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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5has “an obligation to explain to States and localities whatit actually means.” Chen, 121 S. Ct. at 2021 (Thomas, J.,dissenting from the denial of certiorari).In filing an amicus brief and seeking argument timein the court of appeals, the United States argued thatthis case raises “important questions regarding theappropriate population standard a locality should usewhen drawing its election districts in compliance withthe Equal Protection Clause principles established inReynolds v. Sims.” Amicus Curiae Brief of the UnitedStates at 3 (May 23, 2011). The United States was correct.The Court should grant the Petition.STATEMENT OF THE CASEA. The One-Person, One-Vote Principle of theFourteenth Amendment.This Court has long held that the Equal ProtectionClause includes a one-person, one-vote principle underwhich “all who participate in [an] election are to havean equal vote—whatever their race, whatever their sex,whatever their occupation, w hatever their income, andwherever their home may be in that geographical unit.”Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 557-58 (citations and quotationsomitted); see also Hadley v. Junior Coll. Dist. of Metro.Kansas City, Mo., 397 U.S. 50, 56 (1970) (explaining thatthe Equal Protection Clause “requires that each qualifiedvoter must be given an equal opportunity to participatein that election”). Put simply, the one-person, one-voteprinciple guarantees an equal vote to all electors. SeeReynolds, 377 U.S. at 562.
6Thus, “w hen members of an elected body are chosenfrom separate districts, each district must be establishedon a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, thatequal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equalnumbers of officials.” Hadley, 397 U.S. at 56; Reynolds,377 U.S. at 568. Although the Equal Protection Clausedoes not require that the population of each district beabsolutely equal, Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842(1983), it does forbid “substantial variation” from thisconstitutional norm, Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S.474, 485 (1968). A population deviation between the largestand smallest districts of 10% or more is prima facieevidence of a one-person, one-vote violation triggering thegovernment’s duty to set forth a compelling justification forthe deviation. Brown, 462 U.S. at 852; White v. Regester,412 U.S. 755, 763 (1973); Mahan, 410 U.S. at 329. And apopulation deviation large enough can be deemed per seunconstitutional. Id. at 329.B. Section 2 Litigation Over The Electoral SystemOf Irving, TexasIn 2007, Manuel A. Benavidez, a Hispanic citizen andresident sued the City, its mayor, and city council memberschallenging the City’s electoral system as invalid underSection 2 of the VRA. See App. 13a-14a. The challengedelectoral system provided that voters would choose theeight city council members and mayor through at-largeelections. 1 In his complaint, Benavidez alleged that1. Under the at-large system, “[e]very City Council candidate[ran] for a particular numbered position, designated as Places 1 to8. Irving [was] divided into five districts, and candidates for Places1 to 5 [needed to] reside in their respective district. Candidates formayor and for Places 6 to 8 [needed to] reside in Irving, but they[were] not required to reside in any particular district.” App. 15a.
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 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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?