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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

37aAppendix DMr. Ely rejected Dr. Rives’ position, claiming that thedifference between the 2006 and 2007 ACS point estimatesare not statistically significant because the difference inthe point estimates falls within the range of the margin oferror. (Id. at 12-14.) He claims that if he derived a growthrate using the 2007 ACS data, it would not be significantlydifferent from the growth rate he got using the 2006 ACSdata. (Id. at vol. 1, 137, Feb. 17.) Additionally, Mr. Elypoints out that the 3-year averages of the 2005, 2006, and2007 ACS data conform to his conclusions based on the2006 data, confirming that the trend in HCVAP remainsupward. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 27, Feb. 20.) Defendants havepresented no evidence to refute Mr. Ely’s claim regardingthe 3-year averages, and the Court finds that the 3-yearaverages disperse any doubts surrounding the significantchange between 2006-2007.c. Point Estimates v. Confidence IntervalsNext, Dr. Rives argued that instead of relying uponpoint estimates provided by the Census Bureau, ananalysis of HCVAP levels should evaluate the probabilitythat HCVAP numbers fall above 50% within the 90%confidence interval. (Defs.’ Ex. 4, at 12.) In his expertreport, he calculates that the 90% confidence interval for2008 HCVAP in Plaintiff’s original (July 2008) IllustrativeDistrict (calculated according to the BG level method)runs from 45.9% to 50.2%. The point estimate is 48.3%.Dr. Rives notes that almost all the confidence interval fallsbelow the 50% mark. Therefore, the probability that theestimated HCVAP in the district exceeds 50% is relativelylow. (Id.)
38aAppendix DIn his expert report, Mr. Ely interpreted Dr. Rives’report as suggesting that the 90% confidence level mustlie entirely above 50% to justify concluding that there isa majority HCVAP in an illustrative district. (PL’s Ex.4, at 2-3.) Mr. Ely countered that a point estimate above50% is the appropriate benchmark for current HCVAPin an illustrative district. (Id.) The Court agrees that theCensus Bureau provides point estimates with the purposethat they may be relied upon and utilized, and finds itunnecessary to inject an additional level of probabilitycalculations into the equation.d. Transition to ACS in 2010In the upcoming 2010 Census, the Census Bureauwill no longer administer the long form. (Trial Tr. vol.1, 86, Feb. 19.) The Census Bureau will instead rely onmulti-year ACS averages for demographic information.The Court takes judicial notice of the Census Bureau’sFebruary 2009 publication “A Compass for Understandingand Using American Community Survey Data-WhatState and Local Governments Need to Know.” 11 The mereissuance of such a publication by the Census Bureau, whichprovides detailed guidance on how ACS data should beinterpreted and utilized by state and local governments,suggests that the Census Bureau considers ACS datareliable and intends for it to be relied upon in decisionssuch as Voting Rights Act compliance.11. Available at www.Census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/ACSstateLocal.pdf.
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 and 82: 32aAppendix Daverage household size
Page 83 and 84: 34aAppendix DDr. Rives attempts to
Page 85: 36aAppendix Dwith sampling error ac
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?