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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7because the City has substantially more White voters thanHispanic voters, the at-large electoral system violated theVRA by diluting the voting power of Hispanic voters andthus denying them an opportunity to elect a representativeof their choice. Id.Benavidez proposed replacing the at-large systemwith what he termed the “Plan 6-2-1,” which dividedthe City into six single-member districts, two at-largedistricts, and a single mayor. The key attribute of Plan6-2-1 was the creation of District 1—a district designedto be majority Hispanic. Only by proposing such a districtcould Benavidez meet his burden under Section 2 of theVRA of showing that eliminating the at-large systemwould result in the creation of a district where the citizenvoting age population (“CVAP”) of the minority groupexceeds 50% of the relevant population. App. 55a-56a(citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50 n.17). That is, Benavidezneeded to show—using CVAP data—that the districtcourt could draw such a district in order to establish thatthe City’s minority population would possess the votingpower to elect its desired candidate of choice absent theat-large voting scheme. Id. (citation omitted).The City objected to replacing the at-large systemwith the 6-2-1 Plan. Importantly, the City argued, interalia, that because District 1 would contain a comparativelyfar fewer number of eligible voters, Benavidez’s plan tocreate a majority-Hispanic district would dilute the votesof those eligible voters residing in the other five districtsin violation of the Equal Protection Clause’s one-person,one-vote principle. Id. 23a.
8Relying on Chen, the district court rejected the City’sone-person, one-vote argument. Id. at 714. Under Chen,as the district court explained, the choice between usingtotal population or CVAP is a political question that isjudicially unreviewable for purposes of compliance withthe Fourteenth Amendment. Id. (citing Chen, 206 F.3d at522-28). Thus, although the district court was required touse CVAP in determining whether Benavidez’s proposalmet the requirements of Section 2 of the VRA, see, e.g.,Reyes v. City of Farmers Branch, Texas, 586 F.3d 1019(5th Cir. 2009), that very same inquiry was judiciallyunreviewable for purposes of determining whether Plan6-2-1 complied with the Fourteenth Amendment’s oneperson,one-vote principle. App. 23a (citing Chen, 206 F.3dat 522-28). After also rejecting the City’s other arguments,the district court held that the at-large system violatedSection 2 of the VRA and granted judgment to Benavidez.Id. 65a.The City declined to appeal. Instead, it agreed to asubstantially similar version of Plan 6-2-1 (the “Plan”). ThePlan later was precleared by the Department of Justice inaccordance with Section 5 of the VRA. See United StatesAmicus Brief at PageID 796-97 (Doc. 41). The followingchart shows the City’s population breakdown—includingtotal population, voting age population (“VAP”), andCVAP—for each of the six districts that the Plan created. 22. The City provided these figures and they are not disputed.See Appendix to Mot. for S.J. at PageID 254 (Doc. 26).
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 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?