Lightbourn v. County of El Paso, Texas
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
118 F.3d 421 (1997)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Margarita Lightbourn and other disabled residents of El Paso, Texas (voters) (plaintiffs) filed suit against the Texas secretary of state (secretary), the County of El Paso (county), and their local political-party organizations (defendants) for alleged discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The voters claimed that the county’s voting machines denied visually disabled people their right to vote in private without assistance and that voting locations lacked accessible parking and restroom facilities. The voters settled their case with the county and local Democratic Party, and the district court dismissed the case against the local Republican Party. The secretary moved for summary judgment, and the district court denied the motion. The court found that the secretary violated the Rehabilitation Act and violated a duty under the ADA and state law to ensure that local election officials complied with ADA accessibility requirements. The secretary appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The appellate court found that because the secretary himself had not received any federal funding, the voters had failed to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act. The court then addressed the secretary’s duties under state election laws and the ADA.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Garza, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.