Amicus Curiae Brief — Evenwel v. Abbott, 135 S. Ct. 2349 (2015) (No. 14-940)

Supreme Court brief2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Court, U.S.

FILED

No. 14-940 SEP 2 4 2015

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

3n The

Supreme Court of the Anited States

SUE EVENWEL, ET AL.,

Appellants,

GREG ABBOTT, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, ET AL.,

Appellees.

On Appeal From The United States District Court

For The Western District Of Texas

BRIEF OF THE TEXAS SENATE HISPANIC

CAUCUS AND THE TEXAS HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES MEXICAN AMERICAN

LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS AS AMICI CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES

NINA PERALES

Counsel of Record

THOMAS A. SAENZ

JOHN PAUL SALMON

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

110 Broadway, Suite 300

San Antonio, TX 78205

(210) 224-5476

nperales@maldef.org

Counsel for Amici Curiae

September 25, 2015

COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225 6964

WWW COCKLELEGALBRIEFS COM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Es PEF GPU TNO osssscndisdnsectcccavccosctscscsedssces i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................cceeeeeees vi

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE.......................... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................0....0000005 2

I ca leracinie 3

I. The Apportionment Metrics Sought by

Plaintiffs Shift Legislative Seats Away

From Texas’s Two Largest Cities and

South and West Texas ....................ccceeceeees 3

A. Texas Is One of the Most Demograph-

ically Diverse States in the Nation..... 4

NEE EE IID aticeiatnisiaicneninniinnes 6

2. Adult Non-citizens in Texas ........... 8

3. Eligible Individuals Who Are Not

Yet Registered to Vote .................... 9

4. Registered Voters Who Do Not

EER Sareea nek SRR te eerie 10

B. The Metrics Advanced by Plaintiffs

Shift Districts Across the State and

Create Grossly Overpopulated Dis-

na 11

1. The Texas Senate Map and Plain-

Be itcttresereccesinssinenenibeisnnics 11

2. The Texas House Map and Plain-

ee ciiinsnccnsnncencetacnessbedadnines 15

Il.

TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued

Page

C. The Loss of Legislative Seats, and the

Creation of Super-sized Districts,

Will Injure Constituents and Elected

ID ccpicninnicentesicnnsesinbensess

Plaintiffs’ Claim to an “Equally Weighted

Vote” Is Illusory and Cannot Form the

Basis of an Equal Protection Claim ..........

As a Practical Matter, the “Weight” of

Votes Cannot Be Equalized. .................

Apportionment Based on Voter Eligi-

bility Metrics Such as CVAP or Regis-

tered Voters Creates Bizarre Results

and Does Not Equalize the Weight of

TID eee chiseled

1. The Texas Senate Plan and CVAP....

Equalization of Both Total Population

and Voters Cannot Be Achieved ..........

1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint Asserts Dual

Constitutional Mandates................

2. Plaintiffs Tiptoe Away from Dual

Mandates But Continue to Assert

that Both Total Population and

Voters Can Be Equalized.................

3. Both Total Population and Voters

Cannot Be Equalized Across Texas

Senate Districts .........cccccccccscccseseeess

ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued

Page

4. Both Total Population and Voters

Cannot Be Equalized Across Texas

BEOUSS TAGETIGED ..00cccccoccceccescsesceccsseees 33

5. Plaintiffs’ Dual-Mandate Standard

Should Be Rejected Because the

Court Does Not Impose Impossible

ERTS EASE Ne ED 36

Ill. The Current Effort to Reduce Latino

Representation Through Apportionment

Follows a Long History of Voting Dis-

CTAMIMACION ith "TORAS ....0000.ccccccccccccccscscccccess 36

IV. The Effect of Shifting Political Represen-

tation to More Homogenous Communities

Will Be Fewer Policy Proposals and Less

Enacted Legislation Addressing the

Needs of Diverse Communities in Urban

Areas and in South and West Texas.......... 41

A. Past Legislative Accomplishments

May Never Have Been Achieved ......... 41

B. Harmful Legislation May Be Imposed

if Large, Diverse Communities Are

Underrepresented......................ceeee00 42

Sp iisdadihiddnhiantiimiderensanendsevintniabsinneisnnentn 44

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Page

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Plan $172: Map of District Variations in VAP .....App. 1

Plan $172: Map of District Variations in CVAP .... App. 2

Plan $172: Map of District Variations in VR.....App. 3

Tei etaiscsniosiiibcicissainndatesahunieieibaliniisidaiiaiainianaeiiianiiaiadunsiions App. 4

Plan $172: Map of Current Texas Senate

SUI shintiicanittidennenenisipidsusidiapeds App. 5 (back of sheet)

Plan S173: Map of Texas Senate Districts

NI GP OF IE ascccctccesscnsestanscosoncnesnisionseens App. 6

Plan S174: Map of Texas Senate Districts

IIT TE OT scinsnbieceneinsnnniannsnemiaminadanila App. 7

Plan H358: Map of Current Texas House

SUIT csssidhisnstshiiceicatniutictaashiesibiacinablabaniealatvapescduaiduniliads App. 8

Map of County Apportionment of House Seats

By COV AP — DIED BRINIG .ececccccssesescccccvesesssosess App. 9

Map of County Apportionment of House Seats

by CVAP — Houston Region.................:::0::008 App. 10

Plan H358: Map of District Variations in CVAP....App. 11

Plan H358: Map of Latino Majority Districts .... App. 12

Plan $172: District Population Analysis, Page

i ia ileal App. 13

Plan $172: Hispanic Population Profile ........... App. 14

Plan $172: Population and Voter Data and VR

I sccscncsinnicitincaonciteienaniabinscisienntiiiendennastuillan App. 15

TABLE OF CONTENTS -— Continued

Page

Plan $173: District Population Analysis, Page

SN inddiihiniieisasdneusemameisameniainideseien susasnenssonestons App. 17

Plan $173: Hispanic Population Profile ........... App. 18

Plan $173: Population and Voter Data with VR

SINE sineiueunsclimicioheacdenndendistinnsiniitsheiddaceiennist App. 19

Plan $174: District Population Analysis, Page

ESIC Seay tA Eestesoc ie na SONY cE eRe App. 21

Plan $174: Hispanic Population Profile ........... App. 22

Plan $174: Population and Voter Data with VR

SITS dicsiaicchidiiducenouinasiianisediladiediunsdapanasentsiit App. 23

Plan H358: District Population Analysis, Page

SETI ditenesnctaiciniaianshialceigtiiaamindeasiigtinintissconninansieinviia App. 25

Plan H358: Hispanic Population Profile........... App. 26

Plan H358: Population and Voter Data with

IIIT seis isdetathatehsabensisiibiassndiamneaniiitinonnnede App. 31

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Ala. Leg. Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct.

BED cscciinidineuisncteintinieattamaniiasnamaenaaaanna 36

Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983)...........0........ 29

Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966)................... 21

Chen v. City of Houston, 206 F.3d 502 (5th Cir.

TIED s<i-cinianscitcistniphiiabbammiedeianaiaaaeee 27

Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973)............... 20

Graves v. Barnes, 343 F. Supp. 704 (W.D. Tex.

TED TTE narenpnnscsndndanensanseninndiiendicmaiamieisdaamene 39

Harper v. Vir. Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663

PIED insininssctiscitiiniabaiaecms ea eee eumaiiedl 37, 38

Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983)................0. 29

Lucas v. Colo. Gen. Assembly, 377 U.S. 713

Ct kvesvsiinsassinasindceeesioieaiiammaaeaaaa inn 34

LULAC uv. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006).................. 37, 40

Md. Comm. for Fair Representation v. Tawes,

OEE Us Ge Cl nicest 33

Perez v. Texas, No. 11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR,

slip op. (W.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2012)... 39

Vera v. Richards, 861 F. Supp. 1304 (S.D. Tex.

ED sinciccsinicvctsiisstinsiesiamnenssedelciiiaiiem ieee 37

White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973)....15, 20, 21, 38, 39

Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132 S. Ct. 1421 (2012)............. 28

vil

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES, AND RULES

a sssduocuuaocnoese ll

Tex. Const. art. IIT, § 25.0.0... cceccceeeeeeeeeees ll

Tem. Comat. art. TTT, § BG ..........ccccccccccccescccccsesccccesceceess 15

Act of May 22, 2013, 83d Leg., R.S., ch. 726,

2013 Tex. Gen. Laws 1846 2.000.000... ..ccccccccceeeeeeeeeees 42

Tex. S.B. 185, 84th Leg., R.S. (2015).............000000000.... 43

S. Res. 39, 84th Leg., R.S, 2015 S.J. of Tex. 50......... 43

a ssissicedednpouncondacnees 43

I commemesenii 43

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Julian Aguilar, With Clock Running, Immigra-

tion Bills Cling to Senate Calendar, Tex.

Trmmeme, Wlay 19, DOUG .................000000.000000.000.0000000 43

Dallas Public Library, Voting Rights: The Poll

Tax, Marion Butts Collection .......................000cc0000 38

O. Douglas Weeks, Tex. State Historical Ass'n,

Election Laws, Handbook of Texas Online

ES EEE SN Tee 38

Letter from U.S. Dep’t of Justice to Tex. Sec’y

of State (Jam. 1976)..............ccccccccceseesesssssesseesereeeeees 39

Letters from U.S. Dep’t of Justice to Tex. Sec’y

of State (Jan. 25, 19B2).............ccccccccccccscocsscseseseseees 39

Letter from U.S. Dep’t of Justice to Tex. Sec’y

eae 39

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -— Continued

Letter from U.S. Dep’t of Justice to Tex. Sec’y

er saeniuiiaidaatiowenddl 39

Mex. Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund, Map of

County Apportionment of House Seats by

CVAP — Dallas Region (2015) .................cccccceceeceeees 16

Mex. Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund, Map of

County Apportionment of House Seats by

CVAP — Houston Region (2015) ...............cccccccceeeeees 16

Mex. Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund, Plan

H358: Map of District Variation in CVAP

ESERIES ASEAN ee ce nen ieee enor Sn doomtens 35

Mex. Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund, Plan

S172: Map of District Variation in CVAP

Snr ccc eabeheusceeiicebaiaactoepateaceeciea enema acid 31

Mex. Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund, Plan

S172: Map of District Variation in Votes Cast

Mex. Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund, Plan

S172: Map of District Variation in Voting-

Age Population (2015)........0..........ccccceeceeeeeeeeeees 19, 31

Mex. Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund, Plan

S172: Map of District Variation in Voter Reg-

iit icictecciibiinadenidadieicneiintenimesntdieincnadl 31

Office of the Governor Greg Abbott, Fortune

500 Companies in Texas (2015).................000:ceccceeeee 4

Pew Research Ctr., Statistical Portrait of the

Foreign-Born Population in the United

States, 2012, Table 13 (2014).......................... eee 8

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

Tex. Dep’t of State Health Serv., The Health

I el 41

Tex. Legislative Council, Plan H358: District

Population Analysis (2015) ...............cccecceeeeeeeeeeeeeees 15

Tex. Legislative Council, Plan H358: Hispanic

Population Profile (2015)...................... 15, 16, 17, 35

Tex. Legislative Council, Plan H358: Map of

Current Texas House Districts (2014).................... 35

Tex. Legislative Council, Plan H358: Popula-

tion and Voter Data with Voter Registration

Sy Ge eitcctepentecnicnntesnctnnieninnnianeneniann 15, 16

Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: 2012

General Election Analysis (2013)..................... 10, 21

Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: 2014

General Election Analysis (2015)............. 6, 9, 10, 21

Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: District

Population Analysis (2015)....................0004. 11, 29, 32

Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Hispanic

Population Profile (2015) ....................ceeseeeeeees passim

Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Map of

Current Texas Senate Districts (2014)............. 18, 34

Tex. Legislative Council, Plan $172: Population

and Voter Data with Voter Registration Com-

III ani cnictitdhicinihabelgeneinmmamiakoiianedaannal passim

Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S173:

District Population Analysis (2015) ................. 14, 32

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S173:

Hispanic Population Profile (2015) .................. 13, 14

Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S173:

Map of Texas Senate Districts Equalized by

SUI iccnicscitthsdeintdudeidncmssiepdiiebasiiiadinsaiihe 12, 18, 32

Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S173:

Population and Voter Data with Voter Regis-

tration Comparison (2015).............. 12, 13, 14, 32, 33

Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S174:

District Population Analysis (2015) ................. 14, 32

Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S174:

Hispanic Population Profile (2015) ........................ 14

Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S174:

Map of Texas Senate Districts Equalized by

Voter Registration (2015).................sssssssesseserseeseeees 32

Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S174:

Population and Voter Data with Voter Regis-

tration Comparison (2015)................0...0000 14, 32, 33

Tex. Legislative Council, State and Federal

Law Governing Redistricting in Texas (2011) ....... 15

Tex. Legislative Council, State House Districts

1982-1984 Elections (2010)...............ccceecceeeeeeeeeeeees 16

Tex. Legislative Council, State Senate Districts

Be GI GOD ccnenccccccnsceseccsccnscssecscesumscessessens 40

Tex. Sec’y of State, 2008 General Election Race

Summary Report (2008) .0..............c:cccccceeeseeeeeeeeeeees 22

Tex. Sec’y of State, 2010 General Election Race

ARRETY TRGIGTS CODES) cccovecccccccsccccccsccssessseseevoceees 22

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Tex. Sec’y of State, Voter Registration and

Unofficial Early Voting Figures (2014) .............

The Federalist No. 10 (James Madison)...............

Adie Tomer and Joseph Kane, The Top 10

Metropolitan Port Complexes in the U.S.,

Brookings (July 1, 2015) ...c.cccccccecsesssssesseesvesveen

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dallas-Fort

Worth Area Employment — July 2015 (2015)....

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary

PUD © Gee Pecetecncceniassescuninneinincionensenssmnmnenniienn

U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder,

2014 Population Estimate (2014).................0....

U.S. Census Bureau, Metropolitan Statistical

Areas; and for Puerto Rico, 2014 Population

ES Ses anna ED

U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 Small Area Income

and Poverty Estimates (2013)......................006.

U.S. Census Bureau, Table 4a: Reported Voting

and Registration of the Total Voting-Age

Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Or-

igin, for States: November 2002 (2002).............

U.S. Census Bureau, Table 4b: Reported Voting

and Registration by Sex, Race and Hispanic

Origin, for States: November 2014 (2014) ........

U.S. Census Bureau, Table 5: Reported Voting

and Registration, by Age, Sex, and Educa-

tional] Attainment: November 2014 (2014) .......

ine 10

xii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

U.S. Census Bureau, Table Viewer: Average

Family Size by Age (Hispanic or Latino

Householder), 2010 Census (2010)....................0:0008 7

U.S. Census Bureau, Table Viewer: Average

Family Size by Age (White Alone, Not His-

panic or Latino Householder), 2010 Census

U.S. Census Bureau, Table Viewer: Sex by Age

by Nativity and Citizenship Status, 2014

American Community Survey 1-Year Esti-

ERSTE. SAREE nen Sec Se eS 5, 8

U.S. Census Bureau, Table Viewer: Sex by Age

by Nativity and Citizenship Status (Hispanic

or Latino), 2014 American Community Sur-

vey 1-Year Estimates (2014)..............::cscssseeeseceeeeseees 5

U.S. Census Bureau, Texas: People QuickFacts

Bolle, SE teccennsinnernintinnnicscsminieivainiiiaanieniid 4,5,6

U.S. Census Bureau, Voting Age Population by

Citizenship and Race (CVAP), 2009-2013

American Community Survey (2013)..................... 16

U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., U.S. Naturaliza-

SP IIIT cs chincncencnineninnssiommnaninnimdonatiadernaiel 9

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE'

Established in 1987, the Senate Hispanic Caucus

is comprised of all Hispanic Texas State Senators and

those Senators who represent districts with large

minority populations. The goals of the Senate Hispan-

ic Caucus include promoting legislative initiatives

that better the Texas Hispanic community, particular-

ly in the areas of economic development, health,

education, civic engagement and civil rights. The

members of the Senate Hispanic Caucus advance its

mission through introducing, educating Senators

about, and voting in support of legislation that bene-

fits the Latino community in Texas, as well as voting

against legislation that harms the Latino community.

Members of the Senate Hispanic Caucus live in

demographically diverse districts that will suffer

severe negative effects from adoption of the appor-

tionment metrics urged by Plaintiffs, including loss of

constituent representation and diminished regional

presence in the Legislature.

The Mexican American Caucus (MALC) was found-

ed in 1973 in the Texas House of Representatives for

‘ Pursuant to Rule 37.6, counsel for amici curiae state that

no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part,

and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended

to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person or

entity other than amici curiae, their members, or their counsel

has made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submis-

sion of this brief. The parties have consented to the filing of this

brief, and letters reflecting their consent have been filed with

the Clerk.

the purpose of strengthening the numbers of Latino

House members and better representing a united

Latino constituency across the state. MALC is the

oldest and largest Latino legislative caucus in the

United States. MALC has a membership of 39 House

members from all parts of the state, and MALC

members vote as a bloc on consequential matters for

Latino constituents, including voting rights. Members

of MALC live in demographically diverse districts

that will suffer severe negative effects from the adop-

tion of the apportionment metrics urged by Plaintiffs,

including loss of constituent representation and

diminished regional presence in the Legislature.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The apportionment metrics advanced by Plain-

tiffs would strip state legislative seats out of Houston,

Dallas and South and West Texas and create grossly

oversized districts of up to one million people. In

addition, Plaintiffs’ apportionment metrics would

have disastrous effects on the Latino community

because the metrics are tied to demographic charac-

teristics, such as youth and lower rates of voter

registration, that are most closely associated with

Latinos.

Subtracting predominantly Latino population

from apportionment in Texas will shift seats towards

more heavily Anglo and older population in Central

and East Texas. This radical change in apportionment

and representation will harm the voters who live in

communities with significant Latino populations,

whether or not those voters are themselves Latino.

Packed into super-sized legislative districts, voters

and their non-voting children and neighbors will be

forced to compete with a vast number of other con-

stituents for state resources and responsive legisla-

tion. Elected representatives without the resources or

capacity to tend to the needs of hundreds of thou-

sands more constituents will strain to the breaking

point. For the Latino community in particular, which

has struggled to gain the opportunity to elect their

candidates of choice, apportionment based on citizen-

voting-age population (CVAP) or registered-voter popu-

lation would eliminate opportunity districts and subtract

decades of progress from the Texas redistricting maps.

ARGUMENT

I. The Apportionment Metrics Sought by

Plaintiffs Shift Legislative Seats Away

From Texas’s two Largest Cities and

South and West Texas

The great diversity of Texas is mirrored in its

largest cities. People of all races and backgrounds mix

together in the state’s economic and cultural hubs.

Houston, the largest city in Texas, is home to 25

Fortune 500 corporations, including some of the

nation’s largest energy companies.’ The Dallas met-

ropolitan area is the fourth-largest employment cen-

ter in the nation with more than three million jobs.’

Texas is also diverse in it South and West Texas

regions, which include agricultural areas as well as

cities. South and West Texas are home to the largest

inland ports along the U.S.-Mexico border — crossing

billions of dollars in goods annually.‘ Subtracting

millions of children and others not yet eligible or

registered to vote from the apportionment base skews

legislative districts away from the source of much of

the state’s economic success.

A. Texas Is One of the Most Demograph-

ically Diverse States in the Nation

From 2010 to 2014, Texas’s population grew 7%,

compared to 3% overall for the United States.° Texas’s

population is younger than the national average;

* Office of the Governor Greg Abbott, Fortune 500 Compa-

nies in Texas (2015), http://gov.texas.gov/files/ecodev/F ortune_500.

pdf.

* U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dallas-Fort Worth Area

Employment — July 2015 (2015), http/Awww.bls.gov/regions/southwest/

news-release/AreaEmployment_DallasFortWorth.htm.

* Adie Tomer and Joseph Kane, The Top 10 Metropolitan

Port Complexes in the U.S., Brookings (July 1, 2015), http://www.

brookings.edwblogs/the-avenue/posts/2015/07/0 1-top- 10-metro-ports-

tomer-kane.

* U.S. Census Bureau, Texas: People QuickFacts (Aug. 31,

2015), http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000. html.

more than one-quarter of Texans are under age 18.°

Texas is 44% Anglo, 39% Latino, 12.50% African

American, and 4.50% Asian American.’

The composition of the Texas electorate is also

changing. Latinos have slowly increased their regis-

tration rates over time and in November 2014 consti-

tuted 23% of Texas registered voters.” Today, 47% of

native-born Texas children are Latino; these young

people will become eligible to vote as they turn 18."

Texas’s population, however, is unevenly distrib-

uted. In Plaintiffs’ Senate Districts 1 and 4, the

residents are, on average, slightly older and less

* Id.

" Id. The term “Anglo” refers to persons who identify to the

U.S. Census Bureau as White and not Hispanic.

* See U.S. Census Bureau, Table 4b: Reported Voting and

Registration by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States:

November 2014 (2014), http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/

voting/publications/p20/2014/tables.html; U.S. Census Bureau,

Table 4a: Reported Voting and Registration of the Total Voting-

Age Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States:

November 2002 (2002), http:/Awww.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/

voting/publications/p20/2002/tab04a. pdf.

* See U.S. Census Bureau, Table Viewer: Sex by Age by Na-

tivity and Citizenship Status, 2014 American Community Sur-

vey 1-Year Estimates (2014), http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/

tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_ 1YR_B05003

&prodType=table (limit geography to Texas); U.S. Census Bu-

reau, Table Viewer: Sex by Age by Nativity and Citizenship Status

(Hispanic or Latino), 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year

Estimates (2014), http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/

jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_1YR_B050031&prodType=

table (limit geography to Texas).

racially diverse than state averages. Senate Dis-

tricts 1 and 4 are 67% and 63% Anglo, respectively,

although Texas on the whole is 44% Anglo." Less

than one in ten registered voters in Senate Districts 1

and 4 is Latino.” The voter turnouts in Senate Dis-

tricts 1 and 4 are also slightly higher at 37% than the

statewide average of 34%.”

1. Children in Texas

Texas children constitute the largest number of

persons ineligible to vote in the state — 7,040,918."

Compared to older age brackets, Texas children are

also disproportionately Latino.”

Race and ethnicity play a strong role in the

distribution of children across Texas. In Texas, the

average Anglo family contains 0.8 children and 2.14

"© See Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Population and

Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015), App. 15.

" Id.; U.S. Census Bureau, Texas: People QuickFacts (Aug.

31, 2015), http//quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html.

“ Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: 2014 General

Election Analysis (2015), ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/PlanS172/

Reports/PDF/PlanS172_RED206_2014G_ Statewides.pdf.

’* Tex. Legislative Council, Plan $172: Population and Voter

Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015), App. 15.

“ U.S. Census Bureau, Texas: People QuickFacts (Aug. 31,

2015), http-//quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000. html.

* See id.

adults." The average Latino family contains 1.49

children and 2.38 adults.’ Texas House and Senate

districts containing the greatest percentages of fami-

lies living with children tend to be in areas with high

Latino populations. For example, according to the

2010 Census, the state Senate districts with the

highest percentages of families living with children

were in Houston and along the Texas-Mexico border.”

Eight of the ten state House districts with the highest

percentage of families living with children were also

in Houston and along the Texas-Mexico border.”

The child population varies so widely across

Texas Senate and House districts that simply using

voting-age population as an apportionment metric

renders the current plans malapportioned on that

metric.” In fact, the main source of Plaintiffs’ claimed

* U.S. Census Bureau, Table Viewer: Average Family Size

by Age (White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino Householder), 2010

Census (2010), http//factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/

pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_P37Il&prodType=

table (limit geography to Texas).

* U.S. Census Bureau, Table Viewer: Average Family Size by

Age (Hispanic or Latino Householder), 2010 Census (2010), http://

factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.

xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_P37H&prodType=table (limit geogra-

phy to Texas).

* See U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1

(2011) (calculated from Tables P17, P18, P34, P37, and P38).

19 Id.

* See, e.g., Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Population

and Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015), App.

15 (ideal voting-age population: 589,669; District 27 voting-age

(Continued on following page)

“imbalance” in voter eligibility across the state is

due to the presence of children, and specifically

the relatively large number of children who are

Latino.

2. Adult Non-citizens in Texas

Adult non-citizens in Texas constitute a much

smaller population than children. According to the

U.S. Census Bureau, 2,685,393 adult non-citizens live

in Texas.” Although adult non-citizens constitute less

than 8% of the Texas population, the majority of adult

non-citizens in Texas are Latino and tend to live in

Latino communities.” Thus, excluding adult non-

citizens from apportionment exacerbates the effect on

Latino communities of excluding children.

population deviation from ideal: -11.12%; District 3 voting-age

population deviation from ideal: 8.77%).

“ U.S. Census Bureau, Table Viewer: Sex by Age by Nativi-

ty and Citizenship Status, 2014 American Community Survey 1-

Year Estimates (2014), http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/table

services/jsf/pages/protiuctview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14 1YR_B05003I

&prodType=table (limit geography to Texas).

“ Pew Research Ctr., Statistical Portrait of the Foreign-

Born Population in the United States, 2012, Table 13 (2014),

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/04/29/statistical-portrait-of-the-

foreign-born-population-in-the-united-states-2012/; U.S. Census

Bureau, Table Viewer: Sex by Age by Nativity and Citizenship

Status, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates

(2014), http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/

productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_1YR_B050031&prodType=table

(limit geography to Texas).

Adult non-citizens include individuals with a mix

of immigration statuses, including legal permanent

residents, visa-holders, and the undocumented. Many

adult non-citizens, although not currently able to

vote, are eligible to naturalize; each year, more than

50,000 Texans become naturalized U.S. citizens.”

3. Eligible Individuals Who Are Not

Yet Registered to Vote

In Texas, approximately 2.1 million U.S. citizens

of voting age are not registered to vote.“ Although

eligible, these individuals have either never regis-

tered or fallen off the rolls after changing address and

not updating their voter-registration information.

Here too, race and ethnicity drive regional differ-

ences. Latino voter registration lags Anglo voter

registration by 17 percentage points.” Factors con-

tributing to lower rates of voter registration among

* U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., U.S. Naturalizations: 2013

(20:4), http://www.dhs.gov/sites/defaylt/files/publications/ois_

naiz_fr_2013.pdf.

* See Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: 2014 General

Election Analysis (2015), ftp//ftpgis1.tic.state.tx.us/PlanS172/

Reports/PDF/PlanS172_RED206_2014G_ Statewides.pdf (total

voter registration: 14,047,871); Tex. Legislative Council, Plan

$172: Hispanic Population Profile (2015), App. 14 (total CVAP:

16,197,740).

* U.S. Census Bureau, Table 4b: Reported Voting and Reg-

istration by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States: Novem-

ber 2014 (2014), http//www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/

publications/p20/2014/tables. html.

Latino citizens include younger average age and

lower educational attainment than Anglos.”

4. Registered Voters Who Do Not Vote

In 2014, over 9 million registered voters in Texas

did not vote.” In 2012, a presidential election year, over

5 million registered voters did not go to the polls.”

Low voter turnout is a problem throughout

Texas. In Ms. Evenwel’s Senate District 1, voter

turnout in the 2014 General Election was only 37% of

the district’s registered voters and only 31% of the

district’s citizen-voting-age population.” Similarly, in

Mr. Pfenninger’s Senate District 4, voter turnout

in the 2014 General Election was only 37% of the

* U.S. Census Bureau, Table 5: Reported Voting and

Registration, by Age, Sex, and Educational Attainment: Novem-

ber 2014 (2014), http//www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/

publications/p20/2012/tables. html.

*” Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: 2014 General

Election Analysis (2015), ftp://ftpgisl.tic.state.tx.us/PlanS172/

Reports/PDF/PlanS172_RED206_2014G_Statewides. pdf.

* Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: 2012 General

Election Analysis (2013), ftp://ftpgis1.tlc.state.tx.us/PlanS172/

Reports/PDF/PlanS172_RED206_2012G_ Statewides.pdf.

* Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Population and Voter

Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015), App. 15 (total

voter registration); see id.; Tex. Legislative Council, Plan $172:

Hispanic Population Profile, App. 14.

district’s registered voters and only 34% of the dis-

trict’s citizen-voting-age population.”

R. The Metrics Advanced by Plaintiffs

Shift Districts Across the State and

Create Grossly Overpopulated Districts

As explained in Section II below, apportionment

based on either CVAP or registered-voter population

does not equalize the weight of votes. However,

apportionment on those metrics does result in exces-

sive total population deviations and fewer seats in

Houston, Dallas and South and West Texas.

1. The Texas Senate Map and Plain-

tiffs’ Metrics

The Texas Senate contains 31 single-member

districts. See Tex. Const. art. III, §§ 2, 25. In the

current Senate redistricting plan, the ideal total

population used for apportioning districts is 811,147.”

The overall plan deviation from the total population

ideal is 8.04%.”

” Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Population and Voter

Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015), App. 15 (total

voter registration); see id.; Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172:

Hispanic Population Profile (2015), App. 14.

" Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: District Population

Analysis (2015), App. 13.

™ Id.

In a Senate redistricting plan apportioned on the

basis of CVAP, districts in Houston, Dallas and South

and West Texas would have to take on substantial

new territory and population in order to reach the

ideal.”

South and West Texas would lose a Senate dis-

trict, reducing the number of seats in that region

from five to four.“ The remaining districts would be

forced to increase their total populations by an aver-

age of over 100,000.

In Houston, Senate District 6, currently repre-

sented by Senator Sylvia Garcia, would swell to over

one million constituents in order to reach the CVAP

ideal.” Senate District 6 would also no longer be a

Latino opportunity district. The Latino CVAP would

drop below 50% and the Latino registered voters

* See Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S173: Map of

Texas Senate Districts Equalized by CVAP (2015), App. 6 (plan

proposed for reference by amici curiae); Tex. Legislative Council,

Proposed Plan S173: Population and Voter Data with Voter

Registration Comparison (2015), App. 19.

™“ See Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S173: Map of

Texas Senate Districts Equalized by CVAP (2015), App. 6.

* See Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S173: Popula-

tion and Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015),

App. 19.

* Id.

would drop from 55% to 45% as the district expanded

to take in new areas that are not majority Latino.”

Also in Houston, Senate District 13, currently

represented by Senator Rodney Ellis, would have to

grow to over 900,000 in total population in order to

meet the CVAP ideal.” As a result, the district’s

African American voting-age population would drop

to 39%.”

In Dallas, Senate District 23, represented by

Senator Royce West, would have to grow to over

900,000 in total population.”

By contrast, Senate District 24 in Central Texas

drops more than 100,000 below the ideal total popula-

tion to 707,313.“ Senate District 2£, also in Central

Texas, and Senate District 3, in East Texas, contract

to less than 730,000. “

” Compare Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Hispanic

Population Profile (2015), App. 14 with Tex. Legislative Council,

Proposed Plan S173: Hispanic Population Profile (2015), App.

18.

* See Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan $173: Popula-

tion and Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015),

App. 19.

* See id.

“ See id.

Overall, the total population deviation of the plan

would be 36.36%.“ The number of Latino majority

districts in the Senate plan would drop from seven to

five.* Most of the remaining Latino and African

American districts would dramatically increase in

total population.“

Similar to the CVAP apportionment map, a map

apportioned based on registered voters would reduce

the number of Latino majority districts in the Senate

plan from seven to five” and most of the remaining

Latino and African American districts would dramati-

cally increase in total population.” Overall, the total

population deviation of the plan would be 58.04%.“

“ See Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S173: District

Population Analysis (2015), App. 17.

“ See Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S173: His-

panic Population Profile (2015), App. 18.

“ See Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan $173: Popula-

tion and Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015),

App. 19.

“ Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S174: Hispanic

Population Profile (2015), App. 22.

” Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S174: Population

and Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015), App.

23.

“ Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S174: District

Population Analysis (2015), App. 21.

2. The Texas House Map And Plain-

tiffs’ Metrics

The Texas Constitution’s “County Line Rule”

requires the Legislature to apportion state House

districts to whole counties “according to the number

of population in each, as nearly as may be.” Tex.

Const. art. III, § 26. The County Line Rule “generally

limits the redistricting body to the creation of dis-

tricts that consist of whole counties or groups of

whole counties.” Following this Court’s decision in

White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), Texas adopted

the single member district system of electing state

representatives.

In the current Texas House of Representatives

districting plan, the district ideal total population is

167,637.” This ideal is used by the Legislature to

apportion districts to counties and to draw districts.

In a House plan apportioned on the basis of

CVAP or registered voters, Cameron and Hidalgo

Counties in the Lower Rio Grande Valley would lose a

combined two seats because of their low CVAPs and

registered-voter populations.” E] Paso County would

“ Tex. Legislative Council, State and Federal Law Govern-

ing Redistricting in Texas at 141 (2011), http://www.tic.state.tx.

us/redist/pdf/2011_0819_State&Federal_Law_TxRedist.pdf.

” Tex. Legislative Council, Plan H358: District Population

Analysis (2015), App. 25.

*" See Tex. Legislative Council, Plan H358: Hispanic

Population Profile (2015), App. 25; Tex. Legislative Council, Plan

H358: Population and Voter Data with Voter Registration

(Continued on following page)

lose one seat.” This loss of seats reduces those coun-

ties to the political representation held in 1980."

Harris County (Houston) would lose two state

representative seats and Dallas County would lose

one state representative seat.”

The negative effects of changing apportionment

in the Texas House are not limited to apportionment

of seats to counties. Within counties, a House plan

apportioned on the basis of CVAP or registered voters

would force some districts to expand, and others to

contract, in order to meet the new apportionment

metric. For example, in Harris County, the House

district with the lowest CVAP (HD 137-Gene Wu) is

40% below the CVAP ideal.” The House District with

Comparison (2015), App. 31; U.S. Census Bureau, Voting Age

Population by Citizenship and Race (CVAP), 2009-2013 Ameri-

can Community Survey (2013), https://www.census.gov/rdo/data/

voting_age_population_by_citizenship_and_race_cvap.html; Tex.

Sec’y of State, Voter Registration and Unofficial Early Voting

Figures (2014), http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/

counties.shtml.

* See supra note 51.

® See Tex. Legislative Council, State House Districts 1982-

1984 Elections (2010), http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdfhistorical_

house/h_1982_1984.pdf.

“ See supra note 51; Mex. Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund,

Map of County Apportionment of House Seats by CVAP — Dallas

Region (2015), App. 9; Mex. Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund,

Map of County Apportionment of House Seats by CVAP -

Houston Region (2015), App. 10.

* See Tex. Legislative Council, Plan H358: Hispanic

Population Profile (2015), App. 26.

the highest CVAP (HD 134-Sarah Davis) is 20% above

the CVAP ideal.” House District 137 would be forced

to take on thousands of new residents, while House

District 134 would shed residents to meet a CVAP

ideal.

Similarly, in Dallas County, the district with the

lowest CVAP (HD 103-Rafael Anchia) is 33% below

the ideal and the district with the highest CVAP (HD

108-Morgan Meyer) is 13% above the ideal.” As in

Houston, districts below the CVAP ideal in Dallas

would become grossly malapportioned as thousands

of individuals are packed into their boundaries, while

other districts contract and become much smaller in

total population.

C. The Loss of Legislative Seats, and the

Creation of Super-sized Districts, will

Injure Constituents and Elected Rep-

resentatives

The apportionment metrics advanced by Plain-

tiffs reduce the number of representatives from

Houston, Dallas and South and West Texas and make

it harder for the remaining representatives in those

delegations to pass legislation serving regional inter-

ests. In addition, the accompanying growth of “un-

derpopulated” districts to take in dramatically higher

total population puts impossible burdens on the

* See id.

legislators representing these districts and forces

constituents to compete with each other for scarce

legislator time and resources.

In super-sized districts, Senators and Represent-

atives will be hard-pressed to represent all of their

voters as well as disproportionately high numbers of

non-voters. For example, in order to meet a CVAP

ideal, Senate District 29 (El Paso) would have to

expand to take in Del Rio, a city of over 35,000 resi-

dents, located 423 miles from E] Paso.” The Senator

who represents SD 29, Jose Rodriguez, would have to

reallocate his already small office budget to cover the

new geography and would face having to close an

existing district office to open a new office in or near

Del Rio. Senator Rodriguez would have to stretch his

small staff to respond to requests for assistance from

over 90,000 new constituents.

In addition to the drain on member and staff

resources, legislative districts that grow to take in

disproportionately high populations also take in more

geographic areas with competing interests. Although

all legislative districts contain a variety of interests,

adding more people and more geography to some

“ Compare Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Map of

Current Texas Senate Districts (2014), App. 5 with Tex. Legisla-

tive Council, Proposed Plan S173: Map of Texas Senate Districts

Equalized by CVAP (2015), App. 6; see also U.S. Census Bureau,

American FactFinder, 2014 Population Estimate (2014), http://

factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml

(search “Del Rio City, Texas”).

districts will overburden them compared to other

districts that will stay the same size or even become

smaller. The competing needs for economic develop-

ment, improvements in roads and highways, public

safety, healthcare, and education will become even

greater in districts that take in new counties and

cities in order to meet a CVAP or registered-voter

population ideal.

Il. Plaintiffs’ Claim to an “Equally Weighted

Vote” Is Illusory and Cannot Form the Ba-

sis of an Equal Protection Claim

The practical goal of Plaintiffs’ standard is to

shift legislative seats, and public policy, from one part

of the state to another based on votes cast in elec-

tions.”

Plaintiffs claim that their equally-populated

districts are unconstitutional because the districts do

not guarantee equality in the weight of their votes.

Plaintiffs invoke a “right to an equally weighted vote”

and “the right of voters to an equally weighted vote.””

As the Court has explained, its requirement of

equal population in districts does not and is not

intended to equalize the weight of a vote:

* See Mex. Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund, Plan $172: Map

of District Variation in Voting-Age Population (2015), App. 1.

” Pls.’ Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF. No. 20 at 7, 9 (em-

phasis original).

[I]t must be recognized that total population,

even if absolutely accurate as to each district

when counted, is nevertheless not a talis-

manic measure of the weight of a person’s

vote under a later adopted reapportionment

plan.... [If it is the weight of a person’s

vote that matters, total population — even if

stable and accurately taken — may not actu-

ally reflect that body of voters whose votes

must be counted and weighed for the purpos-

es of reapportionment, because ‘census per-

sons’ are not voters.

Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 746-48 (1973)

(internal citations omitted)

That same year, the Court ruled that a 9.90%

variation in equal population in Texas legislative

redistricting did not give rise to a one-person-one-vote

violation:

For the reasons set out in Gaffney v. Cum-

mings, supra, we do not consider relatively

minor population deviations among state leg-

islative districts to substantially dilute the

weight of individual votes in the larger dis-

tricts so as to deprive individuals in these

districts of fair and effective representation.

Those reasons are as applicable to Texas as

they are to Connecticut.

White, 412 U.S. at 764. Of note, this Court found no

malapportionment in the Texas House plan despite

the Court’s recognition that Mexican Americans lived

in heavily concentrated communities in some areas

of the state and that “Mexican-American voting

registration remain|s] very poor in the county.” Id. at

768. If the Equal Protection Clause required equali-

zation of the weight of a vote, the fact that few Mexi-

can Americans were voting in 1973 would have

rendered the state’s redistricting plan malappor-

tioned. This Court made no such finding.

A. As a Practical Matter, the “Weight” of

Votes Cannot Be Equalized

Even if a state tried to equalize the weight of

votes by apportioning population based on votes cast,

the endeavor would be fruitless. Voter turnout is a

moving target; it varies with every election.” As voter

turnout rises and falls, a state would have to redraw

its political boundaries after every election — creating

confusion for voters and elected officials. Also, be-

cause past elections cannot predict turnout in future

elections, the goal of an equally-weighted vote would

remain forever out of reach as the state looked back-

ward to past elections to draw its political lines.”

“ For example, in the 2012 November General Election,

8,049,220 Texans voted. See Tex. Legislative Council, Plan $172:

2012 General Election Analysis (2013), ftp://ftpgis1.tic.state.

tx.us/PlanS172/Reports/PDF/PlanS172_RED206_2012G_Statewides.

pdf. Two years later, in the November 2014 General Election,

Texas voter turnout dropped 41% to 4,727,805. See Tex. Legisla-

tive Council, Plan $172: 2014 General Election Analysis (2015),

ftp-//ftpgis1.tic.state.tx.us/PlanS172/Reports/PDF/PlanS172_RED

206_2014G_Statewides.pdf.

“ See Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 92 (1966) (noting

that registered or actual voter numbers vary depending on who

(Continued on following page)

There is even fluctuation in voter turnout for

districts in the same redistricting plan, as officials

elected in staggered terms (like the Texas Senate)

face very different electorates. For example, during

the last decade, Ms. Evenwel voted for her Senator in

non-presidential years. In 2010, her Senate District 1

elected its Senator with only 140,273 votes.” Because

so few voters in Ms. Evenwel’s Senate district cast a

ballot in that race, Ms. Evenwel’s vote was weighted

among the most powerful across Senate districts in

that election.“ Comparing the vote of Ms. Evenwel to

the electorate for Senate seats in the 2008 election

demonstrates that, for those elections, any injury

flowing from an unequally weighted vote belonged to

most 2008 Senate voters, and not Ms. Evenwel.”

chooses to participate, competitiveness of the campaign, and

even the weather).

* See Tex. Sec’y of State, 2010 General Election Race

Summary Report (2010), http//elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist154_

state. htm.

“ See id.

“ Compare id. with Tex. Sec’y of State, 2008 General

Election Race Summary Report (2008), http-//elections.sos.state.

tx.us/elchist141_state. htm.

B. Apportionment Based on Voter Eligibil-

ity Metrics Such as CVAP or Registered

Voters Creates Bizarre Results and

Does Not Equalize the Weight of Votes

Comparing votes cast in an election (i.e., the

substance giving “weight” to the vote) to either CVAP

or registered voters is an apples-to-oranges compari-

son. The chasm between the approximations (CVAP

and registered voters) and the standard (votes cast) is

too wide to bridge. Moreover, apportionment based on

CVAP or registered voters creates arbitrary results.

1. The Texas Senate Plan and CVAP

CVAP would not cure Plaintiffs’ claimed injury of

unequally weighed votes and, in some cases, would

exacerbate the injury.

If Senate districts were apportioned based on

CVAP, Ms. Evenwel and Mr. Pfenninger would re-

main disadvantaged based on the weight of their

votes cast as compared to voters in other districts

with lower voter turnout and higher CVAP. For

example, Senate Districts 3, 5, 22, 24, 28, and 30 all

contain greater CVAP than Mr. Pfenninger’s District

4, but District 4 casts more ballots than Districts 3, 5,

22, 24, 28, and 30.” Under the current plan, Mr.

“ Compare Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Population

and Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015), App.

15 with Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Hispanic Popula-

tion Profile (2015), App. 14.

Pfenninger’s vote cast carries less weight in deter-

mining Senate elections than votes cast in Districts 3,

5, 22, 24, 28, and 30 because District 4 voters cast

more votes than these other districts. However, if

Senate districts were reapportioned to equalize CVAP,

Districts 3, 5, 22, 24, 28, and 30 would drop more

CVAP than would District 4 because each of these

districts has a higher CVAP than District 4.” Assum-

ing voters are equally d.stributed across CVAP,

following reapportionment, District 4 would cast even

more votes when compared to Districts 3, 5, 22, 24,

28, and 30 than before reapportionment. Therefore,

CVAP-based apportionment would exacerbate Mr.

Pfenninger’s claimed injury of an unequally-weighted

vote with respect to these districts.”

Just as problematic, under Plaintiffs’ proposed

standard, CVAP-equalized apportionment would

diminish the weights of votes cast in Dallas and

Houston. Voters in current Senate Districts 23 (Dal-

las) and 15 (Houston) cast more ballots but have

lower CVAPs as compared to Districts 19, 20, 21, and

26.” Voters in Senate District 7 (Houston) present the

” All of these districts are above the CVAP ideal of 522,508.

See Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Hispanic Population

Profile (2015), App. 14.

“ Similarly, the weight of Ms. Evenwel’s vote would be

diminished as compared to votes cast in Districts 3, 5, and 30.

” Compare Tex. Legislative Council, Plan $172: Population

and Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015), App.

15 with Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Hispanic Popula-

tion Profile (2015), App. 14.

most extreme example. Their votes would be dimin-

ished as compared to votes cast in Districts 2, 11, 14,

19, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, and 31.”

On the other hand, the highest CVAP Senate

district in the state, Senate District 3, is considered

“over populated” for CVAP-equalized apportionment,

despite casting fewer votes in the 2012 General

Elections than Districts 1, 4, 5, 10, 14, 17, 18, and

95.”

The metric of voter registration for apportion-

ment also creates winners and losers that do not

track the weight of the vote. For example, in the 2014

General Election, Senate District 15 (Houston) cast

more votes than Senate Districts 19, 20, 21, 26, and

29 but has fewer registered voters.” The unexpected

winner in apportionment based on voter registration

is Senate District 30 (Wichita Falls). Because of its

higher voter registration, Senate District 30 is “more

populated” when compared to the following Districts,

all of which cast more votes than Senate District 30

” See Tex. Legislative Council, Plan $172: Population and

Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015), App. 15;

Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Hispanic Population Profile

(2015), App. 14.

" Compare Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Population

and Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015), App.

15 with Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Hispanic Popula-

tion Profile (2015), App. 14.

™ See Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Population and

Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015), App. 15.

in the 2014 General Election: 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12,

16, 17, 18, 22, and 24.”

The disparity in the weight of votes across dis-

tricts created by using CVAP or registered voters for

apportionment gives rise to the exact type of imbal-

ance that Plaintiffs claim violates the Equal Protec-

tion Clause. The arbitrary results that flow from

using CVAP or voter registration render these metrics

inappropriate for apportionment.

C. Equalization of Both Total Population

and Voters Cannot Be Achieved

Plaintiffs’ standard requires the impossible —

districts that simultaneously equalize total popula-

tion and voters. Such a redistricting plan is a chime-

ra; it cannot be formed.

1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint Asserts Dual

Constitutional Mandates

According to Plaintiffs’ complaint, “[t]he one-

person, one-vote principle requires Texas to safeguard

the right of electors like [Plaintiffs] to an equally

weighted vote in addition to equal representation

based on total population.”“ Under the asserted dual

mandates, “Texas should not be permitted to base

™ See id.

™ Compl., J.S. App. 31a (emphasis added).

apportionment on voter population alone.”” Plaintiffs

distinguished their dual-mandate standard from the

single-mandate standard asserted in Chen v. City of

Houston, 206 F.3d 502, 522 (5th Cir. 2002), that CVAP

alone must be equalized.” The district court accord-

ingly, considered and rejected only Plaintiffs’ asserted

dual-mandate standard.”

2. Plaintiffs Tiptoe Away from Dual

Mandates But Continue to Assert

that Both Total Population and

Voters Can Be Equalized

Plaintiffs now subtly shift from a dual-mandate

standard toward a single-mandate standard in this

Court. They assert: “(T]he ‘population’ States must

equalize for one-person, one-vote purposes is the

population of eligible voters.”” Plaintiffs now deem

™ Pls.’ Mot. for Sum. J., ECF No. 12, at 9.

" See id. (“Chen decided a legal issue different from the one

presented here. In Chen ... the Fifth Circuit was confronted

with an argument that the Fourteenth Amendment required

Houston ‘to use CVAP rather than total population’ in designing

city council districts.”) (quoting Chen, 206 F.3d at 523); see also

Compl., J.S. App. 32a (“Chen did not consider whether electoral

power could be ignored when it is possible to safeguard both

interests.”).

” See Mem. Op., J.S. 5a (“(Plaintiffs] conclude that PLANS

172 [sic] violates the one-person, one-vote principle of the Equal

Protection Clause by not apportioning districts to equalize both

total population and voter population.”) (emphasis original).

™ Pls.’ Br. 15.

districts of equalized total population to be merely a

state “interest,” not a mandate.”

This Court should consider only Plaintiffs’ dual-

mandate standard because Plaintiffs did not assert a

single-mandate standard in their complaint, and the

district court did not consider a single-mandate

standard. See Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132 S. Ct. 1421,

1430 (2012) (“Ordinarily, we do not decide in the first

instance issues not decided below.”) (internal quota-

tions omitted).

Plaintiffs, nevertheless, continue to assert that

both total population and voters can be equalized in a

Texas Senate districting plan.” Plaintiffs have never

supported their assertion with anything other than

implausible, conclusory statements.”

™ See id. at 48.

" See id. at 46 (“[H)Jad the Texas Legislature used the

population of eligible voters as its starting point ... , it still

could have largely reconciled total and voter population.”).

" See, e.g., Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 12-1 (Declara-

tion of Peter A. Morrison, Ph.D.: “I was not asked to, and did not

attempt to, devise a plan that would optimally balance [CVAP

and total population) deviations. ... I was able to create a 31-

district plan ... that eliminated the gross deviations in CVAP

without significantly exceeding the 8.04% total population

deviation from ideal in Plan S172.”).

3. Both Total Population and Voters

Cannot Be Equalized Across Texas

Senate Districts

Texas's concentrations of children, non-citizens,

non-registered voters, and non-voting-but-registered

voters prevent the drawing of Texas Senate districts

equalizing both total population and voters within

overall plan deviations of 10%.”

The current Texas Senate plan has a deviation of

8.04% based on total population. Therefore, the plan

is balanced for total population within an acceptable

range. See Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842

(1983)." To achieve Plaintiffs’ dual-mandate stand-

ard, current Senate districts would have to gain or

lose significant numbers of children, citizens, regis-

tered voters, and actual voters, without significantly

“ If the standard of “equalized” total population and voters

is not equalization within 10% deviations, but is rather a “best-

fit” or “lowest-possible-combined deviation,” then the standard is

not a dual-mandate standard, as asserted. The Court has never

required a State to minimize the combined deviations of two

population measures; instead, it has allowed deviations greater

than 10% for “nonpopulation criteria.” See Brown v. Thomson,

462 U.S. 835, 842-43 (1983); see also Karcher v. Daggett, 462

U.S. 725, 740 (1983) (“Any number of consistently applied

legislative policies might justify some variance [in population

equality], including, for instance, making districts compact,

respecting municipal boundaries, preserving the cores of prior

districts, and avoiding contests between incumbent Representa-

tives.”).

* See Tex. Legislative Council, Plan $172: District Popula-

tion Analysis (2015), App. 13.

altering total population numbers. Regional varia-

tions in the populations of children, citizens, registered

voters, and actual voters make this task impossible.”

Current Districts 27 (Brownsville) and 29 (El

Paso) illustrate why a dual-mandate plan cannot be

devised. Each district is underpopulated by voting-

age population,” CVAP,” registered voters,” and ac-

tual voters.” Districts 27 and 29, however, cannot add

significant numbers of voting-age residents, citizen-

voting-age residents, registered voters or actual voters

“ The task is impossible to the extent that districts must be

contiguous. Cf. Compl., J.S. App. 24a (“It would have been

possible for the Texas Legislature to adjust district boundaries

so as to create 31 contiguous districts containing both relatively

equal numbers of electors and relatively equal total popula-

tion.”).

” The voting-age population of District 27 is 524,120, a

deviation of -11.12% from ideal; the voting-age population of

District 29 is 571,426, a deviation of -3.09% from ideal. See Tex.

Legislative Council, Plan S172: Population and Voter Data with

Voter Registration Comparison (2015), App. 15.

“ The CVAP of District 27 is 399,530, a deviation of -23.54%

from ideal; the CVAP of District 29 is 469,130, a deviation of

-10.26% from ideal. See Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172:

Hispanic Population Profile (2015), App. 14.

" The registered-voter population of District 27 is 354,303,

a deviation of -21.81% from ideal; the registered-voter population

of District 29 is 415,152, a deviation of -8.39% from ideal. See id.

“ The actual-voter population of District 27 is 84,566, a

deviation of -44.55% from ideal; the actual-voter population of

District 29 is 83,529, a deviation of -45.23% from ideal. See Tex.

Legislative Council, Plan S172: Population and Voter Data with

Voter Registration Comparison (2015), App. 15.

because (1) they are at or near ideal total popula-

tion,” and (2) they are surrounded by other districts

lacking the same population groups.” Thus, if Dis-

tricts 27 and 29 added significant numbers of voting-

age residents, citizen-voting-age residents, registered

voters, or actual voters by taking those individuals

from surrounding districts, Districts 27 and 29 would

greatly exceed acceptable total population devia-

tions,” and the new Districts 27 and 29 would drain

surrounding districts of population, which would

further exacerbate those districts’ negative deviations

from ideal voting-age population, citizen-voting-age

population, registered-voter population, and actual-

voter population.

To achieve the dual mandates, Districts 27 and

29 would have to swap populations with districts on

the opposite end of the deviation spectrum. Those

districts, however, are not contiguous to Districts 27

and 29.”

” The total population of District 27 is 786,946, a deviation

of -2.98% from ideal; the total population of District 29 is

816,681, a deviation of 0.68% from ideal. See id.

” See Mex. Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund, Plan S172:

Maps of District Variation in Voting-Age Population, CVAP,

Voter Registration, and Votes Cast (2015), Apps. 1-4.

" Districts 27 and 29 would add geography that included

not just the desired populations, but also all other population

groups, including children, non-citizens, non-registered voters,

and non-voters.

™ See Mex. Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund, Plan S172:

Maps of District Variation in Voting-Age Population, CVAP,

Voter Registration, and Votes Cast (2015), Apps. 1-4.

Amici curiae have drafted alternative maps

equalizing CVAP population and registered voters

across Texas Senate districts, within 4% total devia-

tion.” In each alternative map, South Texas loses a

seat (District 19) because all current South Texas

districts (Districts 19, 20, 21, 27, and 29) must add

populations of citizen-voting-age residents and regis-

tered voters to bring those deviations within accepta-

ble limits. Achieving equalization under these

measures, however, massively increases the plans’

total population deviations from ideal. Total popula-

tion deviation goes from a baseline of 8.04% in the

current Texas Senate plan, to 36.36% in the CVAP-

equalized plan and to 58.04% in the registered-voter-

equalized plan.“ Under the CVAP-equalized plan,

Districts 27 and 29 jump in population and acquire

total population deviations of 18.80% and 12.04%,

respectively.” Likewise, District 6 in Houston and

* See Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S173: Map of

Texas Senate Districts Equalized by CVAP (2015), App. 6; Tex.

Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S174: Map of Texas Senate

Districts Equalized by Voter Registration (2015); App. 7.

“ Compare Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: District

Population Analysis (2015), App. 13 with Tex. Legislative

Council, Proposed Plan S173: District Population Analysis

(2015), App. 17 and Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan

$174: District Population Analysis (2015), App. 21.

* See Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan S173: Popula-

tion and Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015),

App. 19. Under the registered-voter-equalized plan, Districts 27

and 29 realize total population deviations of 18.80% and 9.83%

respectively. See Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan 5174:

Population and Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison

(2015), App. 23.

District 23 in Dallas add CVAP and registered voters

to correct large negative deviations in these measures

under the current plan.” Consequently, the total

population deviations for District 6 and District 23

jump to 23.56% and 12.29%, respectively, under the

CVAP-equalized plan.”

4. Both Total Population and Voters

Cannot Be Equalized Across Texas

House Districts

Plaintiffs do not assert that the Texas House can

be districted to achieve their asserted dual-mandate

standard. However, the principle of equal protection

does not stop with one legislative chamber. See Md.

Comm. for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S.

656, 673 (1964) (“It is simply impossible to decide

upon the validity of the apportionment of one house of

a bicameral legislature in the abstract, without also

” See Tex. Legislative Council, Plan S172: Hispanic Popula-

tion Profile (2015), App. 14 (District 6 CVAP deviation: -26.51%;

District 23 CVAP deviation: -10.69%); Tex. Legislative Council,

Plan $172: Population and Voter Data with Voter Registration

Comparison (2015), App. 15 (District 6 registered-voter devia-

tion: -34.76%; District 23 registered-voter deviation: -8.29%).

” See Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plan $173: Popula-

tion and Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015),

App. 19. District 6’s total population deviation increases to

35.49% under the registered-voter-equalized plan, and District

23’s total population deviation increases to 12.29% under this

plan. See Tex. Legislative Council, Proposed Plans 174: Popula-

tion and Voter Data with Voter Registration Comparison (2015),

App. 23.

evaluating the actual scheme of representation

employed with respect to the other house.”); see also

Lucas v. Colo. Gen. Assembly, 377 U.S. 713, 735 n.27

(1964) (“[In Tawes] we discussed the need for consid-

ering the apportionment of seats in both houses of a

bicameral state legislature in evaluating the constitu-

tionality of a state legislative apportionment scheme,

regardless of what matters were raised by the parties

and decided by the court below.”). Accordingly, the

Court must consider Plaintiffs’ dual-mandate stan-

dard as applied to the Texas House.

The Texas House cannot be districted in a plan

that equalizes both total population and voters for the

same reasons that prevent the drawing of an equal-

ized-total-population-and-voter-eligible plan in the

Texas Senate. In fact, the reasons are more pro-

nounced with the Texas House.

The Texas House is comprised of 150 districts,

each wholly contained within a single county where

possible. This County Line Rule prevents statewide

equalization of both total population and voters

because it limits how districts may be altered. For

example, El Paso County contains districts 75, 76, 77,

78, and 79.” Each of these five districts is equalized

for total population, but all have negative CVAP

* See Tex. Legislative Council, Plans S172: Map of Current

Texas Senate Districts (2014), App. 5.

deviations under the current plan.” If the County

Line Rule is followed, in E] Paso County there is no

way to reallocate the population to equalize CVAP

across all districts because the county’s population

contains too few citizen-voting-age residents to bring

all five districts near the statewide ideal.”

If the County Line Rule is abandoned, regional

differences in populations of children, citizens, regis-

tered voters, and actual voters would prevent the

drawing of districts equalizing total population and

eligible voters for the same reasons that apply to the

Texas Senate. Current House districts in South

Texas, Dallas, and Houston, which are equalized for

total population, are completely, or nearly completely,

surrounded by districts similarly lacking in CVAP."”

One or more of these South Texas, Dallas, and Hou-

ston districts could achieve ideal CVAP, but, conse-

quently, swell in total population and further deprive

neighboring districts of CVAP.

” See Mex. Am. Legal Def. and Educ. Fund, Plan H358:

Map of District Variation in CVAP (2015), App. 11. The CVAP

deviations are: District 75, -28.27%; District 76, -12.30%;

District 77, -15.88%; District 78, -8.39%; and District 79, -8.84%.

See Tex. Legislative Council, Plan H358, Hispanic Population

Profile (2015), App. 26.

‘” It may be possible to equalize CVAP if El Paso County

loses a seat; however the remaining four districts would greatly

exceed the ideal total population.

'* See Tex. Legislative Council, Plan H358: Map of Current

Texas House Districts (2014), App. 8.

5. Plaintiffs’ Dual-Mandate Standard

Should Be Rejected Because the

Court Does Not Impose Impossible

Standards

The law does not create traps. See Ala. Leg.

Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S.Ct. 1257, 1274

(2015) (“The law cannot lay a trap for an unwary

legislature, condemning its redistricting plan as

either (1) unconstitutional racial gerrymandering

should the legislature place a few too many minority

voters in a district or (2) retrogressive under [Voting

Rights Act] § 5 should the legislature place a few too

few.”). Plaintiffs’ dual-mandate standard creates an

impossible goal in Texas by establishing competing

constitutional limits.” The Court should reject Plain-

tiffs’ standard because, as implemented in Texas, the

standard is impossible to satisfy.

Ill. The Current Effort to Reduce Latino

Representation Through Apportionment

Follows a Long History of Voting Discrim-

ination in Texas

The radical changes in apportionment sought by

Plaintiffs, if adopted by Texas, would raise an infer-

ence of unconstitutional racial discrimination against

Latino voters.

' Cf. Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 12 at 9-10 (“Texas

should not be permitted to base apportionment on voter popula-

tion alone; it must fairly balance all relevant factors within

constitutional limits.”).

In LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 439 (2006), this

Court noted “the long history of discrimination

against Latinos and Blacks in Texas” (internal quota-

tions omitted). The Court explained:

“Texas has a long, well-documented history of

discrimination that has touched upon the

rights of African-Americans and Hispanics to

in the electoral process. Devices such as the

poll tax, an all-white primary system, and

the restrictive voter registration time periods

are an unfortunate part of this State’s minor-

ity voting rights history. The history of offi-

cial discrimination in the Texas election

process — stretching back to Reconstruction —

led to the inclusion of the state as a covered

jurisdiction under Section 5 in the 1975

amendments to the Voting Rights Act. Since

Texas became a covered jurisdiction, the De-

partment of Justice has frequently inter-

posed objections against the State and its

subdivisions.’

Id. at 439-40 (quoting Vera v. Richards, 861 F Supp.

1304, 1317 (S.D. Tex. 1994)).

Two years before the Court struck down state

poll taxes in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections,

383 U.S. 663 (1966), Texans voted to retain the poll

tax despite public recognition that it operated to

exclude Latinos and African Americans from voting.”

The same year as Harper, the Texas Legislature met

in a special session and enacted Senate Bill 1, which

required voters to re-register annually.“ The annual

re-registration requirement was not rescinded by the

Texas Legislature until 1971."

In 1973, this Court declared that Texas’s use of

multi-member election districts in San Antonio and

Dallas diluted minority voting strength in violation of

the Fourteenth Amendment. White, 412 U.S. 755. The

Court took particular note of the historical factors

leading to very low political participation rates by

Mexican Americans in Bexar County in South Texas:

The Barrio is an area of poor housing; its

residents have low income and a high rate

of unemployment. The typical Mexican-

American suffers a cultural and language

barrier that makes his participation in com-

munity processes extremely difficult, particu-

larly, the (district) court thought, with

respect to the political life of Bexar County.

A) cultural incompatibility ... conjoined

with the poll tax and the most restrictive

‘* Dallas Public Library, Voting Rights: The Poll Tax,

Marion Butts Collection, http://dallaslibrary2.org/mbutts/assets/

lessons/L9-voting+rights/Marion®20Butts%20-%20Voting®20Rights

%2BPPT%29. pdf.

'* O. Douglas Weeks, Tex. State Historical Ass’n, Election

Laws, Handbook of Texas Online (2010), https-//tshaonline.org/

handbook/online/articles/wde0 1.

0s 7

voter registration procedures in the nation

have operated to effectively deny Mexican-

Americans access to the political processes in

Texas even longer than the Blacks were for-

mally denied access by the white primary.’

[Graves v. Barnes, 343 F.Supp. 704, 731

(W.D. Tex. 1972).] The residual impact of this

history reflected itself in the fact that Mexi-

can-American voting registration remained

very poor in the county.

White, 412 U.S. at 768-69.

Texas legislators continued to draw district

boundaries that diluted the Latino vote after White.

In every decade since the 1970's, one or more Texas

statewide redistricting plans was blocked by the U.S.

Department of Justice or the federal courts for illegal-

ly diluting Latino votes."”

'* See Letter from U.S. Dep't of Justice to Tex. Sec’y of

State (Jan. 1976), http//www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/

legacy/2014/05/30/TX-1020.pdf (Texas House); Letter from U.S.

Dep't of Justice to Tex. Sec’y of State (Jan. 25, 1982), http-/

www justice .gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/20 14/05/30/TX- 1900.

pdf (Texas Senate); Letter U.S. Dep't of Justice to Tex. Sec’y of

State (Jan. 25, 1982), http://www. justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/

legacy/2014/05/30/TX-1910.pdf (Texas House); Letter from U:S.

Dep't of Justice to Tex. Sec’y of State (Nov. 12, 1991), http//www.

justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/05/30/TX-2380. pdf

(Texas House); Letter from U.S. Dep't of Justice to Tex. Sec’y of

State (Nov. 16, 2001), http://www. justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/

legacy/2014/05/30/TX-2930. pdf (Texas House); Perez v. Texas, No.

11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2012)

(Texas House).

Most recently, in 2006, the Court struck down the

Texas congressional redistricting plan because it

diluted Latino voting strength in violation of section 2

of the Voting Rights Act. See LULAC, 548 U.S. at 440.

The battles for political opportunity fought by

Latinos in Texas have resulted in seven Senate

districts in which Latinos have the opportunity to

elect their candidate of choice. Changing the appor-

tionment metric for the Texas Senate would reduce

the number of opportunity districts by at least two,

sending the map back to the 1980's.” The Texas

House map would suffer a similar “ate. Worse, many

Latino voters would find themselves not only with

fewer opportunity districts overall, but also living in

districts that contain far more constituents than

districts that elect Anglo representatives.

Because the apportionment metrics advanced by

Plaintiffs are tailored to characteristics of the Latino

community (such as youth and low voter-registration

rates), and the metrics themselves do not equalize the

weight of votes, their use gives rise to an inference of

intentional vote dilution in violation of the Four-

teenth Amendment.

'" See Tex. Legislative Council, State Senate Districts 1982

Election (2010), http//www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/pdf/historical_

senate/s_1982.pdf.

IV. The Effect of Shifting Political Represen-

tation to More Homogenous Communities

Will Be Fewer Policy Proposals and Less

Enacted Legislation Addressing the Needs

of Diverse Communities in Urban Areas

and in South and West Texas

Plaintiffs’ proposed apportionment standard would

shift representation from urban areas to rural areas

and from South and West Texas to Central and East

Texas.

A. Past Legislative Accomplishments May

Never Have Been Achieved

Ag unst these headwinds, communities in urban

areas and in South and West Texas may never have

achieved the legislative accomplishments of recent

sessions.

Before 2013, the Lower Rio Grande Valley did not

have a medical school to serve the region’s 1.2 million

inhabitants.“ The region suffers from the highest

incidence of diabetes in the state, and a third of its

residents live below the poverty line.” In the 2013

‘“ See U.S. Census Bureau, Metropolitan Statistica) Areas;

and for Puerto Rico, 2014 Population Estimates (2014), https://

www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2014/ (adding McAllen-

Edinburg-Mission, TX Metro Area and Brownsville-Harlingen,

TX Metro Area).

'* See Tex. Dep't of State Health Serv., The Health Status of

Texas at 39, Map 20 (2014), https//www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/Health

StatusTexas2014.pdf; U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 Small Area Income

(Continued on following page)

Texas Legislative Session, Senators from South and

West Texas worked together to co-author and pass a

bill establishing a medical school in the Rio Grande

Valley.’ They lobbied their colleagues in the Senate,

secured funding and gathered the necessary votes to

win passage of the bill. If representation had been

stripped from South and West Texas, the delegation

would have been smaller and less influential, and

this generational accomplishment might never have

been achieved.

B. Harmful Legislation May Be Imposed

if Large, Diverse Communities are Un-

derrepresented

Diverse communities strengthen a representative

democracy by providing balance to majority factions.

See The Federalist No. 10 (James Madison) (“Extend

the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of

parties and interests; you make it less probable that a

majority of the whole will have a common motive to

invade the rights of other citizens.”). Plaintiffs’ pro-

posed standard would shift political power away from

growing and diverse communities in urban areas and

South and West Texas towards more established and

more homogenous communities in Central and East

and Poverty Estimates (2013), http://www.census.gov/did/www/

saipe/data/statecounty/data/2013.htm] (data for Cameron and

Hidalgo Counties).

"° See Act of May 22, 2013, 83d Leg., R.S., ch. 726, 2013

Tex. Gen. Laws 1846.

Texas. Weakening the presence of large, diverse

communities at the state Capitol can lead to passage

of laws detrimental to those communities.

Of immediate concern, legislation narrowly de-

feated by coalitions of Senators representing districts

in urban areas and West and South Texas may pass

in future sessions if Senate seats shift to Central and

East Texas. Among such narrowly defeated measures

in 2015 was Senate Bill 185, which would have

banned cities from taking local needs into account

when designing policies on police questioning of

immigrants." Passage of the measure would have

severely constrained local control and chilled police-

community relations — particularly in high-minority-

population communities. Senators from Dallas,

Houston and South and West Texas joined with a

small number of additional colleagues in a bipartisan

effort to defeat the bill.” The group of 13 Senators

denied the bill’s supporters a three-fifths majority

needed to bring the bill for debate on the Senate floor,

a necessary precursor to passage.’ A switch of just

'" See Tex. S.B. 185, 84th Leg., R.S. (2015).

' See Julian Aguilar, With Clock Running, Immigration

Bills Cling to Senate Calendar, Tex. Tribune, May 19, 2015,

available at http//www.texastribune.org/2015/05/19/-state-repeal-

sanctuary-cities-back-calendar-there/.

"® See id.; see also Tex. S. Rules 5.13, 16.07, S. Res. 39, 84th

Leg., R.S, 2015 S.J. of Tex. 50, 50-53.

one Senator from opposition to support would have

enabled the bill to move forward.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the

brief by Texas, the judgment below should be af-

firmed.

Respectfully submitted,

NINA PERALES

Counsel of Record

THOMAS A. SAENZ

JOHN PAUL SALMON

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

110 Broadway, Suite 300

San Antonio, TX 78205

(210) 224-5476

nperales@maldef.org

Counsel for Amici Curiae

September 25, 2015

No. 14-940

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

SUE EVENWEL, ET AL.,

Appellants,

GREG ABBOTT, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, ET AL.,

Appellees.

On Appeal From The United States District Court

For The Western District Of Texas

APPENDIX TO BRIEF OF THE TEXAS SENATE HISPANIC CAUCUS AND

THE TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEXICAN AMERICAN

LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES

7 —

NINA PERALES

Counsel of Record

THOMAS A. SAENZ

JOHN PAUL SALMON

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

110 Broadway, Suite 300

San Antonio, TX 78205

(210) 224-5476

nperales@maldef.org

Counsel for Amici Curiae

September 25, 2015

OOCKL LEGAL BRIEFS (400) 226 6961

WWW COCKLELEGALBRIEFS OOM

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Page

Plan 5172: Map of District Variations in VAP...........................c000c0ceeeeeeeeeeee App. 1

Plan S172: Map of District Variations in CVAP ..0.0.0..............00c0cccccccceeeeeeeees App. 2

Plan S172: Map of District Variations in VR..........................c0c0cccceceeeneeeeees App. 3

Plan S172: Map of District Variations in Votes Cast ..................00000.....0000--- App. 4

Plan S172: Map of Current Texas Senate Districts............. App. 5 (back of sheet)

Plan S173: Map of Texas Senate Districts Equalized by CVAP. .................. App. 6

Plan S174: Map of Texas Senate Districts Equalized by VR ....................... App. 7

Plan H358: Map of Current Texas House Districts .................00000000.00000....... App. 8

Map of County Apportionment of House Seats by CVAP

UIT cclarneucici ei caeceeiieaeinaleihiaeaeileiaalnchicantineeatiininnnstinedi App. 9

Map of County Apportionment of House Seats by CVAP

TIEN TIIEEITTIh csieesbisrniiecishirmnctincindtcsdasiiiieuniibidinetinistnduidediniibiiawiniiinsasatnnintaadetians App. 10

Plan H358: Map of District Variations in CVAP ..........................ccc000c00000 App. 11

Pian H358: Map of Latino Majority Districts ...........0.0.0........000cccccceeceeeees App. 12

Ptan S172: District Population Analysis, Page One .......00000.........00..000000000- App. 13

Plan S172: Hispanic Population Profile ............0..2.2.....2....ccccccccceeeeceeeeesseeees App. 14

Plan S172: Population and Voter Data and VR Comparison..................... App. 15

Plan S173: District Population Analysis, Page One ...................0......6cc.000+- App. 17

Pian S173: Hispanic Population Profile .....................c.sse:ssecsessseceeeeeeeeeesees App. 18

Plan $173: Population and Voter Data with VR Comparison.................... App. 19

Plan S174: District Population Analysis, Page One ........0........00.0000.00cccc000 App. 21

Plan 5174: Hispanic Population Profile ...................00ccccccccececceceeseeceeeeseeees App. 22

Plan S174: Population and Voter Data with VR Comparison.................... App. 23

Pian H358: District Population Analysis, Page One ...............................++- App. 25

Plan H358: Hispanic Population Profile ..........................cccccccceceeeececeeeeeeeees App. 26

Plan H358: Population and Voter Data with VR Comparison................... App. 31

exas State Senate - $172 - District Variations in Voting Age Population

: pit *

vie

4 '

aor

.CINT)

ZALSNV Ie

ZZISNV Id

7) ganjetsiZe| YIbS-pucg

ise S}D11ISIGQ ayeUas 2FIS

vVurerly

NOS Tian -_

; . e

- a a e _ . =

a» onW 4 . : ™ ; . . .

- — citenwid | ee Ss ry |

arvo"

° - 3

2 iN é - & j

or < a 2 ve Vibe

om . - —ear

wevis —_ _ ——s

—s - -— -- 7

aN —.

—s

“~ + : ques P —_—

aed = 1

. .

. a —_— =

_~ ad a o it

ee —_—_—_— t a e s ee - ‘e}

ie Pn ~ a ss

ss <> os . 4

—<- ‘ “© |

“2 . -

— - —

— hae | — =

‘ =

— . - .

“e » — — _

——~ eu ( - o=

—_—s-* . . . a

as ‘ } . ——s we one

— ae

Re See he <b ogee) |

x = ~ = —

._ = “s : =. :

- - oo : er

— f 2 -

om = rr — we a

- Sr. i 1 ue

-— .—_ -e~ 7 Ez

_— — ae, > "

— = . .

Xz - r x si

* ; ; “* _ =

._ =~ of = e

<= a |

- = ne, gr Z -

a on save

. vs ~.

« e -

naval

— - on

EZ ISNV Id ee ie “= lh @-«“ ——- ~_ - s "

UPIld pasodoid - . bia ” io 5

SIOMISIG ayeuas 31eIS .

State Senate Districts

Proposed Plan

PLANS174

@ rvansire

im oe State House Districts

ake oon ta — 84th Legisiature (2015-201 ¢

sand | PLANH358

Eel coed cows enol

weer Ee |

fiM HOGG

E riannsse

AVv¥V

JOSIOPUSGH

+} e7 ueA it ; ey

‘ 0

yueLIe] jaMed

500

PpOOmM

' £00

Ney

PMs c At ’

os 90 0 _

ulliO i

jUNH | 2 } }UBg sS NA

| 4 “

iA i jUeUIU 7. ldy

BaAe 1eW

dVWAD) S}LES BSNOH 3383S jC juUsWUOIOAGAG

Brazos

0.12

‘

Montgomery

0.11

Apportionmen

‘

JOP

doonses 3}

pega +>. Tar.

Map layers

368

ounty

-atino CVAP (ACS09-13)

0.0% and below

0.0% and above

e: U.S. Census American Community Survey. 2009-2012

App. 13

Texas | cgisiatewe Council

District Population Analysis with County Subtotals — oW5ns‘Tor am

NO Census

_heomaomeee SENATE DISTRICTS - PLANS172 eee

Total State Population 25,145,561

Total Districts Required 31

Ideal District Population 811,147

Unassigned Population 0

Districts in Plan 31

Unassigned Geography No

Districts Contiguous Yes

Population --------Deviation--------

Total Percent

Plan Overall Range 65,226 8.04%

Smallest District (28) 778,341 -32,806 -4.04%

Largest District (3) 843,567 32,420 4.00%

Average (mean) 811,147 11,696 1.44%

PLANS172

199-2013 ACS, 20/0 Census i

172 OV 212012 $5 18:06 PM

meee pment e eee

Using Census, 2009-2013 American Community Survey, Voter Registration, and Turnout Data ari

SENATE DISTRICTS - PLANS172

T % T * %

2 808.524 $82,997 22.3 $23,835 (25,736) 14.2 (205%) 439,074 11.2 390,638 11.4 6.5

3 843,567 641,369 10.6 611,438 (26,495) 68 (203%) 505,713 $.1 452,563 5.1 26

s 815,995 $97.765 16.5 $53,360 (26,536) 108 (204%) $03,371 87 447,431 88 5.2

$ 827,039 620,718 189 $84,895 (26,551) 15.3 (205%) 479,785 115 414,184 11.5 7.2

6 812,881 $$1,137 70.0 383,985 (25,740) $79 (209%) 295,657 $33 266,440 548 416

? 809,277 $72,446 23.4 $07.735 (26,257) 183 (20.7%) 474,815 145 429,380 14.7 91

8 794,900 572.635 14.2 $11,590 (28,584) 96 (204%) 483,465 70 429,113 69 48

+ 815,389 580,100 28.4 496.875 (25,809) 19.1 (20.6%) 410.233 149 350,001 183 92

10 834,267 602.461 24.8 $34,315 (25,695) 169 (205%) 466,356 136 407,874 13.9 8.2

i 791,779 $82,677 22.9 $44,820 (26,164) 193 (20.6%) 480.987 158 427,233 15.9 98

12 818,863 $88,816 170 $48,260 (26,033) 119 (20.4%) 496,907 96 427,665 97 6.1

13 808.680 $90,736 344 427,820 (26,059) 18S (20.6%) 384,454 14.5 334,103 15.0 8.7

14 834,750 640,349 26.0 $71,260 (26,304) 19.0 (20.5%) $41,379 14.3 451,743 i44 10.6

is 793,108 574,258 38.3 475,055 (25,938) 26.1 (20.7%) 396,259 21.0 351.423 214 12.8

16 816,670 614,614 25.8 496,940 (25,301) 148 (205%) 447.405 11.0 387,527 11.0 6.7

17 804,162 605,764 20.2 527,825 (26,046) 16.0 (20.5%) Sk) 124 428,212 12.4 8.0

18 809.726 587,890 26.5 $48,440 (26,282) 22.3 (206%) $04,363 18.6 454,142 18.5 10.0

19 800,501 566,604 63.0 $16,115 (26,353) 60S (208%) 439,949 $5.2 387,800 56.3 440

20 833,339 $77,960 738 487.455 (26,461) 70.3 (208%) 401,209 66.7 355,270 67.9 $7.1

21 807 460 $67,099 67.9 475,255 (25,881) 616 (20.7%) 418,360 59.8 371,892 613 48.0

22 809.840 $92,255 18.0 $57,790 (25,816) 134 (205%) 472,149 ia 412,977 tt 5.8

23 813,699 $76,192 38.7 466,660 (25,770) 24.5 (20.6%) 415,584 20.0 367,723 209 10.9

24 798,189 $96,939 16.0 $78,130 (26,220) 14.3 (20.5%) 480,171 10.5 406.382 103 53

25 815,771 610,120 26.5 602,120 (26,200) 254 (20.6%) 578,484 19.4 $03,221 194 14.6

2% 802,046 5$89,$22 64.8 $32,540 (26,326) 619 (20.7%) 413,406 $5.6 353.238 $7.1 47.9

27 786,946 $24,120 86.2 399,530 (26,104) 83.1 (20.7%) 354,303 810 314,997 818 72.2

28 778,341 $86,992 30.5 SS8.880 (25,753) 284 (20.6%) 441,652 25.5 381,755 25.5 109

29 816,681 $71,426 79.6 469,130 (25,851) 753 (20.7%) 415,152 69.9 359,065 19 61.1

30 829.574 623.474 12.7 $98,630 (25,829) 90 (20.3%) 505,597 69 447,746 69 38 |

| 3! 793,600 573,847 32.8 $23,600 __ (25,315) 28.1 (20.6%) __ 422,545 24.0 373,262 242 96

American Community Survey provided estimated citizen voting age population (CV AP) data at the vlock group level in a Special Tabulation. All block groups with more than 50% of the populabon in a distnct are included in the analysis

| = Margin of error at 90% confidence ieve!

VAP = Hispanic voting age population / voting age population

>V AP = Hispamic citizen voting age population / citizen voting age population

R = Spanish surname voter registration (SSVR/VR)

) = Spanish surname turnout (SSTO/TO) data, starting with 2012. obtained from the Office of the Texas Secretary of State

+ Population and VOtler vata

S173 0221/2012 . : : : Page

— —" with Voter Registration Comparison

SENATE DISTRICTS - PLANS172

Population Total Voter Registration Non-Suspense Voter Registration

District Deviation Total &A %&B %&H &BH %QO General Election Turnout Total SSVYR TO/VR Total SSVR__—‘TO/VR

1 8.829 Tow: 819,976] 668 182 132 311 2) 2014 182.215 497.243 42% 4|=—366% 440,611 42% 4144

109% VAP: 616.458 | 705 172 108 276 20 2012 306,773 475.31 38% 645% 418,916 38% 32%

2 -2,623 Total: 808524 $7.1 133 266 39.4 3.$ 2014 150.823 439,074 112% M3 390,638 114% 385 &

0.324% VAP: 582.997 | 624 12! 223 34! 35 2012 257.196 412870 101% 623% 361,596 10.3% 71.1%

332,420 Towa!: 843,567) 725 130 129 287 18 2014 177,832 $05,713 S1% «38.1% 452,963 $1% 39.2 &

4.00% VAP. _ 641.369 | 75.3125 106 23.017 2012 300,296 | 488.989 46% 614% 431,066 46% 69.7 &

=———]TaEEee aE eae ee

4 4,848 Toul: 815,995] 628 145 193 334 38 2014 186.788 $03,371 87% 371% 447,43! a8% 417%

0.60% VAP: 597.765 66.0 i40 i65 30.3 3.7 2012 309.126 469.683 80% 65.8 & 412,057 80% 750%

$15,892 Toul: 827,039] 624 110 219 324 $2 2014 178.422 479,785 11S 372% 414,184 1S % 43.1%

1.96% VAP: 620.718 | 661 103 189 289 51 2012 290353 | 440,053 109% 66.0% 373,268 10.6% 718%

6 1,734 Towa: 812.881] 124 123 738 853 23 2014 66.812 295,657 533% 226% 286,440 S48 % 28.1%

0.21% VAP: _$$1.137| 155 125 700 819 26 2012 138,163 283,768 S2i% 487% 246,328 538% $6.1 %

7 4,870 Tow): 809,277 Si8 133 263 389 93 2014 173,281 474815 145% 35% 429,380 14 & 404%

0.23% VAP: 572.446 | SS6 121 234 350 93 2012 __ 297322 434.205 135% 685% 383,328 134% 77.6 &

8 16,247 Toul: 794900] $88 109 162 267 144 2014 177,408 483.465 70% 367% 429.113 69% 3%

2.00% VAP: $72,635 | 620 101 142 241 139 2012 303,092 441.969 64% 686% 377,647 6.2% 80.3 &

9 4,242 Tot): 815,389} 48.1 128 327 446 73 2014 140,906 410.233 149% 3434 350,001 153% 40.3

0.52% VAP: _ $80,100} $3.0 116 284 396 74 2012 240,990 _| 377,002 142% __ 618% 316,554 143% 76.0 %

10 23,120 Total 834,267} 476 192 289 475 49 2014 183.289 466.356 136% 3934 407.874 13.9% 49%

285% VAP: 602.461 | S27 179 248 424 49 2012 292,584 423.211 132% 691% 362.545 134% 80.7 %

11 19,377 Tow: 791,770] $58 116 261 372 70 2014 166,744 480.987 158% MIG 427,233 15.9% 39.0 %

2.39% VAP: __ $82,677] 596 109 229 335 69 2012 284,183 453.259 151% 627% 388,688 15.0% 1%

i2 7.746 Tol: 818.893] 645 87 198 wi 75 2014 176.338 49.907 96% 355% 427,665 97% 41.2%

095% VAP. 588816] 680 80 170 248 72 2012 300,031 448.838 89% HRS 385,617 88% 78%

13 -2,467 Tot 808,680] 105 440 382 810 85 2014 1iS.S18 34.454 145% |= 300% 334,103 15.0% 66%

0.30% VAP: 590.796 | 128 443 344 777 95 2012 215,972 36519 136% 589% 306,995 14.0% 10.4 %

4 23,603 Total 834,750 $28 103 WO 39.6 76 2014 223,687 $41,379 143% 4134 451,743 44 495%

291% VAP: 640,349 573 94 260 35.0 7 2012 321.116 495 331 136% 8 & 405,934 136% nae:

1S 18,039 Toul: 793,108] 278 246.7 429 66.7 56 2014 127,108 396.289 210% 321% 351,423 214% 36.2%

2.22% VAP: 574.255] 328 236 383 61.2 60 2012 227401_| 368.386 01% 61.7% 315,233 20.4 & 721%

6 -$,$23 Toul: 816670] 483 118 300 413 104 2014 170.569 447.405 110% 381% 387,527 10% 44.04

0.68% VAP: 614.614] S30 Ji) 258 365 104 2012 281,985 420,581 102% 670% 359,919 10.1% 18.3%

17 6,985 Total: 804,162] 493 138 225 358 150 2014 183,392 481,844 124% 814 428,212 124@ 428%

0.86% VAP: 605.764 | 525 128 202 326 149 2012 302,335 45649) 118% 66.2% 396,029 116 & 16.3 %

18-1421 Tol: 809.726] S06 128 31 422 72 2014 182.046 504.363 186% 8 636.24 454,142 i8s@ 4024

0.18% VAP. 587,890] 550 120 265 382 68 2012 295,343 469.170 184% 6304 415,749 181% 10%

19 10,646 Tol: 800501] 44 75S 6.7 134 23 2014 122.016 439.949 S$S2% «6027.74 387,800 $6.3 € uS%

131% VAP: - 566,604] 278 73 630 698 24 2012 215,427 408198 552% 528% 354,425 56.3 % 60.8 &

20 22,192 Total: 833,339 18.6 24 775 79.4 2.0 2014 112,687 401,209 66.7 & 28.14 355,270 679% 31.7%

2.74% VAP: 577,960 22.1 2.3 73.8 75.8 2.1 2012 191,147 377,113 65.3% 50.7 & 316,572 66.7 & 4%

For technica! reasons. election results in Texas Legislative Counct! reports may vary slightly from the official elecnon results Cormpiete official results for al! elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of State

SSVR = Spanish surname voter registration

UHI SPIIIIG STAS | FYI WO 27H Ou) AQ PoUITwIRE: aw sucidale / iC J nad [Pe Maydwe us Ue «ud TA STU SOCAL FINO”) ONLEEISISS | eONSY Wi a4 *9. 90058)2 ‘suomra: emp ae

2Si9 &9T SCS AN tse B98 DSitc eter 61 Lec tie ic Sie ck OF 66S | LOB tas avA »9I T°

Sort re 7 r9T'eue SOO BO Ses tte Los'LT) rior it 9tr One fs wes Jousce, qewL irsul- se

StL ak) 9.8 OOF Sto Bf9 OsA'SLt tis 162 7102 '€ @2t dtl $s Oec | eit eco d¥A B77

% B st »69 or. tr BLK B69 nAS SOS LIF'09 ride tt 602) FSi RS) «OG [ris ete |= yewL Lir's! =F

eI OIL SLOOIE =Osr B09 Hos ror ROP LL! 7102 61 SS eS ee bo eS d¥A #890 >

on St be tL soos’ S10 4669 8 ZSI'SIr 6rs'es8 $107 g 1 ote OTS Of El | ROOT TOL ress

+ 9 89 SOT T6) Wr trs Lt SEN Ist zi0z 72 OU THOCOSUF «Os! I9 «OT cen ons d¥A Srey

» ost % ss2 SSL 18K Tse itt 1sR'se} 107 zone ate se8 ris | tree, ewL 908'7 <

bests 6K Zr isz PeO'LZt tr9'0s! 7107 Ol coe TOR RO FT POTres “AVA B86 ec a -

»89r SPI Laé' TIE fO¢ tse 99s"r8 rl0z 80 £68 16k 80 96 Ore ORL MOL LOPE me

Bee boos Fob Ort arn Oon ne roe St cle WO O. Whe [tcbOR GWA Sh Ue

% Ott % ILS RET ESE ory ir OSI! rtor cy Sse FRO TR Tit | one's rio] Ole =

Loe Say 19S tsr SEP IES 019 99 z!0c it 2Oe $9 Sr Tso JOUTOIS “AA %i80 st :

Beir srl 12T'e0s rePr'8Ls rolir? rior tt ime 962 OF CIS Pta’sig ‘OL a

we %L6 src'ece sufssr 6.0 Rez aq Se Fh 6ST: 6 6OL R69 Tote Ses =| VA er. 2

seit SO TRE QUP {LU ORr OSL'L9I riot oa cog) 0 Hl OCT OS SS) | OBI'BeL (Pwo) asocl —

% 169 heel orl ite Uel Ose RON'SEZ Pati r7 lec ost 60r cst [telos ‘dWA wico c

bor % 602 et L9t rRS'SIt td riot Of TES Ser FOr Stl | OROTEIR IROL a

» TOL eT TriZor TLE itr rce'sic rat ira tt Oe? ret ¢} 9.9 ssi tos d¥A B91 0 w

b or Sri Lietir ari tar TOs" s9i rive re see Fit oti feo | Oreeos [IO]. Lot | —

Dies bo Tow crt Ist For Tos Dor cle Ce ee yh ee

b 12 » E19 TSS Le OO8Ir sitet! 107 rt! isi €%L 6Y 6f7 | OOF LOR WH] LR9 —

YVOL MASS 1F10 4 UVOL MASS [ere]L noun] = MONDAYAewawagHo GO, HED HY GS YR = MOL conrad PHING

UONRISHAY Ja70 4 asuadsng-uoy UONRISTAaY 49904 [RIO] uonrndog

TLISNW'Id * SLOIMLSIC ALVNGS

noastmdimoN HonPnsiRaw moa WM

Wd sop) 5 rte

App. 17

Texas Legisiative Counc!

(WHOS +99 PM

Page | of 6

District Population Analysis with County Subtotals

2010 Census

45173 09/16/2015 2 147M

SENATE DISTRICTS - PLANSI73

Total State Population 25,145,561

Total Districts Required 31

Ideal District Population 811,147

Unassigned Population 0

Districts in Plan 31

Unassigned Geography No

Districts Contiguous Yes

Population -------- Deviation-—-----

Total Percent

Plan Overall Range 294,902 36.36%

Smallest District (24) 707,313 - 103,834 -12.80%

Largest District (6) 1,002,215 191,068 23.56%

Average (mcan) 811,147 61,942 764%

PLANS173

Be hee 201) ACS. 200 Census Hispanic Population Profile ones 14 Pe

mee Using Census, 2009-2013 American Community Survey, Voter Registration, and Turnout Data

SENATE-BISTRICTS - PLANSI73

172 GWIGD0IS 2 14 PM

: =

2 802.216 $70,873 23. $15,325 (25.815) 14.7 (20.5%) 442,63! 11.6 395,236 18 67

3 728,459 $53,726 10.5 $27,270 (25,856) 66 (20.3%) $32,215 48 389,031 48 24

4 787,143 $58,370 16.2 $17,268 (26,383) 10.4 (20.4%) 461,045 80 407,747 81 45

s 745,032 $34,628 19.2 $16,620 (26,177) 168 (20.6%) 489,775 12.2 391,812 12.2 76

6 1,002,215 690,559 611 $12,765 (26,374) 48.7 (208%) 404,782 436 364,978 44.7 30.0

| 7 807,497 $74,662 22.2 $12,865 (26,207) 171 (20.6%) 480,509 13.8 433,449 13.9 8.7

8 $10,254 $83,309 14.8 $18,540 (25,633) 98 (204%) 489,247 7.1 434,346 71 45

9 807,718 $76,400 22.6 $12,570 (25,998) 183 (20.6%) 435,622 12.1 369,687 12.2 7.7

10 820,292 $93,518 25.2 $25,660 (25,669) 17.1 (20.5%) 456,059 13.9 398,862 14.2 &4

il 772,140 564,097 2.2 $34,730 (26,127) 19.0 (20.6%) 476,314 15.5 422,903 15.7 94

12 781,312 560,464 17.0 §22.475 (25,879) 120 (20.5%) 474,212 97 408,853 98 6.1

13 918,018 680.964 31.9 $08,920 (26,393) 17S (20.6%) 461,068 13.6 401,147 14.0 84

14 7$8,397 $86.57! 254 $22.405 (25,788) 183 (20.5%) $03,028 13.5 418,485 13.6 10.2

| 1s 873,142 623,663 %.1 $23,310 (26,266) 24.5 (20.7%) $46,669 19.7 399,881 20.0 11.7

16 859,214 643,992 276 $14,238 (2$.372) 1S? (20.5%) 461,529 11.7 400,046 18 71

17 825,395 611,296 21.2 $21.540 (26,384) 169 (20.6%) 491,524 13.0 435,279 13.0 8.5

8 789,227 $58,055 4 $31,755 (28.991) 265 (20.7%) 470,333 22.3 424,549 22.3 12.4

19 767,144 $76,022 284 $19,880 (26221) 220 (20.6%) 426,932 184 365,688 18.5 124

20 926.601 638,985 77.0 530,075 (£6,692) 73.7 (20.7%) 451,799 718 405,048 72.7 61.8

21 874,549 $99,223 72.3 S19.SSS (26,459) 68.9 (20.7%) 452,444 64.2 403,651 65.4 S48

22 739,088 $54,640 14.2 $29,210 (25,782) 99 (20.4%) 443,377 81 393,352 80 39

23 910.844 642,214 39.4 $20,420 (26,097) 260 (20.6%) 456,667 20.9 404,335 21.8 11.5

28 207,313 $36,656 17.2 $15,120 (25.460) 144 (20.5%) 411,945 11.4 352,336 11.3 $2

25 711.200 $34,870 29.7 $22,655 (25,917) 284 (20.7%) 493,233 21.9 424,503 22.0 16.3

26 802.158 $89,629 648 532,540 (26,326) 61.9 (20.7%) 413,475 55.6 353,297 $7.1 479

27 963.469 656,632 78.5 530,430 (26,849) 745 (20.7%) 455,215 72.4 401,879 73.5 61.3

28 738,365 $58,078 w5 $32,240 (28,434) 284 (20.6%) 421,136 25.5 364,486 25.5 109

28 908,785 638,913 78.4 $26,450 (26,164) 74.0 (20.6%) 466,724 63.8 404,361 70.7 $9.1

30 731,724 $57,300 12.2 $28,700 (25,335) 88 (20.4%) 434,722 66 383,736 66 33

3 793,800 $73,847 32.8 $23,600 (25,315) 28.1 (20.6%) 422,545 24.0 373,262 24.2 96

The Amencan Community Survey provided estimated citizen voting age population (CV AP) data at the block group level ine Special Tabulation All block groups with more than SO of the population in a distnct are included in the analyses.

MOE = Margin of error at 904 confidence ieve!

% HV AP = Hispanic voting age population / voting age population

% HCV AP = Hispanic cauzen vonng age population / citizen voting age population

SSVR = Spanish surname voter registranon (SSVR/VR)

SSTO = Spanish surname nurmout (SSTOVTO) data. starting with 2012. obta:ned from the Office of the Texas Secretary of State

a Population and Voter Data Owais 339

mane eno s lM 14mm ‘ h Vv e ‘ P Page | of 2

with Voter Registration Comparison

SENATE DISTRICTS - PLANS173

Population Total Voter Registration Non-Suspense Voter Registration

District Deviation Total %A &H &H &BH &%O £GeneralElection Turnout Total SSVR TO/VR Tota! SSVR TO/VR

j 68,297 Total: 742850) 666 182 133 B2 25 214 165.816 451,115 43% Se 199,415 43% 415%

842% VAP. $5758) | 704 172 105 275 £26 2012 277,823 38% 38% _ 733%

2 893! Total 802.216} S65 i135 273 WO 46 2014 184,122 442,631 146% “se 395.236 i118 904

110% VAP —s S70.873 | GI? 18 235 347 36 2012 261,21) 410,041 06% 637% 359.367 107% 26&

3 42.688 Total 728459; 709 148 28 274 1.7 2014 150,843 432,215 48% 649% 389,031 48% wae

10 19% VAP. __—-553,726| 736 143 165 27 17 2012 259,006 418.377 44% 619% 37L,.724 43% 61%

4 $4,006 Total 757.143} 624 i$4 199 MO 45 2014 168 S04 461 045 0% 45% 407,747 81% 413%

6 6% VAP _ 558.570] 657 149 i162 39 34 2012 279,141 432.294 714% 646% 378,281 14¢ 738%

5 46,115 Tonal 745032 | 64 i26 222 33.8 58 Dis 163,453 459.775 1224 3S6% 391,812 12.24 41.7%

8.15% VAP. S34628 | 646 I!) 192 29.7 $.7 2012 267,726 418 117% 40% 349,278 115% 76.7%

‘ 191,068 Tol 1002215] 214 108 655 55 34 2014 107.076 4.782 436% 265% 64,978 47% 293%

23.56% VAP. 690.559 254 107 61.) 71.2 33 2012 206 295 389,382 423% 530% 338.879 434% 09%

7 3,650 Tow): 807497) 539 125 250 %9 92 2014 176,706 400509 {38% USE 433,449 139% D8 %

045% VAP. _574.662] S76 114 222 332 92 2012 301,853 386,992 127% 720%

s 893 Total 810.254) S82 109 168 274 145 2014 179,024 489,247 71% %%6% 434,346 11¢ 4124

011% VAP. _ 583.309 | 614 10) 148 46 40 2012 306 204 447,378 66% 44% _382,447 64% 0.1 ¢

Q 3.429 Tol: 807.718] S19 14: 262 397 &4 wi4 153,527 435422 121% 3524 369,657 12.2% 4154

042% VAP __ 576.400 | 364 130 226 353 4&3 2012 200,958 | 398,049 115% 656% 332,959 se 84%

0 9,145 Total 820.292} 469 195 23 482 49 wis 178.864 456059 139% 92% 398 862 42¢ “48%

L13% VAP 593518} S22 i182 282 429 49 2012 285.255 $13,324 135% =—990% 353,753 136%

1! -39.007 Tora! 772.140) S45 137 22 ms 75 wi4 164,164 476.314 iS5S% 65% 422,903 1S7% BAe

481% VAP. __ 564.097 | 582 130 222 349 69 2012 277,603 445.294 150% * 381.614 1S0% 727%

2 -29,835 Total i312; 62 89 198 M2 76 2014 167,$32 474,212 97% 3334 408.853 o8e 410%

168% VAP. S$60464/ 677 4&2 170 2%9 174 2012 285,434 427,936 90% 67% 368,315 89% 115%

3 106.87) Tow: 918018 | 168 398 357 45 §7 2014 148,682 461048 136% 3224 401,147 140% 1

(3 18% VAP. __ 680.964} 199 394 319 6 96 2012 266 941 439341 129% 608% 368.385 13.2% nse

14 ~—s- -$2, 750 otal 758.397} 538 G97 22 m2 480 2014 210. Sa 303.028 I135% 419% 418486 136% 034

4 SO% VAP. $86,571 S82 89 254 338 £0 20:2 129% 653% 375.716 128% %2¢

is 61.995 Tow: 873.142) 324 230 43 624 $2 2014 147.930 446 669 97% 331% 399,881 20.0 & 370%

7. VAP. __ 623,663 | 369 22) 31 577 55 2012 261,545 417,004 187% 627% 361,640 183% 23%

6 46,067 Tots! 899214] 471 114 325 430 99 2014 174,805 461529 7% 379% 400.046 118% 4374

5.93% VAP 643992] S2i 107 276 30 99 2012 289 471 434.354 109% HEE 372,183 10.8% 778%

17 14.248 Total $25 395 44 #151 232 77 179 2014 182,257 49) 524 13.0% Wie 435,279 130% 419%

176% VAP.__ 611.296] 475 140 212 347 178 2012 303,078 453450 126% 668% 394,029 124% 169 %

5 -51.920 Total 799227} S31 105 46 444 25 2014 167 824 470.333 223% i357 424,549 234 95%

640% VAP. 558,055 $77 98 W4 399 24 2012 274.002 445 218% 616% 393,618 216% 96%

19 44,003 Tol: 767.1446) 524 113 327 433 £943 2014 156,636 46932 184% U7 365,688 18S 418%

542% VAP. _—‘$6 S73 103 24 383 44 2012 174% n1¢

2% 115,454 Tot: 926601) 167 20 83 819 14 14 120,403 451.799 718% 266% 405 048 274 297%

14.23% VAP. _ 638.985} 197 2! 770 9 5 2012 210,525 400950 08% 489% 367 464 119% 573%

For techeecal reasons, election renuits in Texas Legrsiative Council reports may vary slightly from the offictal election results Complete official resuits for ai! clechons are mauntmned by the Office of the Texas Secretary of Stase

—-

Ee teal

73 G@rie2Ns2 «MPM

with Voter Registration Comparison

SENATE DISTRICTS - PLANS173

Population Total Voter Registration Non-Suspense Voter Registration

District Deviation Total GA &B &H &BH %O General Election Turnout Total SSVR TO/VR Total SSVR TO/VR

21 63,402 Tota): 874,549 7.1 64 756 813 16 2014 117,856 451444 (2% 26.0 & 403,651 65.4% 29.2%

782% VAP. 59 20 64 723 78.2 18 2012 212,398 414,568 Alt 51.2% 364,111 65.1% 58.3%

22 -72,059 Total 739.088 26 %$ess 172 25.5 19 214 162,343 443,377 81%@ 46% 393,352 80% 413%

-§ 88% VAP. $54,640 758 82 142 22.3 19 2012 263,566 _ 422,333 75% 614% 371,193 74% 710%

23 W697 Total 910 B44 141 379 444 81.5 24 2i4 139,235 456,667 209% 05% 404,335 218% M4E

12.29% VAP 642.214] 202 38.3 394 77.2 2.6 2012 257,991 429435 WO Gi% 37S Al4 20.8 & 68.7%

24 103,834 otal 707,313 67.8 95 207 29.6 2.6 2014 148,27) 411,945 14% 60% 352,336 113 42.1%

12. 80% VAP. $36,656 72.2 $84 172 25.2 26 2012 244 857 399,389 O08 & 613% 338,963 10.6 & 122%

2s 947 Total: 711,200] 583 51 330 37.5 42 2014 198,774 493,233 219% 03% 424,503 220% OBS

12.32% VAP 5 620 46 297 339 41 2012 __ 306,826 | 452,315 209% 678% 381,510 206% 80.4 &

26 8,989 Tota): 802,158 212 8.1 684 75.5 33 2014 116,556 413,475 556% 282% 353,297 sv1i& 30%

111% VAP- 589 248 76 648 71.7 35 2012 207,989 388344 55.3% 536% 320,973 36.6% ARR

27 152,522 Toul. 963,669} 152 14 824 834 14 214 117,670 455,215 724% 258% 401.879 735% 29.3%

18.80% VAP. 656,632 | 189 13 78S 796 16 2012 _ 204,557 424,763 _710% 482% 361,128 23% 56.6 &

24 72,782 Total. 738.965 S73 62 M9 405 21 w14 131,040 421,136 255% u1% 364 486 235% 60%

4.97% VAP. 558 618 57 WS 36.0 2.2 2012 240,944 410.33) 9% 587% 349,318 246% 69.0%

29 97 638 Total 908,785 145 35 811 83.8 1.7 2014 99,159 467A BEE 212% 404,361 70.7 & Use

12.04% VAP 638,913 69 33 84 812 1.9 2012 202,763 415,480 686% 488% 704% S74%

w» -79,423 Total: 731.724 755 68 148 21.3 32 2014 130,291 434,722 66% wW0e 383,736 66% 40%

979% VAP 557,300 25 63 122 18.3 3.2 2012 251,039 415,952 60% O44 383.934 S8& 109%

31 17,847 Tota): 793,600} 548 S54 376 426 2.7 2014 127,897 422,545 w40€ WI 373,262 wU2& MIE

-2.16% VAP. 573,847 999 49 2328 37.5 2.7 2012 237,139 404,586 22.7% 586% 351,115 22.6 & 675%

technica! reasons, election results in Texas Legisiatiwe Councs! reports may vary slightly from the official election results Complete official results for a)! elecnons are mauntained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of Sue

R = Spanish surname voter regrstrapon

App. 21

Tenas Legislative Counc!

3900 Comms District Population Analysis with County Subtotals a)"

a SENATE DISTRICTS - PLANS174 —

Total State Population 25,145,561

Total Districts Required 31

Ideal District Population 811,147

Unassigned Population 0

Districts in Plan 31

Unassigned Geography No

Districts Contiguous Yes

Population --------Deviation--------

Total Percent

Plan Overall Range 470,789 58.04%

Smallest District (25) 628,257 182,890 -22.55%

Largest District (6) 1,099,046 287,899 38.49%

Average (mean) 811,147 72,98) 9.00%

PLANS174

SENATE DISTRICTS - PLANS174

40357

[pssiseesscrnseimserasen

SFP SsrPnsz=sstRSrradesear*Serae-s

EAPEEEE A EEE ET EE Et PEEP EEE EEE

pmeciceensianti 35330833

MAH-RECTHOAM Err encore we-aeenrteneonm

i ae Seer Sees rake eee aaeee a

¢eoun @

Sess fess cals Zs SeAe essen ese ns sz

pouesoemn if

165 Secretary of State

— —— i we

W82,665

530430 |

585,815

514,930

$47,770

$66,670

$78,610

Al?) date at the block group Jevel in » Speceai Vatulanoa. Al! block groups with more than SO% of the population un a dustnct are included in the analysis

Cie SAP MOE

(25,962

(2,006

(26,242)

307,570 (25.891)

$6 508

26,058)

409,695 25. 4K)

6,105)

25,669)

#5809)

25,785)

494,085 (96,332)

476.175 (2$,605)

523,310 (26,268)

(225.904)

( 2 (nee)

(25.997)

(26,460)

(6,592)

(46,338)

(25,627)

(26,097)

(26,087)

(25,516)

(26,624)

(26,848)

(25,957)

(26,104)

(25,448)

(25.489) |

2, obtamed from te Office of the Te

Population Non-Suspense Voter Registration

District Deviation Total %A &B %H &B8H %O General Election Turnout Total _SSVR_TONVR Total SSVR TOME

! 68,297 Total: 742850] 666 182 133) M2 21 2014 165,816 451,115 43% 368% 399.415 43% 415%

8.42% VAP. _ 557,581 | 704 172 105 275 20 2012 277,823 |__ 429.82! 38% 646% 378,81) 38% 73.3%

2 22,583 Tol: 833,730) S65 131 273 B99 36 2014 161,948 462.169 1S% 350% 413,006 nae 392%

2.78% VAP. _ 592,48 |] 616 i119 252 347 36 2012 272,98) 427,124 105% 63.9% 375,034 10.6 % 128%

3 60,980 Total: 750.167) 710 i145 129 272 #18 2014 156,74) 4463479 49% 1% 401 50S 49% 904

7.52% VAP. | 738 $40 106 25 17 2012 268,251 431536 45% 622% 383,183 44% 70.0 &

4 -75,712 Toul: 735435] 420 $57 181 we 36 2014 162,606 446913 81% 34% 395,273 8.2% aie

933% VAP. $41.793 | 652 153 163 313 35 2012 269.896 419,135 TA% 644% 366,822 14% 73.6%

5 98,356 Total: «712,791 | 666 82 MP WS 48 2014 ~ 183,696 4599641 109% 400% 403,118 10.8 & 456%

12.13% VAP: __ 525.856 | 702 77 178 253 45 2012 283.200 | 419402 103% 675% 361,710 10.0% 78.3%

6 287,899 otal = 1,099.046] 238 109 622 725 39 2014 125,382 457.993 06% 274% 411,977 416% wW4e

35.49% VAP: __ 763.138 | 280 107 $76 678 42 2012 40.4% 624%

? 45,871 Total: 765,276] SS.) 120 242 356 93 2014 135% 412%

5.66% VAP. ‘547 $88 110 215 320 92 2012 123% 78.1%

y -$0,878 ol «= _ «760,269 | S88 109 158 643 149 2014 68% 412%

6.27% VAP: 548.346] 619 10) 139 237 144 2012 6.1% 80.4 &

~ $4,469 Total: 865,616] S01 135 289 418 8&1 2014 3.1% 41.1%

6.72% VAP: 616452] S48 i125 251 372 81 2012 12.2% 77.6 %

10 (9,145 otal =: 820.292 | 469 195 293 482 49 2014 42% 44.8%

113% VAP. _- 593.518] S22 i182 252 429 49 2012 285,255 413.324 135% 690% 353,753 13.6 % 80.6 %

1h 105,102 Tol: 706,045] 544 138 237 371 BS 2014 14.7% WA

-12%% VAP. 516,005 | S80 132 209 338 8&2 2012 14.0% 724%

12 -53,199 Tow! 757.948; 640 89 197 M3 77 2014 98% 41.0%

4 56% VAP. 544.393 675 83 170 250 75 2012 9.0% 77.6 &

13) 87,3391 Total: 898478) 157 405 MI 756 &7 2014 ‘ 42% 36.7 %

10.77% VAP. __ 663.359 |_ 185 404 323 719 96 2012 257,916 3 130% 5% __358,337_ 13.2% 72.0 %

14-116, S00 Tot: 694647) Si2 104 WS 45 83 wi4 187,224 451.426 144 4154 372,937 145% 30.2 %

14.6% VAP: __ 539,158 | 559 95 267 358 83 2012 268.450 415.341 138% 646% 335,191 13.7% 80.1 %

1S 61,995 Tow! 873,142) 324 230 403 624 52 wI4 147,930 M6669 197% Tie 999,88) 20.0 % 37.0 &

1.4% VAP: 623 369 221 31 577 55 2012 261,545 417,004 187% 627% _ 361,640, 18.8 % 223%

16 = §,823 Toul: 816670) 483 118 WO 413 W4 2014 170,569 47405 110% Wi® 387,527 Noe 44.0%

0.68% VAP. 61414] 530 111 258 366 104 2012 281,985 420,58) 102% 670% 359,919 10.1 % 78.2 %

17-6 3,809 Tow! 747638) 454 153 232 379 167 2014 167,463 447,037 130% 375% 394,993 13.0% 424%

-7 83% VAP. _557,556| 487 140 212 348 166 2012 277,090 411,561 127% 673% 356,03). 125% 77.8%

18 = -74,671 Total: 736476] SOB 118 346 457 35 2014 155,878 444.926 217% 0% 41,937 219% 8%

921% VAP. _537,161 | S56 110 304 41) 34 2012 257,364 419,600 205% 613 370,729 21.0% 694%

19 = 1,836 Tet! 812983/ S08 94 %3 450 42 2014 168,058 458,021 27% 67% 392,534 22.0 ® 428%

0.23% VAP.__ 907,112.) 556 86 318 400 44 2012 260,190 418,27 9% 622% 353,315 209% 73.6 &

115,454 Tow! «= -926,601 | 167 20 803 819 14 2014 120,403 451,799 18% 66% 405,048 72.7% 9.1%

14234 VAP. 638.985) 197 21 770 29 15 2012 210,525 j 430,950 708% 489% 7465 = =— 9% = 557.3%

For technica! reasons, election results in Texas Legistattve Council reports may vary slightly from the official election results. Complete official results for al! elections are maintained by the Office of the Texas Secretary of State

SSVR < Spanish surname voter regrstration

SENATE DISTRICTS - PLANS174

Population Total Voter Registration Non-Suspense Voter Registration

District Deviation Total &A &B &H &BH &%O General Election Turnout Total SSVR TO/VR Total SSVR TO/VR

21.2 «41,809 Tow): 852.956] 167 56 767 816 1.7 214 117.5% 48637 46H 262% 400,698 e357 + 29.3%

5.15% VAP. 582492] 194 $5 73.7 28 18 2012 210,504 410,878 646% SI2% 361,130 65.6% 58.3%

22 -26,573 Toul: 784,574] 674 106 23 36 21 14 161,114 456882 101% 353% 400,543 10.1% 40.2%

3.28% VAP. 580639] 715 98 168 265 20 12 264,950 437,134 94% 66% 383,549 93% 69.) &

12.29% VAP: 642.214] 202 383 394 772 26 2012 257,991 00% Ble 375,414 20.8 % 68.7%

24 -$1,051 Total: 760,09] 664 125 183 29 37 014 154,726 453,261 99% Mie 385,166 97% 40.2%

6.29% VAP. 567,157] 708 108 154 256 36 2012 261,759 431,920 95% 6% 359,959 9.2% 72.7%

25 -182,890 Total: 628.257) 606 49 39 353 41 2014 184,152 44421 W4H 414% 384,770 04% 479%

-22.55% VAP: __ 473,325 | 642 45 278 319 39 2012 281,696 409,190 _ 194% 68.8 & | 347,091 1% 81.2%

2% = 67,775 Tol: 878.922] 222 86 668 43 34 2014 126,942 450,504 543% 22% 384,385 55.9% 33.0%

8.36% VAP.__646,552 |_259 81 629 704 37 2012 227,543 1) $40 53.9% 348,699 $5.3 % 65.3%

27 152,522 oul: «= «9653969 | 152 «14 824 834 14 214 117,670 455.215 724% 268% 401,879 135% ws

18.80% VAP- 189 #13 5S 96 16 2012 204,557 __ 424,763 710% 482% | _—36 1,528 23% 56.6%

28 4672 Towl!: 806475/ SOR 67 317 38 24 14 144,656 460,587 226% 314% 995,368 226% 46%

OSR® VAP. 611,050] 643 60 276 333 24 2012 __266,304_ 447,310 219% S95 477,922 17% 70.5 %

29 «= s«77,320 Tol: 888.467] 145 36 810 838 #417 2014 _. 96,975 456,555 688% 212% 395,673 70.7 % mit

9.53% VAP. 624.642] 170 33 783 812 19 2012 1 tro RES 0% 34,753 we ~~ 576%

% ~—--§2,942 Tol: 758.205) 754 67 180 24 £32 2014 136,008 450,556 66% 32% 997,873 66% 424

653% VAP. 575.685| 785 62 123 4 32 2012 260,211 430,134 60% * 366,228 58% i &

3 45,849 Total: 856996] 541 54 384 434 25 2014 138,060 458,965 233% WIG 405.382 34% MIG

565% VAP: 620,223] 592 50 336 383 25 2012 255,745 440,759 241% S8O% | _—9R.6B4 38h C8

al reasons. electron results in Texas Legislative Counc! reports may vary slightly from the official election results Complete officia! results for al! elections are maintained by the Office of the Teaas Secretary of State

enish surname voter registration

App. 25

Texas | egistative Council

OM17/1S 11:01 AM

District Population Analysis with County Subtotals

100

2010 Census

$8 0/21/2013 1:29.25 PM

HOUSE DISTRICTS - PLANH358 ete

Total State Population 25,145,561

Total Districts Required 150

Ideal District Population 167,637

Unassigned Population i)

Districts in Plan 15s0

Unassigned Geography No

Districts Contiguous Yes

Population --------Deviation--------

Total Percent

Plan Overall Range 16,513 9.85%

Smallest District (142) 159,541 -8,096 -4.83%

Largest District (61) 176,054 8,417 5.02%

Average (mean) 167,637 4,308 2.57%

PLANH358

TPIS jr UPIAIDAG STWR] 2 9 294 4H ay wey PaUINgS "7,7 UN Aas VHP (O.UOISS) mOwM Aw YwURE , ~ ¢

ae OLVASS) Uouenstdas 12904 awrusns uwueds = y

Sipee uourndod ate Funes varied / woueyndad ade #anos uae Murdsiyg = gy A_|

vourindod 24@ Yunos ; uoneyndod a3e Sano suedsip = gy A

[PA2} 22U2PYUO EAM IF JOU JO UIE = :

“SATPUm 2a Ut POPH ISU! 2ue DUISIp & Ue BoHded ay: Jo ao5 Uy AOU Yat SCnOIE YONIG ITY YoREINER | OATS & UI (>s21 dneZd MONG ayi EEP [dV Ap) YORR)Nded af Fun vaTTID pareuMNs paprrosd faning KHUTENWO? UESLOWY

6 tus S989 z TRO TL fasie) tis ER Ts) OMY #6 £96 UL! £96 BIL * |

roe ree 19FLS ra 06¢°99 (eci=) OR (REST) SRS LL rsa rst 60t £79891 se

SoS reo SHER 179 96 t6 (egies Lg (00'E*) Sor'Lit Lug 968 STI ori ect rm

a? te 07°66 Le RRLOIT (4607) 66 (E277) Syst stl RIS 6ti serzt eC!

sor 6 6f Lina 0 6t OLE 96 (eit) oP fO26'7#) = ORO PT! H St 71°91 1091 7 OC

reo rol tSL'68 WSL 687'L6 (soit) ISL (98877) «SBT PO! Lu 669 171 aSP Li I€

rut ral ree £O (16701 (BEI) Let (L457) OTT IZ! vst 6cL tl 7zo'v9l Of

£6 991 87L°% so £68°901 (aegis) 02 (16677) s9rorl Te tLe! mOeSLI 62

68 otl ti7 46 6vl LL$°90! (seit) fst (11OE*) «Ses Ont 90% 996 LOL tt 091 ¥z

re ara 76668 ov 6PL'66 (zit) SSI (sow'T*) S6T'rOl L6i 9S ELI rRO'O9I tz

is ri 66106 ru $6000 (weit) Srl (O69'2=) OTE'LE ert | ceri 1eerowi z |

06 T6I 6798 €6! S9L'L6 (Beit) Prez (ZENT*) «OST rut IP's! #9 PL! Se

rar vil S798 ou 696111 (erie HEI (€6T) GOT RIE gst iors Sed 79! ec

v6 Psi StL 16 vs! izs"sot (eri rel (6r97F) ODE IIT Lv MCT OTLED! az |

re £9 R99'RL v9 ros "68 (peor) S6 (wets) STS STI ist £68771 NEH 19! cz

rr ro 07 1°86 v9 PSO'Lol (er) FL (62977) SOLIZI £6 8OL UE | OME ZL! 1Z

tr #8 989'L6 06 res 'ROl (eo1F) 17! ‘OS T*) S6E'STI yn psc izi IIR HSI 02

61 vt LS6°SOl ot cou'Lit (eso) rt (SoH T=) =SOLRZI to vay IE! 696° 1L! |

ve ri Ore'eL re OS'68 (eiu*) £01 (fF E+) GOS YT! tri Lie Zt! 8HN'H9! x!

67! get cers 9tz t8S"t6 (SCI=) TR (p6L7*) STN ret $67 171 O8r £91 Li

rr 96 Liss r6 RPS 6 (S1i>) ot! (ETE) ORI HOI Liz 127224 Lev out a

ts it 79€°66 ie Lie ett (S60) 66 (Ss7E*) O699I! set OSr'0r! 6rt'291 sl

os wel LR9LS sett HOT TL (sol=) $9 (2Tee! SRP PL! O17 6cr itl Latest rl

tr v6 791001 r6 ass6ol (60>) f1l (999'T*) SIS ETI 6Si 6z1' Ie! LIg0c! €!

ts rit OSS'6L Pil 7606 (eri=) wel (S9OT*) OAS II $6! WSS6IE tLs'091 zw

zt ss RLBHL ss L87"88 (390) SL {4ss7*) Orrell 6tl 980'871 669° R91 i

09 ara | G80'06 zt AIS [Ol (Sri) orl (€2P T=) ORD: Let RL69It C9O'E9I 0!

wh 97 677°96 Lt 66901 (es) st (C12Ts) «OUP! 69 L6'STI sil 9st 6

re te rem LL tc vee es (mi) $6 (S677) OSPPi! rst Oss eTE RAY I9T .

st tr 6ES 73 tr Eze PS (e90*) ss (OSTF) «Sst rad 967°071 6tO' 191 L

Lt ry TRO'ES €9 Gas 'PS (S60) (8 (SES 7T*) 016601 6ri PSI Ol! KOU 9

rz? : SS ¢ s

se r

os t

rz z

tt j

OLSS %

SSEHAV Id - SLOVALSIG 4S 10H

HOUSE DISTRICTS - PLANH358

ov 168,214 110,865 86.7 92.195 (22,979) 847 (21.5%) 77.414 07 70,012 R16 71

#9 168,659 110,755 88.0 85,015 (£2,934) 847 (21. $%) 76,621 as0 She! 85.7 79.3

4 168,662 108,086 92.1 79,875 (23,099) 89.3 (21.6%) 62.576 a! 54,358 88.5 as

4) 168,776 115,033 80.4 88.365 (22,968) 790 (21.7%) 74,153 72.1 66.879 73.2 63.3

42 167,668 111,699 95.0 84,125 (22,400) 936 (20.9%) 83,124 82.2 16.7% 886 86.7

43 169,564 124,492 598 120,87 (22,893) $9.2 (21.5%) 98,198 S84 87,099 59.4 47.0

aS 174,451 126,713 32.7 125,720 (22,673) W9 (214%) 113,127 25.6 101,899 25.7 169

45 167,604 126,549 30.0 124,330 (23,187) 275 (214%) 114,020 215 95,292 21.7 14.0

46 166.410 118,539 416 94,335 (£2,518) 27.2 (21.5%) 85,709 19.4 72,603 198 143

47 175,314 127,689 126 125,095 (£2,576) 123 (20.9%) 133,922 86 117,555 a6 79

48 173,008 135,585 20.4 127.810 (22.462) 175 (21.0%) 124,964 14.0 105,756 14.1 11.4

49 167,309 144,371 216 130,085 (£3,439) ISS (20.9%) 124,020 19 97,470 118 95

so 166,516 124,252 253 110,735 (22,788) 19.8 (21.3%) 102,884 180 86,194 1s3 12.0

$1 175,709 128,793 36.2 98,320 (22.727) 426 (21.7%) 86,640 %7 70,163 m4 269

$2 165.994 114,146 26.7 111,445 (22,924) 232 (21.4%) $7,770 17.1 84,39! 173 116

33 162,897 127,381 26.8 123,515 (22,792) 248 (21.2%) 108,464 20.7 97,528 20.7 109

54 167,7%6 117,164 176 112.385 (23.320) 178 (21.S%) 95,447 122 16,221 12.2 73

55 162,176 119,755 194 116,635 (22,783) 160 (21.0%) 86,613 129 71,135 12.9 67

56 163,869 123,411 17.8 117,985 (22,622) 142 (21.0%) 93,849 116 79,157 11.5 60

5? 164,418 124,630 13.0 118,140 (22,852) 92 (209%) 97,895 67 87,950 67 3.0

58 169,146 173,826 149 118,105 (22.666) 113 (209%) 95,902 89 86,152 89 44

9 163.609 122,193 15.6 118,030 (22,640) 13.1 (20.08) 87.814 99 74.924 98 41

60 171,429 131,870 18 127.825 (42.616) 9S (20.7%) 109.194 78 96,339 77 32

61 176.054 130,782 106 128,065 (22,722) 7.7 «(20%®) 114,820 55 102,090 5.4 28

62 160,023 122,203 86 }17,530 (22,410) 57 (20.6%) 98,156 40 86.323 39 20

63 167,337 115,634 131 113,605 (22,348) 98 (208%) 110,659 69 96.890 70 46

64 167 588 129,175 166 116,875 (22,745) 11S (20.9%) 99,594 94 84,038 92 $7

65 165,742 124.977 186 109.350 (22,600) 126 (21e) 93,560 95 78.065 96 64

A 172,129 130.796 91 113,390 (22,427) 72 (20.7%) 104,048 49 R89 47 36

67 172,141 126.368 139 111,250 (22,433) 89 (209%) 105,139 67 93,727 be 49

68 160.508 121,847 18.5 112.760 (22.116) 136 (20.7%) 97,854 124 88.443 1a 44

69 160.087 123,063 12.9 117,450 (22.316) 11.1 (20.0%) 92,149 89 84,15! 89 42

70 172,135 117.432 18.9 110.995 (22.630) 110 (21.0%) 111,874 80 99.163 a1 48

7) 166.924 127,097 20.1 123,650 (23,017) 19.0 (20.9%) 94,313 154 79,459 15.4 66

72 170,479 130,771 32.3 123,075 _(#2.618) 290 (21.3% 93,606 248 81,204 24.9 11.2

Amencan Community Survey provided estimated citizen voting age population (CV AP) data at the block group level in a Special Tabulanon All biock groups with more than 50% of the population wm a district are wncluded in the analysis

E = Margin of error at 9% confidence level

'VAP = Hispansc voting age population / voting age population

ICVAP = Hispamic citizen vonng age population / -mzen voting age population

“R = Spanish surname voter registration (SSVR/VR)

UO = Spanish surname turnout (SSTO/TO) data, starting with 2012. obtained from the Office of the Texas Secretary of State

APIS 50 GSRIaRIag WeNa) 9Y 40 BOL SUR WHOLE PoLNRRGO “7707 Giem TEES “HED (ELA; SS) inOUINA SUITES UsURdS - QI SS

(AASAASS) Gournsras cove. awe ysiueds < YASS

voy dad aat du os gaz, wouryndod ae Funes warts Wucdsepy = AWAOH &

uemepidad ade Sunes / douernded ade duuus wedi = av 4H &

1921 SAD UOD 4,06, 18 Oa yO WI = JOWK

\S4ynue oy) Ut PapAjout ave DuRp ew woneIdod 3u jo as URL azoM que scnOsT IDORG By -your}naTL (eDUds FU 24) cnOId GOOG se EP dy ps Gone ae Auues warn paveUnsa paprrosd <auung <yonwiue > UEUEAIY ayy

Tome

Ls 16 tes '6 06 elr ol (eeu7) 972i (ese 7%) sos7¢zt cél LW FI ETC #O!

oot oo 196'LL ssi TLW Le (seit) S6l (16y97*) Spu'RO! 687 oRH TTI ZAM ULI ‘ot

rs #8 6re 06 cs Bee POL (401%) 66 (HL 7=) OHT LOI ir ROS OI ite 191 wi

rl 12z 1€L°89 917 OWO'RL (agiz) C2t (RES TF) 006°S6 U6 06S 171 B7L°SLI sot |

"St tts RELOS ots Wty (seit) PPS (Ie TF) CL RL Ta seers wee ct wm |

37 TBE gongs 19 sww'g (ee i7) 8 Or (RiITF) OLE 1L tr Lew'izi RPA 'OL! for |

1s zs $61°9L cs oto'Re (sis) cat (‘Ste T>) «OSH 9H Ie? OTs-7ZI 91 191 wr}

| ras) | silt GRE'SD aaa SUE'9L (meis) Tr (OLWT) =(OKHTH $7ze moro tH $91 i)

Pst 62¢'OR ‘ecis) ror (997%) OIF L6 tre ie Lil felis! or |

Stl 161'L6 ‘aris To (Lewz*) «6 OEWOT! oz 7Zi' $71 tro. aa)

Ls TRP'SII (‘er SL (OO97T*) «SLB Pll #6 ES6'rlt (80'r9 *h

96 Sitio (mois) tl (ZeLT*) «=L8 TTI csi ile rel 699 891 6

$01 TET OG (sor til ({Iv7Z>) 6SeO'MO! vst P76 elt O16 POE a

rol Sree (Bot) ctl (g0r't=) OS1'96 ez qwse'stl rT 191 SA

06 GAT 10! (seutr rit issrzt) sal rti ist gis Szt rie 291 tf

vet SPi'6a (ser) 991 (M0 CF) §=SS¥ evi #77 res ett 19179! t6

16 97L't6 (sort) 6S tt ‘aps 7Z=) One'oll Soi TS ory (91 ih

Stl L6O°16 (eriz) oft (4e97=) «Seen rat wn'6lt wee 79! 16

OOS €47'7S (mez) 12s (peTZ*) LL NL Lod r99'Sol PRACT O06

le eee wr (erot) £6 (Z66°7*) «= S6R'OTT oe ORe'RII #ENTLI 68

so SPS 6x (Bz I>) EEE (PEO 7) GOLF EOI OR 7z9'Stt 962 091 ae

raz Pele (S217) LET (St7'7*) OzC"HOI L6z Oe'STI fre" Pci iw Ct

ae | 6S0° OO (erie) Leél (466°%>) «SI'S ez SostZi CHUS9l om

$ sz LtZ'16 (BOI*) LHe ‘9107*) «OTN ZO Ise teres qTRT OO! se

697 ett es (eri=) Laz ‘ELO EF) §=$20'PTI Toe ROR ETI OLA L9I re

L£2 9sP'701 (BZ IF) 97 ‘TOV T) §=OLEETI 1 92 6 171 RIB ELI ce

tz £68 U6 (sit e€7e (L727) SIPETI ase 79 RIE rec eyt a }

16€ [ROLR (elt) C7 (06S T#) «= ORE'ROL 49r sPSzi PRY ADI ik }

$08 Lov TR (eris> eo8 (Lee 74) = OS9"9N 198 zor oul HPA TY! On |

wie 650 OR (BSi+) WLI ‘OLL TF) SERBS 6 61 HAE TH RSg'09I 61

iw Ictha (BS 1%) eS (QLr7=) «SZARE ir tie iit 191691 BL

er #09'8L (woe) TH ‘67S TF) «6(OEWO6 v9 ere'sil sac'oot it |

ad) isp os (Slit) Gre (LOS'T*) = SOL ts ‘a8 68e Vil qTsL 6st 9L )

cca ezr'z (Sr it) pee (6897) «Sere #16 607 t01 169661 $é {

PR OCR 06 (Bote Le (SHP'TF) 6 SREIO 9% KOS LSETH ri

“x LRI°L7! (pl i®) Ti) ; ; ; ZAR LZt 61L 991 tL

ASS% ep . . ; dvVA jPiOF DIG

Wolpe. stay 4270 4 asuadsng-uoK BONFISIAIY 4970 4 PHOT

GOP IPT [HIST FTE SHS) O17

SSEHNV Id - SLORLLSIC AS 1OH

Using Census, Z149-2U 19 saAlncinman ROUTAN EIEN 2a et ae ree eee eee eee

HOUSE DISTRICTS - PLANH358

Total V oter Registration Non-Suspense Voter Registration

District Total _ VAP Total &SSVR Tot _ "SSVR &SS1TO

TT) 174,223 122,347 i 103,308 94 92.592 ora a4

110 67.508 13.827 by 74,790 213 67,845 22.3 1s

ii 166.963 118398 25.5 103,410 (22.74) 17 (21.3%) W371 mi 45.512 135 71

112 167.951 126.192 263 97.965 (22,668) 173 tet 4%) 87.455 127 78.464 j28 79

13 171,418 120. #34 26.0 196.080 (22,791; RO tet 3%) 44676 143 79,983 14.5 “s

114 172.330 130.417 24.2 105.540 (22.278) 114 (209%) 97.318 79 R428 77 $2

| ws 175,802 127,352 244 100,70) (22.37%) 16.9 21.2%) 49.403 124 6437 126 79 |

116 171,463 132,523 599 115.470 (22.903) SR? ist 6) aA Re 517 W447 Sux 474

; 47 162 492 117.426 SKM 111.085 (23,035) SKU (2h.7%) ew) Soe T7198 $2.0 405

ite 164,436 116.859 687 106.575 (22.997) 474 (217%) #4366 64 77.035 414 $3

) 49 159,98! 114.477 2.7 106,465 (22,745) SYS (21.6%) 44.659 §23 74,102 535 445

j 120 178,132 124.429 422 114210 (22.965) 379 (21 6%) 9) 39% 19 77,414 326 240

121 174,867 133.224 4 128,905 (27 B66) WO i2h.3e) 114,377 235 OROIR 23.7 143

122 175,184 128.725 278 124.270 (22,576) 267 (et 3%) 129.193 wR 111,743 20.4 173 |

123 175,674 195,763 el 119.990 (22,981; 639 (214%) W).54) 55.0 77,145 62 454

| 4% 174.795 120,593 660 115.090 (23.161) 638 (21 7%) GORRY 4S 78 RSD sO 44»

125 174,549 p2s.18# 69! b15,800 (22.763) 659 (21 5%) 96.004 5397 R3,RO7 609 505

124 169.256 123.014 2648 99.335 (22.751) 19% fx) S%) 94.696 18.7 4 RRA 160 9%

127 163,983 115.865 8! $14,290 (22,879) 1S? (21.2%) 196,125 126 9.216 127 #0

12 172,22! 124.645 250 116.020 (22.88R) 199 (23.3%) 94.995 ja? BS.2)6 18.4 10.7

130 175.532 522.108 7.7 119.770 (22.847) 149 (2t3%) 116,055 117 10 Rak Ink 4

13) 175,227 124,368 41.2 93.535 (22.983) 248 (21.7%) 79,235 199 73.127 20.7 iS

132 172,973 117.666 330 WHASO (23,154) 23 (21 8%) W167 206 86 440) 21.0 127

| 133 171,401 135,423 147 114,530 (22.796) 122 (2h.1%) 106.614 76 94,608 72 52

ze 174,42! 143,575 134 13.08 (42.SRH) 114 (20.9%) 121.376 ao 105.558 77 $9

| 435 172,422 121.136 KS 99.750 (22.933) 21.3 (21.6%, 91,373 1K 41,953 1K6 123

| % 164.376 116.361 163 113,740 (92.79%) iss (28.1%) 107.809 12 G1 BAS 13 “9

, 137 171,079 127.434 $1.5 64.375 (42,377) 25% (219%) 50,649 202 41.0% 20.7 145

' 138 173.089 124.435 413 98.420 (22,701) 220 (o1 6%) «0.595 22.0 72.343 22.9 12.7

i 3 175,733 123,875 8 100.540 (22,776) 23% (21 6%) 91,426 ig? 82,952 192 16

| 1460 170,732 112.332 75.8 64.415 (22.852) 24 (22.2%) 56,097 $7.5 S$) Rae Seo 4s

| 1h 498 113,95) 76 92.390 (22.429) 210 (214%) 74,114 163 63,870 16.5 99

142 199,541 1) 3.26e 380 GI R45 (22,711) 262 (21.7%) 76.482 26.1 65.495 20.8 ii3

143 167,215 113.877 694 M4625 (22.678) S65 (21.9%) 63,772 $43 57,749 555 402

. 144 161,489 108,509 69% 75.78S (22,295) S91 (2h 89) 55.17% ss) 49.196 $6.3 419

|Community Survey provided estemated citizen veaing age population (CV AP) data at the block group ‘evel un a Special Late late® All black group. with more than 50%

in of error at 9% confidence level

mpani voting age population / voting age populztion

Hispanic crtiven suting age population / citwen voting age population

ish surname vette: registratvon (SSVR/VR)

wh surname turnout (SSTO/TO) data, starting wwh 2012. obtained from the Office of the Texas Secretary of State

of the population un a destrict are encluded in the analy vs

Was

“ PRL Ypreeteae A Np Meanewewee wee

’ » ‘ ~~ > rave

Using Census, 2009-2013 American Community Survey. Voter Registration, and Turnout Data

HOUSE DISTRICTS - PLANH358

2010 Census 2009-2013 ACS Special Tabulation 2014 General Flection

Total Voter Registration Non-Suspense Voter Registration

District Avtal VAP % HVAP Citizen VAP MOF % HCVAP _MOE_ Total “SSVR Total “SSVR &SS1O

148 164,574 116.918 6G & a 645 (22.505) 593 (21.8%) 63.226 S49 $6.399 5 43)

} 146 174.485 130.444 273 97.195 22.715) Wad teh i%) RH O13 18 74.790 itt 74 }

| $47 175.473 136.034 312 114.905 (+2.933) 227 (21.3%) 99 WY 16.6 $5,657 17.3 118 |

ian 170,80 125.873 614 GIAIS (22 800) 466 (22 08) 78.432 ang 67.109 any 269

| a9 170,702 121,835 Wk BY2M) (22.957) 234 (21 5%) 8,205 iks 70,927 194 130

L tf 68735 | _120,462 | 2h ff 109.725 _ 22.754) | 134 (21 2%) _ _ 1548S 134 95 S54 a ae

arn of error at YU confidence leve!

= Hispank voting 2ge population / voting age population

= Hispanic catizen voting age population / citizen vonng age populatyon

SO of the Populatvan in a district are wncluced wm the atialy sts

was

ams

(ries aay 8x9 ur po 2

souyesystta sans

mar ye rweug

"tit 3) 4 pm Tyu'tla ou le? ae f Tay g:4jjo 22 deus } i174 GUL ote nig if | ste fuss 4 "i <eredas woUIO ) >" wysttay wxel NSU Was & 2» wero!

bi Sts «ite [iso S38 90 | tile cot — [J #1 om 90 oc em Posciti awa oC)

oT us 983 16 & (Se HO tie! et! @Zl Ge r1or ‘ 2 ¢ 07 t tL 9IT Ast roy iv. rd

»Es9 587 rH EO! % 86S % 27 ersctt Luge c1az a sit to etl dos qRI let AVA DEST

~ Ost BOE LSé6Sol ste HOe LOL Lit So's rhoz 6! fet 1. Gti The | 696 IL! Pog Teer 61

bom Brgy esr rs BT6S B?9 fs ls OIF IS Tiniz FI co cri coi O89 LiWwZe? AVA mr |

Ss 6 bic 9Pi'LL nore BIy OS 6s t7L He ror ‘ cz ror 619! 6 RES HG! ed | istT 4!

%919 SO $9 BL HHS Here Lee vere Zinz Li Lis ee OY ® Tn S67 ITI dVA ear

%8tr % 9&7 teres % 1 ht %Y9%7 tes t6 FL %E PIOz it ° oP Rt Ls hls Oar E9t RO j isir it

5. i | WSL + a9 Bea O1L £461°9¢ 7102 1c t ve 11% ss St irczt AYN Hos 0

» itr 96 Lis ts# % Tie bts ¥FS PH OSI'SE Proz tz 6 OF cst (9 OW Leo wat 820 J (ne 9

»1c8 *OL LPt 06 B9IL oe Pil vol t90'SL cloz zs $i! sti Cte vii her Oz dV¥A »LI0

wot Hit TOE 46 BORE BLL Li6’et! L6t'te P10z ss 961 csi Le 6PL ori Lot PIwoy WRI 5!

» O08 bortl OPT cs %AT9 »4éTZI rrr 99 (kite Ti0z vl Ste Oiz sot ay fir te! dVA Ssoc

+, 8 Ht See Legs Sate Hse WOT TL $9627 rivz 1: GH rrr itl tw Lsityt ea | (srt r!

Bei B98 0096 Sree B43 THE GOL SPS RY tig ZI 9 iz 6$i 6tt Zits Aci ici ‘VA HR. |

4 Ptr %76 791i %» VA Br BSS ADI terete riOr 1 61t Sol #21 859 Livolt moy (WAT €i

iw » i101 679 9L *™009 »HOI wre oe pears C197 eI t me $6) Lol 6% Gos li dvA AT?

% 1 68 *?7 il 955 OL ort Brit TAR 06 long rior a | lt? rie POC Ts bis O09! feu | tH. rl

DSPL &6¢t THL BL Sas »Os O98 SPL SS 2102 i} or 6€i wii 29 Geo etl d¥A ntoO

SLIP HSS Ri RRL BL BSS LRT RR tirze ring Li 6 bt S24i. 682i Feo HAY 89) OL Twi tt

5769 ae i Loo rs % 79 met css 6 SO 8S 102 i} Hid cel ok ets BLAST d¥A *ALT

% 6a » TTI 08006 Ss tt » 17 4is 160t Tw se Prior x vif tit 6 0.9 a aah mol tis? ot

BEEL BTT tt. 06 “~ts9 SEZ £t6 (0! cis 99 T1007 ri t sz 49 988i Zee ira scl d¥A HS 0

BLE »9T 6t7 96 ®LSt ™LT 6$6 DO! SOU RE rlo7z $i z az 16 +6i & fe sie WI mel #16 6

5S 149 »LY rH GL “% 209 bd Ore'ss LAR TS TI $1 tit esi 6S!) ly Mssect d¥A vit f

%67 BEL PHB LL % Uke Bel Tee LR Orb ee rior yt Het ss asl ry ae (9) wh aLs¥ s

Bil wRE TRL LL %ee9 HAE TES 4 PAT LS T1NZ iz WLZ Tit 691 04 96707! dV¥A rh t

% 7 6t BE? ALS TR ® fet Bt? ez 6 LEZ rinz 4 61¢ i? tsi Oo” 60 19) (Rw L HHS 9 t

6 $d Hes S11 OR %> 89 BLS Oe ee or 09 Z1Nnz eZ Lee 46rl O61 OF9 esti dV¥A bss

% LP HTY Cah es GAL »t9 YRS PA STH SE rin 4 | &t $St O07 Pf 6s sO lB 69 L 7)

%60L BOS 6ST et) BIS 799 $6 TIL'6S TLOZ y! oe7 cki OOS oe! A491 071 AVA “AIT &

wet OdIS Tse ls % Lat BUS $6786 LLO 8 ring | t 87 (at tt ioL t$7U91 POL Prt c >

4669 Od tits > 109 BO9 Wor L6 1 8S Zi0z Oz uz foe 6 6S g/t iwrzi dvA %i° 0

% 0 6% 619 eL7% Srrt o99 Air TH! WZT SE rloz O7 Orr Sei $6 hee AT? RY! ee | Thi t

*€@i » PA 166 64 * 279 » 16 eS6C Lee is cing ez Taz Oz if ‘ey SAS HIT dv¥A *AWK |

% S Rt % O01 rz SATE BH6 #97 ZO! rA9're ring el FTE fet OF 6G ED | SSA Por mod Tao T ¢

%, Th9 =¢tP 16h 9s LAS »tr ii wl 49109 TIO ) re 7 ol Of) ry tis Fier dv¥A Hi’

% 18 »iL? 145 &6 %» ott EH? STi sot CRUG rioz om 4 r6i 971 HL cRL 6ge cll [P10 J Tee 9 c

Sette Sei (LY Fs Hoey 646i $i l6 Inco C107 ec OFZ BS Pel Dee Lo6 SZ! d¥A OND |

“OTF %O07 tZ1 68 % Pit % 17 ORS Ol U6 Lt a Lire Sz L 92 ny toc #0 tT Syl hd wo tigi I

aVOL MASS rel HVOL HASS hi Mousa ys UOtPIAI [F59UI*) O% Hs Hs 4H ¥% ee] UOHRIAqE DUSK

UTP s1St4ay Ja10 4 asuadsng-uoy

WOIPRA SHAY 33970 y [RIOT

SStHNV id - SLOPALSIC 4S 1OH

ee |

arg po Gricia¢ PED] 2G) 49 27LaC) OY! WG PeUIE yew ar su "92/9 TF 404 sapmray res regyt pads ) ow r “2 a SPs +4 eos my INSTT] «Pes eae le

»>LLd Sis ro Re 69 BESS Hin “e's | Sis ee — zt - ** . rv y ae it % Ge § uz ere tcl avall “ite

,ars % oz ties Liz ACE RAL 16 PSE'SZ rio s* ac Sor Rif Hti Tet sci rel sar

499 OCS LwLg9 bres BOTS TeE6d ya Tir nz rie Lt FH BH | cir ezii d¥A ist

orit Sees TOI Pe uPiz »ti%s OSD PR mTEZ eior 61 tsi tw 10 872 (864651 rel WL

"oes * £09 Steric S60 uP AS USO Ts RL Ie 71 al rig im cet iv Ase Yl AVA Si6t

r, OH BP 19 iieaa »% #97 09 wt 98 6rtez loz wi YL Lig VF 2¢2 Wr ty! fe L 1Uz"s

%ii9 BATS (r6e9 SESS BTS tre ri TOL tp Pa lire te iss * eS *y Ute GZici! AVA AYO

% PZ Loe t6lLe % Paz » ROS [66.8 $L6'e7 r107r it t 69 tm oO 9717 TOV RII pw sso

5 02 LPts YO TY Lats HLS L962 tro te ria t¥ +%9 HAS T9 rare re i Ae % Lag Z

SCV Sst tad te Lor9 SIT Lie 8 ite'es 102 et ere wre Lol 8 oF qwst ici dVA kre

» COP &g9T! LEP OL % & Ft % FT tor’os ILL bor 16 La (ec itt tf § 7owtcr fala | soit

oe “69 OFT BL % 1 0L Si TRO EK 9{7'S9 alive is “or ct (9f 4s civ d¥A\ We

4 1 6r BLs Pur rH % STP S6L sit l6 Sree rior vs yr rat Lol ts ceri jess too?

= O02 STI S9l PL SOY % tl tir 7s Semis Tioz ¥i Gtr O9 6il #8 rte oTI AVA £927

us O0L bot! Lt ed % L179 Siti TsOCe LOS 1S cite rz tur 9 rt Lf Tht azi dVA mst 0

om *% ati rer ae i tt ae | sote tre rior zt Soe 9m SSi StF isu! ae | URS

% VFL & VTi Os 08 srw Bill Lars sro Pa tind tt esd Sst POs Giz r6t 81) AVA 40F 0

BOP SSil zis ss oO” Hit 1Lt°s6 Lye’ re rioz 6t CAL S62 OS Lil HW) jews ro

AAS % (0 a.) Hees % +t 61 PSP ic Cnr ae C162 6o CR Sse scr Of LTwetl AVA ROW

Srv % & @ steely S6tTt &t tz WML PL Saal rin Lar <4 iw tor te AOS LYl a | hz!

BOLL %»06 rue se bow hee sit lh e199 7102 91 8 4L oor ris VIZ ieerc dVA bist

Ss ir 596 76s 76 ® Tit uT6 SOE EO! oir ae rior a | SOS 4 2 ey! E77 Li Pwo] vaSY

* eee u& 4it th Se RY » 68 Li? i Orl'469 cinz ts 4 97 $61 L3 Lag LwWetel d¥A EOE

4,9 9R Bt6 tts 16 SLR S06 tir ol 9 cr ring Ts eee viz 8&9 ass te7TE9! feo] re'r-

Biiz Sel t69 el S79 H6tt 4S0 rR iets T10Hz tr tir 680 tt 7s ORO ETI dV¥A BeSz

% oP bod t9A'LL wASE » SSI TL3°L8 WS te rior tr? cus [et L491 SSP cow ict rey ste

#79 HOL 7S 64 56 BEL 16606 8160 Pal tia O49 972 ci TR Fh BY OL; d¥A ht ¢

HOR Ses 6 06 eee “SiS ska rol FIP se rior gf! sot aol 696 rly ith 194 ee | UIs

Oa » 102 Or's9 ®T4 » 66! ASL cA er 7167 te Los Tee 411 OF NbN LT1 AWA "Eke

oo » (22 eos HLIt % Viz OS BL east ba Lia GL eis esr Lzi wt TL $l ew fais

~ I 42s for cs % 66P Sto S84 rae'az Th c it ~@ vwti Csi srOsit d¥A bLoe

% (ez bees PEL oS * 8 IC Hvis ws TY sovet riod rz Loe $e. Uetl 4&1 te. Zit PIO 4 ris

aro HOR tis ir 6” & TR IST SS ire OE 17 6? cé tt 648 vic Lewitt dv hao |

*, O07 ~7 HE wUR TS % PLT S198 sw19 RIAL 107 ie ce sm fH sl! erect es ligt

HOMl BCoL RAL TL brew »s tievra she SS ridge a! tit i ez St eis ee | Ava “mae

uot? 5cR Ss4l9z % TM “78 wUSe OSvee ring sm iit iazt os tut ay 7 abe | ns

Eel oe | Sor RS 5919 Sti mss 69 ria ce < (0€ 71 6&8 > Zt Wit SA AOC OI! dv Sic

St ot 5Sii DRE SD % £467 »TL1 sor SL Ziv zz rho iti >¥ cH Cet vse two ral riot LAT

4AVOL MASS ae YVOL WASS wt noUIAL UOT ap 4 [esate OO», HD Hs >» Vs te Gone

UONRS SAY Jaye y asuadsng-uoy LONBISTIay Jap 4 RIOT uonrpodog

SSEHINV Id - SLORLLSIG TS OH

wire

sh 23 ™m Yu . WASS

TIS FO A MPIDIIG -Peay ay} S00) EE ey) PDO YOU sae say M2 TP 9g sugMsas pe ceyge oeeidure ) wT . vm ME ‘4 vr 3 imbou wp ane Fay weer, at ay mee ie 2 i

—_——_ —_ —_—_--————— 1 —_——_— -—-_—_—_——— — — — ~--—— - ~p- nr ey __— — —_ —

"OK Ho mole Ss >t Hiss MT us OO Pe — * Od we t oN ASL ttt t eth dV \ SOs |

WAALS » 6 8 REH'IS ft b> is fh Ys Loy ria? 61 + 6M te it $s weit rey Sea) + |

Sa Boil CHR SA Evo Pil i wee ucts 710 BS Pon ese Ct fil Sis EC d¥AT, “ier

bt tt bT 6! Tya'cs » iit sont OTF 16 PLP RZ rio i$ con 6h RIP Oi tei sal Pw] ws ot

hbo Sor cru eS 6 az Let ol Silly 7 MK aol » 4? ‘it a hy i dV¥A bec t

Hat % OCT tre Te hee » witz shs O% rie g7 roo? tot aes ‘ew <eé em asec jPw] cT?'s We!

LA 6466! BST OR HOLS »66l Thee tae Sz rain ae 969 sts i 6! wat tee ict d¥A sor

% > Uf 6i0¢ ou it ere » T07 ore ny try Tl elor 901 =Ftl $s 491 4I 6l7 iL! emg itr crt

Cum Sol I>? Us 0.9 * iol 94.96 RAR PS rallye I tte oI ts ko im OT! AVA Deh |

& or "+ sue 16 oH STH PLO! PLE he riz 96 Kec oBi fd) 6LW | MEI pring ive t mt

SELSL cil a raya »L59 BTL oes thl ss 7i0z tcl OF out OT SI tr 7 MIT dVA “NT

bao Hoel too [8 Ube Hv sl tLe 6 ri7'O¢ ior 6tt cir ett to #0P tip ele B10 4 our set

ees | ee rune » 92z Bee Ree SUT BRA LE cloud 9! t wi et! cs tou sisetl dv »SOF

HTS Hie Nos sul 5 >t 408 S.e"Irt 100 es e1or az tal ret 6¢s se ive tcl ewe tag hi

Oets 6o9 Tr) 68 ards BEL th tO! Tex raz wit rte ivi 3668 39 cr sel d¥A ‘577

» OOS HTL SH St? BOL rig@wl e'Le Plog tii ose Ov $6 *Ty twit cs | tL: ti!

hvte Sso4l eT he “_¢ we ht el Soe Lk {pars TiO * a 3 Oe ‘ vr we cit dV A MT

Pw SO iz UP? Ws = it » oR ow NUP IC ror s Or Tw” sri ey fie cil Wray Wis |

ores 596! S86 ES SO6S »o8t rate OOF ter c1oz 6c La’ cit fcr 36 WE 1Th AVA tA T

» th %i eqilé % ook b#6l sit he 677 te? rluz *¥ —! Str OF =. iz sit wey mc it

bt 6 5901 rte es Sits aii SIT 66 Les 0e hd ling O. t$z i2t 2 *i¥ wicc d¥ A Silt

bt tr HRI pre Onl Seay hit soot sro ir riz Te ey ier o¢8 ~ tS od JPw ys SORE nt

Hr 9 HEE Oe SS »19 Sett T1066 EOS” ra lind ttl Gee tor Of th Lorin | AVA Hike

u TTP Sse PAS £6 Hii Stet ORO POL Lts ht rik tz ice cit 4 sss Zi Pil rere mero 41

SOL % 69! Lin ee oS 7S #91 STL 04 tel 9s hd ting te we Ost 6 (9 stv eri d¥A “Ait

% 7 eral aiToe sit a sot PH LtwOr Pho ti ny ist 66 ct ¥ Tra7e aad & riser etl

SRLL SSsil DIS mR soe Sv rnin tecu9 rating cf Sit ivi #2 to Sue ST! d¥A\ Sal c

24 oe ae O10 bse »9z STroot Lee OP por ve mim soz itl ot tae tol mre | rue iz

6 9SL Sel WELL HLw® sae ops tee es ric sit i of 9° Ott iit riecl AVA bL60

» F AC 599 GRE TS HP st Hest nr Tor FE ria ii ise cmH St! te WT H9! we] ogi at

ear SPH WN Le Pes S96 etl it Lous? cidg ct 5 #2 (so Af ti SSi scl AYA “cir

me we S46 Lowes » TRT » 16S a) QL 12 balira ive ou ttt €5 rie ors til jewoy fl6% oct

n6s9 b>OK treo SESS Hoss seas rt dtc uw FS red tis Ni d¥\ bi: v

Son boss rw ez ‘sor nSK eee 08 t OL 909 OF HHI Shi tL [mw] ee in

59.9 Hoes iwc bess »1Ss SLA SS 9: ro + st viz t¥c St! dVA hoc?

Owes Stes shld 2 a bose irs06 re rr vol oof ser ri9 SLi (Pwo] anes ict

988 % 161 Liteon “itd Pol Sri 9! ‘9 ¥ it Sit ome +9 sci WT! AVA “1%?

Os oe Bid ere iti » wet » 87 thi oct 59 Wet im tf Los | PHI Se (rey chs 1 ic?)

sor bOT 4it if Ha. boc ATP ei r [it tit Cc BMS rc ttl dVA Hite

u9ur eats 8186 » Or HSte fie Pil ce om 99% 89 iS | (pr! [rie] me. ici

HVOL MASS mer MVOL MASS fey oO» 45 HY @s Vv’ wey wonFriag DUI

uo es Nay sap y asuadsag- uly

VOHRA STI 1910 4 [PHO D voneyndog

SSCHINV Id SLOULESIC 4S WOH

a on beeen SHCMEI VOT DS AAe fee 8 free cn

Lose GONE EET at 1b. QUEENS QerUmety

WES PY APM NG SENSE Aye He aT) My | [Pah aut Keays P40; Sipmeay yorryp areluto D HeINnd Wicd ned fy ve gger Sag cue sg A mgs Aor. Cr agains pe vue pone redo y COWIE Ue ogy! COEDS “SeEO DE [hae

5 OAL beri Pray | soo sit Git | wee tier CTY] OSCE th Oe Te = eee

Sir hoe PSs $6 SOR a a Ser sol STA RE blur 0% GLb Neco rl sey sec eur mie! wet st

srw Sci8l sis'9 Ss » eet CONSE OT ee toe ¢iz tis Sit Fel +O Sts ict AVA hen

nao bol THO % €iz Heel SOT OR few it ring ror 6 18 LM %I9 Wil Tm On! meg sare ol

sro >t ir iy t9 BTW a sor M1 O08 OF Pa lind sc riy 119 #94 nor tie STi dV toe |

SOW » aor 401L9 yon » uur Teese ter ee rior tc 8t rw tf sz tiwout ewe] rite ‘rl

— or or 7 OR sz 7 7 ; 7 =

bez »79! WsO'Le les »9S] Th! ores T10? r9 =) tit ORE (47 moo! AWA 516%

bE ®t LSo'ss ®t te | OLR AG tore rior is $ td on C8 BOT iB Sc! PIO] a | itl

»9t ® 108 TPL 49 5609 S66 Shope Ore Is 710g rol TH tig dee t6i erry | d¥A hoor

% hu sit OFL FL » 77 eo tle 98 1L6°L7 rin T6 sh Ol re oN cer'rc! | a a |

Uses ety HRI TS » 90S bres or o9 Tore. Ting is au 369 FL Hl IO OI dv ore

% 1 RZ neues AL US % | Sz Lor reo ose’si rioz tt im 6 fhm IkLCOnG PLS Pvt (ee | rout Pl

HOss HES LO6' St » Ost OTS SOF PS ha a ae Tine ti led Reo 8 O62 | Hos BOI AWA St ¥

% re? SEK 861 6P Swit » SS RLUSS aiotl rior tt se ot: Fr 4 OU? 6S 191 mop Wii's rr

40S Sets x96 Ps » 10S HOLS ORC sere 7102 eI <8 Pred FEL Of Lewel d¥4 UST O-

4% 987 bSss Ori is % VE? hits Ties ine rto7 | Sse Tei ttt OC Siv'co [ewe ae tel

58a % 16! rece be AS PR reo id Lordy Ttoz sc | 6 OSt tr FM WAT EL AVA LAS?

Si tt Ss or Ste Ry % 167 » 10 caro Lit@ rio ri S$ is Set arr 19) IPS Osi rary Oral & tri

bOn9 Ses! OMT 9s uso wT ATO Hy ~~ ra tira 9? 5 oN 9. OO BOI Isé'rit AWA hwo

% 147 se a9 % 1 sz HE Ol rire set rior tr a. ed Rar 99! (PIOL oer tet

4VOl MASS were. NVOL WASS mer wnowsNR = WON ayy fRiauary OD HOY Hs 45% Ws moe Goneied, pus

WOUR Soy 4910 4 asuadsang- Hoy WOLRIISHaY Jal0 4 [MOL tonendog

SSEHINV Td ~ SLM sia 4S0H

wostuedio) VONRASITZIY Jay0 4 WW

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.