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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

47aAppendix Dnot a lot of variation. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 2-3, Feb. 18.) WhileDr. Alford does not dispute the EI numbers that Dr.Engstrom arrived at, he claims that EI is particularlyunsuited to estimating values outside the data cluster onthe scatter plot, as is the case here. (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 132,Feb. 19; Id. at vol. 2, 4.)Despite the problematic application of ER and EIwhere there has been a history of low levels of minorityvoter registration, these mechanisms are the statisticaltools available to assist the Court in its analysis. Here,the figures produced by an accurate calculation of ERand EI both suggest Hispanic political cohesion, and theCourt finds that it is reasonable to follow the ER and EIdata-despite the shortcomings that have been addressedtothe logical conclusion that Hispanics in Irving tend tovote as a bloc.c. Hispanic Voter TurnoutDr. Alford observed that, based on SSRV data, the twoprecincts with the highest levels of Hispanic concentrationbothlocated almost entirely within Plaintiff’s illustrativedistricts-contained only 33.3 and 20.6% SSRV. (Defs.’Ex. 51, at 5.) He noted that this is “a remarkably lowconcentration.” (Trial Tr. vol. 1, 104, Feb. 19.) Dr. Alfordmodeled what are essentially “reconstituted elections”as to how the 2005 and 2008 Hispanic candidates wouldhave fared in Plaintiff’s original Illustrative District andhow they would have fared in the hypothetical event thatHispanic voter turnout were doubled in those elections.(Id. at vol. 2, 8-10; Defs.’ Ex. 51 at Table 4a.) According
48aAppendix Dto Dr. Alford’s hypothetical elections, in both cases theHispanic candidates still would not have prevailed. (Id.)Essentially, Dr. Alford claims that low concentrations ofHispanic voters are the real cause of the failure to electHispanic candidates, and that these low concentrationswould preclude the success of a Hispanic candidate evenif the illustrative districts were actually created.But low minority voter turnout does not militateagainst finding a Section 2 violation. See Harvell v.Blytheville Sch. Dist. No. 5, 71 F.3d 1382, 1388 (8thCir.1995) (“low voter turnout has often been considered theresult of the minority’s inability to effectively participatein the political process.”); United States v. Blaine County,363 F.3d 897, 911 (9th Cir.2004) (describing the situationwhere low voter turnout could defeat a Section 2 claim asa “vicious cycle”). As Dr. Engstrom testified, differentpatterns of past political participation under a diluted atlargeelectoral system are not a good indicator of futurevoting behavior in a nondiluted electoral system. (TrialTr. vol. 1, 3-4, Feb. 18.) He explained that by movingfrom a dilutive system to a system that is not dilutive,minority groups have improved opportunities to electthe candidates of choice, which in turn creates a stimulusto “organize and mobilize and bring more people to thepolls.” (Id.)3. Gingles III: White Majority Bloc VotingAs discussed above, HPA analysis reports thepercentage of the votes received by a candidate withingthe precincts in which a particular group constitutes
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 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: 46aAppendix Dthat the confidence th
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?