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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

23aAppendix DDefendants’ experts assert that Plaintiff’s illustrativedistricts result in vote dilution by relying on totalpopulation for district size, rather than consideringcitizen-voting-age-population (“CVAP”). (Def.’s Ex. 4, at12-13; Id. at Ex. 51, at 7-9.) They contend that Mr. Ely’sillustrative districts contain an extremely high number ofnon-citizens, and this will result in the majority Hispanicdistrict exercising voting power that is substantiallymagnified relative to Irving’s other districts. (See id.; TrialTr. vol. 1, 108, Feb. 19.) Dr. Alford testified at trial that“the fact that the other districts will contain much largereligible populations means that their individual votes willcount less. So this will devalue the votes in those districts...” (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 110, Feb. 19.) However, as Dr. Alfordacknowledges, total population (not CVAP) is generallyaccepted as a proper measure for equalizing the size ofdistricts. (Id. at 112.) The Fifth Circuit addressed thiscomplex issue in great detail in Chen v. City of Houstonand concluded that the decision whether to rely on totalpopulation or the eligible-to-vote population in creatingdistricts is a decision best left to the political process. Chenv. City of Houston, 206 F.3d 502, 522-28 (5th Cir.2000).Therefore, the Court concludes that applying the totalpopulation standard on the illustrative districts is entirelyappropriate.b. Estimate Derived from Census and ACS DataIn drawing the illustrative districts, Mr. Ely utilizeddata from the 2000 Census and from the 2006 ACS. (TrialTr. vol. 1, 60-61, Feb. 17.) The 2000 Census was conductedby the Census Bureau and was composed of two parts: the
24aAppendix Done-hundred percent count and the sample count. The onehundredpercent count is collected using the short form,which is-in theory-filled out by every household in theUnited States. The short form data provides informationon total population, voting age population, Hispanic origin,and non-Hispanic origin populations. A sample surveycomponent of the Census is collected through an additionallong form, which is fi lled out by approximately one ineight households. The long form collects demographicinformation such as economic characteristics, primarylanguage, and citizenship.The ACS is another sample survey conducted bythe Census Bureau. It is of relatively recent origin andis intended to replace the Census long form, but it isconducted annually with the results averaged over timeperiods to get the same level of statistical sampling asthe long form. (Id. at 61.) Each year the ACS surveysapproximately 1/1000 households. At the time that Mr.Ely performed his analysis for this case, the 2006 ACSdata was the most current data that had been releasedby the Census Bureau.Mr. Ely based his illustrative districts on his estimatesof Irving’s Hispanic CVAP (“HCVAP”) in 2008. (Id.) Hetestified regarding why he chose to rely on those estimatesand the method he used to calculate them. He initiallyused the ACS to ascertain whether the data from the2000 Census long form remained generally accurate in2006. Mr. Ely explained that in his opinion, the criticalnumber is the ratio between the Hispanic and non-Hispanic share of CVAP, therefore he wanted to measure
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 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: 22aAppendix Dcomplying with the Gin
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?