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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
58aAppendix D2. Proof of Changed Demographic CharacteristicsThe Fifth Circuit has established that in Section 2cases, Census figures are presumptively accurate untilproven otherwise. Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Indep.Sch. Dist., 168 F.3d 848, 853-54 (5th Cir.1999). The FifthCircuit requires that “[p]roof of changed figures must bethoroughly documented, have a high degree of accuracy,and be clear, cogent and convincing to override thepresumptive correctness of the prior Census.” Id. at 854.The reliability of the 2008 estimates based on growthrates derived from ACS data constitutes the pivotal issuein this case, and the Court finds that Plaintiffs ACS basednumbers for 2008 are thoroughly documented, have a highdegree of accuracy, and are clear, cogent and convincing.a. Reliability of ACS FiguresACS data is Census data. It is produced andpromulgated by the Census Bureau, and it is intended toreplace the long form in the decennial Census. (Trial Tr. vol.1, 86, Feb. 19.) Unlike data proffered to overcome Censusfigures in other cases, here the Census Bureau producedthe data employed by Plaintiff. See, e.g., Valdespino, 168F.3d at 854 (affirming decision that housing stock datacould overcome Census data); Reyes v. Farmers Branch,No. 3:07-CV-900, 2008 WL 4791498, at *16 (N.D.Tex. Nov.4, 2008) (declining to rely on plaintiff’s “actual count” ofSSRV to overcome the Valdespino presumption). ACS datacan be-and eventually must be-relied upon; the CensusBureau will be utilizing ACS data in lieu of long formsurvey data beginning in 2010. (Id.)
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 and 102: 52aAppendix DThe Court concludes th
Page 103 and 104: 54aAppendix DNotably, James Dickens
Page 105: 56aAppendix D1231, 1245-46, 173 L.E
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
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?