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
13aAPPENDIX D — MEMORANDUM Appendix D OPINION ANDORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOURT, N.D. TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION,DATED JULY 15, 2009United States District Court,N.D. Texas,Dallas Division.No. 3:07-CV-01850-P.July 15, 2009.Manuel A. BENAVIDEZ,v.Plaintiff,The CITY OF IRVING, TEXAS and Herbert A. Gears,Thomas D. Spink, Elizabeth (Beth) Van Duyne, AllanE. Meagher, Lewis Patrick, Rose Cannady,Rick Stopper, Sam Smith, and Joe Phillip,in their official capacities,Defendants.MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERJORGE A. SOLIS, District Judge.On November 6, 2007, Manuel A. Benavidez(“Plaintiff”) brought this suit against the City of Irving(“City” or “Irving”), its mayor, and its city council members(collectively, “Defendants”), challenging the legality of
14aAppendix DIrving’s at-large electoral system under Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. Plaintiff maintainsthat Irving’s at-large electoral system has the effect ofdiluting the voting power of Irving’s Hispanic voters, andthus denies them the opportunity to elect representativesof their choice. (Am. Compl. 8.) Plaintiff requests thatthis Court enjoin Irving from holding elections under thepresent at-large system, and order the implementation ofa plan to remedy the alleged Section 2 violations. (Id. at 9.)After the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for SummaryJudgment on Plaintiff’s standing to bring this action, theparties proceeded to a four day bench trial that concludedon February 20, 2009. This Order sets forth the Court’sfindings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to FederalRule of Civil Procedure 52(a). 1I. BACKGROUNDA. The PartiesThe 2000 Census reported that Irving had a populationof 191,613, of whom 143,395 were of voting age. (JointPretrial Order 31.) Hispanics made up 31.2% of the City’spopulation and 27.2% of the voting-age population. (Id.)The 2006 American Community Survey (“ACS”) reflectsan increase in the Hispanic population of Irving to 41.7%and 37.9% of the voting-age population. (Def.’s Ex. 1, at8.) Highway 183 divides the northern and southern halves1. Any finding of fact that is more properly construed as aconclusion of law shall be so construed. Likewise, any conclusionof law that is more properly construed as a finding of fact shallbe so construed.
- 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 and 58: 8aAppendix Bwhich total population
- Page 59 and 60: 10aAppendix Bthe court does acknowl
- Page 61: 12aAppendix CON PETITION FOR REHEAR
- 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
14aAppendix DIrving’s at-large elec<strong>to</strong>ral system under Section 2 of <strong>the</strong>Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. Plaintiff maintainsthat Irving’s at-large elec<strong>to</strong>ral system has <strong>the</strong> effect ofdiluting <strong>the</strong> voting power of Irving’s Hispanic voters, andthus denies <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> opportunity <strong>to</strong> elect representativesof <strong>the</strong>ir choice. (Am. Compl. 8.) Plaintiff requests thatthis <strong>Court</strong> enjoin Irving from holding elections under <strong>the</strong>present at-large system, and order <strong>the</strong> implementation ofa plan <strong>to</strong> remedy <strong>the</strong> alleged Section 2 violations. (Id. at 9.)After <strong>the</strong> <strong>Court</strong> denied Defendants’ Motion for SummaryJudgment on Plaintiff’s standing <strong>to</strong> bring this action, <strong>the</strong>parties proceeded <strong>to</strong> a four day bench trial that concludedon February 20, 2009. This Order sets forth <strong>the</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’sfindings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant <strong>to</strong> FederalRule of Civil Procedure 52(a). 1I. BACKGROUNDA. The PartiesThe 2000 Census reported that Irving had a populationof 191,613, of whom 143,395 were of voting age. (JointPretrial Order 31.) Hispanics made up 31.2% of <strong>the</strong> City’spopulation and 27.2% of <strong>the</strong> voting-age population. (Id.)The 2006 American Community Survey (“ACS”) reflectsan increase in <strong>the</strong> Hispanic population of Irving <strong>to</strong> 41.7%and 37.9% of <strong>the</strong> voting-age population. (Def.’s Ex. 1, at8.) Highway 183 divides <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn and sou<strong>the</strong>rn halves1. Any finding of fact that is more properly construed as aconclusion of law shall be so construed. Likewise, any conclusionof law that is more properly construed as a finding of fact shallbe so construed.
Change language