# Joint Appendix — League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0211%3A04 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 2006 - **Citation:** 548 U.S. 399 ## 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 i 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 ii 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 4 mn mnt a % 295 L. s . : i / ‘ 4 \ v ’ WK i ba x Bryee eb ae ; / 4 ' / ¢ .* a 7 _ ia TS “rom le B . aw ~=* 's te bh ; rr. - A ~ al - - " "” * A ~. -_-, -- \ - \ aut x + \ s « ~~ ~_—-s - °, yt “ 960 DISTRICT 25 ! US Congressiona! Distncts HB3 as Enacted by the 78th Legisiature 10-12-03 PLAN 01374C o-U -—+ — x 7 | | i] . = . s ; | =e U.S. Congressional District 24 Ppt et Me | nn tam | HB3 as Enacted by the 78th Legistature 10-12-2003 © “&) | PL ANOIITIC 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 | tate Covety | Oem | a bs | riage County | Oremes | rw e a | | _ | 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 OO 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 1) ww 5 = : aa a. * tine .72ar . 4 ota Peta eta is = we aie a en I \ © i j- le ln + VTE fi A fi | ~ i VAT 4 “ae -~ (ots es 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 . ‘ 4 tea o . =i . “4d —— ” bo - ass om wi "ee aa , : ~ * ‘er . ™ ! ~ ab | ~ eo a — > ew ~~ a - i’ ' . . Dallas and Tarrant U.S Congressional Districts HB 3 as Enacted by the 78th Legisiature 10-12-03 = PLANO1374C | 1 ++ ' ii Se . ' 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 >’ ) sf ey \ Pe a8 re . ‘| } = . ‘ 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 } a : ~ \h . ‘ LEGEND aw! ied —“e ‘than eee were -m@e Gt) +5!) Ame ee) hee “vee Was ‘ ' - ‘ 4 . 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% 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% 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% 0.0% 0.0% 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 ? -—- > we Plan C657 Plan 07000C Pian 01151C Plan 01374C N. Carolina Dist. 12 Privilegec anc Conhdertal eb Smallest Circle to District Area 25 20 15 Plan Comparison Smallest Circle Compactness Scores . Median 30 } Mean34 Plan C657 ‘ i Median 3 0 Mean 3.2 Pian 01000C ? - Median 26 Mean 2 8 Plan 01151C Median 3 1 Mean 3 5 Pian 01374C N. Original Revised Carolina Dist. 12 wv 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 1] 21 : ¢ 20 a fe | = | | ' am Pare ct \/ a 25 = > ] — oon a o0URS 27 a _— wDA 6: Plan 01374C - District 15 Plan 01374C - District 25 23 (ASALF MOMILLES 25 _] Plan 01374C - Dist rict 28 21 Demonstration Plan - District 25 in Travis a ee eee 10 [I 21 25 15 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 — . 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 - . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0211%3A04. Public record. Not legal advice.