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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

9aAppendix Bpopulation or a measurement of potential voters must beleft to the legislative body. See Daly v. Hunt, 93 F.3d 1212,1227 (4th Cir. 1996).Plaintiffs try to distinguish Chen from this case byarguing in a footnote that the variance between populationand voters in Chen is considerably less than the variancein this case. They contend the “City of Houston had notdiluted the vote of citizens by approximately half, as theCity of Irving has done here. Rather, the Chen courtsimply noted that the ‘maximum variance’ of CVAPbetween the City of Houston’s districts ‘exceeds [a] tenpercent threshold.’” (Docket # 25 at 15 n. 18.) Plaintiffsinfer the City of Houston’s variance between populationand eligible voters was just slightly more than tenpercent, whereas here, the variance is considerably higher.Plaintiffs then contend the Chen court called the CVAPvote dilution claim “extremely close and difficult.” (Docket# 25 at 15 n. 18.)First, the inference Plaintiffs make -- that themaximum variance in Chen was close to ten percent -- isnot supported by the actual evidence. The petition forwrit of certiorari in Chen states that, when measured byCVAP, the maximum deviation between districts in thechallenged Houston plan was 32.5%. Appellate Pet. Chenv. City of Houston 532 U.S. 1046, 121 S. Ct. 2020, 149 L.Ed. 2d 1017, 2000 WL 34014393 at *3.Second, the Fifth Circuit did not characterize itsCVAP decision as a close call. It described the racialgerrymandering claim (Shaw claim) as ‘’extremely closeand difficult.” Chen, 206 F.3d at 505. Later in the opinion,
10aAppendix Bthe court does acknowledge that “while this [CVAP] issueis a close question, we find that the choice of populationfigures is a choice left to the political process.” Id. at 523.However, the “close question” was not whether the amountof vote dilution was extreme enough to warrant judicialintervention. The “close question” referred to whether thecourts should intervene in the selection of a populationbaseline. The Fifth Circuit held they should not. Id.The Court also rejects Plaintiffs’ attempt to limit theChen holding to “the specific circumstances of that case.”(Docket # 25 n. 18.) Though the court does state at thebeginning of its opinion that “the use of total populationto track the size of the districts does not, under thesecircumstances, violate the Equal Protection Clause,” itconcludes its opinion with the following language, “But in[the] face of the lack of more definitive guidance from theSupreme Court, we conclude that this eminently politicalquestion has been left to the political process.” Chen,206 F.3d at 505, 528. Plaintiffs have not demonstratedthat, under these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit wouldrequire this court to intervene in the political process andjudicially mandate Irving to track the size of the districtsby CVAP instead of by population.For these reasons, the Court hereby GRANTSsummary judgment for the City of Irving, DENIESsummary judgment for Plaintiffs, and DENIESDefendant-Intervenors’ motion for summary judgmentas MOOT.It is SO ORDERED.
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 and 54: 4aAPPENDIX B — Appendix MEMORANDU
Page 55 and 56: 6aAppendix Bpopulation numbers are
Page 57: 8aAppendix Bwhich total population
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?