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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5aAppendix BFebruary 11, 2011JORGE A. SOLIS, District JudgeMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERNow before the Court are (1) Plaintiffs’ motion forsummary judgment (Docket # 25); (2) City of Irving’smotion for summary judgment (Docket # 29); (3)Defendant-Intervenors’ motion for summary judgment(Docket # 35); and (4) the United States’s brief as amicuscuraie (Docket # 41). After careful consideration ofthe facts, briefing and applicable law, the Court herebyGRANTS the City of Irving’s motion for summaryjudgment.BACKGROUNDAfter conducting a bench trial in Benavidez v. Cityof Irving, this Court held that the City of Irving (“City”or “Irving”) violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Actby electing its city council members on an at-large basis.The Court found the City’s at-large system effectivelydenied Hispanic voters an equal opportunity to electrepresentatives of their choice. See City of Irving v.Benavidez, 638 F. Supp. 2d 709, 732 (N.D. Tex. 2009). Asa result of the ruling, the parties agreed on a new electionplan (the “Plan”) that divided the City into six singlememberdistricts, two at-large districts, and a singlemayor. The Plan divides the City into six districts thatare relative in total population. However, while the total
6aAppendix Bpopulation numbers are roughly equal between districts,the CVAP (citizen voting age population) in District 1 ismuch less than the CVAP in the other districts.DISCUSSIONAccording to Plaintiffs, the Plan substantially dilutesthe votes of Irving’s citizens by weighing votes differentlydepending on where a person lives. They argue the Planviolates the “one-person, one-vote” equal protectionprinciple of the Fourteenth Amendment because thedistricts’ sizes are based on total population ratherthan on CVAP. Plaintiffs explain that because District 3has approximately half the CVAP as at least two otherdistricts, the council member from District 1 can beelected with approximately half as many votes as thecouncil members of the other districts. Plaintiffs concludethat because the voters in District 1 have nearly twice asmuch voting power as the voters in the other districts,the City is impermissibly weighing the votes of citizensdifferently merely because of where they reside. At thecore of this dispute is whether the City is constitutionallypermitted to draw districts based on equal populations asopposed to equal numbers of voters.In their briefing. Plaintiffs repeatedly cite toReynolds v. Sims for the principle that “[ w]ith respect tothe allocation of legislative representation, all voters, ascitizens of a State, stand in the same relation regardlessof where they live.” 377 U.S. 533, 565, 84 S. Ct. 1362,
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 and 52: 2aAppendix APER CURIAM: *This case
Page 53: 4aAPPENDIX B — Appendix MEMORANDU
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?