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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

iiPARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGAND RULE 29.6 STATEMENTPetitioners in this case are Keith A. Lepak, MarvinRandle, Dan Clements, Dana Bailey, Kensley Stewart,Crystal Main, David Tate, Vicki Tate, Morgan McComb,and Jacqualea Cooley.Respondents are City of Irving, Texas, Robert Moon,Rachel Torrez Moon, Michael Moore, Guillermo Ornelaz,Gilbert Ornelaz, and Aurora Lopez.
Page 4 and 5: iiiTABLE OF CONTENTSPageQUESTION PR
Page 9: viiiCited AuthoritiesPageGray v. Sa
Page 13 and 14: xiiCited AuthoritiesPageJamin B. Ra
Page 15 and 16: 2created city council districts tha
Page 17 and 18: 4Granting the petition will have th
Page 19 and 20: 6Thus, “w hen members of an elect
Page 21 and 22: 8Relying on Chen, the district cour
Page 23 and 24: 10Indeed, according to recent Censu
Page 25 and 26: 12On December 14, 2011, the Fifth C
Page 27 and 28: 14of any one voter once cast is acc
Page 29 and 30: 16At the same time, immigrant popul
Page 31 and 32: 18regions of the country where this
Page 33 and 34: 20Using total population for one-pe
Page 35 and 36: 22principle. Id. at 774. Rather, th
Page 37 and 38: 24fewer eligible voters. The distri
Page 39 and 40: 26II. Review Is Required Because Th
Page 42 and 43: 29present apportionment satisfies t
Page 44 and 45: 31representatives. It was recogniti
Page 46 and 47: 33vote of those residing in the dis
Page 48 and 49: 35CONCLUSIONThe petition for a writ
Page 50 and 51: 1aAPPENDIX A — Appendix OPINION A
Page 52 and 53:
3aAppendix AStates Supreme Court, a
Page 54 and 55:
5aAppendix BFebruary 11, 2011JORGE
Page 56 and 57:
7aAppendix B12 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1964)
Page 58 and 59:
9aAppendix Bpopulation or a measure
Page 60 and 61:
11aAPPENDIX C — ORDER Appendix DE
Page 62 and 63:
13aAPPENDIX D — MEMORANDUM Append
Page 64 and 65:
15aAppendix Dof Irving, and a major
Page 66 and 67:
17aAppendix Dprocesses leading to n
Page 68 and 69:
19aAppendix D(2) the extent to whic
Page 70 and 71:
21aAppendix DAlford 4 and Dr. Norfl
Page 72 and 73:
23aAppendix DDefendants’ experts
Page 74 and 75:
25aAppendix Dthe change in that rat
Page 76 and 77:
27aAppendix Dlevel method and the B
Page 78 and 79:
29aAppendix DOrder 32.) Dr. Rives t
Page 80 and 81:
31aAppendix Dare all situated in th
Page 82 and 83:
33aAppendix Donly for the projectio
Page 84 and 85:
35aAppendix Dgreater than) the city
Page 86 and 87:
37aAppendix DMr. Ely rejected Dr. R
Page 88 and 89:
39aAppendix D3. CompactnessThe Ging
Page 90 and 91:
41aAppendix Dblocks are, in fact, g
Page 92 and 93:
43aAppendix D2. Gingles II: Politic
Page 94 and 95:
45aAppendix Destimates to real limi
Page 96 and 97:
47aAppendix Dnot a lot of variation
Page 98 and 99:
49aAppendix Dover 90% of the people
Page 100 and 101:
51aAppendix D2. Senate Factor 3: Me
Page 102 and 103:
53aAppendix Ddisparate socio-econom
Page 104 and 105:
55aAppendix D478 U.S. at 57, 106 S.
Page 106 and 107:
57aAppendix Db. Defendants’ Objec
Page 108 and 109:
59aAppendix DTo the extent that ACS
Page 110 and 111:
61aAppendix DHowever, “[t]he firs
Page 112 and 113:
63aAppendix Dpolitically cohesive.
Page 114 and 115:
65aAppendix Dmechanisms that enhanc
Page 116 and 117:
67aAppendix EState, excluding India
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?