petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant ... - Election Law Blog
petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant ... - Election Law Blog petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant ... - Election Law Blog
53aAppendix Ddisparate socio-economic status and the depressed levelof political participation.” Teague v. Attala County, Miss.,92 F.3d 283, 294 (5th Cir.1996) (internal citations andquotation omitted).In Irving, there are significant disparities in theeducational levels of Hispanic and white residents, asreflected in data from the 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 the comparable figurefor white non-Hispanics is only 11.1%. (Id.) Other socioeconomicindicators also display disparities betweenHispanic and non-Hispanics in Irving. According tothe 2000 Census, median household income for theHispanic 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 Factor 7: Extent of Hispanic ElectoralSuccessThe seventh Senate factor, the extent to whichmembers of the minority group have been elected topublic office in the jurisdiction, is the only Senate factorexpressly referenced by Congress in the statutorylanguage 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 to Irving’s CityCouncil. None of the current City Council members ormayor is Hispanic.
54aAppendix DNotably, James Dickens, the only Hispanic candidateto be elected in Irving, did not have a Spanish surnameand did not publicly acknowledge his Hispanic backgrounduntil after the election; the 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 the 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 the 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 wonthe City Council election as the 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 took a strong anti-illegal-immigrant position duringhis campaign. (Id. at 23-24.)Minority electoral success in a polarized electoratemay be explained by special circumstances, such as theabsence of an opponent, incumbency, or the utilization ofbullet voting. See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 57, 106 S.Ct. 2752(cautioning that “the success of a minority candidatein a particular election does not necessarily prove thatthe district did not experience polarized voting in thatelection”). The special circumstances test set forth bythe Gingles court “was designed to prevent defendantjurisdictions from arguing that a minority candidate’soccasional victory in an otherwise racially polarizedelectorate defeats a vote dilution.” Rodriguez v. BexarCounty, 385 F.3d 853, 864 (5th Cir.2004) (citing Gingles,
- 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
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,
Change language