Patino v. City of Pasadena (230 F. Supp. 3d 667, 2017)

United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas 2017-01-06

The Public Health and Welfare Voting and Elections

Citations

Full opinion text

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION SETTING OUT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction... 673

I. The Law Governing the Court’s Inquiry, Findings, and Conclusions... 674

A. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment.. .675

B. The Fourteenth Amendment.. .676

II. Findings of Fact... 677

A. Procedural Background... 677

B. The Record Evidence... 678

1. Fact Witnesses... 678

2. Expert Witnesses... 680

C. Pasadena’s Election Maps and Plans...681

D. Pasadena’s History... 682

1. Texas Laws Affecting Pasadena. . .682

2. Racially Discriminatory Ordinances and Official Activities in Pasadena ...684

3. Recent Private Racial Discrimination in Pasadena.. .685

E. Pasadena’s Demographics... 686

1. The Latino Population in Pasadena. . .686

2. Latino Citizen Voting-Age Population in Pasadena...687

3. The Eight Single-Member District Plan...690

4. The Six Single-Member District and Two At-Large Plan... 690

5. Racial Cohesion in Pasadena City Council Elections... 691

a. The 2015 AL-Large Race for Place G...691

b. The 2015 At-Large Race for Place H.. .692

c. The November 2013 Special Election on Proposition 1... 692

d. The 2015 District-Level Elections ...692

e. Exogenous Elections... 693

(1). Countywide Elections... 693

(2). Primary Elections... 694

f. Findings on Racially Cohesive Voting in Pasadena Elections... 694

6. Socioeconomic Conditions and the Effects on Pasadena Voting.. .695

a. Income, Education, and Employment. . .695

b. Living Conditions... 695

c. The Effects on Voting.. .696

d. Findings on the Effect of Socioeconomic Conditions on Latino Voting. . .696

F. The Circumstances Surrounding the Change to Pasadena’s City Council Election Map and Plan... 696

1. Recent § 5 Preclearance Objections to Converting to AlALarge Voting in Other Texas Municipalities... 697

2. The Shelby County Decision... 698

3. The Shift from a Special Election to Approve' a Council Bond Proposal to Amending the City Charter... 698

4. Council Consideration of the Charter Amendment.. .700

5. The Campaign to Enact the Charter Amendment to Change to a Six Single-Member, Two At-Large District Map and Plan for City Council Elections ...701

a. Improper Use of City Resources to Mobilize Anglo Voters in South Pasadena.. .701

b. The Use of Race and Party as Proxies for Each Other... 703

c. The Result.. .704

6. Council Approval of the 6-2 Map and Plan.. .704

G. The Impact of Pasadena’s New Election Map and Plan.. .706

1. The Previous 8-0 Map and Plan...706

2. The 2015 Election under the Current 6-2 Map and Plan... 707

H. Summary on Findings of Fact.. .708

III. Conclusions of Law on § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.. .709

A. Cingles Step One... 709

I. The First Two Conditions: The Minority . is Sufficiently Numerous and Geographically Compact.. .709

2. The Third Condition: The Majority Votes as Bloc Sufficiently to Defeat the Minority’s Preferences... 709

B. Gingles Step Two... 713

1. History of Discrimination... 713

2. Racially Polarized Voting and Dilu-tive Measures.. .714

3. Racial Appeals in Political Campaigns ...714

4. Successful Elections of Minority Candidates... 715

5 Officials’ Responsiveness to Minority Concerns... 715

6. Tenuousness of the Policy.. .717

7. Proportionality.. .717

8. Conclusion of Law on the Totality of the Circumstances... 718

C. Findings and Conclusions on Intentional Discrimination... 718

1. Guidance from the Fifth Circuit: Veasey v. Abbott.. .719

2.. The Arlington HeightsY&t-tors...721

a. The Historical Background of the Decision.. .721

b. The Sequence of Events Leading Up to the Decision; Legislative History. . .721

c. Departures, Both from the Normal Procedural Sequence and Substantive; Legislative History and Preenactment Statements by Proponents. . .723

d. Meeting the Burdens: The Plaintiffs’ Showing that Racial Discrimination was a Substantial Factor in Enacting the New Electoral Map and the Defendants’ Failure to Demonstrate that the Law Would Have Been Enacted Without this Factor.. .724

3. Conclusion: The City Intended to Dilute Latino Voting Strength... 728

IV. Remedy... 728

V. Conclusion and Order.. .730

Appendix A: Demonstrative Maps... 731

Appendix B: Time Line... 732

Introduction

This suit is one of many filed over the years to protect minority voting rights by ensuring “equal opportunity to participate in the political process.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 44, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986) (internal quotation and citation omitted). This suit is one of the first involving redistricting done shortly after, and because, the Supreme Court decided Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2612, 2631, 186 L.Ed.2d 651 (2013), which removed the federal Department of Justice preclearance requirement under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs are Latinos in Pasadena, Texas who are citizens of voting age. They ask this court to find that Pasadena’s 2014 change from eight single-member- districts for electing City Council members to six single-member districts and two at-large districts dilutes Latino voting strength and violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs ask this court for a declaratory judgment finding Latino vote dilution, an injunction against using the mixed single-member and at-large map and plan, an order that the 2017 City Council elections be held under the eight single-member map and plan in place in 2013, and an order that Pasadena submit to preclearance by the Department of Justice before making future changes to its voting map or plan for electing City Council members.

The defendant, the City of Pasadena, opposes the requests. The City asserts that in recommending the redistricting, Pasadena’s Mayor and City Council intended to promote two legitimate goals unrelated to Latino vote dilution: first, the nonpartisan goal of making the Council more broadly representative and responsive to the concerns of all Pasadena residents; and second, the partisan goal of enhancing Republican, rather than Anglo, votes. The City argues that the change from a single-member to a mixed map and plan did not cause the Latino-vote dilution necessary to find a § 2 violation; and, if dilution resulted, that the City lacked the intent necessary to find a constitutional violation.

This suit has received the careful court review the subject matter commands. After discovery and rulings on motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, the court held a seven-day bench trial, at which 16 witnesses testified and the court admitted 468 exhibits into evidence. The parties presented closing arguments at a three-hour hearing on December 2, 2016. After carefully considering the pleadings, the evidence, the arguments of counsel, and the law that applies, the court issues this Memorandum and Opinion setting out its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).

For the reasons stated in detail below, the court finds and concludes that Pasadena’s 2014 change from an eight single-member district map and plan to a six single-member district and two at-large position map and plan for electing its City Council dilutes the votes of its Latino citizens, in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court also finds and concludes that the change to the mixed map and plan was intended to dilute those votes because they were cast by Latino voters, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pasadena is enjoined from using the 2014 mixed map and plan in the 2017 City Council elections or subsequent elections. Instead, Pasadena must conduct the 2017 City Council election using the eight single-member district map it used in the May 2013 City Council elections. Pasadena must also submit to federal Department of Justice preclearance before implementing future redistricting changes.

The reasons for these rulings are explained in detail below.

I. The Law Governing the Court’s Inquiry, Findings, and Conclusions

Although great progress has been made, “voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that,” and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act remains a crucial “permanent, nationwide ban,” Shelby County, 133 S.Ct. at 2619, on “even the most subtle forms of discrimination,” Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 406, 111 S.Ct. 2354, 115 L.Ed.2d 348 (1991) (Sealia, J., dissenting). Federal courts have a vital role in protecting the right “to participate equally in the political process.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 80, 106 S.Ct. 2752. In requiring federal courts to consider “the totality of circumstances,” 52 U.S.C. § 10301(b), Congress has made clear that, again in the Court’s words, “whether the political processes are equally open depends upon a searching practical evaluation of the past and present reality and on a functional view of the political process.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45, 106 S.Ct. 2752 (internal quotations and citation omitted). At the same time, federal courts are reluctant to interfere with legislative decisions, especially when they are decisions by state or local legislative bodies, and when the decisions concern issues as sensitive as those regarding who votes, how they vote, and what districts they vote in. See Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540, 98 S.Ct. 2493, 57 L.Ed.2d 411 (1978).

A. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment and prevent “an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by [racial minority and majority] voters to elect their preferred representatives.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47, 106 S.Ct. 2752. Although the Supreme Court held in 1980 that a § 2 plaintiff had to prove discriminatory intent, City of Mobile, Alabama v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 100 S.Ct. 1519, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980), Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 so that a § 2 plaintiff need only show that a particular voting practice produces a discriminatory result. 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a)); See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 35, 106 S.Ct. 2752 (“Congress substantially revised § 2 to make clear that a violation could be proved by showing discriminatory effect alone and to establish as the relevant legal standard the ‘results test,’ applied by this Court in [White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973) ], and by other federal courts before Bolden.”). The 1982 amendment created a “results-based” test to analyze vote-dilution claims. S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 40 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 218 (“S. Rep”).

In Gingles, the Supreme Court established a two-step analysis for vote-dilution claims. 478 U.S. at 50-51, 106 S.Ct. 2752. The minority group must first demonstrate: (1) “that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district;” (2) “that it is politically cohesive;” and (3) “that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it—in the absence of special circumstances...—usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.” Id. The court’s task is then to consider the “totality of the circumstances and to determine, based upon a searching practical evaluation of the past and present reality whether the political process is equally open to minority voters.” Id. at 79, 106 S.Ct. 2752 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

That analysis is informed by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Report accompanying the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act, which sets out a nonexhaustive list of factors bearing on whether the challenged practice impermissibly impairs a minority group’s ability to elect their preferred representatives. These factors include:

(1) the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of a minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process;

(2) the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized;

(3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group;

(4) if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process;

(5) the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process;

(6) whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals;

(7) the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.

S. Rep. at 28-29.

Additional factors are “whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs” of the minority group and “whether the policy underlying the ... use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous.” S. Rep. at 29. A court must also consider whether the number of “majority-minority districts,” that is, districts in which a racial minority in a jurisdiction makes up the majority population of a district within that jurisdiction, “[is] in substantial proportion to the minority’s share of voting-age population.” Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1013, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994).

There is no requirement that every factor be met, that “any particular number of factors be proved, or that a majority of them point one way or the other.” S. Rep. at 29. “The courts ordinarily have not used these factors ... as a mechanical ‘point counting’ device .... Rather, the provision requires the court’s overall judgment, based on the totality of circumstances and guided by those relevant factors in the particular case, of whether the voting strength of minority voters is ... ‘minimized or canceled out.’ ” Id. at 29 n.118.

The totality-of-the-circumstances analysis is “local in nature.” League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 243 (4th Cir. 2014). A court must determine “upon a searching practical evaluation of the past and present reality whether the political process is equally open to minority voters.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 79, 106 S.Ct. 2752 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “This determination is peculiarly dependent upon the facts of each case, and requires an intensely local appraisal of the design and impact of the contested electoral mechanisms.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). The factual finding of vote denial or abridgement rests on the court’s “particular familiarity with the indigenous political reality....” Id.

B. The Fourteenth Amendment

“In decision after decision, [the Supreme] Court has made clear that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens, in the jurisdiction.” Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972) (collecting cases). “[A] vote dilution claim alleges that the [City] has enacted a particular voting scheme as a purposeful device to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities, an action disadvantaging voters of a particular race” in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 911, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). At-large, “multimember districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment if ‘conceived or operated as purposeful devices to further racial discrimination’ by minimizing, cancelling out or diluting the voting strength of racial elements in the voting population.” Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 617, 102 S.Ct. 3272, 73 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1982) (quoting Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 149, 91 S.Ct. 1858, 29 L.Ed.2d 363 (1971)). Fourteenth Amendment “[c]ases charging that multimember districts unconstitutionally dilute the voting strength of racial minorities are thus subject to the standard of proof generally applicable to Equal Protection Clause cases.” Id. (citing Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976)). “Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 265, 97 S.Ct. 555. But “[rjacial discrimination need only be one purpose, and not even a primary purpose,” of an official action for a violation to occur. United States v. Brown, 561 F.3d 420, 433 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). A court must make a “sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266, 97 S.Ct. 555.

In Arlington Heights, the Supreme Court set out five factors to determine whether a decision affecting minority voting strength was made with a discriminatory purpose. The list is not exhaustive. “Those factors include: (1) the historical background of the decision, (2) the specific sequence of events leading up to the decision, (3) departures from the normal procedural sequence, (4) substantive departures, and (5) legislative history, especially where there are contemporary statements by members of the decision-making body.” Overton v. City of Austin, 871 F.2d 529, 540 (5th Cir. 1989) (citing Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267-68, 97 S.Ct. 555). “Legislators’ awareness of a disparate impact on a protected group is not enough: the law must be passed because of that disparate impact.” Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 231 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (citing Pers. Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979)). The challengers bear the burden to show that racial discrimination was a “‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor behind enactment of the law”; if they meet that burden, “the burden shifts to the law’s defenders to demonstrate that the law would have been enacted without this factor.” Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 228, 105 S.Ct. 1916, 85 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (citation omitted).

II. Findings of Fact

A. Procedural Background

After extensive discovery, the City moved for summary judgment in July 2016. (Docket Entry No. 71). The court denied the motion because the plaintiffs satisfied the first step of showing undisputed facts in the record that, as a matter of law, could prove minority vote dilution under Thornburg v. Gringles, 478 U.S. at 47, 106 S.Ct. 2752. (Docket Entry No. 87). The court held a seven-day bench trial and heard five expert witnesses and eleven other witnesses testify. The court admitted hundreds of pages of documents, including maps showing before-and after-redistricting lines. (Docket Entry Nos. 109-114, 116).

In response to the plaintiffs’ argument that the evidence proves both Latino vote dilution and the intent to achieve this result, the City argues that using at-large districts is a legitimate government objective and that the change to the mixed single-member and at-large map and plan does not as a matter of fact or law dilute Latino voting power in Pasadena. (Docket Entry No. 148). The City argues that because there is no vote dilution, there cannot be intentional discrimination, or, alternatively, that the evidence does not show that Pasadena officials acted with racially discriminatory intent. (Id.). Instead, the City argues that at most, Pasadena officials intended to dilute Democratic votes or depress Democratic turnout in a partisan move to bolster Republican support in Pasadena. The City insists that the evidence of intentional partisan discrimination is not evidence of intentional racial discrimination.

The court considers both sides’ arguments based on the large record; the applicable law; counsels’ arguments presented at lengthy hearings on the summary judgment motions and at the conclusion of trial on December 2, 2016; and the trial testimony and documents.

B. The Record Evidence

The parties submitted 468 exhibits into evidence; 16 witnesses testified, and many more were deposed before trial. The parties agree that two maps, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 152-1 and 252-1, accurately represent the change in Pasadena’s voting map and plan from eight single-member districts (the 8-0 map and plan) to six single-member districts and two at-large places (the 6-2 map and plan). Those maps are reproduced in Appendix A. The parties rely on the same sources for Pasadena’s demographic data and, with the exception of the current number for the citizen voting-age Latino population of Pasadena, they arrive at the same population figures, with the inevitable minor variances. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 19). The parties agree on the basic chronology of the change to the 6-2 map and plan. The parties sharply disagree about the legal significance of the facts, events, and statements the record establishes. The court reviews the factual record in light of the appropriate legal framework to resolve the disagreements.

1. Fact Witnesses

The fact witnesses testified about elections in Pasadena and the events leading up to and following the change to the 6-2 voting map and plan. The witnesses and their testimony are briefly summarized below.

• Mayor Johnny Isbell. Mayor Isbell has been involved in Pasadena polities for thirty-four years, serving a number of terms as a City Council member. He was elected mayor in 2009 and reelected in 2013 for another four-year term. Mayor Isbell is approaching his term limit and cannot run again for mayor in 2017. Mayor Isbell proposed the change to the 6-2 map and plan for electing City Council members. In the summer of 2013, Mayor Isbell commissioned the law firm of Bickerstaff, Heath, Delgado and Acosta, LLP to prepare and review three redistricting maps that mixed single-member districts with seats elected at-large. Def. Exs. 13-14; Bench Trial Tr. 3:19.

• Council member Ornaldo Ybarra. Mr. Ybarra was born and raised in Pasadena and attended college there. He is currently a sergeant in the Pearland Police Department. Other than his four years of military service, Mr. Ybarra has lived in the same Pasadena district he now represents on the Council. In 2009, Mr. Ybarra became the first Latino in nearly two decades elected to the City Council. He has been reelected in both the old and the new District A. He, too, is at the end of his term and cannot run again for District A’s City Council seat in 2017. As a Council member, Mr. Ybarra consistently voted against the Mayor’s positions on resource-allocation issues that divided the Council. These divisive issues typically involved deciding what resources would go to predominately Latino, older, and less prosperous North Pasadena and what resources would go to the predominately Anglo, newer, and wealthier South Pasadena. Mr. Ybarra consistently voted to send more resources to the north side, where the infrastructure is in worse shape and the amenities are significantly fewer, than on the south side. When these resource-allocation issues divided the Council, the Mayor and his allies would generally cast votes that Mr. Ybarra opposed. Mr. Ybarra also voted against the May- or’s proposal to change to the 6-2 map and plan for City Council elections.

• Council member Pat Van Houte. Ms. Van Houte moved to Pasadena in 1980 and worked for the Texas Workforce Commission investigating unemployment claims. In 2009, Ms. Van Houte was elected to represent District D under the 8-0 single-member district map and plan. She has been continuously reelected to the City Council. Most recently, in 2015, she was elected to represent the new at-large Place G. Ms. Van Houte is not Latino but was the Latino-preferred candidate in the 2015 at-large election in which she defeated another Anglo candidate by 143 votes. As a Council member, Ms. Van Houte consistently voted against the Mayor’s positions on resource-allocation issues. She also voted against the Mayor’s proposal to change to the 6-2 map and plan for City Council elections.

• Council member Cody Ray Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler attended elementary school in Pasadena and returned to the City during college after four years in the Marine Corps. He teaches kindergarten in the Aldine Independent School District. In 2013, Mr. Wheeler was elected to represent District E under the 8-0 single-member district map and plan. In 2015, he was reelected to represent the new District D under the 6-2 map and plan, a district with substantially similar boundaries as the former District E. Mr. Wheeler’s mother is Latino and his father is half-Latino. Mr. Wheeler identifies as Latino. Bench Trial Tr. 5:96. As a Council member, Mr. Wheeler consistently voted against the Mayor’s positions on resource-allocation issues. He also voted against the Mayor’s proposal to change to the 6-2 map and plan for City Council elections.

• Former Council member Don Harrison. Mr. Harrison moved to Pasadena when he was eleven years old and has lived there continuously for nearly sixty-five years. Before retiring, Mr. Harrison was an appraiser for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Harrison has served on the City Council for approximately nineteen years. His most recent continuous term ran from 2007 to 2015. During that time, Mr. Harrison represented District C under the 8-0 single-member district map and plan. As a Council member, Mr. Harrison consistently voted against the Mayor’s positions on resource-allocation issues. He also voted against the Mayor’s proposal to change to the 6-2 map and plan for City Council elections.

• Council member Cary Bass. Mr. Bass is a Pasadena businessman who has contracts with the City. He is a political ally of, and has received civic board appointments from, Mayor Isbell. In 2015, Mr. Bass was elected to represent the new District E under the 6-2 map and plan. Mr. Bass’s 2015 campaign received financial support from Mayor Isbell’s political action committee, Citizens to Keep Pasadena Strong. Bench Trial Tr. 5:7-9, 5:13-14; Pls. Ex. 154. Mr. Bass has consistently voted with the Mayor and his allies on resource-allocation issues when they divided City Council.

• Council candidate Oscar Del Toro. Mr. Del Toro is a Pasadéna businessman who ran for the new at-large Place H in 2015. Mr. Del Toro, a Latino and the Latino-preferred candidate, lost the election to an Anglo opponent. He received 39.1% of the citywide vote. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 64). Before running for City Council, Mr. Del Toro was an ambassador for the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce and worked on greeting new businesses established in the City. He volunteered with the local school district, belonged to several local political organizations, and had worked on several local political campaigns in Pasadena.

• Director of Community Relations Richard Scott. Mr. Scott is a lifelong Pasadena resident, except for his Army service. Before retiring, he worked for Western Waste Industries. Mr. Scott is a longtime friend of Mayor Isbell, who appointed Mr. Scott as the City’s Director of Community Relations when Mayor Isbell returned to office in 2008. . Mr. Scott supervises five managers who control the City’s public outreach.

• Director of Financial Planning Andy Helms. Mr. Helms has been a Pasadena resident for nearly thirty years. He has held a number of City offices, including director of traffic, purchasing director, planning director, assistant to the mayor for public works, and associate municipal judge. He is currently Pasadena’s Director of Financial Planning. Mr. Helms is Mayor Isbell’s chief . advisor and a personal friend and has worked on Mayor Isbell’s political campaigns for many years. Bench Trial Tr. 5:23-25.

• Bianca Gracia. Ms. Gracia has resided in Pasadena for twelve years. She is the president of the Village Grove East Homeowner’s Association in South Pasadena.

• Victor Villarreal. Mr. Villarreal is a businessman who has lived in Pasadena for fourteen years. He has served as a board member for several nonprofit organizations in Pasadena and is a former president of the City’s Hispanic Business Association. In 2013, Council member Ybarra recommended, and Mayor Isbell appointed, Mr. Villarreal to a citizens’ committee to review bond proposals. Shortly after the Bond-Review Committee was put in place, the Mayor changed it to a committee to consider amending Pasadena’s Charter provisions on City Council elections to the 6-2 voting map and plan.

2. Expert Witnesses

The plaintiffs presented Mr. David Ely to testify under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence on his specialized field of demography. Mr. Ely holds degrees in engineering and social science from the California Institute of Technology. He owns and is president of Compass Demographics, a consulting firm that builds specialized data sets using the United States decennial census and other sources.

The plaintiffs also presented Dr. Richard Engstrom to testify under Rule 702. His field is statistics, and he testified on applying statistical analysis to issues raised by election redistricting. Dr. Eng-strom has a doctorate in political science and is on the graduate faculty in political science at Duke University. Dr. Engstrom served as an advisor for the Mississippi legislature on gaining United States Department of Justice preclearance for state redistricting plans before the Supreme Court held in Shelby County that § 5 of the Voting Rights Act no longer required it. He has testified regularly and published many articles and scholarly works on redistricting and the Voting Rights Act.

Finally, the plaintiffs offered the Rule 702 testimony of Dr. Andres Tijerina, whose field is Texas history and the historical experience of Latinos in Texas. Dr. Tijerina holds a doctorate in American history and is a professor of history at Austin Community College. Dr. Tijerina has published award-winning work on Latino and Tejano history.

The City offered the Rule 702 testimony of Dr. John Alford, whose work applies statistical analysis to issues raised by election districting. Dr. Alford holds a doctorate in political science and a master’s degree in public administration. He is on the Rice University political science faculty. He has appeared as an expert witness in many federal court proceedings involving the Voting Rights Act and has frequently published in his field.

The City also offered the testimony of Dr. Bill Rives as an expert in demography. Dr. Rives holds a Ph.D. in economics with a concentration in demography and is a senior lecturer in the Fisher College of Business at the Ohio State University. He has held postdoctoral research fellowships in demography, economics, and statistics at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University and the Census Bureau’s Office of Population Research.

The court finds that Drs. Engstrom and Alford meet the Rule 702 requirements to testify in applying statistical analysis to issues raised by election districting; that Mr. Ely and Dr. Rives are qualified to testify on demography; and that Dr. Tijerina is qualified to testify on Texas history and the historical experience of Latinos in Texas.

C. Pasadena’s Election Maps and Plans

Pasadena is a Texas home rule city. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 2). The City Charter, in place since 1942, sets up a “mayor-council government” with a strong mayor. (Id. ¶ 3). Pasadena’s powers are vested in an elected Council made up of the Mayor and, since 1992, eight Council members. The City Charter empowers the Council to enact legislation, adopt budgets, and determine City policies. The Charter empowers the Mayor to recommend ordinances for the Council’s consideration and to vote on matters before the Council. (Id.). Pasadena holds nonpartisan elections to elect the Mayor and the eight City Council members, with a majority vote required for election. (Id. ¶ 7).

The City Charter adopted in 1964 provided for a Mayor and six-member Council, all elected at-large. Four Council members had to live in designated districts. (Id. ¶ 4); Bench Trial Tr. 3:55. In 1992, Pasadena amended its Charter to enlarge the City Council from six to eight members and to elect all eight from single-member districts. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 5); Bench Trial Tr. 3:56. From 1992 to 2013, Pasadena used an eight single-member district map and plan to elect Council members and elected its Mayor at-large. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶¶ 5, 6).

In 2011, Pasadena’s City Council voted in favor of adopting a redistricting map that produced four majority Spanish-sur-named registered-voter districts and four majority Anglo registered-voter districts. The City held one City Council election under that map and plan in May 2013. On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. at 2612, holding that § 5 preclearance under the Voting Rights Act was no longer required in many states, including Texas.

On June 27, two days later, Mayor Isbell sent the City Council a memo calling for a committee to consider bond proposals for a November 2013 special election. During the Committee’s deliberations, Mayor Is-bell recommended amending the City Charter to create at-large voting districts and proposed maps that created a 4-2 map and plan, a 7-1 map and plan, and a 6-2 map and plan. Bench Trial Tr. 3:6-7; Pls. Ex. 246. He turned the Bond Review Committee into a committee to consider redistricting. The Committee recommended against amending the City Charter to create the mixed single-member and at-large election districts. Pls. Ex. 21. Mayor Isbell nevertheless proposed the Charter amendment to the City Council in August 2013. With the Mayor’s tie-breaking vote in favor, the Charter amendment proposal was put on the November 2013 special-election ballot. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶¶ 48, 50). On November 5, 2013, Pasadena voters cast 3,292 votes to approve Proposition 1, changing the districts to elect City Council members to six single-member and two at-large districts. (Id. ¶ 51). The vote was very close; 3,213 voted against it. (Id.). Latinos opposed the proposal with an estimated 99.6% of their votes. (Id. ¶ 63).

In April 2014, the City Council passed the ordinance adopting the redistricting proposal that moved to a 6-2 map and plan. During the debate on the proposed redistricting, Council member Van Houte, elected as a Latino-preferred candidate, spoke against it. The Mayor ordered police officers to escort her out of the meeting when she exceeded a recently enacted rule limiting speech on a single topic to three minutes. (Id. ¶ 54). Pasadena’s City Council approved the Charter amendment by a 5-4 vote, with Mayor Isbell breaking the tie in favor of the change. (Id. ¶¶ 54-55). For the 2015 election, the 6-2 map and plan produced one less Latino-majority single-member district than under the 8-0 single-member district map and plan. (Id. ¶ 56).

The two at-large positions on the City Council are elected by numbered place. Under a place system, seats are contested separately. Candidates for an at-large position on the Council file for only one place and compete only with the other candidates filing for that same place. Each voter may cast only one vote between the candidates for each place. (Id. ¶ 13).

At-large voting using numbered places precludes a single-shot voting strategy. (Id. ¶ 14); Bench Trial Tr. 1:111. With single-shot voting, group members can cast one vote for the candidate the group favors and not cast any of their remaining votes for another candidate. By withholding their remaining votes from the candidates competing with their preferred choice, minority voters have a better chance of seeing their preferred representative finish among the top candidates and win one of the seats. Id. at 1:111-12; Pls. Ex. 198 at 4. The loss of single-shot voting disadvantages minority voters because their preferred candidates who finish in second place are eliminated. Bench Trial Tr. 1:111-12.

The Pasadena election plan uses a majority-vote requirement for each City Council seat. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶¶ 7, 12). A successful candidate must win a majority of the votes cast in citywide elections. If no candidate receives a majority, a runoff election is held between the top two vote recipients. A majority-vote requirement also disadvantages minority voters by forcing their preferred candidate into a head-to-head contest with only one other candidate and eliminating the chance for a plurality victory if multiple candidates in the majority group divide the vote. Bench Trial Tr. 1:112; Pls. Ex. 198 at 4.

D. Pasadena’s History

Pasadena has a long history of discrimination against minorities, including Latinos, as well as a history of more recent events that are more probative. This history is “one evidentiary source, particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes,” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267, 97 S.Ct. 555, but as the Fifth Circuit recently recognized in Veasey, “unless historical evidence is reasonably contemporaneous with the challenged decision, it has little probative value.” Veasey, 830 F.3d at 232 (quoting McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 298 n.20, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987)).

1. Texas Laws Affecting Pasadena

“Texas has a long, well-documented history of discrimination that has touched upon the rights of African-Americans and Hispanics to register, to vote, or to participate otherwise in the electoral process. Devices such as the poll tax, an all-white primary system, and restrictive voter registration time periods are an unfortunate part of this State’s minority voting rights history. The history of official 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.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 439-40, 126 S.Ct. 2594, 165 L.Ed.2d 609 (2006) (LULAC) (quoting Vera v. Richards, 861 F.Supp. 1304, 1317 (S.D. Tex. 1994)). The political, social, and economic legacy of past discrimination for Latinos in Texas also hinders their current ability to participate effectively in the political process. Id.

The 1903 Terrell Election Law imposed a poll tax in Texas. The Act’s sponsor explained that the law was intended to close “the flood gates for illegal voting as one person could buy up the Mexican and Negro votes.” Pls. Ex. 201 at 12. The poll tax was eliminated in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966). In response, the first Senate bill of the first 1966 Texas legislative session required voters to register annually. The annual registration requirement was invalidated in 1971. Beare v. Smith, 321 F.Supp. 1100, 1108 (S.D. Tex. 1971), aff'd sub nom. Beare v. Briscoe, 498 F.2d 244 (5th Cir. 1974).

The Texas State Democratic Executive Committee established a White Man’s Primary Association in 1904, requiring an oath declaring “I am a white person and a Democrat” for membership. Pls. Ex. 201 at 12. In Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536, 47 S.Ct. 446, 71 L.Ed. 759 (1927), the Supreme Court struck down the Texas white primary law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Texas Legislature then passed a law authorizing political parties to set their own voter qualifications, and the Democratic Party enacted a rule that only whites could vote in the primary. The Supreme Court struck down this law in 1932. Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73, 52 S.Ct. 484, 76 L.Ed. 984 (1932).

Texas enacted a law in 1918 to eliminate interpreters at the polls. Act of March 23, 1918, 35th Leg., 4th C.S. Ch. 30 (H.B. 104); Pls. Ex. 201 at 12. The following year, Texas enacted a requirement that election officials could communicate only in English in the polling place. Act of March 13, 1919, 36th Leg. Ch. 55 (S.B. 244), 1919 Tex. Gen. Laws p. 94. In 1975, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary report accompanying H.R. 6219 referred to “overwhelming evidence of voting discrimination against language minorities” and stated that “it is not surprising that the registration and voting statistics of language minorities are significantly below those of the Anglo majority. In 1972, for example, only 44.4 percent of persons of Spanish origin were registered compared to 73.4 percent for Anglos.” S. Rep. No. 94-295, at 30 (1975), reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 774, 797. The 1974 percentages indicated similar disparity of 34.9 percent for Mexican-Americans to 63.5 percent registered Anglos. The Mexican-Ameriean voting rate was half of the voting rate for Anglos in 1974. See id.

In 1972, a federal district court explained that a “cultural and language impediment, conjoined with the poll tax and the most restrictive 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 formally denied access by the white primary.” Graves v. Barnes, 343 F.Supp. 704, 731 (W.D. Tex.), aff'd sub nom. Archer v. Smith, 409 U.S. 808, 93 S.Ct. 62, 34 L.Ed.2d 68 (1972), and aff'd in part, rev’d in part sub nom. White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973). As set out in greater detail below, it is only in recent years, as Pasadena’s Latino population has swelled, that Latinos have attained a meaningful political voice.

In 2012, a three-judge panel of the federal district court for the Western District of Texas ordered the creation of a Latino-majority congressional district in Harris County that includes the portion of Pasadena north of Spencer Highway. Perez v. Perry, Civil No. 11-360, Docket Entry No. 682 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2012). The court ordered this interim remedy after finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on a § 2 vote-dilution claim. The court found that the State’s redistricting reduced the Latino citizen voting-age population in the district in order to “mak[e] the district safer for its Republican incumbent,” violating § 2. Id., Docket Entry No. 690 at 8.

2. Racially Discriminatory Ordinances and Official Activities in Pasadena

Dr. Tijerina credibly testified about the history of Pasadena’s treatment of its Latino residents. Dr. Tijerina documented the use of restrictive covenants and exclusionary laws and practices targeting Latinos in. housing, education, City ordinances, and the workplace. Pls. Ex. 201.

When Pasadena was incorporated in 1942, its City Charter complied with a Texas law imposing segregation and outlawing Spanish-language instruction, as well as Bohemian and German. The 1942 City Charter incorporated segregation in Article VIII, Section 4, titled “Segregation of Races.” Pls. Ex. 201 at 30. Restrictive housing covenants were in place until the 1940s. Bench Trial Tr. 1:174-76; Pls. Ex. 203. The pattern of housing segregation, now de facto, remains. Most Latino residents live in North Pasadena, which is separated from the predominately Anglo South Pasadena by the Spencer Highway. South Pasadena’s streets, sewage, recreation areas, and other basic infrastructure elements and amenities are much better than North Pasadena’s.

As late as 1980, the Pasadena Independent School District excluded undocumented immigrant students. Pls. Ex. 201 at 30-31; see In re Alien Children Ed. Litig., 501 F.Supp. 544, 550 n.6 (S.D. Tex. 1980). In 1987, the federal government successfully sued the School District for failing to hire African-American teachers and administrators. Pls. Ex. 201 at 30; see also United States v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist., Civil No. 83-5107, 1987 WL 9919 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 1987).

Pasadena was the Texas headquarters of the Ku Klux Klan. Pls. Ex. 201 at 29. The Klan targeted Mexican-Americans, including by burning crosses, publicly carrying high-powered rifles, and maintaining a public presence. Bench Trial Tr. 1:184. Former Council member Don Harrison recalls seeing Klan members outside their headquarters building, which was located on a major thoroughfare. Id. at 4:173-74. In the late 1980’s, Council member Van Houte recalls seeing Klan members outside the building lining the street and wearing their white robes. Id. at 4:6-7.

In the mid-1980s, Latino ad hoc committees met with the Pasadena Police Chief and City Council to protest police brutality and harassment. Pls. Ex. 201 at 31. In 1986, the Federal Bureau of Investigation came to Pasadena to investigate the alleged beating of a Latino man in police custody. Id. In the 1990s, there were continuing incidents of police mistreatment of Latinos and complaints about a close relationship between the Pasadena Police Department and the Ku Klux Klan. Id.

Complaints of police antipathy toward Latino residents have continued to the present. In the past several years, Latino residents in North Pasadena have repeatedly complained to Council members that they are more likely to be targeted for traffic stops by police than Anglo residents. Bench Trial Tr. 2:14, 4:7. Former Council member Harrison recalled a 2008 conversation he had with Mayor Isbell, in which the Mayor said that he had told the Pasadena police department that if officers found a Hispanic driving without car insurance, the officers should impound the car. Id. at 4:199-200. When Mr. Harrison asked the Mayor what the police were to do if an Anglo was driving without insurance, the Mayor responded that impoundment should be left to the officer’s discretion. Id. Mr. Harrison credibly testified that he understood this as a racially biased comment. Id.

Witnesses testified to continuing racially tinged incidents. Council member Ybarra testified that approximately three years ago, an Anglo City human resources employee made comments to a group of Latino employees in the City Water Department about “Mexicans making tacos.” Id. at 2:185-86. When the Water Department employees complained to Mr. Ybarra, the employee was transferred but continued to work for the City. Id. Mr. Ybarra credibly testified that he has witnessed instances of official racist attitudes and acts during his City Council service. “I have been in Pasadena for 38 years. The whole time I have been there, I never experienced racism or prejudice to what I have seen in my time serving on council.” Id. at 2:185.

3. Recent Private Racial Discrimination in Pasadena

Private acts of discrimination are less probative of discriminatory effects or intentions than official acts. See Veasey, 830 F.3d at 306 (Jones, J., dissenting) (citing Frank v. Walker, 768 F.3d 744, 755 (7th Cir. 2014) (Easterbrook, J.)). But “under the results standard of section 2, pervasive private discrimination should be considered, because such discrimination can contribute to the inability of [minorities] to assert their political influence and to participate equally in public life.” United States v. Marengo Cty. Comm’n, 731 F.2d 1546, 1567 n.36 (11th Cir. 1984) (Wisdom, J.); see also Gomez v. City of Watsonville, 863 F.2d 1407, 1418 (9th Cir. 1988) (rejecting the argument that only discrimination by the defendant is relevant to a § 2 vote-dilution case); Solomon v. Liberty Cty., Florida, 899 F.2d 1012, 1032 (11th Cir. 1990) (en banc) (Tjoflat, J., concurring) (“Congress ... revised [§ 2] to prohibit election practices that accommodate or amplify the effect that private discrimination has in. the voting process.” (quoting David L. Eades, Recent Developments, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act: An Approach to the Results Test, 39 Vand. L. Rev. 139, 172 (1986))). And in this case, private discrimination in Pasadena is not entirely private. As the City notes, because the City Charter can be amended only by a vote of the citywide electorate, the official, “ultimate decision-maker on the charter amendment is the entire electorate.” (Docket Entry No. 148 ¶ 51).

The court finds that Pasadena’s current Latino Council members and a recent candidate for City Council credibly testified about private discrimination among Pasadena’s electorate, particularly in South Pasadena. On multiple occasions while campaigning in 2009, Anglo residents of Pasadena slammed the door shut on Mr. Ybarra, telling him that they “weren’t going to vote for a wetback” and would not vote for a Hispanic. Bench Trial Tr. 2:24.

As a candidate in 2013 and 2015, Mr. Wheeler did not advertise his Latino ethnicity. Id. at 5:96. If Mr. Wheeler was talking to an Anglo homeowner who asked about his background, he would answer that he is a little bit of everything but would emphasize his military background and service to the country and to the community to ease their concerns. Id. at 5:97. Mr. Wheeler credibly testified that it would have been harder for him to be elected in old District E if he had been Spanish-surnamed. “In my first election [in 2013], I won by 32 votes. If my name was something other than Wheeler, if it was Ramirez or Sanchez, I don’t believe that I would have won that election.” Id. at 5:138. After Mr. Wheeler won the 2013 election in District E, his Anglo opponent, Leroy Stanley, filed an election contest and stated publicly that Mr. Wheeler had won because of “illegal votes.” Id. at 5:114. Mr. Stanley later dismissed the lawsuit. Mr. Wheeler understood Mr. Stanley’s comments about illegal voting, in conjunction with the fact that “he was going around telling people that I was Mexican, making sure that people knew that,” as a subtle appeal to racism. Id. at 5:152.

Oscar Del Toro ran for Pasadena City Council’s new at-large Place H in 2015 against an Anglo opponent. Mr. Del Toro focused his door-to-door campaign on South Pasadena. Id. at 5:173-75. In North Pasadena, residents received him well and were proud that a Mexican immigrant was running for City Council. Some asked him questions in Spanish. Id. at 5:174-75. In South Pasadena, he was not well-received. One woman told him, “I’m not going to vote for you. You know why?” She did not explain her remark, but Mr. Del Toro understood it as a racial reference. Id. at 5:175. Another told him that Pasadena is a “good ole boy town,” and asked him to drop his materials on the porch rather than hand them to her. Id.

Dr. Tijerina concluded that Latinos in Pasadena continue to lag behind politically and economically in the face of persistent racial prejudice and a structure of discrimination. Pls. Ex. 201 at 3-4. This recent background is more probative of the impact of, and intent behind, the 2014 change from an 8-0 single-member to a mixed 6-2 single-member and at-large election map and plan in Pasadena.

E. Pasadena’s Demographics

1. The Latino Population in Pasadena

Pasadena’s population is approximately 149,285 persons. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶¶ 20-21). The parties agree that the Latino citizen voting-age population of the City has risen in recent decades. {Id. ¶ 22). In 1990, the U.S. Census reported that the Hispanic share of Pasadena’s citizen voting-age population was 18.7%. {Id.). The American Community Survey reported that the Hispanic share of Pasadena’s citizen voting-age population was 48.2% for the period 2011-2015. (Docket Entry No. 124, Ex. 1). According to the 2010 Census, the City of Pasadena is 62.1% Hispanic, and Pasadena’s Hispanic voting-age population, both citizen and noncitizen, is 55.78%. Pls. Ex. 195; (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 29). Pasadena’s Spanish-surnamed voter registration is 41.97% as of September 2016. (Id. ¶ 32). Using Spanish-sur-named voter registration to estimate Latino voter registration reasonably balances errors of omission and commission, particularly in jurisdictions with a significant Latino population. Bench Trial Tr. 1:55-56. Spanish-surnamed voter registration is a reliable proxy for Latino registered voters in Pasadena. Id. Pasadena “geocoded” individual registered voter’s addresses to the Pasadena map. The geocoding was' the basis for determining how many Spanish-surnamed registered voters lived in specific districts. The result is more accurate than estimating Spanish-surnamed voter registration at the block level using data from larger areas like census precincts. Id. at 6:18-19.

The decennial census does not include a question on citizenship. Id. at 1:65. Citizenship is requested on the American Community Survey form, an extensive survey the U.S. Census Bureau sends annually to two percent of United States households. Id. at 1:57-58, 65. As a result, “[t]he sole source of citizenship data published by the Census Bureau now comes from the American Community Survey (ACS’).” Cisneros v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 4:12-CV-2579, 2014 WL 1668500, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2014). The Census Bureau tabulates the American Community Survey results from a five-year period for the Justice Department. Both sides used this information to estimate the citizen voting-age population in Pasadena City Council districts. Bench Trial Tr. 1:65-67. The five-year tabulation of American Community Survey data from 2010-2014 was available to analyze citizenship of the residents in each Pasadena City Council district at the time of trial. Id. at 1:67-68. The citywide data from 2011-2015 is also now available. (Docket Entry No. 124, Ex. 1).

2. Latino Citizen Voting-Age Population in Pasadena

The Census provides two estimates of the 2015 Hispanic citizen voting-age population in Pasadena. The first is a Hispanic citizen voting-age population of 48.2% and is based on the American Community Survey five-year survey for 2011 to 2015. The second is a Hispanic citizen voting-age population of 50.6% and is based on the American Community Survey one-year survey for 2015.

The five-year survey is the more reliable estimate of citizen voting-age population. The parties agree that the American Community Survey five-year estimate is statistically more reliable than the one-year estimate. The parties also agree that the one-year estimate is more current than the five-year estimate because it is not averaging in data from three or four years ago. Bench Trial Tr. 1:68-69, 6:21-23. The Census Bureau advises that “[e]s-timates for large geographic areas benefit from the increased sample of [multiyear surveys] resulting in more precise estimates of population and housing characteristics, especially for subpopulations within those areas” and that “single-year estimates... have higher sampling variability.” A Compass for Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data at A-3 (2009). The margin of error for the five-year data is less than half that of the one-year data. Bench Trial Tr. 1:72. Similar to decennial census estimates of citizen voting-age population, the American Community Survey’s five-year estimate is presumptively correct because it is more statistically reliable. That presumption applies unless different information and numbers are “thoroughly documented, have a high degree of accuracy, and [are] clear, cogent and convincing to override the presumptive correctness of the prior [data].” Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist., 168 F.3d 848, 853-54 (5th Cir. 1999). The American Community Survey five-year estimate applies to all years in the five years it covers. Pls. Ex. 319 at A-2.

According to the Census-published guidelines, if the difference between one point estimate and a later point estimate is smaller than the difference between the margins of error for the two estimates, the more recent estimate should not be used to infer a change between the two periods. Id. at A-19; Bench Trial Tr. 1:68-69. A higher one-year point estimate provides some evidence of a change, but not enough for statistical significance. Id. When the difference between the point estimates is smaller than the difference between the margins of error, the balance between statistical reliability and currency tips in favor of using the more reliable figure. Id.

In Pasadena, the American Community Survey five-year estimate of the Hispanic share of-total citizen voting-age population was 48.2% with a margin of error of 1.6%. (Docket Entry No. 124, Ex. 1). The margin of error is based on 90% statistical confidence, which is the Census Bureau standard for American Community Survey margin-of-error estimates. This yields a 90% interval estimate running from 46.6% to 49.8%. (See Docket Entry No. 94 ¶ 31). The American Community Survey one-year estimate of the citywide Hispanic share of total citizen voting-age population for 2015 is 50.6%, with a margin of error of approximately 3.3%. The 90% interval estimate for the citywide Hispanic share of total citizen voting-age population runs from 47.3% to 53.9%. (Id.).

Mr. Ely performed the Census Bureau’s recommended procedure to evaluate whether the difference between the American Community Survey one-year and five-year estimates was statistically significant. He determined that the difference between the margins of error was larger than the difference between the point estimates. As a result, the two estimates were not statistically significantly different. For that reason, Mr. Ely concluded that the more statistically reliable five-year estimate is the best source for measuring Pasadena’s Citywide Latino voting-age population. Bench Trial Tr. 1:68-69.

Mr. Ely gave a second reason to rely on the five-year and not the one-year data. Because only the American Community Survey five-year estimate is available for estimating citizen voting-age population in individual Council districts, using the American Community Survey five-year estimate of Citywide citizen voting-age population ensures consistency across the analysis of single-member districts compared to 4t-large voting, avoiding comparing “apples to oranges.” Id. at 1:67-68.

The City did not rebut Mr. Ely’s reasoning for relying on the American Community Survey’s five-year estimate of citizen voting-age population jn Pasadena. The testimony of the City’s expert, Dr. Rives, which endorsed the one-year figure of 50.6% Hispanic citizen voting-age population, was not credible. Dr. Rives testified that he “wasn’t interested” in whether the differences between the one-year and five-year surveys were statistically significant. Bench Trial Tr. 6:72. Dr. Rives presented no margins of error for any of the figures he discussed in his report. Id. at 6:59. In a previous case, Dr. Rives concluded that the effect of Latinos over-reporting their citizenship on surveys likely meant American Community Survey figures for Latino citizen voting-age population were inflated. Dr. Rives testified that he offered those conclusions in the previous case because he was “tasked” to show Latinos had not attained a majority in that case, but in this case “I’m not on the side that’s trying to establish a majority.” Id. at 6:94. The court finds that Dr. Rives’s inconsistent research methods and lack of statistical rigor make his testimony about the reliability of the American Community Survey one-year data not credible.

The court concludes that Latinos make up 48.2% of the citizen voting-age population citywide, and that they likely made up even less of the citizen voting-age citywide population when the 6-2 map and plan was proposed and enacted.

3. The Eight Single-Member District Plan

Under the single-member district map and plan in place in May 2013, when the last City Council election was held, Latinos made up the majority of Pasadena’s citizen voting-age population and the majority of registered voters in four of eight districts: Districts A, B, C, and D. (Docket Entry No. 94 ¶¶ 25, 26).

Latinos would constitute the majority of the citizen voting-age population and the majority of registered voters in the same four of eight districts in the 8-0 map and