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

62aAppendix Dthe way in which the voter votes.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at53 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 2752 (internal citations and quotationsomitted). Legally significant racially polarized votingexists when the minority group is politically cohesiveand the majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable itto usually defeat the minority-preferred choice. Id. at 56,106 S.Ct. 2752. The Court concludes that racially polarizedvoting is clear in Irving in the three elections analyzed,based on the pattern of Hispanic voters consistentlypreferring the Hispanic candidate, non-Hispanic voterspreferring the non-Hispanic candidate, and non-Hispanicvoters vetoing Hispanic preferences. 14 (Trial Tr. vol. 1,216-17, Feb. 17.)1. Political Cohesion of Hispanic VotersThe second Gingles precondition requires thatPlaintiff demonstrate that Hispanics in Irving are14. Having established the three Gingles factors, Plaintiffhas standing to bring this action: he is a minority voter whoresides within a proposed district in which the minority groupis sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitutea majority in a single-member district, and voting is raciallypolarized. Thus, he has been affected “in a personal and individualway,” he has demonstrated “a causal connection between the injuryand the conduct complained of,” and it is likely “that the injurywill be redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders ofWildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351(1992) (setting forth the required elements for standing); see alsoSalas v. Sw. Texas Junior Coll. Dist., 964 F.2d 1542, 1554 (5thCir.1992) (stating that the Gingles analysis “is an inquiry intocausation-whether the given electoral practice is responsible forplaintiffs’ inability to elect their preferred representatives”).