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

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