3aAppendix AStates <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, a panel cannot overrule a priorpanel’s decision.” (citing Billiot v. Puckett, 135 F.3d 311,316 (5th Cir. 1998))). Accordingly, we AFFIRM <strong>the</strong> districtcourt’s <strong>grant</strong> of <strong>the</strong> City’s motion for summary judgment. 11. We disagree with <strong>the</strong> Intervenors’ arguments that thisappeal is not justiciable under Article III of <strong>the</strong> Constitution. SeeReno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S. 320, 327-28, 120S. Ct. 866, 145 L. Ed. 2d 845 (2000) (holding that even though<strong>the</strong> challenged apportionment plan would almost certainly besuperseded by a new plan before <strong>the</strong> next election, <strong>the</strong> casenone<strong>the</strong>less presented a live Article III case or controversybecause <strong>the</strong> challenged plan “will serve as <strong>the</strong> baseline againstwhich [<strong>the</strong>] next voting plan will be evaluated for <strong>the</strong> purposes of[§ 5] preclearance”); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204-08, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1962) (holding that <strong>the</strong> alleged dilution ofan individual voter’s power <strong>to</strong> elect representatives provides thatvoter with standing). Because <strong>the</strong>re are plaintiffs with standing,and <strong>the</strong>y seek only injunctive relief, we need not address <strong>the</strong>Intervenors’ argument that Appellants who reside in Districts 4and 7 lack standing. See Crawford v. Marion Cnty. <strong>Election</strong> Bd.,553 U.S. 181, 189 n.7, 128 S. Ct. 1610, 170 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2008) (“We. . . agree with <strong>the</strong> unanimous view of [<strong>the</strong> Seventh Circuit] that[some of <strong>the</strong> petitioners] have standing <strong>to</strong> challenge <strong>the</strong> validityof [<strong>the</strong> state law requiring voters <strong>to</strong> present pho<strong>to</strong> identification]and that <strong>the</strong>re is no need <strong>to</strong> decide whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r petitionersalso have standing.”), aff’g 472 F.3d 949, 951 (7th Cir. 2007)(“Only injunctive relief is sought, and for that only one plaintiffwith standing is required . . . .” (citing Tex. Democratic Party v.Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582, 585-86 (5th Cir. 2006))).
4aAPPENDIX B — Appendix MEMORANDUM B OPINIONAND ORDER OF THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERNDISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION,FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2011UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THENORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLASDIVISIONCIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-0277-PKEITH A. LEPAK, MARVIN RANDLE, DANCLEMENTS, DANA BAILEY, KENSLEYSTEWART, CRYSTAL MAIN, DAVID TATE, VICKITATE, MORGAN McCOMB, and JACQUALEACOOLEY,v.CITY OF IRVING, TEXAS,Defendant,v.Plaintiffs,ROBERT MOON, RACHEL TORREZ-MOON,MICHAEL MOORE, GUILLERMO ORNELAZ,GILBERT ORNELAZ and AURORA LOPEZ,Defendant-Intervenors.
- 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 and 50: 1aAppendix AAPPENDIX
- Page 51: 2aAppendix APER CURIAM: *This case
- 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