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

57aAppendix Db. Defendants’ Objections to the Illustrative DistrictsDefendants raised objections to Plaintiff’s illustrativedistricts based on (1) citizenship estimates based on datafrom census tracts, rather than census blocks; (2) low levelsof Hispanic voter registration in the illustrative districts,according to SSRV data; and (3) the inability of the housingstock in the illustrative districts to accommodate thepopulation growth implied by the HCVAP growth.In response, Plaintiff drew districts with Hispanicmajorities of eligible voters by using citizenship estimatesbased on data from census blocks, rather than censustracts. (See e.g., Pl’s Ex. 5, at 3.) Plaintiff also createdan illustrative district incorporating SSRV data to showthat Plaintiff could create a district with a Hispanicmajority of eligible voters. (See id. at 2.) But contrary toDefendants’ arguments regarding low levels of Hispanicvoter registration in the illustrative districts, it is theoverall population of eligible Hispanic voters that isrelevant. See Campos v. City of Houston, 113 F.3d 544, 548(5th Cir.1997) (holding that in voter dilution challenges,courts must consider the minority CVAP, not the numberof minority voters that are actually registered to vote).Further, Plaintiff has demonstrated that the increasein HCVAP rates may be accounted for by the aging ofHispanic children and the decline in non-Hispanic CVAP,resulting in little or no total population growth in theillustrative districts. Finally, the 2008 CVAP majoritiesin illustrative districts A, B, and C are sufficiently largethat they can absorb some degree of variability. (Trial Tr.Vol. 1, 46-47, Feb. 18.) Thus, Plaintiff has proposed viableillustrative districts.