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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

33aAppendix Donly for the projection of total population, not subgroupssuch as CVAP. The Court finds Mr. Ely’s explanationssound, and therefore rejects Dr. Rives’ carrying-capacitycriticisms of Mr. Ely’s methodology.Mr. Ely and Dr. Rives also fundamentally disagreeon the premise (embraced by Dr. Rives, rejected by Mr.Ely) that the growth of HCVAP necessarily entails thegrowth of total population. Mr. Ely argues that the mostdirect source of HCVAP growth, which would result in nocorresponding increase in total population, could plausiblycome from the aging of Hispanic citizens between 10-17years of age. (PL’s Ex. 4, at 4; Trial Tr. vol. 1, 4, Feb. 20.)Data from the 2000 Census Public Use Microdata Sample(“PUMS”) 10 for Irving reports that in 2000 the populationof Hispanic citizens between ages 10-17 was 4,912. (Defs.’Ex. 50.) And the numerical difference in HCVAP betweenthe 2000 Census and the 2006 ACS is 4,860. (Trial Tr. vol.1, 44, Feb. 19.) Mr. Ely posits that, based on the numberof Hispanic citizens between ages 10-17 reported in the2000 Census and HCVAP reported by the 2006 ACS, thenormal aging process among Hispanic citizen childrencould theoretically explain all of the HCVAP growth inIrving over that period. (PL’s Ex. 4, at 4.) Mr. Ely alsoreiterates that comparing the 2000 Census data to the2006 ACS data reveals that the Hispanic percentage of thepopulation has increased while the non-Hispanic share ofthe population has decreased. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 6, Feb. 20.)10. PUMS data is a Census Bureau product. It is basically a5% extract of the full sample detail file (the main Census database)for Irving from the 2000 Census, which includes both short andlong form responses. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 17, Feb. 19.)
34aAppendix DDr. Rives attempts to refute Mr. Ely’s theory byarguing without support that the numbers are merely“fortuitous,” and that considerations such as migration,naturalization, mortality, and immigration dictate thatthe aging of Hispanic children cannot be counted uponto raise the rate of citizenship among Hispanic adults.(Trial Tr. vol. 1, 45, Feb. 19; Defs.’ Ex. 5, at 6.) While otherdemographic changes are undoubtedly at play, the Courtfinds Mr. Ely’s explanations credible, and finds that theincrease in HCVAP reflected in the estimates for Mr. Ely’svarious illustrative districts may plausibly be accountedfor by factors other than significant growth in the totalpopulation-including the aging of Hispanic citizens under18 years of age.f. City-wide Growth RatesDr. Rives also argues on a more general level thatapplying city-wide growth rates to illustrative districts isnot a reasonable assumption. (Defs.’ Ex. 4, at 10.) Growthrates for local areas change over time. (Id.) Mr. Ely agreesthat population growth across the City’s districts hasprobably not been uniform, but states that he relies onthis assumption because there’s no evidence available asto how growth in population has varied across districts.In his opinion, it is reasonable to believe that the citywidedemographic changes relating to the Hispanic andnon-Hispanic population were probably shared in by thearea that has the most significant Hispanic population.(Trial Tr. vol. 1, 25, Feb. 20.) The Court concludes thatthe assumptions made by Mr. Ely are reasonable, to theextent that growth in HCVAP is likely to be equal to (or
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 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: 32aAppendix Daverage household size
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?