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
39aAppendix D3. CompactnessThe Gingles compactness requirement “refers tothe compactness of the minority population, not to thecompactness of the contested district.” LULAC, 548U.S. 399, 433, 126 S.Ct. 2594 (2006). In evaluating thecompactness of the minority population, considerationsof the dispersion of the territory of the district and theregularity or length of the perimeters of the districtbecome subsidiary to considerations of the minoritygroup’s compactness. See id. (“In the equal protectioncontext, compactness focuses on the contours ofdistrict lines ... Under § 2, by contrast, the injury isvote dilution, so the compactness inquiry embracesdifferent considerations.”). 12 In LULAC, the SupremeCourt emphasized that “the enormous geographicaldistance” between the Austin-area and Mexican-bordercommunities included in a Texas district, “coupled withthe disparate needs and interests of these populations-noteither factor alone-[rendered] District 25 noncompact forSection 2 purposes.” Id. at 435, 126 S.Ct. 2594.12. See also Richard H. Pildes and Richard G. Niemi,Expressive Harms, “Bizarre Districts,” and Voting Rights:Evaluating Election-District Appearances After Shaw v. Reno,92 Mich. L.Rev. 483, 549-557 (1993) (identifying dispersionof a district’s territory, the regularity or length of a district’sperimeters, and the regularity of the distribution of a district’spopulation as the three quantitative measures of compactness),cited in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 348, 124 S.Ct. 1769, 158L.Ed.2d 546 (2004).
40aAppendix DAs Dr. Rives pointed out in his expert report, thereis no unique measure to assess whether a plan definitelyis or is not compact. (Defs.’ Ex. 5, at 8.) He presenteda number of different statistical measurements basedon perimeter distances and various ratios derived fromcircumference, diameter, minimum spanning circle, etc.(Defs.’ Ex. 31.) The different methods provide differentrankings of the levels of compactness of the geographicboundaries of the plans, allegedly indicating a relativelylow level of compactness. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 63, Feb. 18.) Themajority of the statistical measurements suggest that theinitial July 2008 plan is the most compact and IllustrativeDistrict C is the least compact. (Id.)However, LULAC requires addressing the illustrativedistricts in terms of the compactness of the minoritypopulation rather than dispersion of a district’s territoryor the regularity or length of a district’s perimeters.LULAC, 548 U.S. at 433, 126 S.Ct. 2594. As discussed inthe Court’s January 29, 2009 Order denying Defendants’Motion for Summary Judgment, the illustrative districtsinclude concentrations of HCVAP just adjacent to the areaof primary HCVAP concentration. (Summ. J. Order 12.)While the illustrative districts undoubtedly “reach outto grab” pockets of Hispanic population, these pocketscannot be characterized as “small and apparently isolatedminority communities.” See Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952,977-79, 116 S.Ct. 1941, 135 L.Ed.2d 248 (noting that, inanalyzing compactness in an Equal Protection claim, a“bizarrely shaped” district that “reaches out to grab smalland apparently isolated minority communities” is notreasonably compact). Here the heavily Hispanic Census
- 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 and 86: 36aAppendix Dwith sampling error ac
- Page 87: 38aAppendix DIn his expert report,
- 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
39aAppendix D3. CompactnessThe Gingles compactness requirement “refers <strong>to</strong><strong>the</strong> compactness of <strong>the</strong> minority population, not <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong>compactness of <strong>the</strong> contested district.” LULAC, 548U.S. 399, 433, 126 S.Ct. 2594 (2006). In evaluating <strong>the</strong>compactness of <strong>the</strong> minority population, considerationsof <strong>the</strong> dispersion of <strong>the</strong> terri<strong>to</strong>ry of <strong>the</strong> district and <strong>the</strong>regularity or length of <strong>the</strong> perimeters of <strong>the</strong> districtbecome subsidiary <strong>to</strong> considerations of <strong>the</strong> minoritygroup’s compactness. See id. (“In <strong>the</strong> equal protectioncontext, compactness focuses on <strong>the</strong> con<strong>to</strong>urs ofdistrict lines ... Under § 2, by contrast, <strong>the</strong> injury isvote dilution, so <strong>the</strong> compactness inquiry embracesdifferent considerations.”). 12 In LULAC, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Supreme</strong><strong>Court</strong> emphasized that “<strong>the</strong> enormous geographicaldistance” between <strong>the</strong> Austin-area and Mexican-bordercommunities included in a Texas district, “coupled with<strong>the</strong> disparate needs and interests of <strong>the</strong>se populations-notei<strong>the</strong>r fac<strong>to</strong>r alone-[rendered] District 25 noncompact forSection 2 purposes.” Id. at 435, 126 S.Ct. 2594.12. See also Richard H. Pildes and Richard G. Niemi,Expressive Harms, “Bizarre Districts,” and Voting Rights:Evaluating <strong>Election</strong>-District Appearances After Shaw v. Reno,92 Mich. L.Rev. 483, 549-557 (1993) (identifying dispersionof a district’s terri<strong>to</strong>ry, <strong>the</strong> regularity or length of a district’sperimeters, and <strong>the</strong> regularity of <strong>the</strong> distribution of a district’spopulation as <strong>the</strong> three quantitative measures of compactness),cited in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 348, 124 S.Ct. 1769, 158L.Ed.2d 546 (2004).
Change language