petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant ... - Election Law Blog

55aAppendix D478 U.S. at 57, 106 S.Ct. 2752). In the case of Mr. Dickens,such special circumstances existed-the absence of anopponent, incumbency, and Mr. Dickens’ Anglo name. Asstated in the Senate Report, here the Court concludesthat the election of one minority candidate does not“necessarily foreclose the possibility of dilution of the[minority] vote, in violation of this section ...” S.Rep. No.97-417, at 29 n. 115 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N.177, 207.IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAWA. Gingles IThe first Gingles precondition requires that a plaintiffchallenging an at-large election scheme demonstratethat the minority group is “sufficiently large andgeographically compact to constitute a majority in a singlemember district.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50, 106 S.Ct. 2752.Here, Plaintiff has shown that Hispanics are sufficientlygeographically compact and numerous in Irving that anillustrative district can be drawn that has a Hispanicmajority of eligible voters and, therefore, Plaintiff hassatisfied part one of the Gingles threshold test.1. HCVAP Majority Illustrative DistrictsTo satisfy Gingles I, a plaintiff must show that it ispossible to draw an election district of an appropriatesize and shape where the CVAP of the minority groupexceeds 50% of the relevant population in the illustrativedistrict. Bartlett v. Strickland, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct.