been successful in recent election did not mandate finding that at-large scheme did not dilute the black vote). 7 . Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 111 S.Ct. 2354, 115 L.Ed.2d 348 (1991): Clark v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 1246, 111 S.Ct. 2881, 115 L.Ed.2d 1047(1991). 8 . Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Br. 4-7, Doc. 284. 9 . See Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 235 (5th Cir. 2016) (in challenge to photo ID law, in which the governor was defendant, court considered whether “Texas Legislature passed SB 14 with a racially invidious purpose”): Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 223-233, 105 S.Ct. 1916, 85 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (in challenge to law, in which voter registrars were defendants, court analyzed intent of a 1901 state constitutional convention). 10 . K.P. v. LeBlanc, 627 F.3d 115, 123 (5th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). 11 . Whits v. Alabama, 74 F.3d 1058, 1069
holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board holding that an associations president who was not a party before the board of appeals was not entitled to appeal the boards decision granting a zoning application that his association had opposed in the board proceedings holding that plaintiff had standing to sue a board even though board was far from sole participant in the application of the challenged statute holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board