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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

13I. This Petition Presents An Important Question ThatHas Divided The Circuits And That This CourtShould Settle.A. Whether States And Local Districts MustBe Drawn Based On Voter Population Is ANationally Important Question.The United States has acknowledged that this caseraises “important questions regarding the appropriatepopulation standard a locality should use when drawingits election districts in compliance with the EqualProtection Clause principles established in Reynolds v.Sims.” Amicus Curiae Brief of the United States at 3(May 23, 2011). 4 And for good reason. The right to vote isfundamental. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886).“Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the rightto vote is undermined.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1,17 (1964). A citizen thus “has a constitutionally protectedright to participate in elections on an equal basis withother citizens in the jurisdiction.” Dunn v. Blumstein,405 U.S. 330, 336 (1972); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368,380 (1963) (“The idea that every voter is equal to everyother voter in his State, when he casts his ballot in favorof one of several competing candidates, underlies manyof our decisions.”).Under controlling precedent, this equal-protectionright guarantees more than ballot access. It also includesa one-person, one-vote principle that ensures that the vote4. The United States participates as an amicus in the courtsof appeals only at the authorization of the Solicitor General,28 C.F.R. § 0.20(c), and only in cases of great national importance.
14of any one voter once cast is accorded equal weight relativeto every other voter. Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 557-58. “Withrespect to the allocation of legislative representation, allvoters, as citizens of a State, stand in the same relationregardless of where they live.” Id. at 565. “Simplystated, an individual’s right to vote for state legislatorsis unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in asubstantial fashion diluted when compared with votes ofcitizens living [in] other parts of the State.” Id. at 568. Inshort, “the weight of a citizen’s vote cannot be made todepend on where he lives.” Id. at 567.But the Court has not yet decided “what measure ofpopulation should be used for determining whether thepopulation is equally distributed among the districts.”Chen, 121 S. Ct. at 2021 (Thomas, J., dissenting fromdenial of certiorari). By not deciding the issue, the Courthas “left a critical variable in the requirement undefined.”Id. Indeed, “[t]he one-person, one-vote principle may, inthe end, be of little consequence if [the Court] decide[s]that each jurisdiction can choose its own measure ofpopulation. But as long as [the Court] sustain[s] theone-person, one-vote principle, [it has] an obligation toexplain to States and localities what it actually means.”Id. For several reasons, the question is too important toremain undecided any longer. See Robert W. Bennett,Should Parents Be Given Extra Votes On Account ofTheir Children?, 94 Nw. U. L. Rev. 503, 516 (2000) (“Canit really be that equally populated districts are importantin constitutional terms, but that the inclusion or exclusionfrom the count of population groups that may approach,or conceivably even exceed, half the total in some districtsis of no constitutional moment?”).
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 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?