rights Act provided some affirmative right to voters. Section 61.033 alone provides no affirmative right to voters, but solely provides an unlawful restriction. Sections 61.032 and 64.0321, however, provide affirmative rights of assistance to voters, and the Court does not wholly invalidate them.

Thus, to clarify its August 12th Order, the Court finds:

To the extent the provisions of the Texas Election Code are inconsistent with the Voting Rights Act, the Court ENJOINS the Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office, and all persons acting in concert with them, from enforcement of those provisions. Further, the Court SUPPLEMENTS its August 12th Order to incorporate the contents of this order.

The Court appreciates the Defendants' efforts to quickly communicate with election officials and implement its August 12th Order, and will issue an order regarding whether any additional relief is appropriate later this week.