WPC/ KjK:SߧQWd -ѫ?W^o'2 6l.`GCL2@:b  fs+s"(5 <WKv'6b27S _ = 8^r& $pFߣwzow 4nА:!6ik- 1u. 72{. 7..V.HP LaserJet 4P/4MP PS0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,m4 RA33|x U*+ (_2623  ..(O$($$  0  (.3Ly$ !USUS.,    0  .  Ly%USUS.,  2  .  _ԀProbablyhisbestknownlawreviewarticleisPublicSafetyorBillsofAttainder?,WestLos  "\ AngelesLawReview,Vol.35,2003.4> : O  5  6 O  7 :1http://www.constitution.org/col/psrboa.htm "H AlsoseefurtherlawreviewarticlesbyJonRoland: $  _Mansfieldism_ԀReconsidered,http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=776227 &! Presumptionof_Nonauthority_Ԁand_Unenumerated_ԀRights, (# http://www.constitution.org/9ll/schol/pnur.pdf l)$     X(9 Z(Times New Roman  C Ly%USUS.,  1  .  _ԀDiscussedinTheMetaphorofStandingandtheProblemofSelf-Governance,byStevenL.  Winter,40Stan.L.Rev.1371,July,1988. l http://www.constitution.org/duepr/standing/winter_standing.htm*J+J (_25   2(a a  iq!y)"223  ..2(a a  iq!y)"2   *;+; (_24  /%  iq!y)"/23  ../%  iq!y)"/  *8+8 (_23 ` ,"  iq!y)",23  ..,"  iq!y)", ` *5+5 (_22  )i iq!y)")23  ..)i iq!y)")  *2+2 (_21  &q!y)"&23  ..&q!y)"&  */+/ (_20 h #q!y)"#23  ..#q!y)"# h *,+, (_19   qq!y)" 23  .. qq!y)"  *)+) (_18  !y)"23  ..!y)"  *DD (_17  8. a  iq!y)"823  Ԁ8. a  iq!y)"8  *JJ (_16   2(a a  iq!y)"223  Ԁ2(a a  iq!y)"2   *;; (_15  /%  iq!y)"/23  Ԁ/%  iq!y)"/  *88 (_14 ` ,"  iq!y)",23  Ԁ,"  iq!y)", ` *55 (_13  )i iq!y)")23  Ԁ)i iq!y)")  *22 (_12  &q!y)"&23  Ԁ&q!y)"&  *// (_11 h #q!y)"#23  Ԁ#q!y)"# h *,, (_10   qq!y)" 23  Ԁ qq!y)"  ()) &_9  !y)"23  Ԁ!y)"  (DD &_8  8. a  iq!y)"823  8. a  iq!y)"8  (JJ &_7   2(a a  iq!y)"223  2(a a  iq!y)"2   (;; &_6  /%  iq!y)"/23  /%  iq!y)"/  (88 &_5 ` ,"  iq!y)",23  ,"  iq!y)", ` (55 &_4  )i iq!y)")23  )i iq!y)")  (22 &_3  &q!y)"&23  &q!y)"&  (// &_2 h #q!y)"#23  #q!y)"# h (,, &_1   qq!y)" 23   qq!y)"  &)) $_  !y)"23  !y)"  0]].Normal  8. a  iq!y)"8XXX8. a  iq!y)"8  <i+l :Outline001_1  X 5+  a  iq!y)"523  ..  8. a  iq!y)"8  <f+l :Outline001_2   2(a a  iq!y)"223  ..  8. a  iq!y)"8  <`+` :Outline001_3  8. a  iq!y)"823  ..8. a  iq!y)"8  <`+l :Outline001_4  ` ,"  iq!y)",23  ..  8. a  iq!y)"8  <]+l :Outline001_5   )i iq!y)")23  ..  8. a  iq!y)"8  <`+` :Outline001_6  8. a  iq!y)"823  ..8. a  iq!y)"8  <W+l :Outline001_7  h #q!y)"#23  ..  8. a  iq!y)"8  <T+l :Outline001_8    qq!y)" 23  ..  8. a  iq!y)"8  <`+` :Outline001_9  8. a  iq!y)"823  ..8. a  iq!y)"8  ........(35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.7.1.\  `&Times New Roman3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a):i)7.1.http://www.constitution.org/col/psrboa.htm !USUS.,  _3 b u&9!X3 X88  INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  FORTHEEASTERNDISTRICTOFTEXAS  MARSHALLDIVISION   LEAGUEOFUNITEDLATIN ` AMERICANCITIZENS,ETAL.0 h 0h#h#L ## vs.0  0` ##0 ` #` #0 # #0h##0h#h#0##CIVILACTIONNO.2:03-CV-354$ t## RICKPERRY,ETAL.0  0h##0h#h#0##Consolidated L ##   APPLICATIONFORLEAVETOFILEPETITIONININTERVENTION  $  ;  Applicantsubmitsthisinterventiontosupplydeficienciesintheargumentsmade,and   expectedtobemade,byotherlitigantsthatfailtoproperlyaddresstheconcernsoftheUnited p StatesSupremeCourtinitsremandofJune28,2006.Thatremandwasaninvitationtopresent H standardstotheCourtbywhichitcoulddecidewhencongressionaldistrictmapsaredrawnina  p mannerthatispartisantoadegreethatmaketheconstitutionalissuesjusticiable.Applicant H presentssuchstandardsthat,ifadoptedbytheCourt,canleadthewaytoendingthecorrupt   practiceofgerrymanderingaftermorethan200years,andentirelyremoveundueorexcessive  partisaninfluenceontheelectionofmembersoftheU.S.HouseofRepresentatives.  JonRoland,in_propria_Ԁpersona $X" 7793BurnetRoad#37 $D # Austin,Texas78757 %0!$ Telephone:(512)3749585 &"% Email:jon.roland@constitution.org '#& July12,2006 )$(   h+&*    INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  FORTHEEASTERNDISTRICTOFTEXAS  MARSHALLDIVISION   LEAGUEOFUNITEDLATIN ` AMERICANCITIZENS,ETAL.0 h 0h#h#L ## vs.0  0` ##0 ` #` #0 # #0h##0h#h#0##CIVILACTIONNO.2:03-CV-354$ t## RICKPERRY,ETAL.0  0h##0h#h#0##Consolidated L ##   GRANTOFLEAVETOFILEPETITIONININTERVENTION  $  > LeavetofilePetitioninInterventionisherebygrantedtoJonRolandinthiscase.   _____________________________________________0 p __________________________ \p#p# Judgepresiding0 0 # #0h##0h#h#0##0p##DateHp#p#   6        8XXdd8INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  FORTHEEASTERNDISTRICTOFTEXAS  MARSHALLDIVISION   { LEAGUEOFUNITEDLATIN ` AMERICANCITIZENS,ETAL.0 h 0h#h#L ## vs.0  0` ##0 ` #` #0 # #0h##0h#h#0##CIVILACTIONNO.2:03-CV-354$ t## RICKPERRY,ETAL.0  0h##0h#h#0##Consolidated L ##   PETITIONININTERVENTIONOFJONROLAND  $  AJonRoland,in_propria_Ԁpersona   7793BurnetRoad#37   Austin,Texas78757   Telephone:(512)2995001 p Email:jon.roland@constitution.org \  Summary  p  Inthispetition_Intervenor_,acitizenoftheStateofTexas,willoffer: H   1.AstandardofproofbywhichtheCourtmaydeterminewhatisandisnot   constitutionallyimpermissibleadoptionofdistrictmapsfortheU.S.HouseofRepresentatives.    2.Argumentthatitisnotthemapspersebuttheintentandmethodofcreatingand  adoptingthemthatmaybeinviolationoftheConstitutionandVotingRightsAct. X    3.Argumentthatthemanualrevisionofafewofthedistrictsofthe2003map,evenifdone 0"  bytheCourt,isjustasimproperasthedrawingofthosedistrictsinthefirstinstance,andthatonly $X" anewmap,producedbyanewmethod,iscompliantwithboththeConstitutionandtheVoting %0!$ RightsAct. '#&   4.Argumentthathoweverdefectivemightbethe2003map,itistoolatetoreviseitforthe )$( 2006election,andtheCourtshouldadoptanewmethodforproducingmapsforsubsequent h+&* elections.    5.Amethodforproducingmapsforsubsequentelections,thatsatisfiesthestandardof  proofofferedandalsotheU.S.SupremeCourtinitsdecisionofJune28,2006.  x  ` Standing 8   Inthisandsimilarcasesthecourtshaverecognizedcitizensorvotersofastateashavingstanding  ` tochallengelegislativedistrictmaps,and_Intervenor_ԀappearsasacitizenoftheStateofTexas.  8  However,corporateentitiesotherthantheStateitselfshouldnotbeconsideredtohavestandingin   theircorporatecapacity,and_Intervenor_Ԁmovesthattheyberestyledby_prepending_Ԁ Texas   Membersofor Residentsoftotheircorporatenames,toemphasizethispoint.  p    Litigant_intervenors_Ԁhavebeenarguingthiscaseasthoughtheyareassertingaproperty H rightinthedistrictmaps,buttherecanbenopropertyrightindistrictmaps.Theirstandinginthis  p casemustbebasedontheancientprincipleofhavingtherighttoprivatelyprosecuteapublicright, H andthatmayrequireustoreexaminetheprecedentsetin_Frothingham_Ԁv.Mellon,262U.S.447   (1923).   $  1        Background     Thiscasehasemergedasacontestbetweentwogroupsoflitigant_intervenors_,one X  supportingtheMapof2003,gerrymanderedinfavoroftheRepublicanParty,andtheotherthe 0"  undoingoftheMapof2003andareturntowhatwemaycalltheMapof2001,whichis $X" gerrymanderedinfavoroftheDemocraticParty.Nowtheelectionof2004hasalreadybeen %0!$ conductedusingtheMapof2003,andmembersofCongresselectedfromdistrictsofthatmap. '#&   Attorneysforthelitigant_intervenors_ԀopposingtheMapof2003madecogentarguments )$( againsttheMapof2003intheirfilings,butthoseargumentsapplyequallywelltotheMapof h+&* 2001.    InitsdecisionofJune28,2006,theU.S.SupremeCourtoffereddiverseopinions,mostof  whichexpresseddissatisfactionwiththecourseofthiscase,butamajoritycouldbeassembled ` onlyonthenarrowfindingthatDistrict23ofthe2003mapisinviolationofthe dilutionclause 8  oftheVotingRightsAct,andonthatbasisremanded.However,itisnotpossibletoredrawjust  ` onedistrict,andanyredrawingofjustthedistrictsadjoiningDistrict23,whileitmightreducethe  8   dilutionofHispanicsinthatdistrict,canonlydosoby dilutingthoseadjoiningdistricts,and   thatwouldalsobeinviolationoftheVotingRightsAct.Therefore,theonlywaytocomplywith   thatActistoredrawtheentiremap. p   Thepresentsituationisthatbothmajorpartieshavealreadyconductedtheirprimaries,and H theminorpartiestheirdistrictconventions,basedonthe2003map.Nofundsareappropriatedto  p holdnewprimaries.Nomineeshaveraisedfunds,filedreports,mademediapurchases,rented H officespace,andotherwisecommittedtothe2003map.Asloatheas_Intervenor_Ԁistoarguein   supportofrelianceinterestsinaconstitutionalcase,heseesnoremedyatthepresenttimethatis  notworsethancontinuingwiththe2003mapforthe2006election,andwhilehemakesnomotion  onredrawingthepresentmap,willmovetoadoptamethodforredrawingmapsforsubsequent X  elections. 0"    InthepreviousbriefoftheJacksonplaintiffsandDemocraticParty_intervenors_Ԁthedutyof $X" thiscourtandallpartiesisdefinedwellbythecharacterizationofthepositionoftheU.S.Supreme %0!$ Courtinapreviousremandbya majorityoftheSupremeCourtJusticeshavenowheldthat '#& partisan-gerrymanderingclaimsremainjusticiable,allmembersoftheCourthavenowagreedthat )$( severepartisangerrymandersviolatetheEqualProtectionClause,...butthattheplurality h+&*  despairedoffindingaworkablestandard,citing_Vieth_Ԁv._Jubelirer_,124S.Ct.at1785.    Basedonthebriefs_Intervenor_Ԁhasseen,noneofthelitigant_intervenors_Ԁhasproperlyor  adequatelyaddressedtheconcernsoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinitsfirstremandand ` directionthatthecasebereconsideredinthelightof_Vieth_Ԁv._Jubilirer_.Thatremandwasan 8  invitationtopresentthecourtstandardsbywhichitcoulddecidewhencongressionaldistrictmaps  ` aredrawninawaythatispartisantoadegreethattheconstitutionalissuesarejusticiable.Norcan  8  itbeexpectedtheywilldosoinresponsetotheremandofJune28,2006.Thefailureoflitigant   _intervenors_Ԁtothusrespondbordersoncontempt,andpresentedthecourtwiththeunenviable   choicebetweentwoalternatives,bothofwhichareunconstitutional.Athirdmap,developedusing p thesamemethodsusedtoproducethefirsttwo,wouldnotbeasolution,becausetheprocessisthe H problem._Intervenor_Ԁpresentsanentirelydifferentalternative,andstandardsbywhichthecorrupt  p practiceofgerrymanderingcanbeendedaftermorethan200years,bringingtoaclosenotjust H partisaninfluencethatisundueorexcessive,butremovingitaltogether.     Whathasheretoforebeenmissingfromtheselinesofargumentistherecognitionthat  partisangerrymanderingisnotanattributeofmapssomuchasoftheprocessofproducingand  adoptingthem.Suchundueinfluence,likeethnicdiscrimination,isamentalact,andthemapsare X  evidenceofthatmentalact.Whenmapsaredrawnbypartisanhumanbeings,nomatterhow 0"  conscientioustheymightbetoavoidpartisanbias,therewillinevitablybeundueinfluenceexerted $X" uponthosedoingthedrawingandadopting,andalsobythosedoingthedrawingandadoptingon %0!$ thosewithastakeintheoutcomes.Thereisaproblemevenifnooneyieldstosuchundue '#& influenceanditisonlyamatterofappearanceandnotofsubstance.Corruptionworksbothways. )$(  h+&*  Thenewsituation     Formorethan200yearspartisangerrymanderinghasbeentakingplaceintheUnited  States.Itisnamedfor_Elbridge_ԀGerry,oneoftheFounders.Thislegacyisdueinnosmallpartto ` thefactthattherewasnoalternativemethodavailableofdrawingmapsthantohaveitbedoneby 8  humanbeings,andtheprocesswassolaboriousthatitwasimpracticaltoproducelargenumbers  ` ofmapsandhavethefinalmapbeselectedatrandomratherthanbylegislativedebateandvoteon  8  aparticularmap.     Thatsituationhaschanged.Thetechnologynowexiststohaveacomputerprogramdraw   mapsrandomlythatsoonsatisfyalmostanycombinationofmathematicalconstraintsonemight p wanttoimposeonthem,withoutanymanualintervention.Eventhoughtheconstraintsremainthe H same,eachtimetheprogramisrun,aquitedifferentmapisproduced.Somesuchprogramsare  p commercialproducts,readilyavailableatamodestcost.ButperhapsthebestiscalledTARGET, H writtenbystaffprogrammersoftheTexasLegislativeCouncil.Itworkswell,feedingitsresultsto   the_REDAPPL_Ԁprogramusednowtomanuallydrawmaps,whichalsoproducesthelegal  descriptionsofthedistricts.    Itisnolongernecessaryforcourtstobeaskedtoexaminemapsaspossibleinstancesof X  severepartisangerrymandering.Thetechnicalmeansnowexiststoendforeverthecorruptprocess 0"  thatproducesgerrymanderedmaps,bylettingmachinesproducethem,mechanically,without $X" influencebypartisanfactors.Courtsorlegislaturesneedonlyspecifytheconstraintsand %0!$ administrativeprocedures,generatingmanyandadoptingoneatrandom,withoutdebateover '#& adoptionofthefinalversion. )$(   ThreeyearsagothecourtcouldhavevisitedthestaffofficesoftheTexasLegislative h+&* Councilat1501N.CongressAvenue,Austin,Texas78711tel.(512)4631143forademonstration  oftheTARGETprogramusedtogeneratemapsaccordingtotheconstraintsproposedinthisbrief.  Unfortunately,sincethenchangeshavebeenmadeinthestructureofthevoterdatabaseandstaff ` resourceswerenotallocatedtomodifyingTARGETtocontinuetobeabletoworkwiththe 8  reviseddatabase.Staffersestimateitwouldtakethemabouttwomonthstodosoiftheywere  ` asked.However,thatwouldbetoenableuseofallthefieldsofthedatabase,andforthepurpose  8  ofthisproposal,itwouldonlyneedtousethevotercountsandlocations,andnotvotinghistory,   ethnicity,orotherdemographicfactors._Intervenor_ԀexpectsforthisrestricteduseTARGETcould   bemadereadyinlesstime. p  Proposedsolution  H XXXX_Intervenor_Ԁ moves theCourtadoptthefollowingsolution:  p (1) Constraintsonthemaps .Thesmallestunitofareashallbethevotingprecinct,aspresently P establishedbylaw,whichshallbeofequalpopulationwithinacountyandnotdifferinpopulation ( fromcountytocountybymorethannecessarytoaccommodatecountiesoflowpopulation.    (a) _Equipopulous_ .Thepopulationofeachdistrictshallnotdifferfromthatofanyofthe  otherdistrictsbymorethanafactorof0.0001orthemarginoferrorofthecensuscount, h  whicheverisless. @"    (b) Aligned .Onlycountieswithapopulationofmorethanafactorofbetween0.1and1/3, $h" initially1/3unlessoruntilamendedbytheStateLegislature,oftheaveragepopulationofa %H!$ congressionaldistrict,maybesplitbetweendistricts,unlessalargernumberofcountiesmustbe ' #& splittomeetthespecification(a)above,andasmallernumberofcountiesshallbesplitif )$( specification(a)canbemet. +&*   _(c_) Contiguous .Districtsmustbecontiguous,sothatthereisalwaysatleastone  continuouslineofpointsconnectinganytwopointswithinthedistrict,andnoconnectionbetween  partsconsistsonlyofalineorpoint. h   (d) Simplyconnected .Districtsmustbesimplyconnected,sothatanycontinuousloopof @  pointswithinthedistrictmaybeshrunktoapointwithinthedistrictwithoutcrossingboundary  p lines.Thismeansnoholesindistricts,andnosurroundingofonedistrictbyanother.  H    (e) Compact .Districtsshallbemaximallycompact,resultingfromarunningtimeofat   least6andnottoexceed24hours,adjustedforimprovementsinprocessorspeed,with   compactnessdefinedbyminimizingthevalueofp/4!A,wherep=perimeterandA=areaofthe  district,withallothervaluesremainingconstantorimproving.Foranareaboundedbyacirclethe ` valueofthisexpressionis1.   8 #XXXX