petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant ... - Election Law Blog
petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant ... - Election Law Blog petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant ... - Election Law Blog
9City of IrvingPopulation, Voting Age Population (“VAP”), and Citizen Voting Age Population(“CVAP”) (2000)DistrictTotalPopulationTotalVAPTotalCVAPHispanicCVAPAngloCVAPBlackCVAPOtherCVAP1 31,642 20,930 11,231 4,144 5,628 935 5243 32,309 25,275 20,617 2,808 11,770 4,934 1,1054 31,870 22,635 19,161 2,872 14,302 978 1,0095 33,126 26,000 19,673 2,463 13,811 2,232 1,1676 30,674 25,187 19,920 1,362 14,996 2,080 1,4827 31,992 23,368 17,785 2,858 13,171 1,058 698Totals 191,613 143,395 108,387 16,507 73,678 12,217 5,985While each district’s total population numbers areroughly equal, the Plan creates significant disparitiesin CVAP among districts. For example, while District 1contains 11,231 citizens of voting age, District 3 (20,617)and District 6 (19,920) both have CVAP that is almostdouble that of District 1. Viewed another way, to be electedin District 1, a candidate needs only 5,616 votes to obtain amajority of the electorate, whereas a candidate in District3 or District 6 needs almost twice that (10,309 and 9,961votes, respectively). This disparity means that each voteby a District 1 voter is almost twice as powerful as eachvote by a District 3 or District 6 voter.Given the City’s demographics, this stark disparity invoter population will persist so long as the City refuses totake citizenship into account when drawing its boundaries.
10Indeed, according to recent Census figures, more than55 percent of the City’s voting-age Hispanics are noncitizens.See U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 AmericanCommunity Survey of Irving City, Texas, available athttp://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/10_SF4/B05003/1600000US4837000/popgroup~400.C. Proceedings BelowIn February 2010, ten eligible voters (“Petitioners”)residing in districts other than District 1 sued the Cityin the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Texas, seeking to have the Plan declaredunconstitutional. Specifically, Petitioners alleged that thePlan violated their one-person, one-vote right to have theirvote weighted equally to that of other citizens. In opposingthe lawsuit, the City sought summary judgment on theground that whether to use CVAP or total population asthe districting base is a policy choice “that is left to thediscretion of the City” under Chen and “the City’s decisionregarding the apportionment base [was] a rational one.”Irving Mot. for S.J. at PageID 389 (Doc. 28). Six Irvingresidents intervened to defend the Plan.The United States was granted leave to file an amicusbrief in support of the City. In the view of the UnitedStates, the litigation “raises an important issue concerningthe appropriate population basis upon which to drawmunicipal districts in accordance with the Constitution’sone-person, one-vote principle.” United States Motion toFile Amicus Brief at PageID 540 (Doc. 32). In its brief, theUnited States argued that total population—not CVAP—was the proper apportionment basis. See United StatesAmicus Brief at PageID 796-806 (Doc. 41).
- 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 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
9City of IrvingPopulation, Voting Age Population (“VAP”), and Citizen Voting Age Population(“CVAP”) (2000)DistrictTotalPopulationTotalVAPTotalCVAPHispanicCVAPAngloCVAPBlackCVAPO<strong>the</strong>rCVAP1 31,642 20,930 11,231 4,144 5,628 935 5243 32,309 25,275 20,617 2,808 11,770 4,934 1,1054 31,870 22,635 19,161 2,872 14,302 978 1,0095 33,126 26,000 19,673 2,463 13,811 2,232 1,1676 30,674 25,187 19,920 1,362 14,996 2,080 1,4827 31,992 23,368 17,785 2,858 13,171 1,058 698Totals 191,613 143,395 108,387 16,507 73,678 12,217 5,985While each district’s <strong>to</strong>tal population numbers areroughly equal, <strong>the</strong> Plan creates significant disparitiesin CVAP among districts. For example, while District 1contains 11,231 citizens of voting age, District 3 (20,617)and District 6 (19,920) both have CVAP that is almostdouble that of District 1. Viewed ano<strong>the</strong>r way, <strong>to</strong> be electedin District 1, a candidate needs only 5,616 votes <strong>to</strong> obtain amajority of <strong>the</strong> elec<strong>to</strong>rate, whereas a candidate in District3 or District 6 needs almost twice that (10,309 and 9,961votes, respectively). This disparity means that each voteby a District 1 voter is almost twice as powerful as eachvote by a District 3 or District 6 voter.Given <strong>the</strong> City’s demographics, this stark disparity invoter population will persist so long as <strong>the</strong> City refuses <strong>to</strong>take citizenship in<strong>to</strong> account when drawing its boundaries.
Change language