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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

63aAppendix Dpolitically cohesive. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 51, 106 S.Ct.2752. According to Gingles, “if the minority group is notpolitically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection ofa multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctiveminority group interests.” Id. The Court concludes thatHispanic voters in Irving are politically cohesive, i.e., theytend to vote as a bloc.Dr. Engstrom considered the degree to which Hispanicvoters support the same candidates, and looked to thegap between the percentage of votes for the minoritypreferredcandidate and the non-preferred candidate.He demonstrated that Hispanic voters in Irving votedcohesively in the three elections examined, in 2005 and2008. The methods utilized by Dr. Engstrom, ER and EIanalysis, have been accepted by numerous courts in votingrights cases. See e.g., United States v. Village of PortChester, No. 06 Civ. 15173(SCR), 2008 WL 190502, at *25(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2008). Plaintiff has therefore satisfiedthe second Gingles precondition.2. White Majority Bloc VotingTo satisfy the third Gingles precondition, Plaintiffmust demonstrate that “the white majority votessufficiently as a bloc to enable it-in the absence of specialcircumstances, such as the minority candidate runningunopposed-usually to defeat the minority’s preferredcandidate.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 51, 106 S.Ct. 2752. Provingthis third point enables the minority group to show that“submergence in a white multimember district impedesits ability to elect its chosen representatives.” Id. Further,
64aAppendix Dthe requirement that the white majority be repeatedlysuccessful “distinguishes structural dilution from themere loss of an occasional election.” Id.Dr. Engstrom employed HPA, ER, and EI analysis,and the results of all three methods demonstrate thatthe white majority in Irving votes cohesively to defeatHispanic preferred candidates. Therefore, Plaintiff hasproven the third Gingles precondition.C. Totality of the Circumstances-Senate ReportFactorsAs outlined above, although this Court has found thatPlaintiffs have satisfied all three Gingles preconditions,it is also necessary to consider the totality of thecircumstances before finding a Section 2 violation. SeeJohnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1011, 114 S.Ct. 2647,129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994). The most important Senate factorsin a Section 2 challenge are factors 2 and 7-the extent towhich elections are racially polarized and the extent towhich minorities have been elected. If these two Senatefactors are present, “the other factors ... are supportiveof, but not essential to, a minority voter’s claim.” Gingles,478 U.S. at 51 n. 15, 106 S.Ct. 2752.The two Senate factors most critical to establishinga Section 2 violation, racially polarized voting (Senatefactor 2) and the failure to elect minority candidateshave been established (Senate factor 7). Two additionalSenate factors also support Plaintiff’s claims. Specifically,Irving’s electoral system has in place a number of
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 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: 62aAppendix Dthe way in which the v
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?