New filing in the 5th Circuit does not even recognize that the trial court found Texas engaged in intentional racial discrimination in passing its voter id law and substitute, and that this finding allows for a broader remedy under the 5th Circuit’s earlier ruling.  From the brief:

Because S.B. 5 adequately addresses the statutory and constitutional violations found in this case, the district court erred in supplanting the State’s chosen legislative remedy with a non-photo-identification law that Texas has not enforced in its elections since 2013. See Mississippi State Chapter, Operation PUSH, Inc. v. Mabus, 932 F.2d 400, 406-407 (5th Cir. 1991) (recognizing that courts may not “substitut[e]” even an “objectively superior” judicial remedy for an “otherwise constitutionally and legally valid” remedy “enacted by the appropriate state governmental unit”); Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540 (1978) (similar). Indeed, reverting to a non-photo-identification law conflicts with the State’s policy preferences for a photo-identification requirement—a preference that this Court has indicated should be respected, even when some aspect of the underlying law is unenforceable. See Veasey, 830 F.3d at 296 (citing Perry, 565 U.S. at 393-394). Because S.B. 5 is an adequate remedy to cure any violations under Section 2 of the VRA and the Constitution that are related to the State’s enforcement of S.B. 14, this Court should respect the State’s policy preferences, stay the district court’s remedial order, and leave the interim remedy in place. Ultimately, this Court should allow S.B. 5 to go into effect.