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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

25aAppendix Dthe change in that ratio between 2000 and 2006. Thus, hisanalysis focused on the changes in the composition of thepopulation, not in the size of the population. (Id. at 62.) Toevaluate changes in the composition of Irving’s populationbetween 2000 and 2006, he compared the Hispanic andnon-Hispanic share of CVAP for Irving as reported in the2000 Census and the 2006 ACS. He found that the dataexamined indicated major changes-with an increase intotal Hispanic population in Irving from 31.2% in 2000 to41.7% in 2006. He also determined that the annual growthrate for Irving’s HCVAP between 2000 to 2006 was 4.4%and the average annual rate for non-Hispanic CVAP was-2.2%. He therefore concluded that the 2000 Census datawas no longer valid and determined that the 2006 ACSdata far more accurately reflected current demographicconditions.Mr. Ely then prepared estimates of the 2008Hispanic and non-Hispanic percentages of CVAP for usein constructing his illustrative districts. (Id. at 62.) Todo this, Mr. Ely computed growth rates for each of thecomponent populations based on the 2000 Census and2006 ACS city-wide data (4.4% for HCVAP and -2.2%for non-Hispanic CVAP). He used city-wide figures forethnicity and age, and Census tract level information forcitizenship status. (PL’s Ex. 1, at 7.) He then extrapolatedthat growth rate until 2008, which was applied to theillustrative districts to arrive at an estimated percentageof HCVAP in the illustrative district in 2008. (Id. at 8.)Mr. Ely did not use 2006 ACS data to estimate theactual, current population in the illustrative districts. In
26aAppendix Dhis opinion that would not be possible because the ACSis a sample, similar to the long form, and a sample is notgood at determining the scale of a population. (Trial Tr.vol. 1, 63-64, Feb. 17.) Rather, it is good for determiningpercentages or distributions within that population. Infact, in both the Census and the ACS, the total populationnumbers do not come from the survey; they come from adifferent method and the survey results are normalizedor scaled to match those numbers. (Id. at 64.)c. Tract Level v. Block Group Level Citizenship RatesThe Census Bureau employs a system of threegeographic units to subdivide counties. The smallest unitin the hierarchy is the census block. Next is the blockgroup (“BG”), which represents a collection of contiguouscensus blocks. Finally, the census tract represents acollection of contiguous BGs, and typically contains about4,000 people. (Defs.’ Ex. 7; Trial Tr. vol. 1, 66, Feb. 17.) Mr.Ely constructed the illustrative districts using undividedcensus blocks, which allows for the straightforwardapplication of the 2000 Census data. Citizenship statusis reported only at the tract level or through a specialtabulation at the BG level, which is computed by theCensus Bureau and must be specifically requested byan outside entity. (Id. at 67.) Therefore, calculating theHCVAP for illustrative districts composed of census blocksnecessarily requires some extrapolation and assumptions,because block level data on citizenship is not available.(Defs.’ Ex. 4 at 3; Trial Tr. vol. 1, 70, Feb. 17.)Mr. Ely endorsed the tract level method because, whilethere are advantages and disadvantages to both the tract
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 and 72: 22aAppendix Dcomplying with the Gin
Page 73: 24aAppendix Done-hundred percent co
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?