53aAppendix Ddisparate socio-economic status and <strong>the</strong> depressed levelof political participation.” Teague v. Attala County, Miss.,92 F.3d 283, 294 (5th Cir.1996) (internal citations andquotation omitted).In Irving, <strong>the</strong>re are significant disparities in <strong>the</strong>educational levels of Hispanic and white residents, asreflected in data from <strong>the</strong> 2000 Census. (Pl’s Pretrial Br.20-21.) Specifically, only 6.4% of Hispanics have Bachelor’sdegrees, while 23.8% of white non-Hispanics do. (Pl.’sPretrial App. 173-174.) Similarly, 57% of Hispanics do nothave high school diplomas, while <strong>the</strong> comparable figurefor white non-Hispanics is only 11.1%. (Id.) O<strong>the</strong>r socioeconomicindica<strong>to</strong>rs also display disparities betweenHispanic and non-Hispanics in Irving. According <strong>to</strong><strong>the</strong> 2000 Census, median household income for <strong>the</strong>Hispanic population was $34,799, but $50,604 for whitenon-Hispanics. (Id.) Per capita income was $12,109 forHispanics and $31,574 for white non-Hispanics. (Id.)4. Senate Fac<strong>to</strong>r 7: Extent of Hispanic Elec<strong>to</strong>ralSuccessThe seventh Senate fac<strong>to</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> extent <strong>to</strong> whichmembers of <strong>the</strong> minority group have been elected <strong>to</strong>public office in <strong>the</strong> jurisdiction, is <strong>the</strong> only Senate fac<strong>to</strong>rexpressly referenced by Congress in <strong>the</strong> statu<strong>to</strong>rylanguage of Section 2. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 37, 106 S.Ct.2752. In Irving, despite several attempts, only oneHispanic candidate has ever been elected <strong>to</strong> Irving’s CityCouncil. None of <strong>the</strong> current City Council members ormayor is Hispanic.
54aAppendix DNotably, James Dickens, <strong>the</strong> only Hispanic candidate<strong>to</strong> be elected in Irving, did not have a Spanish surnameand did not publicly acknowledge his Hispanic backgrounduntil after <strong>the</strong> election; <strong>the</strong> non-Hispanic incumbent whomDickens defeated had a Spanish surname. (Trial Tr. vol.1, 18-19, Feb. 17; Joint Pretrial Order 30.) In 1999, Mr.Dickens won <strong>the</strong> City Council election for Place 1 aftera run-off election against Fran Bonilla, a non-Hispaniccandidate. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 18-19, Feb. 17; PL’s Ex. 35.)In 2001, Mr. Dickens ran unopposed for <strong>the</strong> City Councilelection for Place 1 again and won. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 20-21, Feb. 17; PL’s Ex. 36.) In 2004, Mr. Dickens again won<strong>the</strong> City Council election as <strong>the</strong> incumbent, this timeagainst two challengers who were not serious candidates.(Trial Tr. vol. 1, 21-22, Feb. 17.) In 2007, Mr. Dickens wasdefeated by Thomas Spinks, a non-Hispanic candidatewho <strong>to</strong>ok a strong anti-illegal-immi<strong>grant</strong> position duringhis campaign. (Id. at 23-24.)Minority elec<strong>to</strong>ral success in a polarized elec<strong>to</strong>ratemay be explained by special circumstances, such as <strong>the</strong>absence of an opponent, incumbency, or <strong>the</strong> utilization ofbullet voting. See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 57, 106 S.Ct. 2752(cautioning that “<strong>the</strong> success of a minority candidatein a particular election does not necessarily prove that<strong>the</strong> district did not experience polarized voting in thatelection”). The special circumstances test set forth by<strong>the</strong> Gingles court “was designed <strong>to</strong> prevent defendantjurisdictions from arguing that a minority candidate’soccasional vic<strong>to</strong>ry in an o<strong>the</strong>rwise racially polarizedelec<strong>to</strong>rate defeats a vote dilution.” Rodriguez v. BexarCounty, 385 F.3d 853, 864 (5th Cir.2004) (citing Gingles,
- Page 3 and 4:
iiPARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGAND RULE
- Page 5:
ivTable of ContentsPageREASONS FOR
- Page 11:
xCited AuthoritiesStatutes and Othe
- Page 14 and 15:
1PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARIP
- Page 16 and 17:
3The Court should grant the petitio
- Page 18 and 19:
5has “an obligation to explain to
- Page 20 and 21:
7because the City has substantially
- Page 22 and 23:
9City of IrvingPopulation, Voting A
- Page 24 and 25:
11The district court granted summar
- Page 26 and 27:
13I. This Petition Presents An Impo
- Page 28 and 29:
15First, the issue has increasingly
- Page 30 and 31:
17wards had far more eligible voter
- Page 32 and 33:
19or practice, they cannot claim to
- Page 34 and 35:
21This case—in which the choice b
- Page 36 and 37:
23two, five, or ten, or one-half.
- Page 38 and 39:
25In Chen, the Fifth Circuit reache
- Page 40:
27Importantly, then, the Fourteenth
- Page 43 and 44:
30Tennessee voters’ dilution chal
- Page 45 and 46:
32Under the Plan, as noted above, D
- Page 47 and 48:
34slightly larger than 9.9%—prese
- Page 49 and 50:
1aAppendix AAPPENDIX
- Page 51 and 52: 2aAppendix APER CURIAM: *This case
- Page 53 and 54: 4aAPPENDIX B — Appendix MEMORANDU
- Page 55 and 56: 6aAppendix Bpopulation numbers are
- Page 57 and 58: 8aAppendix Bwhich total population
- Page 59 and 60: 10aAppendix Bthe court does acknowl
- Page 61 and 62: 12aAppendix CON PETITION FOR REHEAR
- Page 63 and 64: 14aAppendix DIrving’s at-large el
- Page 65 and 66: 16aAppendix Dother things, the at-l
- Page 67 and 68: 18aAppendix DThornburg v. Gingles,
- Page 69 and 70: 20aAppendix Dfailed to establish a
- Page 71 and 72: 22aAppendix Dcomplying with the Gin
- Page 73 and 74: 24aAppendix Done-hundred percent co
- Page 75 and 76: 26aAppendix Dhis opinion that would
- Page 77 and 78: 28aAppendix Dto estimate the 2008 H
- Page 79 and 80: 30aAppendix Dvotes of Hispanics hav
- Page 81 and 82: 32aAppendix Daverage household size
- Page 83 and 84: 34aAppendix DDr. Rives attempts to
- Page 85 and 86: 36aAppendix Dwith sampling error ac
- Page 87 and 88: 38aAppendix DIn his expert report,
- Page 89 and 90: 40aAppendix DAs Dr. Rives pointed o
- Page 91 and 92: 42aAppendix DC. Gingles II & III-Ra
- Page 93 and 94: 44aAppendix Dthis methodology canno
- Page 95 and 96: 46aAppendix Dthat the confidence th
- Page 97 and 98: 48aAppendix Dto Dr. Alford’s hypo
- Page 99 and 100: 50aAppendix DD. Totality of the Cir
- Page 101: 52aAppendix DThe Court concludes th
- Page 105 and 106: 56aAppendix D1231, 1245-46, 173 L.E
- Page 107 and 108: 58aAppendix D2. Proof of Changed De
- Page 109 and 110: 60aAppendix DPlaintiff has not empl
- Page 111 and 112: 62aAppendix Dthe way in which the v
- Page 113 and 114: 64aAppendix Dthe requirement that t
- Page 115 and 116: 66aAPPENDIX E — RELEVANT Appendix
- Page 117: 68aAppendix Eof insurrection or reb