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

12On December 14, 2011, the Fifth Circuit affirmed,holding that Chen controlled and, as such, “equalizing totalpopulation, but not CVAP, of each district, does not violatethe Equal Protection Clause.” App. 2a. On January 4, 2012,Petitioners sought rehearing en banc. Id. 11a-12a. Ninemonths later, on September 24, 2012, the Fifth Circuitdenied the rehearing petition. Id. 3REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITIONCertiorari should be granted because the Fifth Circuit“decided an important question of federal law that has notbeen, but should be, settled by this Court” and did so ina way that conflicts “with the decision of another UnitedStates court of appeals on the same important matter.”S. Ct. Rule 10.3. Every ten years the City must “rearrange [its] districts soas to make all districts as nearly equal in population as possible.”Irving City Charter, art. IV, § 3(d). Consequently, the City recently“modified the [boundaries] set forth in the 6-2-1 Plan” to reflectthe 2010 census. See Snapshot 2012, A Report on the State of theCity Irving, Texas, available at http://cityofirving.org/planning/pdfs/2012_Snapshot_final_ 4_4_2012.pdf. Despite the City’s largenon-citizen population, supra at 9-10, the City made only slightmodifications to the Plan and again refused to take citizenshipinto account in forming the districts. Id. Thus, Petitioner’s oneperson,one-vote claim concerning District 1 “also relate[s] to thesuperseding plan.” Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 39 (1993). Inany event, because certain members of the City Council remainin office under the Plan, Petitioners are suffering its “continuingeffects” and will continue to do so until constitutional boundariesare adopted. Williams v. City of Dallas, 734 F. Supp. 1317, 1413(N.D. Tex. 1990).