Joint Appendix — League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry

Supreme Court brief2006

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

[Supreme Coan US

FILED

JAN 10 2006

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

DISTRIBUTED

JAN 11 2006

CYOIONS

Nos. 05-204, 05-254, 05-276, 05-439

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, ef ai.

Appellants,

¥.

RICK PERRY, ef al.,

Appellees

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

JOINT APPENDIX

Volume I of Il

R. TED CRUZ PAUL M. SMITH

Solicitor General Counsel of Record :

Counsel of Record SAM HIRSCH

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY JENNER & BLOCK LLP “

601 Thirteenth Street, N.W. '

GENERAL

P. O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Washington, DC 20005

Austin, TX 78711 (202) 639-6000

(512) 936-1700 Counsel for the “Jackson

Counsel for State Defendants _—_ Plaimiiffs” 7

Additional counsel listed on inside cover

05-204, JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT FILED AUGUST 9, 2005

05-254, JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT FILED AUGUST 24, 2005

05-276, JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT FILED AUGUST 31, 2005

05-439, JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT FILED OCTOBER 5, 2005

PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED DECEMBER 12, 2005

J. GERALD HEBERT

J. GERALD HEBERT P.C.

5019 Waple Lane

Alexandria, VA 22304

(703) 567-5873

Counsel for the “ Democratic

Congressional Intervenors”

ROLANDO L. Rios

Counsel of Record

GEORGE KORBEL

THE LAW OFFICES OF

ROLANDO L. RIOS

115 E. Travis, Suite 1645

San Antonio, TX 78205

(210) 222-2101

JOSE ‘GARZA

LAW OFFICE OF JOSE GARZA

7414 Robin Rest Dr.

San Antonio, TX 78209

(210) 392-2856

Counsel for the LULAC

Plaintiffs

RENEA HICKS

Counsel of Record

1250 Norwood Tower

114 W. 7th Street

Austin, TX 78701

(512) 480-8231

Counsel for the Travis County

Plaintiffs

NINA PERALES

Regional Counsel

Counsel of Record

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL

FUND

110 Broadway, Suite 300

San Antonio, TX 78205

(210) 224-5476

Counsel for the GI Forum

Plaintiffs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Relevant Docket Entries, Session v. Perry, Case

2D COSA- TI GED. TH) xcecessesscssavcerssessieceesnevees |

Expert Report of John R. Alford (Nov. 14, 2003)............. 13

Expert Report of Allan J. Lichtman (Nov. 14, 2003)........ 56

Declaration of Ryan Robinson (Nov. 14, 2003)............... 170

Expert Report of Ronald Keith Gaddie (Nov. 21,

Sete ilbintentiictsihdiinadinnesbisiiinaintiinalapesiiabdiesiniautbiiacntabaiaodisieas 173

Excerpts of Deposition of Keith Gaddie (Nov. 22,

Soaeiscoceciicsihseenitidcwisigielisaaipiasoneniiainideiieaiastbsclianesdiaictmiais 217

Excerpts of Trial Transcript Proceedings, Session v.

Perry, Case 2:03-cv-00354-TJW (E.D. Tex. Dec.

11, 2003) [1:00 pm session]

Congressman Charlie Gonzalez [pp 117-19]................ 231

Professor Allan Lichtman [pp 152-54, 166-67]............ 233

Excerpts of Trial Transcript Proceedings, Session v.

Perry, Case 2:03-cv-00354-TJW (E.D. Tex. Dec.

12, 2003) [9:30 am session]

Professor Allan Lichtman [pp 82-83] ...............00::c0e0 235

Excerpts of Trial Transcript Proceedings, Session v.

Perry, Case 2:03-cv-00354-TJW (E.D. Tex. Dec.

12, 2003) [3:00 pm session]

Mayor Ron Kirk [pp 4-10]...............:csssssssseeseseeesseeeees 236

Commissioner Roy Brooks [pp 37, 41-43]..............00++. 241

Congressman Ruben Hinojosa [pp 48-49].................... 243

Congressman Martin Frost [pp 59-60, 69-72, 92-

oe RRR ce PRET ARR Bae 244

Excerpts of Trial Transcript Proceedings, Session v.

Perry, Case 2:03-cv-00354-TJW (E.D. Tex. Dec.

15, 2003) [1:00 pm session]

Professor John Alford [pp 17-18, 24-25] ..........cccceeee 249

Excerpts of Trial Transcript Proceedings, Session v.

Perry, Case 2:03-cv-00354-TJW (E.D. Tex. Dec.

16, 2003) [8:30 am session] -

Professor Richard Engstrom [pp 53-57, 63-64)............

Excerpts of Trial Transcript Proceedings, Session v.

Perry, Case 2:03-cv-00354-TJW (E.D. Tex. Dec.

16, 2003) [1:00 pm session]

Professor Jerry Polinard [pp 40-41, 50-51) ..........:00

Excerpts of Trial Transcript Proceedings, Session v.

Perry, Case 2:03-cv-00354-TJW (E.D. Tex. Dec.

17, 2003) [1:00 pm session]

Senator Royce West [pp 125-34]...........cccceccsseeseeeeeseenes

Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson [pp 152-

i, i, Ce iicidsdantatitniarladtsdepctnintnnieniictiiverapcwes

Excerpts of Trial Transcript Proceedings, Session v.

Perry, Case 2:03-cv-00354-TJW (E.D. Tex. Dec.

18, 2003) [8:30 am session]

Representative Bob Davis [pp 73-74, 84-90, 92-

Fa Pe aieineiciieseniniib sith tiicitiiipicieipiiisnmnccesile

Excerpts of Trial Transcript Proceedings, Session v.

Perry, Case 2:03-cv-00354-TJW (E.D. Tex. Dec.

18, 2003) [1:00 pm session]

Representative Bob Davis [pp 6, 25-26, 36-37] ...........

Representative Ron Wilson [pp 65, 68-70, 73-74,

ili

Excerpts of Trial Transcript Proceedings, Session v.

Perry, Case 2:03-cv-00354-TJW (E.D. Tex. Dec.

19, 2003) [8:00 am session]

Todd Giberson [pp 7-8, 18-25, 76-78]...........004 chiles 286

Jackson Plaintiffs’ Color Map of the Court-Drawn

hats ssaniichieiipiotibindiriinniasiidisinnnndsatisdiedaicbacedeil 295

Jackson Plaintiffs’ Color Map of the 2003 Plan.............. 296

Jackson Plaintiffs’ Silhouette of District 25 in the

TN i ctittitacitnitiantedhtddatsmaibadiiouteiinciemmmasidnilenteinns 297

Jackson Plaintiffs’ Population Density Map of

DRESS ZS Be Ge DOGS PUD ncccccscscccccescccesccesessessncesceess 298

es SEE HID © crinciciscceiseicsessotoniininatiinsccsinminal 299

a IIIT GUIIED DP -cccctisiescccecsencsctuntnttesbeiecssnteiei 300

ET Ae Pe CES crescstcccectnccccsossesccteinincnsensntions 303

Rt CD CIIIIOD BS crsiceictccipsoscscininnnsesabiiosesotaniete 306

CP se 6): ee 307

Expert Report of Todd Giberson (Nov. 21, 2003)........... 309

I oa icnicnredinsictinincettinnesterpeabelinleieilanaals 337

I ai crtiteiicesinsictihastlitiemecsiitiniansnsiandenipitabnttaditadii 338

III TTT cds cinshdsccrasceninsaiigntnncinenjessintindpeisinnpmmiabie 339

Ee atiniiiarthcnnetenincninieinstmeeaicnditnasiniaisnaidtindaiatingile 340

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

rem

mn mnt a

295

s . :

i /

‘ 4

\ v

’ WK

i ba

x Bryee

eb ae ; /

4 ' /

¢ .*

_ ia TS

“rom

aw ~=*

bh ;

rr.

- A

al -

"”

A ~.

-_-,

-- \ -

\ aut x +

\ s

« ~~

~_—-s -

°,

“

960

DISTRICT 25 !

US Congressiona! Distncts

HB3 as Enacted by the 78th Legisiature 10-12-03

PLAN 01374C o-U

-—+ —

. = . s ;

=e U.S. Congressional District 24 Ppt et Me |

nn tam | HB3 as Enacted by the 78th Legistature 10-12-2003

wath Population Dk asst) per Square Vile

a by Consus Block Croup -

299

Plan 1151C Plan 1374C

District % Min pop/vap* %SSR District %oMin pop/vap §SSR**

G 70.4/66.2

10 44.4/39.2 10 28.2/25.7

15 796/159 67 15 71.8/62.2 367

16 80.7/778 67.5 16 778675 67.5

18 751/708 18 76.1/72.2

20 738699 = 615 20 41/103 599

23 682/646 55.3 23 56.9479 44.0

24 602/546 24 28.0/24.9

25 574/523 25 76.2/71.1

27 716/69.7 = 61.6 27 70.7/66.8 58.0

28 77336 596 28 70.7666 543

9 2. TMS 425 y. Be 60/13 459

30... A a 30:2. ER 6s

wr -

FEES re

* min = minonty; pop = pepulation; vap = voting age population

** Spanish Surnamed Registration

DISFRICTS 10, 15, 23, AND 24 ARE LOST AS MINORITY DISTRICTS

‘ye 13

£ ON UQIYNG

IVE - yee

Analysis of Congressional Districts In the Dallas and Tz: _1t County Area Current Plan (1151C) Plan on Submission 74C)

Total Population Voting Age Pop Reg Voters Turnout

Total %B %H %oB+H %~@B %H Bt Total %SSnam Total TO/WVR

PLAN 1151C 3 651620 7.1 144 213 64 129 191 335,445 59 157 498 47 0%

5 651620 16.4 17.7 33.9 149 15.3 301 306,961 72 141,716 46.2%

6 651620 108 13.5 241 97 117 213 343,374 73 167,892 48.90%

12 651,619 49 19.9 246 46 17.1 216 324,442 95 158,099 487%

24 651.619 227 38 0 60 2 214 33 6 546 251,553 180 114.181 45 40%

30 651620 414 311 721 403 277 677 278.429 114 120357 43.20%

32 651,620 83 36 2 443 78 314 39.0 268,513 13.3 140,186 52.20%

PLAN 1374C 3 651,619 99 16.9 26 6 91 153 243 314,404 63 146,510 46 6%

6 651,619 13.5 159 292 12.3 13.9 260 326,826 71 160,092 49.0%

12 651,619 61 237 296 57 204 26.0 311,607 113 151,407 48 6%

24 651,620 10.3 179 28 0 93 158 249 305.770 88 148,013 48 4%

26 651,619 161 143 30.2 150 125 274 339,722 58 161,292 47 5%

30 651,620 423 342 761 410 307 714 275.776 125 119,705 43.4%

32 651,619 97 274 369 91 241 330 278,740 83 148621 53.3%

Choose Another Pian — | v | a = | ' ;

Sala= bee» | ‘Pa | | RAT Rar)

Mine f same» | — 2 -_ otanee = ' ‘

* a" an ma | 9% Counmen” i pr

200? Precincts —— Sout > | “ 700? fF recenets - |

) Sf ~ ,

200? VID - Tha 02 708 }

ware unworn , ‘ | ° ee a

je OC) . 1 ~ Ln | 9 oancorore oe) |

_ eerie erare | | yf og en ee |

| | _ |

Sir OxTS { REPORTS

Poovionon Anatyss — | \ | _Prpweamn secon |

J el | Peeanent Erections | a

| Pan Comper sor ran Lompaneon | wrens

;

_-_ aes ape an Repeme on } he Maps and Reports |

unl 2e- 8s. ee Vedio PEM MNEXI® 400 4M Mister) 2+ ‘. 42 AM

in 1151C. the minority community in Tarrant County was connected with a significant part of the Hispanic Community in ‘neighboring Dalias County

In 1374C (on submission). the minority community in Tarrant County is divided among three districts (6, 12, and 26) and the Hispanic Community

301

g ae ;

> 4» 4A

z } cre xn

ha — 7 oie _ -. ad

g a eS ee 3 :

35 ¢ ee Sa <> ne :

§ ve ~~ a Se S23 I ss H

BBLS oe a te oS a 5 } = a

x = free iL) -" 5: t+ - Zz .

$28: pee

3 we — , —S eshas H

ae ~he eee ee ane ty:

; : aa t zgit

ra toy pf:

4% ik, i i ¢--8

kas ed : ae

e : boty

? nal : '*s

= :

a. *

tine

.72ar

4 ota

Peta eta

aie

en I

VTE

~ i

VAT

“ae -~

(ots

ke i

¢ ¢ -

} 4. : "

cf peel 1) aes Seo) ‘ =.

i Anat ie Si P ) 4

Ads i tS i eg et i ' a,

' e WN! of LTA EES EG —,/ 3

= z : , : > pats s , Hy 2c73"3 ry us a J p48 1

7 . M4 j alii a : —_, a. ae

‘ t dee ets Pt ae i Ro? -

7 ES ls oo Se Ta!

ee ti a : - : =

™ :

elt .

4 a

‘Az4.,

: :

al .

‘

tea

. =i

. “4d

——

” bo

- ass om

wi "ee aa ,

: ~ *

‘er

™

! ~

~ eo

a —

> ew ~~

i’

' .

Dallas and Tarrant

U.S Congressional Districts

HB 3 as Enacted by the 78th Legisiature 10-12-03

= PLANO1374C

| 1

' ii

. '

P ¢ -

mm - “97%

—_———— gue 4 Paw! 7T —_

en eel +? s VT; .-

H '. e

rrerr* i ey iN

| i+ t- ‘ yi>°

r -? bere ‘\ " \ Lx",

> | bs ¥ “> ’

4 “TY % 2 4 LS

. aa ‘ ‘ a

% = oauet /\ « "\ ’ be, j

A ony toes’ RS |

ya te ) of 4

Po <a ! { J A> >’ )

sf ey \ Pe a8 re

. ‘| } < » ie

\ i! “he th

\ | _ °

. ~,*

‘ Se

‘ ,

ves ff

‘

LEGEND

eoeove atce

— ———

re un oO)

ie uv

ser wnat

‘wer Os wh

Se ee ee

~er! tere

~~. ew 7 , ~—<

Sereomm 1 amt wns ane TERAS LF @BL ATIVE COUNCK

aos)

Plaintiff - LULAC

et al.

Exhibit No. 4

Dallas and Tarrant

Ethnacity by 2002C VIDS

Total Black & Hispanin Populatwor

108th Congress (2003-2004

with Total Population

LEGEND

PLAN O!

TE RAS . free ATIVE COs &

Dallas and | arran

Ethnicity by 2002G, VIDS

otal Black & Hispann Population

MB 3 as Enacted by the 78th Legisiature 10-12-03

PLAN 01374(€

with Total Population

pian 1374 C

LEGEND

TE RAS . (O81 ANE COVNCE

ror

. ; >

= .

‘

4 .

’ ft Wuus

me *

. ~»

JOR

“ =

. , ‘ ? . 7

‘

».. ~ a

Dalias and Tarrant

U.S. Congressional Districts

Proposed Pian - XKOR 01150C

with

U.S. Congressional Districts

US Congressional Districts Adopted by 78th Log

PLAN 01 374C

; te

}

: ~ \h

. ‘

LEGEND

aw! ied

—“e

‘than eee

were -m@e Gt) +5!) Ame

ee) hee

“vee

Was

‘

meee OPO De FEXAS LEGI: ATIVE COUN

sOr

306

District 23 Study--A Recreation of Elections Involving Hispanic and Anglo Candidates

in the Current (1151C) and Newly Adopted (1374C) Congressional Districts

1151C 1374C Statewide

2002 Republican Primary District 23

Once Candidate Vote Percent Vote Percent Percent

S Ct Piace 4 Rodnguez R 6.384 50.5% 10,178 47 6% 46 2%

Smith - R 6.246 49 5% 17,213 52 4% 53.8%

VOTER REG (VR 338.954 367,599

SPANISH SURINAME VR AND SSVR VR 184.117 54.3% 157,583 43.6% 20 5%

TURNOUT (TO) anc TOWR 14.953 44% 25,077 6 9% 6 W%

2002 General Election District 23

U.S SENATOR Comyn - R 68.124 46.8% 89.953 56.2% 56 1%

Kirk -D 77,553 53.2% 69.964 43.8% 43. 9%

GOVERNOR Perry -R 68.827 45.7% 91,548 56 0% 59 1%

Sanchez - D 81,649 54.3% 71,811 44 0% 40.9%

SUPREME CT? Senneider - R 63,116 44 5% 83,897 54.2% 57 4%

Yaner -D 78,824 55.5% 70,997 45 8% 42 6%

SUPREME CT 4 Smith R 61.498 43.2% 81,228 52 1% 54 1%

Miraba! - D 80,712 56 8% 74,649 47.9% 45 9%

CT CRIMINAL APPEALS 1 = Cocnan - R 66.631 47 4% 88.639 57.7% 59 3%

Molina - D 73,877 52.6% 64.993 42.3% 40.7%

Democratic ) 52.5% 43.2% 42 1%

Repubwcan 47 5% 56 8% 57.9%

VOTER REG (VR 342,674 362,153

SPANISH SURNAME VR AND SSVR'VR 189,340 55. 3% 159.180 44.0% 20 4%

TURNOUT (TO ang TOVVR 154,392 45.1% 167,679 46 3% 44 4%

Ont, one nuspan.: candiaate has deteatec an Angic m new district 22 That wes m the 1996 genera: election wnere vustice Garza cereale M hendessor iv tne g

However. ir the Republican primar, Mr Garze was ocfeated m new Destnic’ 22

Plaintiff - LULAC

et al.

Korbel Research Exhibit No. 15 -_——- Law Offices of ROlando Rios

"|e le

IV VAT eeteid

LT ON NqIYyXy

Esumated Estimated

Votes for Votes for

2002 Dem. Primary Candidaie Candidate

Cong. #1 SANDLIN. MAX 1000% 0.00%

Turnout 71%

2002 General Election

Cong. # 1 LAWRENCE. JOHN 51.3% 0.0%

SANDLIN. MAX 487% 00%

Turnout 30.70%

2002 Dem. Primary

Cong. #2 TURNER, JIM 100.0% 0.0%

Turnout 12.9%

2002 General Election

Cong. # 2 BROOKSHIRE. VAN 43 5% 00%

TURNER JIM 56.5% 0%

Turnout 29.5%

2002 Dem. Primary

Cong. #4 HALL. RALPH M 1000% 1000%

Turnout 4.9%

2002 General Election

Cong. # 4 GRAVES. JOHN 46 4% 0.0%

HALL RALPHM 53.6% 00%

Turnout 36 0%

2002 Dem. Primary

Cong. #9 LAMPSON. NICK 100.0% 00%

Turnout 94%

2002 General Election

Cong. #9 LAMPSON, NICK 456% 00%

WILLIAMS, PAUL 54 4% 00%

Turnout % 316%

2002 Dem. Primary

Cong. #11 EDWARDS.CHET 100 0% 0 0%

Turnout % 4.7%

2002 General Election

Cong. #11 EOWARDS, CHET 437% 00%

FARLEY, RAMSEY 56 3% 00%

Turnout % 30 5%

Influence Districts In Current Plan (1151C)

Estimated Estimated Estimated Estrneted Estwnated

% Black

Votes for

Candidate

100 0%

0.0%

100 0%

100.0%

100 0%

00%

100 0%

100.0%

0 0%

Anglo

Influence

“79.7%

79 5%

84.3%

70 4%

88 2%

§9 0%

67 40%

96 4%

97 5%

infiuence

0.0%

00%

0.0%

25%

0.0%

00%

20 5%

9.7%

15 7%

27 2%

11.8%

410%

32 6%

36%

2.5%

% total

Votes in

District

100 0%

45.6%

54.4%

100.0%

99.3%

100.0%

55 4%

44 6%

100 0%

44 3%

55 7%

Actual %

of Total

Votes in

District

100 0%

43.3%

56.7%

100.0%

41.1%

100 0%

59 3%

40 7%

100 O%

52.9%

47 1%

100.0%

41.1%

58.9%

100.0%

33.8%

14.5%

33.8%

3.6%

414%

74%

36 9%

65%

46 8%

0.0%

00%

0.0%

3.0%

0.0%

00%

Hispanic

Turnout %

10.8%

15.5%

10.8%

15 5%

150%

14.1%

173%

23.3%

00%

0.0%

Distribution of Votes

Anglo % Black% Hisp %

79.7% ~~ 20.3% 00%

88.9% 11.1% 0.0%

90 3% 9.7% 00%

904% 96% 00%

70 4% 27.2% 2.5%

93 3% 6.7% 0.0%

590% 410% 0.0%

819% 181% 00%

96 4% 3.6% 00%

98 9% 1.1% 0.0%

LOk

Influence Cettete in Current Plan (1151C)

Estunated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Actual %

% total of Total

Votes in

District District

100.0%

2002 Dem. Primary

Cong. #17 STENHOLM. CHAS

Turnout % 8.10%

2002 General Election

Cong. #17 BECKHAM, ROB

STENHOLM, CHAS

Turnout % 27.90%

2002 Dem. Primary

Cong. #25 BELL. CHRIS

COLBERT, PAUL

KING, STEPHEN

ROBINSON. CARROLL

Turnout % 5.10%

2002 General Election

Cong. # 25 BELL, CHRIS

REISER, TOM

Turnout % 25 70%

Candidate

100.0%

51.9%

48.1%

31.1%

47.0%

219%

0.0%

37.0%

63.0%

Anglo = Hispanic

Influence influence

% %

945% 5 5%

94.5% 5.5%

476% 00%

56 0% 0.0%

48.0%

52.0%

35.9%

20 8%

16 8%

26 5%

56.0%

44 0%

Actual %

of Total

Votes in

Election

100.0%

48.0%

52.0%

35.9%

20 8%

16.8%

26.5%

56.0%

440%

Distribution of Votes

T 4

% Turnout’ Angio% Black% Hisp. %

SOL

309

Expert Report of Todd Giberson

In Texas, three districts in the Congressional plan

passed by the legislature in 1991 were struck down as racial

gerrymanders, districts 18, 29, and 30. It is worth noting that

24 of the 30 districts in that plan (known as Plan C657) were

challenged and six were not challenged at all; thus 27 of the

districts in that plan survived the court's scrutiny. It is

instructive to look closely at the districts from Plan C657 us

well as districts from other plans when evaluating the plan

currently before the court, Plan 01374C.

Compactness Measures

Generally, measures of compactness are mathematical

formulae or ratios designed to assess the geometric

compactness of a district’s shape. In the Texas Legislative

Council's RedApp! computer system two common measures

of compactness are readily available to those drawing district

lines: a “perimeter-to-area” ratio and a “smallest

circumscribing circle” measure. The perimeter measure

compares the perimeter of the district boundary to the area

covered by that district using the formula P?2/42A where P is

the perimeter and A the area of the district. For the circle

measure, first the dimensions of the smallest circle are found

that will circumscribe or completely enclose the district. The

area of that circle ts then divided by the area of the district to

arrive at the score. In both cases a perfect circle would receive

a value of 1.0 and less regular shapes would increasingly

receive higher scores.

An accompanying chart compares the perimeter

compactness measures of Congressional plans C657, OLO00C,

OLISIC, and O1374C. Plan O1000C is the’ original

310

court-ordered plan C746 which replaced C657, and was

subsequently renumbered as the benchmark plan entering the

2001 round of redistricting. Plan OL151C is the court-ordered

plan used in 2002. Looking at the chart, one will readily see

that the districts in Plan 01374C more closely resemble the

districts in OL000C and OLISIC. No district in 01374C

approaches the levels of non-compactness exhibited in C657.

The three districts struck down from C657 are far beyond the

reach of any district from the new configuration. From Plan

C657 districts 18, 29, and 30 have perimeter scores of 106.3,

141.0 and 69.0 respectively. District 25 with a value of 55.2

was not among those successfully challenged. The least

compact district in 01374C is district 15 with a score of 11.6

which is slightly more compact than the least compact district

in OLISIC (district 25 with a score of 11.8). [see

accompanying tables].

A second chart “compares the smallest circle

compactness measures of the same four Congressional plans.

It can be seen that most of the districts in 01374C are at or

below the highest values found in any of the other plans,

including OLIS1C. The exceptions are districts 15 and 25 with

values of 6.5 and 8.5, respectively. These districts will be

discussed in more detail later.

It is appropriate here to discuss North Carolina's

district 12 which was the subject of the original Shaw v. Reno

case. In its original configuration district 12 was a wispy-thin

delineation extending from Gastonia/Charlotte on the

southwest to Durham at its other extremity - taking bits and

pieces of Winston-Salem, Greensboro and other cities along

the way. When measures of compactness are calculated the

district reports a perimeter compactness value of 82.2 and a

comparatively whopping circle measure of 21.7. In the 90's,

wee

311

the final disposition of district 12 was a recontiguation

extending only from Charlotte to Greensboro carrying a

perimeter compactness of 24.3 and a smallest circle value of

8.6. The district in this new configuration was upheld by the

U.S. Supreme Court in April of 2001.

No specific numeric Values of compactness have been

established as the cut-off point between what is acceptable and

what is not. Nor should they be, given the limitations

associated with the various measures. However, compactness

measures can be useful in comparing plans and in assessing

the general nature of the district lines. It can be seen from an

examination of the data that the districts in 01374C are solidly

within the realm of acceptability patterned by the courts.

Creating Districts Block by Block

The primary cause for objection to districts 18, 29, and

30 in Plan C657 was the way line-drawers picked apart

neighborhoods block by block to include or exclude

population based soley on the racial or ethnic makeup of those

blocks. There appeared to be little regard for smooth

boundaries or tor following VTD (precinct) lines, city limit

lines or other natural boundaries. A visual inspection of the

shape of the three overturned districts will reveal the extreme

degree to which thin fingers would reach out to snatch one

block here, two blocks there. [see silhouette maps in

appendix}. In Plan 0O1374C closer attention is paid to

following more natural boundaries. The new district 25, for

example, is composed almost entirely of whole counties. The

northern cuts of district 28 in Comal and Hays counties are an

attempt to follow VTD lines. Boundaries often adhere to city

limits though sometimes to the detriment of compactness, as ts

“the case with the inclusion of Harlingen (strip annexations and

312

all) into district 15. There are a few rough spots caused often

by the swapping of blocks when zeroing out the population

deviations among districts but the exceptions are not evidence

of the type of linedrawing used and struck down in the 1990's,

Cuts into Counties

The cuts of the new district 28 into Hays and Comal

counties are noted above. In the far northern reach of the

district ts the city of Buda and a strange looking appendage

sticking out to the northwest. That appendage extends to the

Oxbow Subdivision, the boundary following the old city limit

of Buda and accompanying VTD line (“old” because there

have been recent annexations). The appendage into Oxbow,

part of the majority-minority district 28, is 97% Anglo. If race

really were the predominating factor in drawing the district.

then such appendages might easily have been clipped off. By

itself it is not sufficiently populous to alter the minority

composition of the district, but the fact that the Oxbow

Subdivision remains in 28 attests to the preeminence of factors

other than race as the overriding principles by which districts

Were created.

Compare the cut of the new district 28 into Comal

county with district 28 from Plan C657. The cuts are almost

identical. District 28 was one of the districts challenged in

Vera v. Richards along with 18, 29 and 30. District 28 was not

struck down; rather it was carried forward in the court-ordered

remedy. OL000C.

Much has been said of the new district 25 which

reaches from Hidalgo and Starr counties into Travis county.

Some have said that the way the Hispanic population has been

“split” into district 25 is of itself evidence of racial

313

gerrymandering. But is the cut into Travis county really driven

predominantly by race or ethnic considerations? To answer

this question we can say first of all that the boundary of district

25 in Travis county is not very irregular nor does it go to any

great lengths to separate Hispanics from the neighboring

districts. Moreover we can analyze the characteristics of the

population near the district line, just inside the district and just

outside the district. [see accompanying map of the Travis

portion of 25]

The analysis is accomplished by first selecting the

VTD's that lie on or adjacent to the district boundary of 25 as

it cuts through the county (VTD's serve as a unit of

convenience in conducting the analysis). Statistics are then

compiled for the portions of those VTD's inside district 25 and

for the portions just outside 25 in adjoining districts. One

would expect that when a majority-minority district is adjacent

fo a non-minority district that there would be some drop in

minority percentage from inside the district to just outside.

Steeper drops in minority percentage, inside to outside, might

indicate that race or ethnicity played more of a role in where

the line was drawn, particularly if the line is irregular in shape.

A demonstration district. will illustrate the point.

Beginning with the Plan 01374C district 25 in Travis county

one can first search along the boundary and bring into the

district areas (at the block level) that are predominantly

Hispanic. Passing along the border again, predominantly

non-Hispanic blocks can be removed until the district

populations are back in balance. A district boundary created in

this manner can be seen in the accompanying map. By shape

alone one can see that race/ethnicity has become much more

of a tactor in determining where the line was drawn. But what

does the analysis show?

314

Relerring to the accompanying table. the percent

Hispanic (‘ H) inside the demonstration district 25 is 52.70

while the total Hispanic percent outside the demonstration

district is 24.85, a drop of 27.85%. Likewise drops can be

seen in % H VAP (Percent Hispanic Voting Age Population)

and % Span (Percent Spanish Surname Registered Voters).

Now refer to district 25 as it is configured in 01374C. The

drop in percent Hispanic ts only 13.91 (dropping from 42.10%

to 28.19% ), roughly half that of the demonstration plan. A real

world comparison might be to look again at the cut of Comal

county by district 28 in plan O1000C. The table shows a much

steeper drop in percent Hispanic inside to outside the district,

nearly 40 points (a 39.23 drop from 57.38% to 18.15%).

Recall that this district 28 was challenged but upheld by the

courts.

Coupled with visual inspection this analysis shows that

race or ethnicity is not a primary factor in determining the

boundary of district 25 in Travis county.

Districts 25 and 15 Revisited

Much has also been said concerning the mere

extension of a district from the Rio Grande into Travis county

(district 25) or into Bastrop county (district 15) some 300

miles away. It ts not uncommon in Texas to have districts

extending across large chunks of sparsely populated land,

often connecting parts of distant cities with litthe in common

but the stute flag they fly. For example, district 23 in any

recent Congressional plan extends from the outskirts of El

Paso down to Laredo, dipping into San Antonio and spanning

540 miles.

315

State Senate districts, because they are nearly equal in

population to Congressional districts, can also be useful for

reference. The current Senate district 19 extends over.500

miles from El Paso to San Antonio and district 31 begins at the

Oklahoma border and spans 400 miles reaching to Crane

county south of Odessa. Notably Senate district 31 bypasses

the nearby population center of Lubbock to connect the upper

Panhandle to the Permian Basin with a one-column thin strip

of counties. A demonstration plan of Hispanic congressional

districts offered by the G. 1. Forum (Plan 01380C) envisions a

district 15 anchored in the Valley and extending into Colorado

county, less than an hour's drive from Houston. The three

hundred miles from the McAllen to Austin is not unreasonable.

In tact. once the decision was made to add another district

emanating from the Valley it became necessary to extend

those districts farther north than the pre-existing Valley

district footprint.

Conclusion

Having analyzed many districts, districts overturned by

the courts and districts upheld, districts in Texas and districts

in other states, nothing in Plan 01374C embodies the racial

gerrymandering contemplated by the Supreme Court in Shaw.

No district in 01374C can match the characteristics of the

three districts overturned in Plan C657. Districts in 01374C

under attack as racial gerrymanders bear resemblance to or

fare better than districts upheld in previous court cases. No

extraordinary steps were taken lo separate populations based

simply on race or ethnicity. In many cases care was taken to

keep counties, VTD's and cities whole. Empirical data

support these conclusions.

Todd Giberson — 11/21/03

316

Todd Giberson, a staff analyst for the Texas Office of the

Attorney General. graduated Summa Cum Laude from

Southwest Texas State University with a degree in Geography

and was selected as “Outstanding Senior” in his final year. He

served as a Programmer/Analyst at the Texas Legislative

Council during the 1990's round of redistricting when the

original RedApp! redistricting software was developed. Todd

came to the Office of the Attorney General in 1994 where he

continued to be involved in all aspects of redistricting analysis

as well as other Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

projects such as the development of the agency's Colonia

Geographic Database.

C6S/

District Compactness in Congressional Plan C657

DISTRICT PERI CIRC

1 7.2 2.7

2 8.6 1.8

3 23.7 3.4

4 10.4 4.0

5 9.9 3.1

. 42.5 4.6

? 8.6 3.0

” 11.5 3.0

9 5.4 25

10 3.2 2.3

14 3.1 24

12 16.9 2.6

13 5.4 28

14 9.8 26 .

15 79 5.1

16 4.7 5.1

17 2.6 2.4

18 106.3 27

19 6.2 5.0

20 8.2 3.0

21 11.0 4.5

22 13.4 2.5

23 5.8 4.2

24 14.9 2.9

25 55.2 5.0

26 7.5 2.4

27 46 3.1

28 6.2 3.8

29s“ 141.0 5.1

30 69.0 44

MEDIAN 8.6 3.0

MEAN 21.0 3.4

PERI - Compares the AREA (A) and PERIMETER (P) of a district according to the formula P? / 4nA

CIRC - Compares the area of the smallest or minimum circumscribing circle (MCC) and the area of the

district according to the formula Area of MCC / Area of District

Note that compactness statistics are formulated such that a perfect circle would yield a value of 1.0 in both

measures and values would increase from that base. Thus the higher the vaiue, the less compact is the

district using the selected compactness measure.

318

O1000C

District Compactness in Congressional Plan 01000C

DISTRICT PER! CIRC

1 7.3 2.7

2 8.6 1.8

3 5.5 3.1

S 10.6 4.0

5 8.5 3.1

6 37.5 48

7 4.0 3.4

8 11.4 3.0

9 5.2 2.5

10 3.2 2.3

11 3.2 2.4

12 16.9 2.6

13 5.4 2.8

14 9.8 2.6

15 7.9 5.1

16 4.7 5.1

17 2.7 2.4

18 6.6 2.9

19 6.2 5.0

20 8.1 3.0

21 11.0 45

22 9.5 2.4

23 5.8 4.2

24 9.7 2.9

25 10.6 44

26 4.7 24

27 46 3.2

28 6.2 3.8

29 5.6 2.6

30 5.6 2.6

MEDIAN 6.4 3.0

MEAN 8.2 3.3

PERI - Compares the AREA (A) and PERIMETER (P) of a district according to the formula P? / 4nA

CIRC - Compares the area of the smallest or minimum circumscribing circle (MCC) and the area of the

district according to the formula Area of MCC / Area of District

Note that compactness statistics are formulated such that a perfect circle would yield a value of 1.0 in both

measures and vaiues would increase from that base. Thus the higher the value, the less compact is the

district using the selected compactness measure.

319

ONSIC .

District Compactness in Congressional Plan 01151C

DISTRICT PERI CIRC

1 5.3 2.3

2 5.9 1.9

3 3.5 1.7

4 8.9 4.9

5 6.3 2.5

6 2.8 1.9

7 2.7 1.9

8 3.7 2.9

9 4.7 2.5

10 2.1 1.9

11 3.5 2.1

12 1.9 2.0

13 2.7 2.9

14 46 2.0

15 8.5 5.0

16 3.8 2.9

17 2.7 2.0

18 8.5 2.8

19 4.3 2.9

20 7.1 2.9

21 3.2 1.8

22 7.1 2.4

23 6.1 4.2

24 6.1 3.1

25 11.8 44

26 2.7 1.8

27 4.1 3.1

28 5.4 3.7

29 7.7 2.8

30 4.7 2.7

31 6.7 3.8

32 3.0 , 2.3

MEDIAN 47 2.6

MEAN 5.1 2.8

PERI - Compares the AREA (A) and PERIMETER (P) of a district according to the formula P? / 4nA

CIRC - Compares the area of the smallest or minimum circumscribing circle (MCC) and the area of the

district according to the formula Area of MCC / Area of District

Note that compactness statistics are formulated such that a perfect circle would yield a value of 1.0 in both

measures and values would increase from that base. Thus the higher the value, the less compact is the

district using the selected compactness measure.

01374C

District Compactness in Congressional Plan 01374C

DISTRICT PERI CIRC

1 3.8 2.2

2 8.8 43

3 5.7 2.4

“ 47 2.5

bs) 7.1 3.0

6 7.2 44

7 5.7 2.6

8 4.3 2.2

9 6.8 3.7

10 7.0 4.2

11 4.0 3.1

12 2.2 1.8

13 5.0 3.1

14 6.9 3.9

15 11.6 6.5

16 3.8 2.9

17 5.9 4.4

18 8.9 2.2

19 6.4 3.4

20 7.3 3.0

21 7.1 2.8

22 9.8 3.4

23 5.1 3.8

24 7.5 3.4

25 9.6 8.5

26 6.7 5.2

27 5.1 3.1

28 5.7 5.0

29 8.6 3.1

30 4.0 2.3

31 4.1 3.2

32 8.9 2.9

MEDIAN 6.6 3.1

MEAN 6.4 3.5

PERI! - Compares the AREA (A) and PERIMETER (P) of a district according to the formula P? / 4nA

CIRC - Compares the area of the smailest or minimum circumscribing circle (MCC) and the area of the

district according to the formula Area of MCC / Area of District

Note that compactness statistics are formulated such that a perfect circle would yield a value of 1.0 in both

measures and values would increase from that base. Thus the higher the value, the less compact is the

district using the selected compactness measure.

Plan Comparison

Of Perimeter Compactness Scores

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

Origina!

Perimeter to Area

Revised

Median 8 6 - Median64 Median 47 Meaian 6 6

Mean 21 0 i Mean 8 2 Mean 5 1 - Mean 6 4

i ?

-—-

Plan C657 Plan 07000C Pian 01151C Plan 01374C N. Carolina Dist. 12

Privilegec anc Conhdertal eb

Smallest Circle to District Area

Plan Comparison

Smallest Circle Compactness Scores

. Median 30

} Mean34

Plan C657

‘

Median 3 0

Mean 3.2

Pian 01000C

- Median 26

Mean 2 8

Plan 01151C

Median 3 1

Mean 3 5

Pian 01374C

Original

Revised

Carolina Dist.

Plan C657 - District 18

Plan C657 - District 29

Plan C657 - District 30

1 MB OOD

~ e

a *. 4

ee ee ee a ee

’

——— SFR + See Lew ere ow eee . -—ear « LOLOL AD DR ON te 4

a Original North Carolina District 12 a

Revised North Carolina District 12

21 : ¢

20 a

| = |

am Pare

ct \/

= >

]

— oon

o0URS

_—

wDA 6:

Plan 01374C - District 15

Plan 01374C - District 25

(ASALF

MOMILLES

Plan 01374C - Dist

rict 28

Demonstration Plan - District 25 in Travis

a ee eee

Plan 01374C - District 25 in Travis

Analysis of VTD's at District Boundary

Demonstration District for 25 in Travis County

Orstrict In/Out Out Dist TotaiPOP %* B a] % BeH Se BVAP *. HVAP °%% B+H VA Voter Reg “ce Span Turnout TO/VR % DEM 02 % REP O02 % DEMLT % REPLTG

swede 196781 1704% 62.70% 6899% 1597% 47.99% 6343% 55484 30.81% 25.788 4646% 7414% 2586% 7757% 2243%

25 Outside 10 78312 2439% 2563% 4949% 2212% 2251% 44 28% 35.593 1077% 16.065 4513% 6905% 3095% 7339% 2661%

25 Outside 21 37 430 §$09% 2324% 2795% 474% 2031% 2481% 22.100 15 89% 11728 5307% 6169% 3831% 6874% j=%3176%

25 Outside Total 195742 1815% 2485% 4252% 1630% 2177% 37 76% 57.693 12.73% 27.792 4817% 6595% 3405% 7121% 2879%

Actual 01374C District 25 in Travis County

Distnet In/Out Out Dist Total POP %B % 4 Ye B+ %BVAP % HVAP % B+H VA VoterReg % Span Turnout TOVR % DEM 02 * REP O2 % DEM LT “. REPLTG

25 Inswe 96898 1741% 4210% 5881% 1533% 37.79% 5260% 40610 23.58% 19.167 4720% 74868% 2512% 7653% 2147%

25 Outside 10 26556 1428% 3619% S5001% 1319% 3155% 4441% 11303 1407% 5.797 5129% 6503% 3497% 6997% 3003%

25 Outside 21 49 358 $31% 2356% 2852% 491% 2033% 2502% 25840 16.41% 13609 5267% 6282% 3718% 66894% 31 06%

25 Outside Total 77914 860% 2619% 36.39% 776% 2419% 3169% 37144 = 18. 70% 19406 5225% 6348% 3652% 6925% 3975%

Actua! 01000C District 28 in Comal County

District in’'Ourt OutDist TotalPOP %B %H % BtH “Se BVAP % HVAP % BH VAF VoterReg % Span Turnout TOVR % DEMO2 % REP 02% DEMLT(% REPLTG

—e

26 Inside 1§ 438 199% 57 38% 539 09% 169% 53 62% 55 13% 8.129 50 00% 2442 30 04% 44 99% 55 01% 49 23% 50 77%

28 Outside 21 26,182 134% 18.15% 19 32% 112% 15 79% 16 64% 17 905 12 19% 8793 4911% 2121% 78 79% 30 87% 69 13%

2 Outside Tota! 26 182 134% 18.15% 19 32% 112% 15 79% 16 84% 17 905 12. 19% 8793 49 17%, 21 21% 78 79% 30 87% 69 13%

tee

em — . <n ©

8 eee me nee ae em ee we ree er —— —~- -

Plan 01151C - District 23

29 ry 31

¢ State Senate Plan 01188C - District 19

j }

| ea

| | | :

| | |

- i |

31 |

—}

eile

336

j State Senate Plan 01188C - Dist

rict 31

%Black %Black % Hisp % Hisp %Span CPA

Plan Name =—s— si i s$ttti(Cti‘C istrict POP Dev %Dev POP VAP POP VAP__ Sur __siindx_r O2Ltg r 02 +6 02

PUBLC01151 —Sandlin(O) 1651619 OO 00 66 154 74 #60 20 581 513 658

PUBLCO1151 Johnson(R) 3.651620 1 OO 71 464 144 129 59 724 673 786)

IPUBLCO1151 —Hall(D) | | 4@f0 #7 66 2: 12 O4 $77 . 31 @i @4 8

PUBLC01151 —Sessions(R), Hensarling(R) = «»-«s «$651,620 1 0016.4 149 177 15372 586 551 67.3

IPUBLCO1151 Barton(R) = | 6 6651620 471 OO 108 97 135 117 73 652 604 726

PUBLC01151 —_Culberson(R) ~~ 7,651,620 =61 600 121 108 2659; 233. 114 60.2! 64.2 75.8)

PUBLCO1151 Brady(R) | 81654619 Of} 00 56 51 130 116 71 «#786 746 841

IPUBLCO1151 Lampson(D) __ _ 9651619 oO O00 218 23 144 129 85 522 489 600

IPUBLCO1151 Dogget(D) —«-»—S—*10: 651619 0118 105 33.0 290 18.9 40.0 329 53.1

|PUBLC01151 _ Edwards(D) PON ee 117651620 1 OO 167 150 164 141 £42.95 628 581 710

IPUBLC01151 ‘Granger(R) _.. 12,651,619 0 00 49 46 199 174 95 663 613 741

IPUBLCO1151 ‘Thornbery(R) | 13,651619 0 OO 61 57 216 179 119 694 625 784

PUBLCO1151 Pau(R) = _,_~_—‘14' 651 14” 651, 620 1 00 83° 78 320 264 203' 602 493 703

|PUBLCO1151 Reyes(D) 16, 651,619 0 00 36 34 777 748 675 356 384 465

PUBLC01151 Stenhoim(D) | 471651619 0 00 42 40 196 166 121 672 582 760

PUBLCO1151 Jacksonlee(D) = ss 18. 651,620 1 00 430 421 326 291 142 248 236 320

IPUBLC01151 _Neugebauer(R) pe idiniaas We wee 619 = 0 0015S 841 296 24.2, 70.5 63.7 78.1

PUBLC01151 _Gonzalez(D) —i 651,619. 0 00 62 60 682 643 615 385 375 486

PUBLC01151 —Smith(R) ea aa 7651619 O 00 24 21 172 162 114 708 614 786

PUBLC01151 DeLay(R) ia | 22 651,619 | 00 106 102 197 180 128 67.0 62.5 743

_ -_---—- -_-—- -—-— - —--——-- - -——— =» ———-- = --

PUBLCO1151 Green(D) Rees Te as 29° 651,6 620

PUBLC01151 _Johnson(D) Sa? 30° 651,6 620

IPUBLC01151 = Carter(R) omnes ain 651 620, :

PUBLCO1151 32 651,619

1 00 153 147 622 582 425 327 325 406

“00 414 403° 311 277 114 = 271 258 325

00 96 89 69 119 91 #693 61.5 766

00 97 91 274 241 83 659. 59.0 734

PUBLC01151 — Bonillia(R) ~~ ~~~ "937651,619 OO OO 18 18 668 630 553 475 428 575

IPUBLCO1151 ‘Frost(D) = | 24 651,619 0 00 227 214 380 336 180 419 #394 489).

PUBLCO1151 Bel(D) | 25681619 O OO 237 220 343 37 152 4865 444 575

PUBLC01151 ‘Burgess(R) _ _ 26651,619 OF 00 55 51 110 100 53 742 696 807

PUBLCO1151 Ortiz(D) ~-27;651,619 «0 = 0020S 26) SC O16 STS 1G 438308 54.0

PUBLC01151 Rodriguez(D) ——_—28, 651,620 1 00 82 £482 696 657 596 352 339 433

éte

%Black %Black %Hisp % Hisp %Span

CPA

Pian Name ———_—_séistrict POP Dev = %Dev POP, = VAP POP —SOVAP—s Sur __indx_r O2Ltg r 02 _r 02 |

PUBLCO1374 Sandiin(D) 1651619 O OO 88 75 93 75 #29 «4630 551 701

PUBLCO1374 Green(D),Lampson(D) —=Ss—s—sé2:, 651,620 100 195 184 126) 113 67 606 $7.2. 67.4

PUBLC01374 —“Johnson(R) 3651619 OF 00 99 97 69 153 63 700. 652 763

PUBLCO1374 Hal(D) 4651619 +O 00 108 100 79 #467 #«2|27 630 580 70.4

PUBLCO1374 Hensarling(R) 5s» $ 651619 O 00 129 118 129 «#111 «+53 642 S586 71.7

PUBLC01374 Barton(R), Turner(D), Frost‘) —s—ss6 651.619 = 0 OO 135 123 159 139 71 641 $88 71. 18

PUBLCO1374 —_Bell(D), Culberson(R) _ 7651620 #1 00 61 55 180 60 84 +%(.702 #640 775)

PUBLCO1374 —_Brady(R) 7 _ 8651620 1 00 90 87 90 80 40 666 628 73.4

PUBLCO1374 _ 9651619 O 00 363 35 328 303 137 £4302 290 361

PUBLC01374 Doggett(D) 10651620 1 00 97 90 #87 168 91 £4635 564 724

PUBLC01374 11651620 1 00 44 441 296 253 193 698 615 77. 1]

/PUBLC01374 = Granger(R) — 12651619 000i 87 04 «6113 30~—S—s—«CSBO.s 7.0

IPUBLCO1374 ‘Thornbery(R) | 13 651,620 1 OO} 62 #59 176 146 94 «24689 #623 76.1!

PUBLCO1374 Pau(R) | _ 14 651,619 == 09, 00's 10399 «6049 «221 21400 10S:té«<SD2_—s«éOS'D

PUBLCO1374 Hinojosa(D) ___ 15 651619 OO 00 31 33 690 640 S67 443 393 537

PUBLC01374 —Reyes(D) _ ___ 16 651,619 0 00 36 34 777 748 #675 356 384 465)

IPUBLCO1374 Edwards(D) ____ 176576201 00 108 = 96 154 131 76) 40 SBS 71.4

PUBLCO1374 Gonzalez(D) __20651619 O 00 75 $71 671 636 599 377 #424369 47.7

PUBLCO1374 Smith(R) = 21651619 =90 000 43 8B 181 662 «6 129~SCt—si3 BSCS 73.2

PUBLCO1374 Delay(R) 22651619 0 00 98 93 203 3 129 #659 &#£«4617 733)

PUBLCO1374 Bonilia(fR) 23651620 1 00 20 15 $51 509 440 S568 513 658

PUBLCO1374 = __ 24651620 1 00 103 93) 179 158 88 676 632 744

PUBLC01374 mes Ct 0 00 80 80 686 634 556 302 275 39.8)

PUBLCO1374 Bur pene ti 51619 N16 1 180 1438 12502 58.9 68.6

PUBLCO1374 Oniz(0) ~~~ ~~”~=C« 51619 O 00 29 28 681 642 580 444 413 548i

PUBLC01374 a _ | _ 28651620 1 00 = 66 BAS «GOT 543411 383508

PUBLCO1374 ape a PED __ 29651619 0 00 104 99) 661 618 459 35 8 355 43.9

PUBLC01374 —_Johnson(D) —s~Ss~C8 651,620 1 00 423 410° 342 307 125 227 215 286

PUBLCO1374 Carter(R) _ si“ 651619 0 0042129 «163 C142 651 585 736

PUBLC01374 —Sessions(R) 32 651.620 1 00 63 78 32 314 133 64 3 576 719

STATE'S

EXHIBIT

8te

REDO3A CIT PLAN ANALYSIS REPORTS SYSTEM 12/02/03

PLAN CITIZENSHIP ANALYSIS 16.35: 37?

PLANID: C0115) PAGE 001

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

~++-CITIZENSHIP POPULATION AND PERCENT-.-.----- .-* --CITIZENSHIP VOTING AGE POPULATION AND PERCENT----------

1STKICT TUT A BLACK HISPANT®C Be ANGLO TOTAL BLACK HISPANIC Be ANGLO OTHER

1 632, $82 16.9 4.8 21.6 76.7 1s 469, 764 15.8 4.3 iv.o | i.s

2 633,662 14.5 6.5 20. 77.4 9 470,0:0 14.0 5.2 igi 79.4 1.4

3 $63,679 7.5 10.0 av.4 75.9 6.6 405, 753 6.9 7.§ 14.3 79.7 $.9

4 626, 967 12.5 6.2 16.5 79.4 2.0 457, 367 11.5 4.1 15.6 62.4 1.9

s 603, 316 i7.2 12.6 29.6 67.7 2.5 435,151 18.8 9.3 28.0 72.6 2.3

6 619,337 10.9 10.7 21.5 75.2 3.2 434,135 9.8 6.s 186.2 78? 3.0

7 $30,023 13.6 18.8 32.1 $7.9 9.7 376, 099 12.3 14.0 26.2 641 95

8 611, 338 $8 9.7 15.5 20.8 3.6 427, 608 5.3 7.8 i3.1 63.6 3.3

9 620, 385 22.6 11.7 34.1 62.6 3.1 452,592 21.3 4.7 30.7 6¢ 2 2.8

10 $71,197 13.0 27.0 99.6 55 6 4.5 432,44) 11.7 21.9 33.3 61.9 4.6

li 629,673 16.8 14.3 3.6 65.9 3.0 451,730 18.3 11.6 26.6 70.3 29

12 604, 497 $0 15.3 20.2 76.2 5 434,659 4.7 11.7 16.3 60.4 3.2

13 625, 686 6.1 18.9 24.8 725 2.$ 453,116 $s. 7 14.8 20.5 77.0 2.5

lu 626, 300 65 29.5 37.6 60.3 16 452, 226 8.2 25.4 33.4 646 1.7?

is $$$, 622 1.6 7.1 7.7 22.2 0.9 398,017 2.1 69.3 714 27.5 1.0

16 553. 425 4.1 74.4 77.9 19 6 3.9 359. 793 4.1 69.9 73.6 24.1 1.9

1? 634,733 4.3 17.7 21.7 76.4 1.7 470,035 4.0 14.5 18.4 79.9 1.6

is $64, 287 49.5 23.7 72.7 23.8 3.1 398, 455 49.8 17.8 67.2 29.2 3.3

19 624,522 6 @ 32.0 38.1 60.2 1s 442,392 $.68 26.8 32.5 65.9 1.4

20 601.338 6 4 66.2 72.1 28.2 2.2 20, 069 6.3 61.6 67.6 23.8 2.3

21 629, 009 24 15.8 18.1 79.0 2.8 469,626 2.3 13.6 is. 7? 61.6 2.6

22 605. 485 u.5 FF 28.3 63 5 7.9 416,911 10.7 15.2 25.8 667 74

2? $74,519 1.8 63.0 64.7 33.3 is 375, 298 2.0 $7.4 $9.2 38.7 1.9

24 $46, 194 26.4 286.5 $4.5 41.5 3.6 367, 438 28.7 20.8 46.3 49.8 3.6

2s $35,411 27 2 28.2 $1.8 43.2 44 365, OSE 26.3 18.6 443 $0.8 4.6

26€ 613, 661 $.6 8.4 13.3 81.6 a4 437,824 $.2 7.3 32.3 eis 4.c

27 $e4. 425 286 69.0 71.5 26.9 > ar | 391, 001 2.7 63.5 66.0 32.4 15

28 $s8¢. 038 e868 66.5 7.9 23.3 1.4 385,010 9.1 61.4 70.3 28.0 1.5

29 $00,173 19.7? $2.3 71.3 25.5 2.7 306,579 20.4 42.8 63.0 33.6 3.1

30 $$1, 127 483 20.8 66.6 26.7 2.3 374,773 48.6 14.2 62.5 34.8 24 we

1 15.073 9.8 14.2 23.6 72.7 3.3 437,639 9.2 14.6 20.7 76.2 3.0 we

32 $21, 005 11 09 16.7 27.5 67.: $.3 488,928 10.3 11.0 21.2 793 4.7? Oo

TOTALS 186,914,657 42.8 27.0 39.6 $7.0 3.3 13, 319,695 12.3 22.3 34.5 62.4 3.0

Office of che Attorney General State of Texas

REDOJA CIT PLAN ANALYSIS REPORTS SYSTEM 12/02/03

PLAN CITIZENSHIP ANALYSIS 16:14:30

PLANTD: CO1374 PAGE 001

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

CITIZENSHIP POPULATION AND PERCENT- - -- crreeces ~++CITIZENSHIP VOTING AGE POPULATION AND PERCENT. .-.---+---

DISTRICT TOTAL BLACK HISPANIC Ber ANGLO OTHER TOTAL BLACK HISPANIC B+H ANGLO OTHER

i 627. 745 i935 a | 24 41 » 4 oe) 278 14 2 .. 3 22.3 76.5 ao

620, 343 20.3 9.9 30.1 66.7 3.0 446,595 19.2 81 27.3 4699 2.7

3 $67, 252 10.6 13.4 21.48 70.6 7.2 394,641 9.9 @4 38.3 7$.2 6.4

a 6313, 42) 11.0 5.4 16.3 81.5 2.2 460, 822 10.2 3.9 14.1 63.8 2.3

s 618, 364 13.2 9.3 22.4 78.0 2.5 450, 425 12.2 7.0 19.1 76.6 2.3

6 602, $07 14.0 11.6 25.4 70.8 3.6 426,634 12.8 8.6 21.5 75. 0 3.3

7 $72.19) 66 13.3 19.7 73.8 6.6 429,755 6.1 10.4 16.3 77.7 6.1

8 628, 602 9.3 6.6 is. 7 82.3 2 9 458,379 8.9 $2 14.1 84 06 1.8

9 £04,924 46.9 22.9 69.1 21.1 91 332,713 46.9 16.6 63.0 26.7 9.6

io $97, 926 10.2 148 24.8 70.9 41 427, 605 96 12.0 21.6 74.5 3.9

1 625,271 4.6 26.9 31.3 67.0 1.5 450.053 43 21.8 26.0 72.4 1.5

12 $95, S69 64 4a 24.4 72.1 3. 4 425, 352 6.0 13.7 193.7 77.1 3.2

i3 628, 448 6.2 15.2 21.2 76.1 2.5 460,235 5.9 11.8 17.7 79.6 2.4

4 618, 785 10.6 3.3 32.4 64.9 2.5 4409, 890 16.2 18.7 28.6 66.8 2.3

is $73,831 3.4 65.3 66.s 30.4 0.9 379. 368 3.8 se.s 62.1 36.8 0.9

16 $53, 425 4.1 74.4 77.9 19 8 *, 389, 793 41 69 9 73.6 24.1 1.9

i? 621,947 aa..0 12.6 23.4 74.4 2.0 460, 987 10.0 98 ae. F 78.2 1.9

18 556.938 47.6 26.1 73.2 e. ¥ 3.6 381, 0S9 48.6 19.7 67.9 27.9 3.7

19 630, 906 6.0 27.4 33.2 6$.0 16 457,036 5.4 22.9 28.2 70.2 1.5

20 601, 74) 7.9 «65.0 72.3 24.8 2.3 419, 668 7.6 60.8 68.1 29.2 2.4

21 626, 158 44 169 21: 74.9 4.8 471,174 1.9 14.8 18.6 77.7 3.7

22 604,434 10.4 17.7 27.8 64.3 me 421,843 9.9 18.1 24.9 67.9 7.2

23 $92, 263 8 8.9 $3.4 44.5 2.0 407,130 5. 3 45.8 47.7 $0.0 2.1

2 $66,175 10.9 13.8 24.5 69.5 $6 419, 363 9.9 10.86 20.6 74.2 s.1

2s 537, 799 9.4 629 71.9 26.1 1.6 356. 663 99 $$. 0 64.6 33.2 i.9

26 613,004 16.86 10.5 g7.o 69.6 3.1 431, 316 18.8 7.8 23.5 3.4 2.93

27 $91, 150 73 68.4 €8 2 30.3 1.5 398, 326 1.0 60.4 63.2 3S. 3 1.6

2 601, 156 6.9 61.6 68.2 30.1 3.4 404, 341 7.2 $6.2 63.2 35.2 1.5

29 496,177 13.3 $6.4 69.3 26. 3 2.0 302, 401 13.8 46.7 60.3 37.1 2.2

0 $45, 26) $0.1 22.5 92.2 25.7 16 363, 225 $0.4 1s.5 65.7 32 3 1.7

31 629, 264 14.2 14.5 26.2 67.7 3.6 444,914 13.9 12.0 24.8 71.5 3.4

32 $11, 265 9.$ 24.3 33.7 €2.2 »F 367, 784 9.0 316.1 24.9 71.0 3.9 e

ile iiatee eae ie ae st hah ian ties aiid waiii an ae ao ; pene ad ice head aes rk bao e ek ire nk dd baeine ahd wien akin waalines o

TOTALS 18,914,657 312.8 27.0 39.6 $7.0 3. 3 13,319, 695 12.3 22.3 34.5 62.4 3.0

Office of the Attorney General -State of Texas a

- .

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.