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
17wards had far more eligible voters than others becausesome contained a large alien population”); Richard L.Engstrom, Cumulative and Limited Voting: MinorityElectoral Opportunities and More, 30 St. Louis U. Pub.L. Rev. 97, 115 (2010) (analyzing the CVAP populationsin Port Chester, New York, and concluding that “the oneperson, one vote standard was not satisfied if it is basedon CVAP”); Barnett v. City of Chicago, 141 F.3d 699, 702(noting that the citizenship issue was “important in thiscase, because more than 40 percent of the Latinos inChicago are not U.S. citizens”).Second, the problem is especially pronounced inregions with the largest immigrant populations—andthose circuits have all addressed the question presented.Infra at 21-25. The Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuitstogether include more than half of the nation’s non-citizenpopulation. Of the 13 million legal permanent residents inthe country, nearly 26% reside in California and nearly10% reside in Texas. 7 And of the 11.5 million illegal aliensin the country, 25% reside in California and 16% reside inTexas. 8 Deciding this question, therefore, will affect those7. See Nancy Rytina, Estimates of the Legal PermanentResident Population in 2011, Department of Homeland Security,4 (July 2012), available at http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/ois_lpr_pe_2011.pdf.8. See Michael Hoefer et al., Estimates of the UnauthorizedImmigrant Population Residing in the United States: January2011, Department of Homeland Security, 4 (March 2012), availableat http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf; A Description of the Immigrant Population: AnUpdate, Congressional Budget Office, 17 (June 2, 2011), availableat http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi les/cbofi les/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12168/06-02-foreign-bornpopulation.pdf.
18regions of the country where this important legal issuerecurs most frequently.Third, the issue has real-world consequences forvoters who are forced into malapportioned districts bythe use of total population data. The one-person, onevoteprinciple has “significantly altered the flow of statetransfers to counties, diverting approximately $7 billionannually from formerly overrepresented to formerlyunderrepresented counties.” Steve Ansolabehere, EqualVotes, Equal Money: Court-Ordered Redistricting andthe Distribution of Public Expenditures in the AmericanStates, 96 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 767, 767 (2002); see alsoMatthew D. McCubbins, Congress, the Courts, and PublicPolicy: Consequences of the One Man, One Vote Rule, 32Am. J. of Pol. Sci. 388 (1988) (discussing “the reallocation offederal policy benefits from rural to nonrural Americans”that occurred as a result of the Court’s one-person, onevotedecisions). Nearly fifty years after having entered“into [the] political thickets” of redistricting, Reynolds,377 U.S. at 566, the Court should now resolve this issuegiven the detrimental impact its silence is having on thelives of millions of voters burdened by the equalization ofdistricts without consideration of voter population.Last, the Court should decide this issue given thetension it creates between the one-person, one-voteprinciple and Section 2 of the VRA. As noted above, toprevail in a Section 2 vote dilution case, a minority group“must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently largeand geographically compact to constitute a majorityin a single-member district.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50.This showing is necessary under Section 2 because“[u]nless minority voters possess the potential to electrepresentatives in the absence of the challenged structure
- 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 26 and 27: 13I. This Petition Presents An Impo
- Page 28 and 29: 15First, the issue has increasingly
- 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
17wards had far more eligible voters than o<strong>the</strong>rs becausesome contained a large alien population”); Richard L.Engstrom, Cumulative and Limited Voting: MinorityElec<strong>to</strong>ral Opportunities and More, 30 St. Louis U. Pub.L. Rev. 97, 115 (2010) (analyzing <strong>the</strong> CVAP populationsin Port Chester, New York, and concluding that “<strong>the</strong> oneperson, one vote standard was not satisfied if it is basedon CVAP”); Barnett v. City of Chicago, 141 F.3d 699, 702(noting that <strong>the</strong> citizenship issue was “important in thiscase, because more than 40 percent of <strong>the</strong> Latinos inChicago are not U.S. citizens”).Second, <strong>the</strong> problem is especially pronounced inregions with <strong>the</strong> largest immi<strong>grant</strong> populations—andthose circuits have all addressed <strong>the</strong> question presented.Infra at 21-25. The Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits<strong>to</strong>ge<strong>the</strong>r include more than half of <strong>the</strong> nation’s non-citizenpopulation. Of <strong>the</strong> 13 million legal permanent residents in<strong>the</strong> country, nearly 26% reside in California and nearly10% reside in Texas. 7 And of <strong>the</strong> 11.5 million illegal aliensin <strong>the</strong> country, 25% reside in California and 16% reside inTexas. 8 Deciding this question, <strong>the</strong>refore, will affect those7. See Nancy Rytina, Estimates of <strong>the</strong> Legal PermanentResident Population in 2011, Department of Homeland Security,4 (July 2012), available at http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/ois_lpr_pe_2011.pdf.8. See Michael Hoefer et al., Estimates of <strong>the</strong> UnauthorizedImmi<strong>grant</strong> Population Residing in <strong>the</strong> United States: January2011, Department of Homeland Security, 4 (March 2012), availableat http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf; A Description of <strong>the</strong> Immi<strong>grant</strong> Population: AnUpdate, Congressional Budget Office, 17 (June 2, 2011), availableat http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi les/cbofi les/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12168/06-02-foreign-bornpopulation.pdf.
Change language