1aAPPENDIX A — Appendix OPINION AOF THE UNITEDSTATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT,FILED DECEMBER 14, 2011UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS,FIFTH CIRCUITNo. 11-10194KEITH A. LEPAK; MARVIN RANDLE; DANCLEMENTS; DANA BAILEY; KENSLEYSTEWART; CRYSTAL MAIN; DAVID TATE; VICKITATE; MORGAN MCCOMB; JACQUALEA COOLEY,v.CITY OF IRVING TEXAS,Defendant-AppelleePlaintiffs-AppellantsROBERT MOON; RACHEL TORREZ MOON;MICHAEL MOORE; GUILLERMO ORNELAZ;GILBERT ORNELAZ; AURORA LOPEZ,Intervenor Defendants-AppelleesDecember 14, 2011Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, CircuitJudges.
2aAppendix APER CURIAM: *This case presents <strong>the</strong> question of whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> “oneperson, one vote” principle embodied in <strong>the</strong> FourteenthAmendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires <strong>the</strong>City of Irving, Texas, <strong>to</strong> apportion its city councilelection districts <strong>to</strong> equalize <strong>the</strong> citizen voting agepopulation (“CVAP”), as opposed <strong>to</strong> equalizing <strong>the</strong> <strong>to</strong>talpopulation of each district. The plaintiffs contend that <strong>the</strong>constitutionally mandated measure is CVAP, and thus, <strong>the</strong>City’s current apportionment plan, which was drawn withdistricts of relatively equal <strong>to</strong>tal population, but unequalCVAP, is unconstitutional.We confronted this exact argument in Chen v. Cityof Hous<strong>to</strong>n, 206 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 2000), and held thatequalizing <strong>to</strong>tal population, but not CVAP, of each district,does not violate <strong>the</strong> Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 505;see also id. at 528. The Appellants do not attempt <strong>to</strong>distinguish Chen, nor do <strong>the</strong>y argue that <strong>the</strong>re has beenany intervening contrary or superseding decision of <strong>the</strong><strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> or this court sitting en banc. Instead, <strong>the</strong>ymerely argue that Chen was wrongly decided. However,we are not at liberty <strong>to</strong> overrule Chen as <strong>the</strong> Appellantsdesire. See, e.g., Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d452, 466 (5th Cir. 1999) (“It is a firm rule of this circuit thatin <strong>the</strong> absence of an intervening contrary or supersedingdecision by this court sitting en banc or by <strong>the</strong> United* Pursuant <strong>to</strong> 5th Cir. R. 47.5, <strong>the</strong> court has determined thatthis opinion should not be published and is not precedent exceptunder <strong>the</strong> limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
- 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 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: 1aAppendix AAPPENDIX
- 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