%PDF-1.4 % 1 0 obj<> endobj 2 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 3 0 obj <>stream x5@D)9;T%–B5"Ib&V^7тU&ABhXx"н/54n! (畺x\osOȵҘ3b endstream endobj 4 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 5 0 obj <>stream x5@D)9;T%–B5" /8ɠL4gwNY'RLlZAvb,D48Um??<XaX=]jF~46d endstream endobj 6 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 7 0 obj <>stream x5@D)Y;T%–B5"Ib&N^KML@C 0"tվhؔ>(zgJ]؏Q9sYpc> "+ےt6I'_4f endstream endobj 8 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 9 0 obj <>stream x50)nA_-0tpe"F[Io|C+/9Fь&ABLħNVC!wWEiM/ݐۂcmu,mA(MV5`h endstream endobj 10 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 11 0 obj <>stream x5@D)9;T%–B5"Ib&N^3тu &QR6fc.}>7иنktW~̏e6y4H|I*I'_5j endstream endobj 12 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 13 0 obj <>stream x5@D)9=T%–B5"Ib&V^O+&A@ fch.CPlY_NJ] ax\osOuI6l endstream endobj 14 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 15 0 obj <>stream x5@D)9=T%–B5IL1y/V޲O+%AjG\fbh!C7]jm/Jy.xx\ y'k~GM$|7n endstream endobj 16 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 17 0 obj <>stream x50Caю@w*e`@+J ֱFF9&т׈S/zE D)S;*%~Qu*uKGĻX2}*F{ i:I#_7p endstream endobj 18 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 19 0 obj <>stream x50)nA_-eT% Dŷx7}C#/9&тks/z"uBh63D)SUP;#~Ru*uKGq]p~,̟ =4H/8Ir endstream endobj 20 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 21 0 obj <>stream x50CaN hE JP :KYbobĜ ȽZ Pň]V}~u'4Uꢧn("˄mn\Q,|Z endstream endobj 22 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 23 0 obj <>stream x50Caю@w*e`@+Hl421,Fz1;HClN|~wޗXQuj\>/H;8Ώ~-ӧB`r4r endstream endobj 24 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 25 0 obj <>stream x50Caю@w*e`@+J؃u,hdc-Xz'1bwHlN|~wޗIi/mqp~,k>=4H/s endstream endobj 26 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 27 0 obj <>stream x5=@WtA}Kr+5J@'m'mV&9$т׈?ys"'Bh6A"F9vk y_'QgRz`:X2jF'.MVt$ endstream endobj 28 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 29 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj{gaPlaK!DƿI)NdKI4g5ObŜ,@4k 21"tݱ_j }_FJfۏ%7mimI$MNt endstream endobj 30 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 31 0 obj <>stream x5PD)s>T%–B5"/8SɠL`5Obĝ.,Aйbe7c_NJ]=mj}I*I+_uP endstream endobj 32 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 33 0 obj <>stream x5@D)9R [ !bԈ4HL2/F^ϢKӄ?w@ s 2)!ZDо/6`VRyjgEx4~*D&#y:K#_v| endstream endobj 34 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 35 0 obj <>stream x5@D)9R [ !bԈ4HL2/F^ϢKӄ?w2Bd,RB|ա}_*m/Jy.gEx4~*D&#y:K#_u endstream endobj 36 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 37 0 obj <>stream x50CaN hE JP {e}F1+ Z^-&Pň]V}~u'4UROPLxp\&osOhw:di w endstream endobj 38 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 39 0 obj <>stream x5PD)s>T%–B5"/8SɠM`5ObŝLuB\LEH1:Km/Jy.6ՏiTH~Gmڤ/w endstream endobj 40 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 41 0 obj <>stream x5PD)s>T%–B5"/8SɠM`5Obŝ^Aйbeuhߗ 7c_NJ]'m\ I#_s endstream endobj 42 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 43 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{gu_*$[RGߋ$'s2ec-FI ȭ C#OٜVBnOEiu^nyXŻp~k?%=K/v endstream endobj 44 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 45 0 obj <>stream x5PD)xP–B5"/8Sɠh*hŸ8;]@CйCDj߽54lJB_N3. J<{x. >stream x+| endstream endobj 47 0 obj <>stream x5PD)vVJ^[RFｒ8ɠhkĿi|5 l E> euޗ7[}_Ҕ ˄mnmG(MVt& endstream endobj 48 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 49 0 obj <>stream x5PD)s>T%–B5"/8SɠL`5Obĝ.=Bd*rF vվ{khlC~Q: +un>#pQ8ܦ1ٗڮҘu endstream endobj 50 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 51 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj{gaPlaK!DƿI)NdKI4g5ObŜ- %ȐLj]v}>+~Qu*um?[9qS8ݖ̟і>M$ uR endstream endobj 52 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 53 0 obj <>stream x5@D)9R [ !bԈ4HL2/F^ϢKӄ?wz=r'%Xh.CTPlY_NJ]燏xv\~LBd;r4w endstream endobj 54 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 55 0 obj <>stream x5@D)9R [ !bԈ4HL2/F^ϢKӄ?wzNKH "]V}(畺Soxv\~LBd;r4v~ endstream endobj 56 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 57 0 obj <>stream x50CaN hE JP {e}F1-h{! C#wYyҨ3VK=uCy؄ge67yvG(MVx@ endstream endobj 58 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 59 0 obj <>stream x5PD)s>T%–B5"/8SɠM`5Obŝ> s 29#о/4n!(畺S(oSOwMw endstream endobj 60 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 61 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{g}@K-5J@^$q8A#h2hŸԋܜBd,RB )cVаs>(zcs/G >stream x+| endstream endobj 63 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{gq_*$[RQEg942!L^#$^fh;!t)A"F9kyҨ3V<(CU<}*F'.uFwx endstream endobj 64 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 65 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{g}@K-1jD^$q8A+/gтUЄ?is:Z^]JH 1DlRC*4U:Oݰ<\gUx<}jD&[>stream x+| endstream endobj 67 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{g}@K-1jD^$q8A+/gтUЄ?isȽ cbw!TEiuay8gUx<}jD&[>stream x+| endstream endobj 69 0 obj <>stream x50CaNȣTځVQJ ֱN^ˢ &QZA-cRB .}>7а>(zó<x.}ӧAd[rf t endstream endobj 70 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 71 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{g}@K-5J@^$q8A#h2hŸԋܜ-r'.%X"S6}a|%~Q*u_a*sOd6ߥuT endstream endobj 72 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 73 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{g}@K-5J@^$q8A#h2hŸԋ\-r'.%X"S6}a|%~Q*u_.a*sOd6ߥxB endstream endobj 74 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 75 0 obj <>stream x50CaNȫ#НJX;  JP {et]FFO[ Bh1A*FsOIYRz ˄mni͖\竴Y:x endstream endobj 76 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 77 0 obj <>stream x5@D)vR [ !jԈ4HL2/V^ˢ+ӄ?qttȽ: cE们\CmY_)un(nSO:_w endstream endobj 78 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 79 0 obj <>stream x5@D)vR [ !jԈ4HL2/V^ˢ+ӄ?qt:^KH "]V}/RC锺c7(nSO:_w endstream endobj 80 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 81 0 obj <>stream x50Cay#НJX;  JP :KvYb449]A<bUJ!"e6[B_FJ]؏,< > 2YGU,|uV endstream endobj 82 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 83 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{g*$[RFEg9}-XM1竳EХCDн/54JB_FJ]+*osOdͣ4YZu endstream endobj 84 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 85 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{ga_*$[RFEg9}-FILLEХ|@н/5J}/JX ˣR<{8 >stream x+| endstream endobj 87 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{g*$[RQEg942!,&IL)h;!t)A"%9k /JXCU<}*D&mK/t endstream endobj 88 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 89 0 obj <>stream x5@D)vλR [ !jԈ4HL2/V^ˢ+ӄ?qttȽ: cE们\Cm f~QJea~xóGpMc?5":_w endstream endobj 90 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 91 0 obj <>stream x5@D)vλR [ !jԈ4HL2/V^ˢ+ӄ?qt:^KH "]V} (K S20?|ijGpMc?5":_xD endstream endobj 92 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 93 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{g*$[RFEg9}-XM1+A K 2)!|͡{_jhؕ> (zcS7,*osOdͣ4YZv endstream endobj 94 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 95 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{g*$[RQEg942!,&IL9"wBREJ!"?esl v{B_FJ]헇:x \S!2YGn],|w endstream endobj 96 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 97 0 obj <>stream x5@D)9R [ !jԈ4@d^&4}-X&M 5(;!t A"%DYϥfJ(畺SO@~÷Bd;roRgiuX endstream endobj 98 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 99 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{ge_*$[RQEg942!L^#$^V&"wBR E> ?esl w{}/JX)1ׯyT$.uFx endstream endobj 100 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 101 0 obj <>stream x5PuNQe BԨY|{$C6E'/eъk?it dbD.}>7ʿ:ʸԥ>stream x+| endstream endobj 103 0 obj <>stream x5@DSj!{g*$[RQEg942!,&ILE"wBREJ!"?esl v{B_FJ]헇K:x \S!2YGn],|x endstream endobj 104 0 obj[/PDF/Text] endobj 105 0 obj<> endobj 106 0 obj<> endobj 109 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 110 0 obj<> endobj 111 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm /F1 13 Tf 100 Tz 88.1395 -8.4 Td 1.3 Tw 0 Tc (FOR PUBLICATION) Tj /F1 15 Tf 100 Tz -78.2395 -24 Td 1.5 Tw (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj 43.47 -16 Td (FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -53.37 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (UHAMMAD) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (HABAZZ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( F) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (aka Ernest S. Walker; A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (L) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (-K) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AREEM) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (HADEED) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (; M) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ARCUS) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( X. P) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (RICE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (;) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (R) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AMON) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ARRIENTES) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (; T) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (IMOTHY) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 215.07 -6.6 Td 1.2 Tw (No. 06-35669) Tj -215.07 -6.6 Td (S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (CHAAF) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (; C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (LIFTON) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (RICENO) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj 226.734 -11.4 Td (D.C. No.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -155.082 -1.8 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 109.968 -6.1 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 21.054 -5.3 Td 1.2 Tw (CV-96-0076-RHW) Tj -120.174 -6.6 Td (v.) Tj 141.84 -11.4 Td (OPINION) Tj -224.34 -6.6 Td (C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (HRISTINE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( O. G) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (; S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AM) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( R) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (EED) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (;) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (H) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AROLD) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( W. C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (LARKE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (; S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (TATE OF) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (W) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ASHINGTON) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.688 -13.2 Td (Defendants-Appellees.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 115.932 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -142.878 -26.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj 16.44 -13.2 Td (for the Eastern District of Washington) Tj -14.172 -13.2 Td (Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding) Tj 53.46 -26.2 Td (Argued and Submitted) Tj -32.766 -13.2 Td (April 8, 2008Seattle, Washington) Tj 34.5 -26.2 Td (Filed January 5, 2010) Tj -75.81 -26.2 Td (Before: Stephen) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Reinhardt, A.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Wallace) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Tashima, and) Tj 32.856 -13.2 Td (M.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Margaret) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (McKeown, Circuit) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Judges.) Tj 30.12 -26.2 Td (Opinion by Judge Tashima) Tj -2.994 -13.2 Td (Dissent by Judge McKeown) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm 0 G .9 w 0 -65.95 m 183.8 -65.95 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -143.3 m 186.6 -73.8 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -229.8 m 186.6 -160.3 l s .9 w 0 -236.75 m 183.3 -236.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 297.75 -664.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (107) Tj ET Q endstream endobj 112 0 obj<> endobj 113 0 obj<> endobj 114 0 obj<> endobj 115 0 obj<> endobj 121 0 obj<> endobj 122 0 obj<> endobj 123 0 obj<> endobj 124 0 obj<> endobj 125 0 obj<> endobj 126 0 obj<> endobj 127 0 obj<> endobj 128 0 obj<> endobj 107 0 obj<> endobj 116 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 117 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 118 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 119 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 120 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 134 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 120.996 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (COUNSEL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -120.996 -26.5 Td 3.28 Tw (Ryan P. Haygood, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 6.28 Tw (Fund, Inc., New York, New York, for the plaintiffs-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (appellants.) Tj 0 -26.5 Td .71 Tw (Carol Murphy, Deputy Solicitor General, Olympia, Washing-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (ton, for the defendants-appellees.) Tj 0 -26.5 Td .71 Tw (Peter A. Danelo, Heller Ehrman, Seattle, Washington, for the) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td 1.83 Tw (amici curiae) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ϰſ and ϰſ of) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (Washington.) Tj 0 -26.5 Td .6 Tw (Juan Cartagena, New York, New York, for the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (amicus curiae) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (Community Service Society.) Tj 0 -26.5 Td .92 Tw (Sam Hirsch, Jenner & Block, Washington, DC, for the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (amici) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.26 Tw (curiae) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( National Black Police Association, National Latino) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.62 Tw (Officers Association of America, and Zachary W. Carter, et) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .62 Tw (al., eight prominent former state and federal law-enforcement) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (officials.) Tj 0 -26.5 Td 2.58 Tw (Derek S. Tarson, Debevoise & Plimpton, New York, New) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .2 Tw (York, for the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (amici curiae) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Alfred Blumstein, et al., 23 leading) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (criminologists.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 123.666 -44.8 Td (OPINION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -123.666 -26.4 Td (TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:) Tj 12 -26.4 Td 1.22 Tw (Plaintiffs, minority citizens of Washington state who have) Tj -12 -13.3 Td .87 Tw (lost their right to vote pursuant to the state's felon disenfran-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .37 Tw (chisement provision, filed this action in 1996 challenging that) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.55 Tw (provision on the ground that, due to racial discrimination in) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.18 Tw (the state's criminal justice system, the automatic disenfran-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.54 Tw (chisement of felons results in the denial of the right to vote) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -352.95 m 300 -352.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (113) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 135 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.66 Tw 0 Tc (on account of race, in violation of ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.66 Tw (2 of the Voting Rights) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .85 Tw (Act \() Tj (VRA) Tj (\), 42 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .85 Tw (1973. We earlier reversed the dis-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.87 Tw (trict court's grant of summary) Tj ( judgment to Defendants. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.87 Tw (Farrakhan v. Washington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 338 F.3d 1009 \(9th Cir. 2003\),) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 4.71 Tw (cert. denied) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 543 U.S. 984 \(2004\) \() Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (\). On) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .37 Tw (remand, the district court again granted summary judgment to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.71 Tw (Defendants. Plaintiffs timely appeal. We reverse and grant) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (summary judgment to Plaintiffs.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 96.168 -26.2 Td (I.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (BACKGROUND) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -84.168 -26.2 Td 7.07 Tw (Plaintiffs Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan, Al-Kareem) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.78 Tw (Shadeed, Marcus Price, Ramon Barrientes, Timothy Schaaf,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td -1.04 Tw (and Clifton Briceno \(collectively, ) Tj (Plaintiffs) Tj (\) are minority citi-) Tj /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.96 Tw (zens) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( who were convicted of felonies in Washington. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.03 Tw (1012. As a result of their felony convictions, Plaintiffs lost) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.33 Tw (their right to vote pursuant to Washington's felon disenfran-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .88 Tw (chisement law as set forth in Article VI, ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .88 Tw (3 of the Washing-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (ton Constitution.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td 3.92 Tw (Plaintiffs alleged that ) Tj (minorities are disproportionately) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.71 Tw (prosecuted and sentenced, resulting in their disproportionate) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.11 Tw (representation among the persons disenfranchised under the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .4 Tw (Washington Constitution) Tj (; consequently, that the Washington) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.71 Tw (felon disenfranchisement law ) Tj (causes vote denial and vote) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.25 Tw (dilution on the basis of race, in violation of the VRA . . . .) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 2.03 Tw (Farrakhan v. Locke) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 987 F. Supp. 1304, 1307 \(E.D. Wash.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.71 Tw (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan, Shadeed, Price, and Schaaf are African American; Barri-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (entes is Latino; and Briceno is Native American. ) Tj 10 -14 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 2.06 Tw (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Article VI, ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.06 Tw (3 provides: ) Tj (All persons convicted of infamous crime) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .22 Tw (unless restored to their civil rights . . . are excluded from the elective fran-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .06 Tw (chise. An ) Tj (infamous crime) Tj ( is defined as one that is ) Tj (punishable by death) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.14 Tw (in the state penitentiary or imprisonment in a state correctional facility.) Tj () Tj 0 -11.2 Td .11 Tw (Wash. Rev. Code ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .11 Tw (29A.04.079. Plaintiffs' suit included a challenge to the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 6.35 Tw (state's civil rights restoration procedure, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( Wash. Rev. Code) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.39 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.39 Tw (9.94A.637, but that challenge was dismissed by this Court for lack of) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .35 Tw (standing, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 338 F.3d at 1021-23, and is not at issue on this) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (appeal. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -362.95 m 300 -362.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (114) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 136 0 obj<> endobj 140 0 obj<> endobj 141 0 obj<> endobj 137 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.12 Tw 0 Tc (1997\). The district court granted Defendants') Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( motion to dis-) Tj 0 -12.9 Td .65 Tw (miss as to Plaintiffs' vote dilution claim, but permitted Plain-) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.2 Tw (tiffs' vote denial claim to proceed.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1315.) Tj 12 -25.6 Td 2.16 Tw (On subsequent cross-motions for summary judgment, the) Tj -12 -12.9 Td 2.04 Tw (district court granted Defendants' motion and denied Plain-) Tj 0 -12.9 Td .47 Tw (tiffs' motion. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan v. Locke) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, No. CS-96-76-RHW, 2000) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 3.03 Tw (U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22212 \(E.D. Wash. Dec. 1, 2000\)) Tj (. The) Tj 0 -12.9 Td .75 Tw (court found that ) Tj (Plaintiffs' evidence of discrimination in the) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 3.6 Tw (criminal justice system, and the resulting disproportionate) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.14 Tw (impact on minority voting power, is compelling.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at *14.) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 2.67 Tw (Nevertheless, it concluded that such evidence was ) Tj (legally) Tj 0 -12.9 Td .44 Tw (insufficient to establish causation under the VRA,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at *17,) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 2.12 Tw (because ) Tj (it is discrimination in the criminal justice system,) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 2.38 Tw (not the disenfranchisement provision itself, that causes any) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.2 Tw (vote denial,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at *15.) Tj 12 -25.6 Td 1.04 Tw (On appeal, we reversed the district court's 2000 order and) Tj -12 -12.9 Td 1.71 Tw (remanded for further proceedings. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 338 F.3d at) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.07 Tw (1012, 1023) Tj (. We first held that Plaintiffs' challenge to Wash-) Tj 0 -12.9 Td .55 Tw (ington's disenfranchisement law ) Tj (is cognizable under Section) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 2.25 Tw (2 of the VRA.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1016. We then held that the district) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.67 Tw (court ) Tj (erred in failing to consider evidence of racial bias in) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 2.32 Tw (Washington's criminal justice system) Tj ( and that it ) Tj (miscon-) Tj 0 -12.9 Td .92 Tw (strued the causation requirement of a Section 2 analysis.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td .47 Tw (We explained that ) Tj (a Section 2 `totality of the circumstances') Tj 0 -13 Td 1.83 Tw (inquiry requires courts to consider how a challenged voting) Tj 0 -13 Td .18 Tw (practice ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (interacts with) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( external factors such as `social and his-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.66 Tw (torical conditions' to result in denial of the right to vote on) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.3 Tw (account of race or color.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1012 \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Thornburg v.) Tj 0 -13 Td .41 Tw (Gingles) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 478 U.S. 30, 47 \(1986\)\). Consequently, ) Tj (evidence of) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (discrimination can be relevant to a Section 2 analysis.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.6 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.33 Tw (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Defendants are the State of Washington, the Governor, the Secretary) Tj -10 -11 Td .45 Tw (of the Department of Corrections, and the Secretary of State \(collectively,) Tj 0 -11 Td 1 Tw (Defendants) Tj ( or the ) Tj (State) Tj (\). ) Tj 10 -13.8 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .75 Tw (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Plaintiffs also asserted a number of constitutional claims, all of which) Tj -10 -11 Td .38 Tw (were dismissed pursuant to Rule 12\(b\)\(6\), ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (see Farrakhan v. Locke) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 987 F.) Tj 0 -11 Td 1 Tw (Supp. at 1314, and are not at issue on this appeal. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -420.15 m 300 -420.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (115) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 138 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .38 Tw 0 Tc (Following remand, the parties conducted additional discov-) Tj -12 -13 Td .16 Tw (ery and ultimately filed new cross-motions for summary judg-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.14 Tw (ment. In their motion, Plaintiffs relied heavily on the reports) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.5 Tw (of two expert witnesses: Dr. Robert Crutchfield, a Professor) Tj 0 -13 Td .66 Tw (of Sociology at the University of Washington, who has ) Tj (con-) Tj 0 -13 Td .92 Tw (ducted extensive research on racial disparity in the Washing-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.32 Tw (ton State criminal justice system,) Tj ( Crutchfield Report at 9,) Tj 0 -13 Td 1 Tw (and Dr. Katherine Beckett, an Associate Professor of Sociol-) Tj 0 -13 Td .58 Tw (ogy at the University of Washington, who ) Tj (conducted a 2004) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.78 Tw (study entitled Race and Drug Law Enforcement in Seattle,) Tj () Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (Beckett Report at 16. ) Tj 12 -25.9 Td .12 Tw (Dr. Crutchfield's expert report consisted of an extensive lit-) Tj -12 -13 Td 2.12 Tw (erature review of the empirical research that has been con-) Tj 0 -13 Td 7.33 Tw (ducted on racial disparities in the various levels of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .43 Tw (Washington's criminal justice system \(policing and investiga-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (tion, prosecution, and sentencing\). He described studies show-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (ing, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (inter alia) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, that the racial disparities in the state's criminal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.57 Tw (justice system cannot be explained by ) Tj (legitimate) Tj ( factors,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (such as racial minorities' higher level of involvement in crim-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (inal activity,) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Crutchfield Report at 4-9; evidence of ) Tj (unwar-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.6 Tw (ranted racial disparities in the rates of vehicle searches, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (at 18, 21; and ) Tj (observable racial differences) Tj ( in the process-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.21 Tw (ing of criminal cases \() Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, charging and bail recommenda-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .9 Tw (tions, lengths of confinement, and alternative sentencing\), ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (at 26-30.) Tj 12 -25.9 Td 2.87 Tw (Dr. Beckett's report described the findings of her study) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (analyzing the extent and causes of racial disparity in Seattle) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw (drug [possession and] delivery arrests.) Tj ( Beckett Report at 1.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.33 Tw (Her research found that ) Tj (blacks and Latinos are over-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.8 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.97 Tw (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (For example, whereas national studies have shown that 80% of the) Tj -10 -11.1 Td 1.06 Tw (racial disparity in imprisonment can be explained by differential rates of) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .32 Tw (crime commission \(while 20% of the disparity cannot be accounted for on) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .17 Tw (this basis\), studies focusing on Washington have shown that ) Tj (substantially) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .58 Tw (more than one half of Washington State's racial disproportionality cannot) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 3.57 Tw (be explained by higher levels of criminal involvement.) Tj ( Crutchfield) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1 Tw (Report at 9. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -411.25 m 300 -411.25 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (116) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 139 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.88 Tw 0 Tc (represented, and whites under-represented, among Seattle's) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.14 Tw (drug arrestees,) Tj ( and that ) Tj (the organizational practices that) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.71 Tw (produce these disparities) Tj ( specifically, the police's focus) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .73 Tw (on crack cocaine, on outdoor drug activity, and on the down-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .63 Tw (town area ) Tj (are not explicable in race neutral terms.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (3. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td .33 Tw (The district court again granted the State's motion for sum-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 2.04 Tw (mary judgment and denied Plaintiffs' motion. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan v.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.32 Tw (Gregoire) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, No. CV-96-076-RHW, 2006 WL 1889273, at *1) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2 Tw (\(E.D. Wash. July 7, 2006\). Reviewing the reports of Plain-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.37 Tw (tiffs' expert witnesses, the district court found that Plaintiffs) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.78 Tw (had presented ) Tj (compelling evidence of racial discrimination) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.17 Tw (and bias in Washington's criminal justice system.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at *6.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.16 Tw (Moreover, ) Tj ([c]ontrary to Defendants' assertion that these) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1 Tw (reports are based solely on statistics and are thus insufficient) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.55 Tw (evidence for a VRA claim,) Tj ( the district court found that) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .57 Tw (these experts' conclusions, drawn from the available statisti-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.55 Tw (cal data, are admissible, relevant, and persuasive.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .55 Tw (district court also found it significant that Defendants had not) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.05 Tw (present[ed] any evidence to refute Plaintiffs' experts' con-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.22 Tw (clusions. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Thus, the district court concluded that it was) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.07 Tw (compelled to find that there is discrimination in Washing-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .3 Tw (ton's criminal justice system on account of race,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and that) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.47 Tw (such discrimination ) Tj (clearly hinder[s] the ability of racial) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .46 Tw (minorities to participate effectively in the political process, as) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.16 Tw (disenfranchisement is automatic,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.78 Tw (338 F.3d at 1220\) \(internal quotation marks omitted\) \(alter-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (ation in original\). ) Tj 12 -26.6 Td 2.14 Tw (Nevertheless, the district court went on to hold that ) Tj (the) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.66 Tw (totality of the circumstances does not support a finding that) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.55 Tw (Washington's felon disenfranchisement law results in dis-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .39 Tw (crimination . . . on account of race.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at *9. Explaining that) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.48 Tw (discrimination in the criminal justice system is simply one) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .63 Tw (factor to consider in the totality of the circumstances analysis) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .37 Tw (\(falling within the scope of Senate Factor 5\), the district court) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (117) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 142 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 129 0 obj<> endobj 143 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .33 Tw 0 Tc (concluded that the remaining Senate Factors) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( weigh in Defen-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.41 Tw (dants' favor. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( First, the district court determined that ) Tj (the) Tj 0 -13 Td 5.11 Tw (first Senate factor strongly favors) Tj ( Defendants' position) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.52 Tw (because Plaintiffs had not shown any history of official dis-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.28 Tw (crimination in Washington. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at *7. Next, the district court) Tj 0 -13 Td .08 Tw (concluded that Plaintiffs ) Tj (failed to present any substantial evi-) Tj 0 -13 Td .48 Tw (dence regarding) Tj ( Senate Factors 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at *8.) Tj 0 -13 Td .63 Tw (The court acknowledged that ) Tj (several of these factors are not) Tj 0 -13 Td .97 Tw (relevant in a VRA vote denial claim,) Tj ( but found that Factors) Tj 0 -13 Td .15 Tw (7 and 8 ) Tj (the extent to which minority group members have) Tj 0 -13 Td .7 Tw (been elected to political office in Washington) Tj ( and the ) Tj (level) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.57 Tw (of responsiveness elected officials have to the particularized) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.83 Tw (needs of) Tj ( minorities are ) Tj (certainly relevant to Plaintiffs') Tj 0 -13 Td .3 Tw (VRA claim.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Finally, the court concluded that Senate Fac-) Tj 0 -13 Td .33 Tw (tor 9 whether the state's policy justifications are ) Tj (tenuous) Tj () Tj 0 -13 Td 2.14 Tw ( ) Tj (also favors Defendants' position.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Although Defen-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.25 Tw (dants did ) Tj (not explain why disenfranchisement of felons is) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.12 Tw (`necessary' to vindicate any identified state interest,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.95 Tw (district court concluded that, in light of the Constitution's) Tj 0 -13 Td .58 Tw (explicit recognition of the states' power to disenfranchise fel-) Tj /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td .78 Tw (ons,) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( its ) Tj (ability to examine the tenuousness of Washington's) Tj 0 -13 Td .85 Tw (felon disenfranchisement law is extremely limited,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Thus,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (the district court concluded that ) Tj ([a]lthough the evidence of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (racial bias in Washington's criminal justice system is compel-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.07 Tw (ling, under the totality of the circumstances test, Plaintiffs) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (had failed to establish a violation of VRA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (2. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at *9. ) Tj 12 -25.8 Td 1.55 Tw (Subsequent to oral argument, and well after this case had) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.28 Tw (been submitted for decision, Washington law regarding the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.21 Tw (voting rights of felons was amended. Washington law now) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.7 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .8 Tw (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The Senate Factors are described and discussed in Part III.A, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (infra) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, at) Tj -10 -11.1 Td 1 Tw (13-14. ) Tj 10 -13.9 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .94 Tw (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Section 2 of the 14th Amendment acknowledges the practice of felon) Tj -10 -11.1 Td 1.85 Tw (disenfranchisement by providing that disenfranchisement ) Tj (for participa-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .72 Tw (tion in rebellion, or other crime) Tj ( will not result in the reduction of repre-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .42 Tw (sentatives to Congress that otherwise would occur when a state denies the) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .81 Tw (right to vote to any male citizens over the age of 21. U.S. Const. amend.) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1 Tw (XIV, ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (2. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -397.35 m 300 -397.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (118) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 144 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 145 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 146 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 147 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 148 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 149 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .33 Tw 0 Tc (provides that the voting rights of felons will be ) Tj (provisionally) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.21 Tw (restored,) Tj ( at such time as those convicted under Washington) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .53 Tw (state law are no longer under the authority of the Washington) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.41 Tw (Department of Corrections, and, as to those convicted under) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .83 Tw (federal law or in any other state, they are not in custody. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td 1.43 Tw (Wash. Laws of 2009, ch. 325, HB 1517. We requested sup-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .87 Tw (plemental briefing on what effect, if any, this new law might) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .53 Tw (have on this case. Following our review of the parties' briefs,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .94 Tw (we conclude that the new law does not affect our analysis or) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .18 Tw (resolution of any of the issues on this appeal, with one narrow) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .8 Tw (exception: the claim of one of the Plaintiffs has been mooted) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .33 Tw (because he is no longer under the authority of the Department) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (of Corrections.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.5 Td 1.48 Tw (The dissent characterizes the amendment as a ) Tj (significant) Tj -12 -13.3 Td .92 Tw (legislative change) Tj ( and would remand the case to the district) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.66 Tw (court to allow it the opportunity to determine whether there) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.28 Tw (are ) Tj (meaningful analytical differences) Tj ( between incarcerated) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .42 Tw (and non-incarcerated felons. Diss. at 157. Neither party, how-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .54 Tw (ever, has ever suggested to this court including in the sup-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.5 Tw (plemental briefing that there are any material differences) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .34 Tw (between incarcerated and nonincarcerated felons that are rele-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.02 Tw (vant to the outcome of this case.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (9) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In the absence of any con-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.37 Tw (tention, especially by the State, that such differences exist,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .39 Tw (there is neither reason nor need to remand to the district court) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (for the purposes urged by the dissent. ) Tj 12 -26.5 Td 2.3 Tw (Thus, we are not, contrary to the dissent's assertion, the) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.07 Tw (first court to be ) Tj (presented with the question whether [incar-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .62 Tw (cerated and nonincarcerated felons] present a meaningful dis-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.3 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.02 Tw (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Defendants argue that the amendment moots the case. However, with) Tj -10 -11.3 Td 1.23 Tw (five of the original six Plaintiffs facing the same circumstance of disen-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.36 Tw (franchisement that they faced before the passage of the amendment, the) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (case is not moot. ) Tj 10 -14.1 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.36 Tw (9) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (For example, the state has never argued that there are administrative) Tj -10 -11.3 Td 2.31 Tw (difficulties in permitting incarcerated felons to vote that would justify) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (applying a different rule to them than to non-incarcerated felons. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -407.05 m 300 -407.05 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (119) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 150 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 5.65 Tw 0 Tc (tinction under the VRA's totality of the circumstances) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.33 Tw (inquiry.) Tj ( Diss. at 158 \(footnote omitted\). In fact, we are not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (presented with that question at all. Rather, what the State con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (tends regarding the amended law is that the provisions modi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .53 Tw (fying the period during which felons are deprived of the right) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (to vote are sufficient, when taken in concert with the other rel-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (evant considerations, to require us to uphold the grant of sum-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.58 Tw (mary judgment under the totality of the circumstances test) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.55 Tw (that we ordinarily apply in voting rights cases. We consider) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (that argument below, in Section III.E.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 66.966 -26 Td (II.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (STANDARD OF REVIEW) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -54.966 -26 Td 1.3 Tw (We review ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (de novo) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( the district court's conclusions of law) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.37 Tw (regarding the application of ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.37 Tw (2 of the VRA. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Smith v. Salt) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (River Project Improvement & Power Dist.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 109 F.3d 586, 591) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (\(9th Cir. 1997\)) Tj ( \() Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Salt River) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also Thornburg) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 478 U.S.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (at 79 \(stating that an appellate court reviewing a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .11 Tw (2 claim can) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.64 Tw (correct errors of law, including those that may infect a so-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (called mixed finding of law and fact, or a finding of fact that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (is predicated on a misunderstanding of the governing rule of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .9 Tw (law) Tj (\) \(internal citation and quotation marks omitted\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Gomez) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.63 Tw (v. City of Watsonville) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 863 F.2d 1407, 1411 \(9th Cir. 1988\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (\(stating in a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .6 Tw (2 case that ) Tj (the district court's findings will be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.24 Tw (set aside to the extent that they rest upon an erroneous view) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.42 Tw (of the law) Tj (\).) Tj ( Except to note that we also review a district) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.95 Tw (court's ruling on summary judgment ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (de novo) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Fin. Mgmt.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (Advisors, LLC v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 506 F.3d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (922, 925 \(9th Cir. 2007\), we defer ) Tj (a fuller discussion of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.36 Tw (standard that governs our review of the district court's sum-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (mary judgment rulings to Part III.D.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (1, infra.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 105.162 -26 Td (III.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (ANALYSIS) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -105.162 -26 Td (A.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Statutory Background) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 2.96 Tw ([1]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Congress enacted the VRA of 1965, pursuant to its) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.32 Tw (enforcement power under ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.32 Tw (2 of the Fifteenth Amendment,) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (120) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 151 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.52 Tw 0 Tc (for the ) Tj (broad remedial purpose of `rid[ding] the country of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.16 Tw (racial discrimination in voting.') Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.16 Tw ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 338 F.3d at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (1014 \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (South Carolina v. Katzenbach) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 383 U.S. 301,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (315 \(1966\)\). As originally enacted, the VRA focused in large) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (part on certain ) Tj (covered) Tj ( jurisdictions with a history of voting) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (discrimination.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (10) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The VRA required such jurisdictions to pre-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (clear any change in voting procedures with the Department of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (Justice; it also banned literacy tests) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (11) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and permitted the federal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (government to monitor elections in those jurisdictions. Voting) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, tit. I, ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.3 Tw (4, 5, 6\(b\),) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.93 Tw (7, 9, & 13\(a\), 79 Stat. 437 \(1965\), ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (codified at) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 42 U.S.C.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.41 Tw (1973b ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (et seq.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( \(1965\). Section 2 of the 1965 VRA, in con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (trast, was not restricted to ) Tj (covered) Tj ( jurisdictions. Mirroring) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (the language of the Fifteenth Amendment, ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .75 Tw (2 originally pro-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .62 Tw (vided that ) Tj ([n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .04 Tw (or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.86 Tw (by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (race or color.) Tj ( 42 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (1973 \(1965\).) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.1 Td .47 Tw ([2]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In 1980, a plurality of the Supreme Court concluded, in) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13.1 Td 2.18 Tw (City of Mobile v. Bolden) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 446 U.S. 55, 58 \(1980\), that ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.18 Tw (2) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.06 Tw (was intended to have an effect no different from that of the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.32 Tw (Fifteenth Amendment itself,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 61; consequently, that) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (plaintiffs raising claims under VRA ) Tj ( ) Tj (2 were required to show) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .3 Tw (direct evidence of discriminatory intent, as is required for Fif-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.03 Tw (teenth Amendment claims, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 62-63. In direct response to) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.96 Tw (Bolden) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, Congress amended ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.96 Tw (2 in 1982 ) Tj (to make clear that) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.9 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .36 Tw (10) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (A jurisdiction was `covered' for purposes of section 5 if it used a lit-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .5 Tw (eracy or other test for registering or voting and if less than half of its vot-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 3.08 Tw (ing age population voted in the 1964 election. The original covered) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .58 Tw (jurisdictions were Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Caro-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .73 Tw (lina, Virginia, and large parts of North Carolina.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (United States v. Blaine) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (County, Mont.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 363 F.3d 897, 901 n.4 \(9th Cir. 2004\). ) Tj 10 -14 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .41 Tw (11) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Congress amended the VRA in 1970 to make the ban on literacy tests) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .93 Tw (nationwide for a five-year period. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See Oregon v. Mitchell) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 400 U.S. 112,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .68 Tw (117 \(1970\). In 1975, Congress made the nationwide literacy test ban per-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (manent. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See Blaine County) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 363 F.3d at 901. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -374.15 m 300 -374.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (121) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 152 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.17 Tw 0 Tc (proof of discriminatory intent is not required to establish a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.06 Tw (violation of Section 2.) Tj ( S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 2 \(1982\),) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (reprinted in ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 177, 179 \() Tj (Senate Report) Tj (\).) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Section 2\(a\) now provides:) Tj 22 -26.1 Td 1.75 Tw (No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.1 Tw (standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (applied by any State or political subdivision in a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (manner which ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (results in ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (a denial or abridgement of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (the right of any citizen of the United States to vote) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (on account of race or color . . . .) Tj -22 -26.1 Td 2.18 Tw (42 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.18 Tw (1973\(a\) \(emphasis added\). Section 2\(b\) further) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (explains that) Tj 22 -26.2 Td 2 Tw (A violation of subsection \(a\) . . . is established if,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.2 Tw (based on the totality of the circumstances, it is) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .14 Tw (shown that the political processes leading to nomina-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.57 Tw (tion or election in the State or political subdivision) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .91 Tw (are not equally open to participation by members of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .79 Tw (a class or citizens protected by subsection \(a\) . . . in) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.8 Tw (that its members have less opportunity than other) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .41 Tw (members of the electorate to participate in the politi-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.52 Tw (cal process and to elect representatives of their) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (choice.) Tj -22 -26.2 Td 2.57 Tw (42 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.57 Tw (1973\(b\). Although the debate surrounding this) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 5.33 Tw (amendment focused almost exclusively on vote dilution) Tj /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td .74 Tw (claims,) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (12) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( the language of the amendment makes clear that the) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.7 Tw (12) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The Senate hearings ) Tj (focused on whether replacing the ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Bolden) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( test) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 0 Tw (with a results test would effectively mandate proportional representation) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (that is, the election of racial minorities in numbers proportionate to their) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 2.58 Tw (population.) Tj ( Daniel P. Tokaji, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (The New Vote Denial: Where Election) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.68 Tw (Reform Meets the Voting Rights Act) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 57 S.C. L. Rev. 689, 705 \(2006\).) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 2.55 Tw (Congress ultimately included a provision in the statute clarifying that) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .36 Tw (nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.16 Tw (class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.) Tj ( 42) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (1973\(b\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -388.15 m 300 -388.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (122) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 153 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .13 Tw 0 Tc (new ) Tj (results test) Tj ( applies both to vote dilution and vote denial) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.17 Tw (claims.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (13) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Chisom v. Roemer) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 501 U.S. 380, 394 \(1991\)) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.28 Tw (\([P]laintiffs can prevail under ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.28 Tw (2 by demonstrating that a) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.83 Tw (challenged election practice has resulted in the denial or) Tj 0 -13 Td .6 Tw (abridgment of the right to vote based on color or race.) Tj (\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Salt) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.02 Tw (River) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 109 F.3d at 594-95 \(applying ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.02 Tw (2 results test to a vote) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (denial claim\).) Tj 12 -25.8 Td .66 Tw (The Senate Report on the 1982 amendments listed ) Tj (typical) Tj -12 -13 Td 2.28 Tw (factors) Tj ( that courts might consider in determining whether,) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.03 Tw (under the totality of the circumstances, a challenged voting) Tj 0 -13 Td 1 Tw (practice ) Tj (results in) Tj ( the denial or abridgement of the right to) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (vote on account of race. These are:) Tj 22 -25.8 Td 1.75 Tw (\(1\) the extent of any history of official discrimina-) Tj 0 -13 Td .82 Tw (tion in the state or political subdivision that touched) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.17 Tw (the right of the members of the minority group to) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.41 Tw (register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (democratic process;) Tj 0 -25.9 Td .73 Tw (\(2\) the extent to which voting in the elections of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (state or political subdivision is racially polarized;) Tj 0 -25.9 Td .77 Tw (\(3\) the extent to which the state or political subdivi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.05 Tw (sion has used unusually large election districts,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.8 Tw (majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.67 Tw (sions, or other voting practices or procedures that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.4 Tw (may enhance the opportunity for discrimination) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (against the minority group;) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -12 -25.8 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (13) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 1 Tw ( ) Tj 8 0 Td .66 Tw (Vote denial) Tj ( refers to practices that prevent people from voting) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .42 Tw (or having their votes counted. Historically, examples of practices) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .34 Tw (resulting in vote denial include literacy tests, poll taxes, all-white) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .46 Tw (primaries, and English-only ballots. ) Tj (Vote dilution,) Tj ( on the other) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .87 Tw (hand, refers to practices that diminish minorities' political influ-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .36 Tw (ence in places where they are allowed to vote. Chief examples of) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .56 Tw (vote-dilution practices include at-large elections and redistricting) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1 Tw (plans that keep minorities' voting strength weak. ) Tj -18 -16.1 Td (Tokaji, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (supra) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, at 691. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -384.05 m 300 -384.05 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (123) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 154 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 130 0 obj<> endobj 155 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td 0 Tw 0 Tc (\(4\) if there is a candidate slating process, whether the) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 2.81 Tw (members of the minority group have been denied) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.2 Tw (access to that process;) Tj 0 -25.7 Td 3.16 Tw (\(5\) the extent to which members of the minority) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 2.25 Tw (group in the state or political subdivision bear the) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.14 Tw (effects of discrimination in such areas as education,) Tj 0 -12.9 Td .47 Tw (employment and health, which hinder their ability to) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.2 Tw (participate effectively in the political process;) Tj 0 -25.7 Td .23 Tw (\(6\) whether political campaigns have been character-) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.2 Tw (ized by overt or subtle racial appeals;) Tj 0 -25.7 Td 3.16 Tw (\(7\) the extent to which members of the minority) Tj 0 -12.9 Td .55 Tw (group have been elected to public office in the juris-) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.2 Tw (diction;) Tj 0 -25.8 Td .75 Tw (\(8\) whether there is a significant lack of responsive-) Tj 0 -13 Td .63 Tw (ness on the part of elected officials to the particular-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (ized needs of the members of the minority group;) Tj 0 -25.8 Td .83 Tw (\(9\) whether the policy underlying the state or politi-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.93 Tw (cal subdivision's use of such voting qualification,) Tj 0 -13 Td .42 Tw (prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or proce-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (dure is tenuous.) Tj -22 -25.8 Td 2.3 Tw (S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 28-29.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (14) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The Senate Report empha-) Tj 0 -13 Td .33 Tw (sized, however, that ) Tj (there is no requirement that any particu-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.75 Tw (lar number of factors be proved, or that a majority of them) Tj 0 -13 Td .74 Tw (point one way or the other,) Tj ( and that, ) Tj ([w]hile these enumer-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.63 Tw (ated factors will often be the most relevant ones, in some) Tj 0 -13 Td .88 Tw (cases other factors will be indicative of the alleged dilution.) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 29.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.6 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .75 Tw (14) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Hereinafter, the factors listed in the Senate Report will be referred to) Tj -10 -11.1 Td .51 Tw (as the ) Tj (Senate Factors.) Tj ( Senate Factors 8 and 9 were not numbered in the) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .3 Tw (Senate Report, but were provided as ) Tj (additional factors that in some cases) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .71 Tw (have had probative value.) Tj ( S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 29. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, how-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1 Tw (ever, numbered these as Factors 8 and 9. We follow that practice. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -433.55 m 300 -433.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (124) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 156 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 157 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 158 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 159 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 160 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 161 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (B.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Law of the Case) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 3.46 Tw ([3]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( As a preliminary matter, Defendants argue that the) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.91 Tw (VRA does not apply to state felon disenfranchisement laws) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.32 Tw (and that the district court's grant of summary judgment) Tj 0 -13 Td .87 Tw (should be affirmed on that basis alone. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, how-) Tj 0 -13 Td .22 Tw (ever, we clearly held that vote denial claims challenging felon) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.28 Tw (disenfranchisement laws are cognizable under ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 4.28 Tw (2 of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (VRA) Tj (. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 338 F.3d at 1016. Defendants acknowl-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (edge that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is the law of the case, but argue that the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .51 Tw (exceptions to the law of the case doctrine permit this panel to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .81 Tw (reexamine) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj (We disagree because, as discussed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .84 Tw (below, none of the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.52 Tw (applies. Therefore, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( remains binding on this) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (panel.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .51 Tw ([4]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj (The law of the case doctrine states that the decision of) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .05 Tw (an appellate court on a legal issue must be followed in all sub-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (sequent proceedings in the same case.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Jeffries v. Wood) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 114) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (F.3d 1484, 1489 \(9th Cir.\) \(en banc\) \(internal quotation marks) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.41 Tw (omitted\) \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Caldwell v. Unified Capital Corp. ) Tj (\(In re) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (Rainbow Magazine, Inc.\)) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 77 F.3d 278, 281 \(9th Cir. 1996\)\),) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .06 Tw (overruled on other grounds by Lindh v. Murphy) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 521 U.S. 320) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (\(1997\), ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (cert. denied) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 522 U.S. 1008 \(1997\). Nevertheless, ) Tj (a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (panel of this court has discretion to depart from the law of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (case . . . where: `\(1\) the decision is clearly erroneous and its) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (enforcement would work a manifest injustice, \(2\) intervening) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.34 Tw (controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate, or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (\(3\) substantially different evidence was adduced at a subse-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.5 Tw (quent trial.') Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 4.5 Tw () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 216 F.3d 764, 787 \(9th Cir.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (2000\) \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Jeffries) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 114 F.3d at 1489\).) Tj ( ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .18 Tw ([5]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Defendants appear to invoke the first and second excep-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.24 Tw (tions, arguing that ) Tj ([t]he subsequent intervening authority of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (sister circuits reveals that this Court's conclusion was clearly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (erroneous and works a manifest injustice.) Tj ( They rely on post-) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 2.53 Tw (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( cases from the Second and Eleventh Circuits,) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (125) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 162 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.53 Tw 0 Tc (which held that the VRA does not apply to felon disenfran-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .77 Tw (chisement laws. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Hayden v. Pataki) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 449 F.3d 305 \(2d Cir.) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .06 Tw (2006\) \(en banc\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Johnson v. Governor of the State of Fla.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 405) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.17 Tw (F.3d 1214 \(11th Cir.\) \(en banc\), ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (cert. denied) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 546 U.S. 1015) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.78 Tw (\(2005\)\).) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (15) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( To the extent Defendants suggest that these cases) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 0 Tw (constitute ) Tj (intervening controlling authority) Tj ( that would make) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.28 Tw (reconsideration appropriate, such argument is clearly incor-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.14 Tw (rect. Out-of-circuit cases are not binding on this Court and) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .05 Tw (therefore do not constitute ) Tj (controlling authority.) Tj ( Defendants) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (have cited no case to the contrary.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.3 Td 3.28 Tw ([6]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Moreover, although ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Hayden) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Johnson, ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Simmons) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13.2 Td .36 Tw (created a circuit split with our decision in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, we do) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.75 Tw (not agree that those decisions demonstrate that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 3.67 Tw (was ) Tj (clearly erroneous.) Tj ( First, both ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Hayden) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Johnson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.21 Tw (were rendered over vigorous dissents. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Hayden) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 449 F.3d) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1 Tw (at 343-62 \(Parker, J., dissenting, joined by Calabresi, Pooler,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.16 Tw (and Sotomayor, JJ.\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 362-67 \(Calabresi, J., dissenting\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td .66 Tw (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 367-68 \(Sotomayor, J., dissenting\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 368-69 \(Katz-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .82 Tw (mann, J., dissenting\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Johnson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 405 F.3d at 1239-44 \(Wilson,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .46 Tw (J., dissenting in relevant part\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1247-51 \(Barkett, J., dis-) Tj /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 2.85 Tw (senting\).) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (16) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Thus, even if we assume that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( was) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.33 Tw (erroneous, such error was hardly ) Tj (clear,) Tj ( given the vigorous) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.41 Tw (dissenting opinions in the First, Second, and Eleventh Cir-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.67 Tw (cuits) Tj (. Second,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( was called en banc but failed to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.07 Tw (attract a majority vote of the nonrecused active judges in) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.46 Tw (favor of en banc rehearing. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan v. Washington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 359) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.3 Tw (F.3d 1116 \(9th Cir. 2004\) \(denying petition for rehearing en) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.83 Tw (banc\). That a majority of this Court's active judges did not) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.44 Tw (consider ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (worthy of en banc rehearing also sup-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.36 Tw (ports a conclusion that the decision was not ) Tj (clearly errone-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .13 Tw (ous. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Cf. Jeffries) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 114 F.3d at 1493 \(holding that a three-judge) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1 Tw (15) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Since this case was argued and submitted for decision, the First Cir-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .04 Tw (cuit has also held that the VRA does not apply to felon disenfranchisement) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (laws. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See Simmons v. Galvin) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 575 F.3d 24 \(1st Cir. 2009\). ) Tj 10 -14 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.15 Tw (16) Tj 0 Ts /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Simmons) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, too, was filed over a vigorous dissent. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( 575 F.3d at 45) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (\(Torruella, J., dissenting\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -430.15 m 300 -430.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (126) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 163 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .55 Tw 0 Tc (panel ) Tj (should not have exercised its discretion to depart from) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .33 Tw (its prior decision) Tj ( in part because ) Tj (further appellate review of) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.77 Tw ([that decision] was sought and denied prior to the panel's) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 4.5 Tw (change of heart) Tj (\).) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (17) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Finally, although it did not directly) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.24 Tw (address the question whether challenges to felon disenfran-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .63 Tw (chisement laws are cognizable under VRA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .63 Tw (2, the Sixth Cir-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.09 Tw (cuit treated them as such when it decided a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.09 Tw (2 vote dilution) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.16 Tw (challenge to Tennessee's felon disenfranchisement law. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.95 Tw (Wesley v. Collins) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 791 F.2d 1255, 1259-62 \(6th Cir. 1986\).) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.3 Tw (Taking ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Wesley) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( into account, there is a close split among the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.92 Tw (circuits that have faced VRA challenges to felon disenfran-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.2 Tw (chisement laws on whether such challenges are cognizable,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.66 Tw (lending further support to the conclusion that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.58 Tw (cannot be considered ) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (clearly) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( erroneous) Tj ( for the purpose of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (departing from the law of the case.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.3 Td 2.66 Tw ([7]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We thus conclude that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( remains binding) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Circuit law.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26.2 Td (C.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Standing) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td 3.95 Tw (Defendants next argue that Plaintiffs ) Tj (lack standing to) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.79 Tw (claim that they were denied the right to vote on account of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .4 Tw (race because they have not shown that their own felony con-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.81 Tw (victions were the result of racial discrimination. Defendants) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (misconstrue the requirements for Article III standing.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td .2 Tw ([8]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( To establish Article III standing, Plaintiffs must demon-) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .44 Tw (strate: \(1\) that they have suffered an injury in fact that is both) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.05 Tw (concrete and particularized) Tj ( and ) Tj (actual and imminent,) Tj ( \(2\)) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .57 Tw (that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action, and) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .4 Tw (\(3\) that a decision in Plaintiffs' favor would likely redress the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.22 Tw (injury. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.58 Tw (\(1992\). That test is easily satisfied here. Plaintiffs have suf-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .33 Tw (17) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Like the panel decision at issue in ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Jeffries) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (114 F.3d at 1493, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Far-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .98 Tw (rakhan I) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( was denied both en banc rehearing, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 359 F.3d 1116,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (and a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, 543 U.S. 984. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (127) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 164 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.77 Tw 0 Tc (fered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .72 Tw (actual: they have been denied the right to vote. That injury is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.45 Tw (directly traceable to the challenged action: Washington's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.38 Tw (felon disenfranchisement law. And a decision invalidating) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 7 Tw (Washington's felon disenfranchisement provision would) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.33 Tw (redress Plaintiffs' injury: it would restore their right to vote.) Tj 12 -26.2 Td .72 Tw (The State attempts to import a merits question that is, a) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .41 Tw (question regarding whether plaintiffs can prove a violation ) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.47 Tw (into the standing inquiry. This is incorrect. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Warth v.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.14 Tw (Seldin) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 422 U.S. 490, 500 \(1975\) \() Tj ([S]tanding in no way) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .55 Tw (depends on the merits of the plaintiff's contention that partic-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .44 Tw (ular conduct is illegal.) Tj (\)) Tj (. Standing is a threshold question, the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1 Tw (purpose of which is to ensure that there is an actual ) Tj (case or) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .4 Tw (controversy) Tj ( and that the plaintiff is the correct party to bring) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .1 Tw (suit. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 498-99. Whether Plaintiffs can succeed on their) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .33 Tw (VRA claim is irrelevant to the question whether they are enti-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (tled to bring that claim in the first place.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (18) Tj 0 Ts /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td 1.9 Tw ([9]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In any event, neither this Court nor the other circuits) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.48 Tw (that have considered vote denial claims under ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.48 Tw (2 have ever) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .57 Tw (held that a plaintiff lacked standing because he or she did not) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.32 Tw (allege that he/she had been personally discriminated against.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.5 Tw (18) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Moreover, as Plaintiffs correctly point out, they need not show that) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.17 Tw (their own convictions were the result of racial discrimination to succeed) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .9 Tw (on a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .9 Tw (2 vote denial claim. First, a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .9 Tw (2 claim focuses on the effect of the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .99 Tw (challenged practice on minority voters ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (as a class) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, rather than on the dis-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .3 Tw (crimination faced by the plaintiff in a given case. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( 42 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .3 Tw (1973\(b\)) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.48 Tw (\() Tj (A violation of subsection \(a\) of this section is established if . . . it is) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.23 Tw (shown that the political process leading to nomination or election in the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .12 Tw (State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (by mem-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.27 Tw (bers of a class of citizens protected by subdivision \(a\)) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( . . . .) Tj ( \(emphasis) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 2.91 Tw (added\)\). Second, in amending ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.91 Tw (2, Congress expressly eliminated the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .45 Tw (requirement that plaintiffs raising ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .45 Tw (2 claims prove intentional discrimina-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .76 Tw (tion. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 16 \() Tj ([P]roof of a discriminatory purpose) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .57 Tw (should not be a prerequisite to establishing a violation of Section 2 of the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .93 Tw (Voting Rights Act.) Tj (\); ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( at 28 \() Tj ([T]he specific intent of this amendment) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .22 Tw (is that the plaintiffs may choose to establish discriminatory results without) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (proving any kind of discriminatory purpose.) Tj (\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -309.75 m 300 -309.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (128) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 165 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .77 Tw 0 Tc (See Hayden) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 499 F.3d 305; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Johnson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 405 F.3d 1214; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrak-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.96 Tw (han I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 338 F.3d 1009; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Salt ) Tj (River) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 109 F.3d 586. Because) Tj 0 -13 Td .45 Tw (Plaintiffs have alleged an injury in fact that is traceable to the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.41 Tw (Washington law and can be redressed by a favorable ruling,) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.24 Tw (we reject Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs lack standing.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26 Td 1.2 Tw (D.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (The cross-motions for summary judgment) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 11 -26 Td (1.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (The summary judgment standard) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 1 -26 Td 1.1 Tw ([10]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj (Summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.3 Tw (issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to prevail) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (in the case as a matter of law.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 477 U.S. 242, 250 \(1986\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56\(c\).) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.82 Tw (Here, the parties agree that there are no disputed material) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.55 Tw (facts. Indeed, ) Tj ([a]lthough summary judgment rules provided) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw ([Defendants] with an opportunity to respond to [Plaintiffs']) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .21 Tw (materials, [Defendants] did not offer any fact-based or expert-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (based refutation in the manner the rules provide.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Beard) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .58 Tw (v. Banks) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 548 U.S. 521, 534 \(2006\) \(plurality opinion\) \(citing) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56\(e\)\). Federal Civil Rule 56\(e\)\(2\) provides) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.33 Tw (that ) Tj ([w]hen a motion for summary judgment is properly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (made and supported, an opposing party may not rely merely) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.06 Tw (on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.18 Tw (response must by affidavits or as otherwise provided in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (this rule set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.84 Tw (trial. If the opposing party does not so respond, summary) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5 Tw (judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (party. Likewise, Rule 56.1\(b\) of the Local Rules of the East-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.52 Tw (ern District of Washington \() Tj (Local Rule) Tj (\) provides that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw ([a]ny party opposing a motion for summary judgment must) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.1 Tw (file with its responsive memorandum a statement . . . setting) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (forth the specific facts which the opposing party asserts estab-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (lishes a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.95 Tw (judgment. Each fact must explicitly identify any fact\(s\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.73 Tw (asserted by the moving party which the opposing party dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (putes or clarifies.) Tj ( If the moving party's statement of facts are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (not controverted in this manner, ) Tj (the Court may assume that) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (129) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 166 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 131 0 obj<> endobj 167 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .45 Tw 0 Tc (the facts as claimed by the moving party are admitted to exist) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .03 Tw (without controversy.) Tj ( Local Rule 56.1\(d\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( see also Beard) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 548) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (U.S. at 527. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td 1.91 Tw ([11]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Here, Defendants failed specifically to challenge the) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.08 Tw (facts identified in Plaintiffs' statement of undisputed facts as) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.58 Tw (required by the rules. Defendants did, in their Supplemental) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .03 Tw (Statement of Material Facts, raise some questions about Plain-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .71 Tw (tiffs' expert's reports, but those questions were not supported) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.42 Tw (by affidavit or counter-experts. Moreover, none of the ques-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.14 Tw (tions raised by Defendants in their Supplemental Statement) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .81 Tw (contradicts, or even suggests that there is some dispute about) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .47 Tw (the ultimate conclusions of Plaintiffs' experts' reports. There-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.37 Tw (fore, ) Tj (by failing specifically to challenge the facts identified) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .28 Tw (in [Plaintiffs'] statement of undisputed facts, [Defendants are]) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .4 Tw (deemed to have admitted the validity of the facts contained in) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (the [Plaintiffs'] statement.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Beard) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 548 U.S. at 527. ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td .53 Tw (In addition to failing to challenge any of Plaintiffs' facts in) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 3.44 Tw (the manner required by Rule 56\(e\) and Local Rule 56.1,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.16 Tw (Defendants insisted before the district court that ) Tj ([N]o ques-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.43 Tw (tion of material fact remains in this case; and therefore, this) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .6 Tw (case is ready to be ruled upon at summary judgment.) Tj ( Just as) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.67 Tw (Defendants' counsel insisted before the district court that) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .87 Tw (there were no disputes of material facts, Defendants' counsel) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.91 Tw (at oral argument before this Court repeatedly insisted that) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .26 Tw (there were no disputes of material fact. Therefore, Defendants) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .47 Tw (do not, and have not, disputed any of Plaintiffs' factual asser-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .75 Tw (tions, including the assertions put forth by Plaintiffs' experts,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.27 Tw (either in their briefing before this Court or during oral argu-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1 Tw (ment. Instead, Defendants have stated repeatedly both before) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.53 Tw (the district court and this Court that no question of material) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .43 Tw (fact exists and that this case is ready to be ruled upon at sum-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (mary judgment.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (19) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 2.57 Tw (19) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (For example, at oral argument, Defendants ) Tj (disagree[d]) Tj ( with the) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 2.6 Tw (panel's suggestion that there may be a dispute about a material fact;) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .55 Tw (insisted that there is no issue of material fact for trial because Defendants) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (130) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 168 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 169 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 170 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 171 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 172 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 173 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .11 Tw 0 Tc (Defendants do argue that the district court erred in conclud-) Tj -12 -13.7 Td 2.14 Tw (ing there is discrimination in Washington's criminal justice) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1 Tw (system on account of race because, according to Defendants,) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 2.32 Tw (Plaintiffs' evidence of racial bias in Washington's criminal) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .88 Tw (justice system ) Tj (is very limited,) Tj ( and is inadequate to demon-) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1 Tw (strate that even Senate Factor 5 favors Plaintiffs' claims as a) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .74 Tw (matter of law. In other words, Defendants argue that) Tj ( they are) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.18 Tw (entitled to summary judgment because even accepting Plain-) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .36 Tw (tiffs' evidence as uncontroverted, it fails ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (as a matter of law) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( to) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 3 Tw (demonstrate that the felon disenfranchisement law violates) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (2. ) Tj 12 -27.2 Td 1.36 Tw (When a moving party without the ultimate burden of per-) Tj -12 -13.7 Td 1.18 Tw (suasion at trial demonstrates that it is entitled to prevail as a) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.6 Tw (matter of law by showing that the nonmoving party has not) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.67 Tw (adduced sufficient evidence of an essential element to carry) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .96 Tw (its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial, the moving party is) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .25 Tw (entitled to summary judgment. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Nissan Fire & Marine Ins.) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.66 Tw (Co. v. Fritz Cos.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 \(9th Cir. 2000\). Put) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 3.53 Tw (differently, when the nonmoving party has the burden of) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .57 Tw (proof at trial, as Plaintiffs do here, the party moving for sum-) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .27 Tw (mary judgment, in this case the State, need only point out that) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 2.7 Tw (there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.71 Tw (party's case. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Devereaux v. Abbey) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .44 Tw (\(9th Cir. 2001\) \(en banc\). If, on the other hand, the State fails) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .47 Tw (to demonstrate that there is an absence of evidence to support) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 2.18 Tw (Plaintiffs' case, then the State's summary judgment motion) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.2 Tw (must be denied. ) Tj 12 -27.1 Td 3.04 Tw (As the Supreme Court has noted, Defendants' litigation) Tj -12 -13.6 Td .42 Tw (strategy is a perilous one. ) Tj (It has always been perilous for the) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26.9 Td 1.91 Tw (do not dispute the conclusions of Plaintiffs' expert reports, but instead) Tj 0 -11.6 Td .67 Tw (challenge their legal adequacy; stated that either Defendants win on sum-) Tj 0 -11.6 Td .27 Tw (mary judgment or Plaintiffs win on summary judgment because Plaintiffs') Tj 0 -11.6 Td 1 Tw (evidence is ) Tj (inadequate) Tj ( to meet Plaintiffs' burden; and that ) Tj ([t]here are) Tj 0 -11.6 Td (no factual issues.) Tj ( ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -430.85 m 300 -430.85 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (131) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 174 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.67 Tw 0 Tc (opposing party neither to proffer any countering evidentiary) Tj 0 -13 Td .23 Tw (material nor file a 56\(f\) affidavit. And the peril rightly contin-) Tj 0 -13 Td .6 Tw (ues after the amendment to Rule 56\(e\).) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Adickes v. Kress) Tj 0 -13 Td .92 Tw (& Co.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 398 U.S. 144, 161 \(1970\) \(internal citation, quotation) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.66 Tw (marks, and brackets omitted\). Declining to ) Tj (offer any evi-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.7 Tw (dence opposing summary judgment . . . is not the recom-) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.66 Tw (mended approach when the opposing party feels that the) Tj 0 -13 Td .33 Tw (movant has not met his burden. . . . [I]n most cases the better) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (response to a summary-judgment motion is not simply to test) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (the sufficiency of the movant's case by challenging the legal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (sufficiency of the evidence presented on the motion, but to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.67 Tw (introduce contradictory evidence to establish that a question) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (of material fact remains in dispute.) Tj ( 10A Charles Alan Wright) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (et al., Federal Practice and Procedure Civil 3d ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .73 Tw (2727, at 516) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.57 Tw (\(1998\). Nevertheless, that is the approach the Defendants) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.24 Tw (have pursued, and we are charged with deciding this case in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.67 Tw (the procedural posture and on the record evidence as it is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (brought before us.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .26 Tw ([12]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Plaintiffs, on the other hand, would be entitled to sum-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.8 Tw (mary judgment based upon their motion if they make out a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .09 Tw (prima facie case that would entitle them to judgment as a mat-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .48 Tw (ter of law if uncontroverted at trial. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (UA Local 134 United) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipefit-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .39 Tw (ting Indus. of U.S. & Canada, AFL-CIO) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 48 F.3d at 1471; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.86 Tw (also) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 10A Wright et al., ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (supra) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.86 Tw (2727, at 486. Given that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (Defendants have not adduced any evidence to show that there) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.63 Tw (is a genuine issue for trial, Plaintiffs need only demonstrate) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (that their uncontroverted evidence entitles them to judgment) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.51 Tw (as a matter of law. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Ritchie v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 451 F.3d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (1019, 1023 \(9th Cir.2006\) \() Tj ([J]udgment as a matter of law is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (appropriate only if no reasonable jury could find in favor of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (the non-moving party.) Tj (\).) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 3.71 Tw ([13]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Thus, because the parties agree that the facts are) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.08 Tw (uncontroverted and agree further that the only question left) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (for the court is to determine the legal significance of those) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.85 Tw (facts and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from them,) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (132) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 175 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .85 Tw 0 Tc (we conclude that summary judgment in this case is appropri-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (ate:) Tj 22 -26 Td 1.36 Tw (The fact that difficult questions of law exist or that) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.58 Tw (parties differ on the legal conclusion to be drawn) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.27 Tw (from the facts is not in and of itself a ground for) Tj 0 -13 Td .76 Tw (denying summary judgment inasmuch as refusing to) Tj 0 -13 Td .5 Tw (grant the motion does not obviate the court's obliga-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.82 Tw (tion to make a difficult decision; a denial merely) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.91 Tw (postpones coming to grips with the problem at the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (cost of engaging in a full-dress trial that is unneces-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (sary for a just adjudication of the dispute. Therefore,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td (when the only question is what legal conclusions are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.96 Tw (to be drawn from an established set of facts, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.88 Tw (entry of summary judgment usually should be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (directed.) Tj -22 -26 Td .93 Tw (10A Wright et al., ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (supra) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .93 Tw (2725, at 411-12; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also Farrak-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .43 Tw (han) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 359 F.3d at 1117 \(Kozinski, J., dissenting from denial of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.85 Tw (rehearing en banc\) \() Tj ([T]he record is settled. . . . No triable) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (issues of fact remain.) Tj (\)) Tj (; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Smith v. Califano) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 597 F.2d 152, 155) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.74 Tw (n.4 \(9th Cir. 1979\) \() Tj (The parties here have agreed on the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (material facts, the dispute involving the proper interpretation) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (of relevant statutes and regulations. Because the case could) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (thus be resolved as a matter of law, summary judgment was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (the proper procedural device.) Tj (\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (cf. ) Tj (Aramark Facility Servs. v.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 1877, AFL-CIO) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 530 F.3d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (817, 822 \(9th Cir. 2008\) \() Tj (Here, the district court resolved the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.61 Tw (matter on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .71 Tw (which necessarily present questions of law.) Tj (\). Thus, the legal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.91 Tw (question presented to us, although difficult, is a straightfor-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.5 Tw (ward one: Have Plaintiffs demonstrated a prima facie case) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.87 Tw (that the felon disenfranchisement law violates ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.87 Tw (2 of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.36 Tw (VRA, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (i.e.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, that: \(1\) there are significant statistical racial dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.4 Tw (parities in the operation of the criminal justice system; \(2\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.81 Tw (those disparities cannot be explained in race-neutral ways;) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.08 Tw (and \(3\) those non-race-neutral disparities in the criminal jus-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (tice system lead to significant racial disparities in the qualifi-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (133) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 176 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 4.44 Tw 0 Tc (cation to vote, such that Plaintiffs would be entitled to) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.74 Tw (judgment as a matter of law based upon the uncontroverted) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (evidence?) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 11 -26 Td (2.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (The merits of the cross-motions) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1 -26 Td 3.88 Tw (Defendants' summary judgment motion is premised on) Tj -12 -13 Td 3.67 Tw (Plaintiffs' having failed to produce sufficient evidence to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.85 Tw (establish a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.85 Tw (2 vote denial claim. The nub of Defendant's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .02 Tw (argument is that all of the Senate Factors are relevant to Plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (tiffs' vote denial claim; that the district court was correct to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.8 Tw (consider them in its totality-of-the-circumstances analysis;) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (and that, because Plaintiffs failed to produce probative evi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (dence relating to Senate Factors other than 5, Plaintiffs failed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (to produce sufficient evidence to make out a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.3 Tw (2 vote denial) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (claim. Thus, Defendants contend, they were entitled to sum-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (mary judgment.) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.28 Tw (Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that, having con-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.37 Tw (cluded that racial discrimination exists in the Washington) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (criminal justice system \(Factor 5\), the district erred in then) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.1 Tw (requiring Plaintiffs to produce evidence regarding other Sen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (ate Factors not relevant to their vote denial claim. While those) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (factors may be pertinent to a vote dilution claim, Plaintiffs) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .13 Tw (contend that they ) Tj (cast no light on Plaintiffs' vote denial chal-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (lenge. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.41 Tw (We agree with Plaintiffs for the reason that, given the) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.23 Tw (strength of their Factor 5 showing, the district court erred in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (requiring them to prove Factors that had little if any relevance) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.2 Tw (to their particular vote denial claim. Although the district) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.63 Tw (court was required to consider the ) Tj (totality of the circum-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.15 Tw (stances, not all of the Senate Factors were equally relevant,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (or even necessary, to that analysis in this case. Some Senate) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.42 Tw (Factors may be relevant as circumstantial evidence with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.17 Tw (respect to certain) Tj ( vote denial claims, but proof of those Fac-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (tors was not required where, under Factor 5, Plaintiffs pro-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.57 Tw (vided strong, indeed ) Tj (compelling,) Tj ( direct evidence of the) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (134) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 177 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 4.41 Tw 0 Tc (alleged violation. There is indeed, as the Senate Report) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .21 Tw (stressed, no requirement that any particular number of Factors) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.8 Tw (support a particular claim. S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 29. Even) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (one may be enough in some instances.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (20) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.3 Td .25 Tw (We first address the district court's treatment of the various) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.37 Tw (Senate Factors to explain why that treatment was erroneous.) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .17 Tw (We then consider whether the evidence produced by Plaintiffs) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.11 Tw (was sufficient to preclude a grant of summary judgment to) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .24 Tw (Defendants. Finally, we consider whether Plaintiffs were enti-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (tled to summary judgment.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -26.3 Td (a.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (The district court's treatment of the Senate Factors) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 11 -26.3 Td (i. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Senate Factors 7 and 8) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -21 -26.2 Td .87 Tw ([14]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In its listing of the Factors that typically may be rele-) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1 Tw (vant to a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (2 claim, the Senate Report made clear that ) Tj (there) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.25 Tw (is no requirement that any particular number of Factors be) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .25 Tw (proved or that a majority of them point one way or the other.) Tj () Tj 0 -13.2 Td .48 Tw (S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 29; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 29 n.118 \(stating that the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.18 Tw (Factors were not intended ) Tj (to be used[) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.18 Tw (] as a mechanical) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.16 Tw (`point-counting' device) Tj (\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also ) Tj (Gomez) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 863 F.2d at 1412) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.14 Tw (\(noting the Senate Report's emphasis that the ) Tj (list of factors) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .92 Tw (was not a mandatory seven-pronged test) Tj ( but ) Tj (only meant as) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .7 Tw (a guide to illustrate some of the variables that should be con-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.07 Tw (sidered by the court) Tj (\). Thus, ) Tj (while the basic `totality of the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .22 Tw (circumstances' test remains the same, the range of factors that) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .48 Tw (20) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Contrary to what the dissent contends, we do not ) Tj (dictat[e] that a dis-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .12 Tw (trict court should not consider certain factors . . . in vote denial cases.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.2 Td 0 Tw (Diss. at 160. We hold only that different factors will be of relevance in dif-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.47 Tw (ferent cases, depending on the circumstances of those cases; that courts) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .09 Tw (should consider each factor in light of the circumstances of the case before) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.22 Tw (them; and that where, as here, plaintiffs provide compelling evidence of) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.43 Tw (a law or system of laws that, as implemented, necessarily results in the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .48 Tw (discriminatory deprivation of racial minorities' right to vote, that depriva-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.36 Tw (tion is sufficient, and the plaintiffs need not present additional evidence) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.21 Tw (regarding other factors that are of less relevance to the plaintiffs' claim.) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -376.95 m 300 -376.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (135) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 178 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 132 0 obj<> endobj 179 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .6 Tw 0 Tc ([are] relevant in any given case will vary depending upon the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.09 Tw (nature of the claim and the facts of the case.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Gomez) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 863) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.36 Tw (F.3d at 1412. Where the evidence of one central Factor in a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.91 Tw (particular case is compelling, that Factor may be sufficient.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .58 Tw (Moreover, as the Supreme Court has recognized, the enumer-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.32 Tw (ated Factors are ) Tj (particularly [pertinent] to vote dilution) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.1 Tw (claims, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Thornburg) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 478 U.S. at 45, and, it follows, not as) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (pertinent, generally, in vote denial cases. Thus, in vote denial) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (cases, there is even more flexibility in determining whether,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.17 Tw (under the totality of the circumstances test, a single factor is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.52 Tw (controlling and whether any weight may or should be given) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (to the presence or absence of others.) Tj 12 -26.1 Td 1 Tw (The district court acknowledged that it was ) Tj (not bound by) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (the list of Senate factors,) Tj ( but found that several of the Fac-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .21 Tw (tors were relevant to Plaintiffs' vote denial challenge. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrak-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .84 Tw (han) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 2006 WL 1889273, at *7) Tj (. Specifically, the district court) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .39 Tw (found that Factors 7 and 8 the extent of minority represen-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .28 Tw (tation among elected officials, and the level of responsiveness) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .11 Tw (of elected officials to minorities' needs were ) Tj (certainly rel-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.55 Tw (evant to Plaintiffs' VRA claim.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at *8.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (21) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We conclude,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .92 Tw (however, that, in light of its finding of ) Tj (compelling evidence) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.9 Tw (of racial discrimination and bias in Washington's criminal) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.96 Tw (justice system,) Tj ( the district court erred in according any) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.04 Tw (weight to Plaintiffs' failure to introduce evidence regarding) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.1 Tw (Factors 7 and 8. These factors are not essential to a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.1 Tw (2 vote) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .3 Tw (denial claim and in this case, while their presence might be of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.53 Tw (some relevance, their absence is insufficient cause to justify) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (in any respect the denial of Plaintiffs' claim.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .82 Tw (21) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The district court also noted that Plaintiffs had ) Tj (failed to present any) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .08 Tw (substantial evidence regarding) Tj ( Senate Factors 2, 3, 4, and 6. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( However,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.74 Tw (it then ) Tj (admitted[) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.74 Tw (]) Tj ( that ) Tj (several of these factors are not relevant in a) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.43 Tw (VRA vote denial claim.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( Because we interpret this to mean that the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.76 Tw (district court did not rely on these factors in its totality of the circum-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .95 Tw (stances analysis, we do not address these factors. In any event, we agree) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .55 Tw (with the district court that these factors are not relevant to Plaintiffs' vote) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .05 Tw (denial claim. Therefore, to the extent the district court did weigh these fac-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (tors in its analysis, we conclude that it erred. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -388.15 m 300 -388.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (136) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 180 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 181 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 182 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 183 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 184 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 185 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 1.75 Tw 0 Tc (To understand which Senate Factors might be relevant to) Tj -12 -13.6 Td 1.17 Tw (deciding a vote denial claim, it is important to recognize the) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.32 Tw (analytical distinction between vote denial and vote dilution) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.47 Tw (theories. A vote dilution claim does not allege that minority) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .75 Tw (voters are denied access to the polls; rather, the claim is that,) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.28 Tw (although minority voters have the formal right to vote, the) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .16 Tw (challenged voting scheme ) Tj (operates to minimize or cancel out) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.5 Tw ([the minority voters'] ability to elect their preferred candi-) Tj /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.6 Td .46 Tw (dates.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (22) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Thornburg) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 478 U.S. at 48.) Tj ( In other words, the focus) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 3.07 Tw (of a vote dilution challenge is on the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (effectiveness) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( of the) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 0 Tw (minority plaintiffs' votes. Naturally then, the Factors most rel-) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .73 Tw (evant to a vote dilution claim are those that examine whether) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.44 Tw (minorities have the capacity to be politically influential as a) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.92 Tw (group, and, if so, whether their political influence has been) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 3.46 Tw (weakened for example, whether the minority group is) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.7 Tw (politically cohesive, whether the white majority votes in a) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1 Tw (bloc, whether voting is racially polarized, whether minorities) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .52 Tw (have succeeded in being elected to public office, and whether) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.71 Tw (elected officials have been responsive to the particularized) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.4 Tw (needs of the minority group. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Thornburg) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 478 U.S. at 48) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.2 Tw (& n.15.) Tj 12 -27 Td 2.37 Tw (Vote denial claims, in contrast, challenge laws, as ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (amici) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13.5 Td 2.85 Tw (point out, ) Tj (that directly exclude otherwise qualified voters) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.38 Tw (from participating.) Tj ( Whereas vote dilution claims ) Tj (implicate) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.78 Tw (the value of aggregation,) Tj ( vote denial claims ) Tj (implicate the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.57 Tw (value of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (participation) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj ( Tokaji, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (supra) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, at 718 \(emphasis) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.11 Tw (added\). Thus, the primary question in such cases is not) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.46 Tw (whether a ) Tj (denial or abridgement) Tj ( occurs, but whether such) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.1 Tw (denial is ) Tj (on account of race.) Tj ( In vote denial claims brought) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .24 Tw (under the ) Tj (results test,) Tj ( the ) Tj (on account of) Tj ( element is proved) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.43 Tw (by showing that a ) Tj (discriminatory impact . . . is attributable) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.07 Tw (to racial discrimination in the surrounding social and histori-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.6 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.47 Tw (22) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Chief examples of vote-dilution practices include at-large elections) Tj -10 -11.5 Td .95 Tw (and redistricting plans to keep minorities' voting strength weak.) Tj ( Tokaji,) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.5 Td 1 Tw (supra) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, at 691. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -454.45 m 300 -454.45 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (137) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 186 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.33 Tw 0 Tc (cal circumstances.) Tj () Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (23) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 338 F.3d at 1019. Conse-) Tj 0 -13 Td .2 Tw (quently, factors that examine the political strength of minority) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (voters in the jurisdiction are of lesser relevance.) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.47 Tw (Given the analytical distinction between vote dilution and) Tj -12 -13 Td .55 Tw (vote denial, it is clear that Senate Factors 7 and 8, while rele-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.58 Tw (vant to the former,) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (24) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( are of lesser relevance to a vote denial) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.47 Tw (claim. The ) Tj (extent to which members of the minority group) Tj 0 -13 Td .7 Tw (have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction) Tj ( \(Senate) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.3 Tw (Factor 7\) simply has no bearing on the question whether) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.6 Tw (minorities are being denied the right to vote ) Tj (on account of) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.21 Tw (race.) Tj ( Even if a majority of the elected officials in the juris-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.28 Tw (diction were members of the minority group, it would still) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.02 Tw (violate ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.02 Tw (2 to deny minority citizens the right to vote on dis-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.71 Tw (criminatory grounds. The fact that minority candidates have) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.44 Tw (had success in the state does not cure the discriminatory) Tj 0 -13 Td .33 Tw (denial of the franchise to minority voters.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (25) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Likewise, whether) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.95 Tw (elected officials have been responsive to ) Tj (the particularized) Tj 0 -13 Td .93 Tw (needs of the members of the minority group) Tj ( \(Factor 8\) may) Tj 0 -13 Td .03 Tw (be probative of the minorities' ability to influence the political) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.47 Tw (process, but generally does not indicate whether minorities) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (are being denied access to the polls on account of their race.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.8 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.14 Tw (23) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (In the challenge under review, to felon disenfranchisement laws, the) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .92 Tw (social circumstance) Tj ( is the operation of the criminal justice system. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .62 Tw (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 338 F.3d at 1012, 1019-20. In ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Salt River) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, the social circum-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (stance at issue was land ownership. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( 109 F.3d at 589. ) Tj 10 -13.9 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 2.21 Tw (24) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The Supreme Court has, in fact, stated that Senate Factor 7 is an) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz -10 -11.2 Td 1.06 Tw (essential) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( factor in a vote dilution challenge that is, a factor that must) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.75 Tw (be proved for the plaintiffs to succeed. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See Thornburg) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 478 U.S. at 48) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.89 Tw (n.15. As for Senate Factor 8, the Supreme Court explained that, while) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.31 Tw (proving that factor ) Tj (might be supportive of a [vote dilution] challenge,) Tj () Tj 0 -11.2 Td .74 Tw (it is ) Tj () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .74 Tw (`) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (not essential to) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (' such a claim.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Gomez) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 863 F.3d at 1413 \(quoting) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (Thornburg) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 478 U.S. at 48 n.15\) \(emphasis in original\). ) Tj 10 -13.9 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 3.4 Tw (25) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The Senate Report strongly indicates that the Senate Committee) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .68 Tw (included Senate Factor 7 to help ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .68 Tw (2 plaintiffs prove vote ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (dilution) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( claims.) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.2 Td .2 Tw (See ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (S. Rep. No. 94-417, at 29 n.115. This lends further support to the con-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .17 Tw (clusion that although it may help them do so, the plaintiffs in a vote denial) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.26 Tw (case are not required to produce evidence supporting Factor 7, and may) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (not be penalized for failing to do so. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -293.25 m 300 -293.25 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (138) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 187 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.33 Tw 0 Tc (If minorities are disproportionately deprived of their right to) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.44 Tw (vote, and if that disparity is caused by racial discrimination,) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.83 Tw (then whether the elected officials have been responsive to) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (minority issues is simply of little relevance.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (26) Tj 0 Ts /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -25.8 Td .37 Tw ([15]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding that) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.6 Tw (Plaintiffs' ) Tj (failure to produce any evidence) Tj ( as to Factors 7) Tj 0 -13 Td .06 Tw (and 8 provided any support for its grant of summary judgment) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.75 Tw (to Defendants. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 2006 WL 1889273, at *8. Plain-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.33 Tw (tiffs' failure to produce evidence regarding those factors is) Tj 0 -13 Td 2 Tw (without legal significance because proof relating to them is) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.7 Tw (not necessary to establish a vote denial claim. This is espe-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.54 Tw (cially so in a case in which a ) Tj (compelling) Tj ( showing of dis-) Tj 0 -13 Td .04 Tw (crimination has been made. Defendants, while contending that) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.9 Tw (the district court was correct to rely on the absence of evi-) Tj 0 -13 Td .36 Tw (dence regarding Factor 7 and Factor 8, do not even attempt to) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.83 Tw (explain why such evidence is relevant to Plaintiffs' vote) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.03 Tw (denial claim. ) Tj (Their unsupported) Tj ( assertion that all of the Sen-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (ate Factors are ) Tj (relevant) Tj ( does not make them so.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (27) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.7 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .61 Tw (26) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Moreover, as with Senate Factor 7, Congress made clear that proving) Tj -10 -11 Td .72 Tw (Factor 8 ) Tj (is not an essential part of plaintiffs' case.) Tj ( S. Rep. No. 94-417,) Tj 0 -11 Td 1 Tw (at 29 n.116. Even ) Tj (Defendants' proof of some responsiveness would not) Tj 0 -11 Td 1.97 Tw (negate Plaintiffs' showing by other, more objective factors enumerated) Tj 0 -11 Td .41 Tw (here that minority voters nevertheless were shut out of equal access to the) Tj 0 -11 Td 1.16 Tw (political process.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( Thus, the Senate Report makes clear that Factor 8) Tj 0 -11 Td .27 Tw (cannot negate Plaintiffs' showing that the disproportionate disenfranchise-) Tj 0 -11 Td .78 Tw (ment of minority voters in Washington is caused by racial discrimination) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1 Tw (in the state's criminal justice system. ) Tj 10 -13.9 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .66 Tw (27) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Because ) Tj (the ingenuity of such schemes) Tj ( to deny minorities the right) Tj -10 -11.1 Td 1.07 Tw (to vote ) Tj (seems endless,) Tj ( S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 6, we do not imply that) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 2.55 Tw (Senate Factors 7 and 8 are never relevant to establishing vote denial) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .4 Tw (claims only that the absence of such evidence may not serve as a justi-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1.17 Tw (fication for denying them. As we have noted, in cases in which the evi-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 5.9 Tw (dence of discrimination in the surrounding social and historical) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .31 Tw (circumstances is less ) Tj (compelling,) Tj ( these factors may provide circumstan-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .58 Tw (tial evidence that the disparate impact of a particular practice on minority) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1.53 Tw (voters is attributable to such discrimination. Here, we merely hold that,) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 2.43 Tw (where plaintiffs provide direct evidence of racial discrimination under) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1 Tw (Factor 5, the absence of evidence regarding Factors 7 and 8 is irrelevant) Tj 0 -11.1 Td (to the district court's totality of the circumstances analysis. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -253.75 m 300 -253.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (139) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 188 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 33 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (ii. Senate Factor 1) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -21 -26.2 Td 1.22 Tw (Plaintiffs also argue that the district court erred in placing) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.16 Tw (near-dispositive weight) Tj ( on Senate Factor 1 \() Tj (extent of any) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.73 Tw (history of official discrimination in the state) Tj ( in the area of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (voting\). We agree. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td 6.33 Tw ([16]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The district court misperceived the relationship) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .41 Tw (between Factor 1 and ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .41 Tw (2 vote denial claims. Although Factor) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .42 Tw (1 may be ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (supportive) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( of a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .42 Tw (2 vote denial claim) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (28) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( especially) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.5 Tw (where the plaintiff alleges that the voting qualification itself) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .66 Tw (is discriminatory proving Factor 1 is not necessary to suc-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .57 Tw (ceed on such a challenge. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Cf. Thornburg) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 478 U.S. at 48 n.15) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .42 Tw (\(distinguishing between factors that are ) Tj (essential) Tj ( to proving) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.3 Tw (a vote dilution claim and factors that are ) Tj (supportive of, but) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td .7 Tw (not essential to) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj ( such a claim\) \(emphasis in original\). Show-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (ing that a state has a history of discriminating against minority) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.06 Tw (voters can strongly support an argument that the state voting) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .42 Tw (qualification being challenged was enacted with a discrimina-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .69 Tw (tory purpose. The ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (failure ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (to show that a state has a history of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.95 Tw (discriminatory voting practices, however, does not ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (negate) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .18 Tw (showing that the current voting practice at issue is discrimina-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (tory. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td .91 Tw ([17]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Plaintiffs do not contend that Washington's felon dis-) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.48 Tw (enfranchisement law was enacted with a discriminatory pur-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .87 Tw (pose; their claim, rather, is that the provision interacts with a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (racially discriminatory criminal justice system and, as a result,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.18 Tw (racial minorities are disproportionately denied the right to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.18 Tw (vote. If Plaintiffs adduce evidence that the disproportionate) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1 Tw (disenfranchisement in Washington is attributable to discrimi-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .83 Tw (nation in the criminal justice system, they may show a viola-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.43 Tw (tion of ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.43 Tw (2 under the ) Tj (results test) Tj ( that was sufficient to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.28 Tw (survive summary judgment. Here, in fact, the district court) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .19 Tw (28) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (In this way, Factor 1 differs from Factors 7 and 8, which are primarily) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .87 Tw (relevant to vote dilution claims and generally do not lend as high a level) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (of support to a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (2 vote denial claim. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (140) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 189 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.1 Tw 0 Tc (found the evidence ) Tj (compelling.) Tj ( That Washington has not) Tj 0 -13 Td 3 Tw (historically discriminated against minorities in voting does) Tj 0 -13 Td .26 Tw (not negate a showing that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (this) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( voting law has a discriminatory) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.57 Tw (result. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (Tokaji, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (supra) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, at 721 \() Tj (A court does ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (not) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( need to) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.25 Tw (rely on . . . circumstantial evidence . . . when there is direct) Tj 0 -13 Td .71 Tw (evidence that an electoral process has the result of dispropor-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (tionately denying minority votes.) Tj ( \(emphasis in original\)\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 4.28 Tw (This conclusion draws support from our precedent. In) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13 Td .85 Tw (Gomez) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the district court denied a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .85 Tw (2 vote dilution challenge) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (to the city's at-large election scheme. After determining that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .15 Tw (the district court had erred in its application of the factors ) Tj (es-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .57 Tw (sential to such a claim, we assessed the district court's treat-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (ment of the ) Tj (other factors,) Tj ( including Factor 1. 863 F.2d at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (1417-19. Although we were ) Tj (troubled) Tj ( by the district court's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.14 Tw (conclusion that there had been no official discrimination) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (against Hispanics, we did not believe ) Tj (that the district court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (had committed clear error) Tj ( in so concluding. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1418. Nev-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.91 Tw (ertheless, we concluded that ) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (even without such a showing,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.95 Tw (plaintiffs have clearly established a violation of Section 2) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1419 \(emphasis added\). Once the factors ) Tj (essential) Tj ( to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (plaintiffs' vote dilution claim had been satisfied, it made no) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (difference that they had not proved a history of official dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (crimination in voting. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .66 Tw ([18]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( As in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Gomez) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, Plaintiffs here established a violation of) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .81 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .81 Tw (2 by adducing evidence sufficient to establish a vote denial) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .91 Tw (claim that ) Tj (there is discrimination in Washington's crimi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .92 Tw (nal justice system on account of race,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 2006 WL) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 6.51 Tw (1889273, at *6, and that such discrimination ) Tj (clearly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (hinder[s] the ability of racial minorities to participate effec-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (tively in the political process,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 338) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.45 Tw (F.3d at 1220 \(internal quotation mark omitted\) \(alteration in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.42 Tw (original\)\). Plaintiffs' evidence of racial discrimination in the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.61 Tw (Washington justice system was, the district court states,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.21 Tw (compelling. Accordingly, Plaintiffs were not required to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.28 Tw (produce further circumstantial evidence, and the district) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (court's conclusion that Plaintiffs' failure to prove Senate Fac-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (141) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 190 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 133 0 obj<> endobj 191 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .03 Tw 0 Tc (tor 1 ) Tj (strongly favors a finding that Washington's felon disen-) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 3.18 Tw (franchisement law does not violate ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.18 Tw (2 of the VRA) Tj ( was) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.2 Tw (erroneous.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 33 -24.6 Td (iii. Senate Factor 9) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -21 -24.7 Td 1.8 Tw (Finally, Plaintiffs contend that the district court's conclu-) Tj -12 -12.4 Td 1.96 Tw (sion that Senate Factor 9 favors Defendants was erroneous.) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .08 Tw (Because, under the totality of the circumstances test, Plaintiffs) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .14 Tw (established a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .14 Tw (2 violation based on the district court's finding) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .9 Tw (of racial discrimination in Washington's criminal justice sys-) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .36 Tw (tem, it does not matter whether, as Plaintiffs claim, the state's) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.2 Tw (policy justification for felon disenfranchisement is tenuous. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -24.7 Td 1.27 Tw ([19]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Like Factor 1, Factor 9 is a factor that could ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (support) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -12.4 Td .57 Tw (Plaintiffs' vote denial claim circumstantially but is not neces-) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .88 Tw (sary to proving it. This conclusion draws direct support from) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 2.37 Tw (the Senate Report's discussion of Factor 9, which explains) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 4.08 Tw (that ) Tj (even a consistently applied practice premised on a) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .83 Tw (racially neutral policy would not negate a plaintiff's showing) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 4.42 Tw (through other factors that the challenged practice denies) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.03 Tw (minorities fair access to the process.) Tj ( S. Rep. No. 97-417, at) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.6 Tw (29 n.117. It is also in line with Congress' express objective) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.37 Tw (in amending ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.37 Tw (2 of ) Tj (broaden[ing] the protection afforded by) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .9 Tw (the Voting Rights Act.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Chisom) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 501 U.S. at 404. Under this) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .58 Tw (approach, the district court's finding that Factor 9 ) Tj (favors the) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .46 Tw (defendants' position) Tj ( is erroneous. If Plaintiffs can prove that) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.41 Tw (the denial of their right to vote was ) Tj (on account of) Tj ( race, it) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .11 Tw (did not matter whether the state's policy reasons were tenuous) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .36 Tw ( a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .36 Tw (2 violation had been established. Accordingly, we hold) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1 Tw (that the district court erred in concluding that Plaintiffs' fail-) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .85 Tw (ure to demonstrate the tenuousness of the state's felon disen-) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .75 Tw (franchisement policy weighed against finding a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .75 Tw (2 violation;) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.2 Tw (to the contrary, in this case Factor 9 was simply neutral.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -24.7 Td .03 Tw (b.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj .03 Tw (Plaintiffs' evidence that vote denial is ) Tj (on account of) Tj 21 -12.5 Td 1.2 Tw (race) Tj () Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -31 -24.7 Td .92 Tw ([20]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Ultimately then, the plaintiff's burden in any ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .92 Tw (2 case) Tj -12 -12.5 Td .7 Tw (is to prove that the challenged voting qualification ) Tj (results in) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (142) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 192 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 193 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 194 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 195 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 196 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 197 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.81 Tw 0 Tc (a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the) Tj 0 -13 Td .81 Tw (United States to vote on account of race or color.) Tj ( 42 U.S.C.) Tj 0 -13 Td .85 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .85 Tw (1973\(a\). In the case of automatic felon disenfranchisement,) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.25 Tw (there is no question that the challenged provision constitutes) Tj 0 -13 Td .33 Tw (a denial of the right to vote. Consequently, the sole remaining) Tj 0 -13 Td .55 Tw (issue is causation whether the denial of the right to vote is) Tj 0 -13 Td .7 Tw (on account of race or color.) Tj ( As we explained in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan) Tj 0 -13 Td 0 Tw (I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the ) Tj (on account of) Tj ( requirement may be met ) Tj (where the dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .58 Tw (criminatory impact of a challenged voting practice is attribut-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.91 Tw (able to racial discrimination in the surrounding social and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (historical circumstances,) Tj ( which include the state's criminal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (justice system. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 338 F.3d at 1019-20. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.18 Tw (Here, the district court repeatedly declared that Plaintiffs) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (have presented ) Tj (compelling) Tj ( evidence of racial discrimination) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .32 Tw (in Washington's criminal justice system. Indeed, after consid-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.37 Tw (ering Plaintiffs' evidence, the district court concluded that it) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .92 Tw (has no doubt that members of racial minorities have experi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.78 Tw (enced racial discrimination in Washington's criminal justice) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (system.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 2006 WL 1889273, at *9.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .82 Tw ([21]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Based on the uncontroverted facts, we reach the same) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (conclusion as the district court. The expert reports, which) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (were not refuted by the State, provide compelling circumstan-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.08 Tw (tial evidence of discrimination in Washington's criminal jus-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.71 Tw (tice system. Dr. Crutchfield's report states that criminal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.34 Tw (justice practices disproportionately affect minorities beyond) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.92 Tw (what can be explained by non-racial means. For example,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .58 Tw (African Americans in Washington State were over nine times) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (more likely to be in prison than Whites, even though the ratio) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (of Black to White arrest for violent offenses was only 3.72:1,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (suggesting that substantially more than one half of Washing-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (ton State's racial disproportionality in its criminal justice sys-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.91 Tw (tem cannot be explained by higher levels of criminal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (involvement as measured by violent crime arrest statistics. A) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (study of the Washington State Patrol shows that Native Amer-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td (icans were more than twice as likely to be searched as Whites;) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (African Americans were more than 70 percent more likely to) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (143) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 198 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .54 Tw 0 Tc (be searched than Whites; and Latinos were more than 50 per-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.74 Tw (cent more likely to be searched. A study of the Vancouver,) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.78 Tw (Washington Police Department \() Tj (VPD) Tj (\) indicated that of) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.03 Tw (those stopped for traffic violations by the VPD, African) Tj 0 -13 Td .04 Tw (Americans are nearly twice as likely to be searched as Whites,) Tj 0 -13 Td .6 Tw (and Latino were three times more likely to be searched. This,) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.08 Tw (despite the fact that searches of Whites more frequently) Tj 0 -13 Td .63 Tw (resulted in the seizure of contraband than searches of African) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (Americans and Latinos. According to Dr. Crutchfield, these) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.16 Tw (findings suggest that African Americans and Latinos are at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (greater risk for searches that could lead to felony charges, but) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (because those searches are less fruitful then searches against) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .97 Tw (Whites, it is likely that minorities are being placed at greater) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (risk for no legitimate purpose. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .28 Tw (Dr. Crutchfield also indicated that the significant racial dis-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .09 Tw (parities in arrest rates are not fully warranted by race or ethnic) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (differences in illegal behavior. The Seattle Police Department) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.2 Tw (\() Tj (SPD) Tj (\) arrested African Americans and Latinos for drug) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (possession at rates much higher than their proportion among) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .97 Tw (users. Whites, on the other hand, were arrested for drug pos-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.75 Tw (session at rates much lower than their proportion among) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.58 Tw (users. The most significant cause of the racial disparity in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (Seattle drug arrests resulted from the SPD's focus on crack) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (cocaine, a focus that, according to Dr. Crutchfield, cannot be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (justified by drug use or distribution patterns. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.8 Tw (Dr. Crutchfield also reported that charging and bail prac-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (tices are infected with racial disparities. Whites are less likely) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.87 Tw (to have charges filed than minorities, a significant disparity) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (that persists even after a number of legally relevant character-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.38 Tw (istics, such as offense seriousness, offenders' criminal histo-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.8 Tw (ries, and weapons charges, are taken into account. Minority) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .54 Tw (defendants were ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (less likely) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( to be released on their own recog-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.77 Tw (nizance than others, even after adjusting for differences) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (among defendants in the severity of their crimes, prior crimi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (nal records, ties to the community, and the prosecuting attor-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.16 Tw (ney's recommendation. Whether defendants are released on) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (144) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 199 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .96 Tw 0 Tc (their own recognizance, as opposed to being required to post) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.03 Tw (bail, is important because defendants released on their own) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.83 Tw (recognizance are likely to receive more lenient treatment in) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .4 Tw (both charging and sentencing. Thus, to the extent that minori-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .74 Tw (ties are disadvantaged in pre-trial release, this has real poten-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (tial for contributing to disparities in felony conviction rates.) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 1.85 Tw (Likewise, Dr. Beckett reported that the disparity between) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 3.14 Tw (whites and minorities \(specifically, blacks and Latinos\) in) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.11 Tw (drug possession and delivery arrests is largely the result of) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.5 Tw (three organizational practices the police's focus on crack) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.22 Tw (cocaine, on outdoor drug venues, and on the downtown area) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.87 Tw ( that are not ) Tj (explicable in race-neutral terms.) Tj ( Beckett) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .7 Tw (Report at 2. Dr. Beckett stated that the focus on crack cannot) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .42 Tw (be explained by the frequency of its exchange, by the level of) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .77 Tw (violence in the crack market, or by the health problems asso-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.43 Tw (ciated with crack as opposed to other serious drugs, such as) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .66 Tw (cocaine. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 10-12. She also reported that the focus on out-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.22 Tw (door drug activity cannot be explained by either greater citi-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .78 Tw (zen complaints or greater yield from such arrests, concluding) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.67 Tw (that the outdoor focus is an ) Tj (\(ineffecient\) policy choice) Tj () Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.85 Tw (rather than ) Tj (an organizational or legal necessity.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 13.) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.83 Tw (Finally, Dr. Beckett explained that the concentration of law) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.5 Tw (enforcement resources downtown is out of proportion to the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .67 Tw (level of drug crime there and is also not explainable vis-a-vis) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (citizen complaints. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 21-23.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.6 Td .62 Tw ([22]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( On this uncontroverted record, the district court found) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1 Tw (that ) Tj (there is discrimination in Washington's criminal justice) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.53 Tw (system on account of race,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 2006 WL 1889273,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .52 Tw (at *6, and that such discrimination ) Tj (clearly hinder[s] the abil-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .03 Tw (ity of racial minorities to participate effectively in the political) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.83 Tw (process, as disenfranchisement is automatic,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( \(quoting) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td .66 Tw (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 338 F.3d at 1020\). Having so found, the district) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .16 Tw (court should not have required Plaintiffs to produce additional) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.42 Tw (circumstantial evidence; they had presented evidence that, if) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.6 Tw (accepted by a finder of fact, would establish a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.6 Tw (2 violation) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (145) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 200 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .18 Tw 0 Tc (under the totality of the circumstances. Thus, the district court) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (erred in granting Defendants summary judgment. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -26 Td 2.26 Tw (c.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 2.26 Tw (Defendants' challenges to the district court's legal) Tj 20.3 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (conclusions with respect to Plaintiffs' evidence) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -30.3 -26 Td 1.67 Tw (Defendants contend, however, that the district court erred) Tj -12 -13 Td 3.22 Tw (in the conclusions it drew from the evidence adduced by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (Plaintiffs with respect to Factor 5. For that reason, they say,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (its result was correct, although its analysis was wrong. Defen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (dants contend that the district court erred in finding that the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (Washington criminal justice system was racially discrimina-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (tory, and that, in the absence of such a determination, no basis) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.9 Tw (whatsoever exists for challenging the felon disenfranchise-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.63 Tw (ment law. We agree that Plaintiffs' challenge is founded on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.14 Tw (the premise that Washington's criminal justice system is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.12 Tw (racially discriminatory and that, in the absence of evidence) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (supporting that claim, Plaintiffs' ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .28 Tw (2 challenge would fail. We) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (disagree, however, with Defendants' contention that the dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.66 Tw (trict court erred in its conclusion that Plaintiffs introduced) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.57 Tw (compelling evidence of racial discrimination and bias in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Washington's criminal justice system.) Tj () Tj 12 -26 Td 4.38 Tw (Specifically, Defendants contend that the district court) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.85 Tw (committed three distinct legal errors in analyzing Plaintiffs') Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.38 Tw (evidence of racial discrimination. None of these arguments) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (has merit. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.03 Tw ([23]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( First, Defendants argue that the district court erred as) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .62 Tw (a matter of law in extrapolating Dr. Beckett's Seattle-specific) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (findings to the whole of Washington state. However, it was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.77 Tw (not unreasonable to draw inferences from Dr. Beckett's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.45 Tw (Seattle-specific findings. Dr. Crutchfield reported that ) Tj (a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.71 Tw (large proportion of the minority population of Washington) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.33 Tw (State resides in the City of Seattle or in the surrounding) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.17 Tw (county, King County.) Tj ( Crutchfield Report at 15; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .46 Tw (at 27 \(stating that ) Tj (King County has the largest minority pop-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .9 Tw (ulation in the state and contains the state's most diverse city,) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (146) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 201 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .9 Tw 0 Tc (Seattle, so it is an opportune location in which to complete a) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.7 Tw (study of racial and ethnic disparities in the prosecution of) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .3 Tw (criminal cases) Tj (\). Given that much of the state's minority pop-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.52 Tw (ulation resides in Seattle, it was reasonable for the district) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .13 Tw (court to look to a Seattle-focused study in assessing racial dis-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .5 Tw (crimination in the state as a whole. Indeed, as Dr. Crutchfield) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.71 Tw (reported, counties ) Tj (with smaller minority populations were) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.18 Tw (likely to produce larger racial disparities) Tj ( in imprisonment,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.83 Tw (which suggests that the district court's extrapolation from a) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.45 Tw (Seattle-based study actually ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (underestimated) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( the racial dis-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.63 Tw (crimination in the state as a whole. And, as we have noted,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 5.05 Tw (Defendants presented no evidence to counter either Dr.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.9 Tw (Crutchfield's or Dr. Beckett's findings. Thus, the district) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.8 Tw (court did not err in extrapolating the Seattle findings to the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (state as a whole.) Tj 12 -26.6 Td 1.03 Tw (Second, Defendants contend that the district court erred in) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (relying on statistical disparity alone, in contravention of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Salt) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.43 Tw (River) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. This is plainly incorrect. To be sure, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Salt River ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (made) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 4.52 Tw (clear that ) Tj (a bare statistical showing of disproportionate) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.43 Tw (impact on a racial minority does not satisfy the ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.43 Tw (2 `results') Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.62 Tw (inquiry) Tj ( because causation cannot be inferred from impact) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .4 Tw (alone. 109 F.3d at 595. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Salt River) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the plaintiffs challenged) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.25 Tw (a voting qualification which required voters to own property) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .75 Tw (in order to be eligible to vote. The ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Salt River) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs, how-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.16 Tw (ever, demonstrated only that ) Tj (proportionately fewer African-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.28 Tw (Americans than non-Hispanic whites residing in the [voting]) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .52 Tw (District live in owner-occupied homes.) Tj ( 109 F.3d at 590. The) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 0 Tw (plaintiffs ) Tj (stipulated to the nonexistence of virtually every cir-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.88 Tw (cumstance which might indicate that landowner-only voting) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.28 Tw (results in racial discrimination,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 595, and the district) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.33 Tw (court concluded \(and this Court agreed\) that ) Tj (the observed) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1 Tw (difference in rates of home ownership between non-Hispanic) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.66 Tw (whites and African-Americans is not substantially explained) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .27 Tw (by race but is better explained by other factors independent of) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.33 Tw (race,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 591. Thus, the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Salt River ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (plaintiffs' evidence of) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.5 Tw (statistical disparity alone was insufficient to prove that the) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (147) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 202 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 203 0 obj<> endobj 204 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .36 Tw 0 Tc (racial disparity in voting was ) Tj (on account of race.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 591,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (595-96. ) Tj 12 -26.1 Td 1.5 Tw (In this case, by contrast, Plaintiffs have introduced expert) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.08 Tw (testimony demonstrating that the statistical disparity and dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (proportionality evident in Washington's criminal justice sys-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.58 Tw (tem arises from discrimination, and the State has failed to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (refute that showing. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Farrakhan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 2006 WL 1889273, at *6) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (n.7. If Plaintiffs in this case demonstrated only that African) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are disproportion-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.61 Tw (ately affected by Washington's disenfranchisement law, that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (clearly would not be enough under ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Salt River) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. Unlike in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Salt) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .34 Tw (River) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, however, Plaintiffs have produced evidence that Wash-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.87 Tw (ington's criminal justice system is infected with racial bias.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.14 Tw (The experts' conclusions are not ) Tj (statistical disparity alone,) Tj () Tj 0 -13.2 Td .07 Tw (but rather speak to a durable, sustained difference in treatment) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.65 Tw (faced by minorities in Washington's criminal justice system) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .41 Tw ( systemic disparities which cannot be explained by ) Tj (factors) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (independent of race.) Tj () Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (29) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 4.6 Tw (Plaintiffs here have introduced evidence demonstrating) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.17 Tw (what the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Salt River) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( plaintiffs could not. Plaintiffs have dem-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.73 Tw (onstrated that police practices, searches, arrests, detention) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .9 Tw (practices, and plea bargaining practices lead to a greater bur-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.91 Tw (den on minorities that cannot) Tj ( be explained in race-neutral) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .3 Tw (ways. The emphasis on crack cocaine and street drug traffick-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.14 Tw (ing is not proportional to its harm to the community or its) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .66 Tw (share of the drug trade. The proportion of African Americans) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1 Tw (and Latinos arrested for drug possession bears no correlation) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .53 Tw (29) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (This, of course, stands in stark contrast to ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Salt River) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (. In that case, the) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.75 Tw (defendants presented an expert who analyzed the statistical disparity in) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.69 Tw (home ownership using a multivariable analysis. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Salt River) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 109 F.3d at) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .42 Tw (590. The defendants' expert in that case ) Tj (testified that multiple regression) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .28 Tw (analysis did not indicate a strong correlation between race and home own-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.61 Tw (ership and posited that the strongest indicator of home ownership was) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.43 Tw (persons per dwelling unit.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( The district court relied heavily on this) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .83 Tw (expert's testimony in concluding that the racial disparity in home owner-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (ship was ) Tj (not substantially explained by race.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( at 591. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -388.15 m 300 -388.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (148) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 108 0 obj<> endobj 205 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 206 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 207 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 208 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 209 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 212 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.05 Tw 0 Tc (the proportion of users among the races. Searching African) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.91 Tw (Americans and Latinos at higher rates than Whites even) Tj 0 -13 Td 1 Tw (though searches of African Americans and Latinos yield less) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.81 Tw (seizures makes little sense in non-racial terms. Detaining) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.66 Tw (minority defendants in disproportionate numbers to Whites) Tj 0 -13 Td .33 Tw (even after accounting for differences among defendants in the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.85 Tw (severity of their crimes, prior criminal records, ties to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.54 Tw (community, and the prosecuting attorney's recommendation,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (cannot be understood as race neutral.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 2.04 Tw ([24]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Plaintiffs' evidence suggests not only that Washing-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (ton's criminal justice system adversely affects minorities to a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (greater extent than non-minorities, but also that this differen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (tial effect cannot be explained by factors other than racial dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (crimination. This method of proving racial discrimination is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.66 Tw (familiar in our antidiscrimination jurisprudence: The three-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.47 Tw (step analysis required by ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Batson v. Kentucky) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 476 U.S. 79) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (\(1989\), proves discriminatory intent through the same circum-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.85 Tw (stantial inference from a lack of race-neutral explanations.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (See, e.g., Green v. Lamarque) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 532 F.3d 1028, 1029-30 \(9th) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .86 Tw (Cir. 2008\). Nothing in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Salt River) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( undermines the use of such) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (circumstantial evidence of racial discrimination.) Tj 12 -26 Td .41 Tw (Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs did not produce any) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (evidence connecting asserted bias in the criminal justice sys-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td (tem to the ability of protected minorities to participate effec-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (tively in the political process. According to Defendants, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.16 Tw (district court's finding of such a connection lowered Plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (tiffs' burden. The district court, however, relied directly on) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ('s explanation that a finding of discrimination in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .91 Tw (the criminal justice system would establish the requisite con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (nection, because, under Washington law, ) Tj (disenfranchisement) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (is automatic.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 338 F.3d at 1020.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.08 Tw ([25]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Finally, Defendants argue that, apart from these three) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.53 Tw (asserted errors, the district court erred in concluding that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (Plaintiffs' evidence demonstrates more than statistical dispar-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.95 Tw (ity because, according to Defendants, ) Tj (the evidence offered) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (149) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 213 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .63 Tw 0 Tc (by Plaintiffs actually falls far short of any such showing.) Tj ( As) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.03 Tw (noted above, Plaintiffs' experts concluded that many of the) Tj 0 -13 Td .24 Tw (racial disparities in Washington's criminal justice system can-) Tj 0 -13 Td .75 Tw (not be accounted for by race-neutral explanations and Defen-) Tj 0 -13 Td .37 Tw (dants did not refute those conclusions with contrary evidence.) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.24 Tw (Although Defendants criticized the experts' studies and the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.42 Tw (conclusions, the reports, when objectively viewed, support a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .61 Tw (finding of racial discrimination in Washington's criminal jus-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (tice system, and the district court did not err in so concluding.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -26 Td 3.86 Tw (d.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 3.86 Tw (Defendants' arguments that even if Washington's) Tj 21 -13.1 Td 1.94 Tw (criminal justice system is infected with racial bias,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (there is no ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (2 violation) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -31 -26 Td 1.5 Tw (Defendants also argue that even if Plaintiffs have demon-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (strated that Washington's criminal justice system is infected) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (with racial bias, Defendants are still entitled to summary judg-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (ment because Plaintiffs have failed to show a discriminatory) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (intent or discriminatory motive. This, they plainly do not have) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (to show under ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .8 Tw (2, as amended. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 2) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (\() Tj ([P]roof of discriminatory intent is not required to establish) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (a violation of Section 2.) Tj (\).) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.47 Tw (Defendants next argue that even if Washington's criminal) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (justice system is infected with racial bias and that such infec-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .12 Tw (tion spreads to voting qualifications, Plaintiffs still have failed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.15 Tw (to show a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.15 Tw (2 violation because ) Tj ([t]he simple fact is that the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (voter fully controls whether he or she will forfeit the right to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (vote under Washington's felon disenfranchisement law. The) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (voter need only refrain from committing a felony to retain his) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .24 Tw (or her right to participate fully in the electoral process.) Tj ( How-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (ever, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( directly addressed and rejected this claim,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (holding that, ) Tj (when felon disenfranchisement results in denial) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.37 Tw (of the right to vote . . . on account of race or color, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Section) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (2 affords disenfranchised felons the means to seek redress) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj () Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (338 F.3d at 1016 \(emphasis added\). ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Cf. Hunter v. Underwood) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (471 U.S. 222, 223-24 \(1985\) \(holding, in a case brought by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (two individuals convicted of presenting worthless checks, that) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (150) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 214 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 4.1 Tw 0 Tc (a provision of the Alabama Constitution disenfranchising) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 3.58 Tw (those convicted of crimes of moral turpitude violates the) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .52 Tw (Equal Protection Clause because its enactment was motivated) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.2 Tw (by racial bias\).) Tj 12 -28.3 Td 2 Tw (If ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Hunter) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, inferentially, had not already) Tj -12 -14.3 Td 2.95 Tw (decided this question, we would nonetheless reject Defen-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .75 Tw (dants' argument. Plaintiffs' evidence demonstrates that in the) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 2.75 Tw (total population of potential ) Tj (felons,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (i.e.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, those who have) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.28 Tw (committed crimes, minorities are more likely than Whites to) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 3.33 Tw (be searched, arrested, detained, and ultimately prosecuted.) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .16 Tw (And they have introduced evidence showing that these dispar-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .62 Tw (ities cannot be explained in race-neutral ways. Plaintiffs have) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.96 Tw (demonstrated that in a total mass of potential ) Tj (felons,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (i.e.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.03 Tw (those that have committed crimes, minorities are more likely) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .62 Tw (than Whites to be searched, arrested, detained, and ultimately) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .21 Tw (prosecuted. And they have shown that these disparities cannot) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.2 Tw (be explained away in race-neutral ways. ) Tj 12 -28.3 Td .35 Tw (To be sure, one of the early \(if not the first\) decision points) Tj -12 -14.3 Td .66 Tw (in the process of becoming a felon is the decision by the per-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .83 Tw (son to commit a crime. Plaintiffs have not attempted to dem-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 2.96 Tw (onstrate that that decision point is infected by racial bias.) Tj 0 -14.3 Td (Before one who commits a criminal act becomes a felon,) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 2.28 Tw (however, numerous other decisions must be made by State) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.77 Tw (actors. Police departments decide where to spend resources,) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.05 Tw (officers decide which individuals to search and arrest, prose-) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .9 Tw (cutors decide which individuals to charge \(including whether) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.11 Tw (to charge a felony or a misdemeanor\), detain, and prosecute.) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .52 Tw (If those decision points are infected with racial bias, resulting) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.74 Tw (in some people becoming felons not just because they have) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.14 Tw (committed a crime, but because of their race, then that felon) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.63 Tw (status cannot, under ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.63 Tw (2 of the VRA, disqualify felons from) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.2 Tw (voting.) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (151) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 215 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 11 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (3.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1 -26.6 Td .85 Tw (Plaintiffs also contend that the district court erred in deny-) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 2.7 Tw (ing their motion for summary judgment.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (30) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We agree. And,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.55 Tw (contrary to the dissent's suggestion, Diss. at 160-61, we are) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.12 Tw (mindful of our obligation, when considering a motion for) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.36 Tw (summary judgment, that we view the evidence in the light) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .81 Tw (most favorable to the nonmoving party, and draw ) Tj (all justifi-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .41 Tw (able inferences) Tj ( in that party's favor. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Anderson v. Liberty) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.07 Tw (Lobby, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 477 U.S. 242, 255 \(1986\). However, ) Tj ([o]n a) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.33 Tw (motion for summary judgment, `facts must be viewed in the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.53 Tw (light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.74 Tw (a ) Tj (genuine) Tj ( dispute as to those facts.') Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.74 Tw ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ricci v. DeStefano) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.89 Tw (129 S. Ct. 2658, 2677 \(2009\) \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Scott v. Harris) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 550) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .14 Tw (U.S. 372, 380 \(2007\)\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also Beard v. Banks) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 548 U.S. 521,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .41 Tw (529-30 \(2006\) \(noting that ) Tj (we must distinguish between evi-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.58 Tw (dence of disputed facts and disputed matters of professional) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.37 Tw (judgment) Tj (\). Here, there is no such ) Tj (genuine) Tj ( dispute. Plain-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .25 Tw (tiffs carried their burden of producing evidence of discrimina-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.14 Tw (tion; defendants were then required to ) Tj (do more than simply) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .53 Tw (show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .14 Tw (facts.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (., 475) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .17 Tw (U.S. 574, 586-87 \(1986\). Based on the substantial showing by) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 0 Tw (Plaintiffs, Defendants had the burden ) Tj (to set forth any specific) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .17 Tw (facts showing that there is a genuine issue . . . for trial.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Dep't) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .36 Tw (of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 525 U.S. 316,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.53 Tw (330 \(1999\). This they did not do.) Tj ( The record is uncontro-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (verted. ) Tj 12 -26.5 Td .1 Tw (In its procedural posture, this case is also, in many respects,) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.8 Tw (similar to the recent case of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ricci v. DeStefano) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, which also) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.2 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .48 Tw (30) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Ordinarily, a denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final) Tj -10 -11.3 Td 1.86 Tw (order and thus not appealable. 28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.86 Tw (1291. However, the district) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.17 Tw (court's grant of summary judgment [to Defendants] was a final decision) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.43 Tw (giving us jurisdiction to review its denial of plaintiff's motion for sum-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .53 Tw (mary judgment.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Abend v. MCA, Inc.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 863 F.2d 1465, 1482 n.20 \(9th Cir.) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (1988\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -421.15 m 300 -421.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (152) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 216 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.85 Tw 0 Tc (involved the resolution of cross-motions for summary judg-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.83 Tw (ment, and in which the Court noted: ) Tj (As the District Court) Tj 0 -13 Td .85 Tw (noted, although `the parties strenuously dispute the relevance) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.4 Tw (and legal import of, and inferences to be drawn from, many) Tj 0 -13 Td .52 Tw (aspects of this case, the underlying facts are largely undisput-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.02 Tw (ed.') Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.02 Tw ( 129 S. Ct. at 2665 \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ricci v. DeStefano) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 554 F.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .56 Tw (Supp. 2d 142, 145 \(D. Conn. 2006\)\). The Court granted sum-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.28 Tw (mary judgment to petitioners, because ) Tj (there [was] no evi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.67 Tw (dence let alone the required strong basis in evidence) Tj ( to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (support the respondent's position. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 2681.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 2.23 Tw ([26]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In any case, even viewing the evidence in the light) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.5 Tw (most favorable to Defendants, Plaintiffs have demonstrated) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (that racial minorities are overrepresented in the felon popula-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (tion based upon factors that cannot be explained by non-racial) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (reasons. Given that uncontroverted showing, in the words of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.57 Tw (the district court, there can be ) Tj (no doubt that members of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (racial minorities have experienced discrimination in Washing-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .53 Tw (ton's criminal justice system.) Tj ( In the face of this showing, all) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.94 Tw (Defendants did was question the credibility of Plaintiffs') Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (experts without ) Tj (rais[ing] a genuine issue of material fact) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.24 Tw (regarding the ultimate effect of Washington's felon disen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.37 Tw (franchisement law. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Dep't of Commerce) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 525 U.S. at 331.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .51 Tw (They have ) Tj (not offer[ed] any fact-based or expert-based refu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.85 Tw (tation, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Beard) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 548 U.S. at 534, that challenges the conclu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.36 Tw (sions reached by Plaintiffs' experts. Section 2 of the VRA) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (demands that such racial discrimination not spread to the bal-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.37 Tw (lot box. Thus, based on the uncontroverted record, Plaintiffs) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (are entitled to summary judgment.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26 Td 5.76 Tw (E.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 5.76 Tw (Washington's Amended Felon Disenfranchisement) Tj 23 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Law) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -11 -26 Td 1.55 Tw (Defendants argue that Washington's recent amendment to) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (its felon disenfranchisement law alters the totality of the cir-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (cumstances analysis required by ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .47 Tw (2 of the VRA. The amend-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 9 Tw (ment modified Washington's felon disenfranchisement) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (scheme by providing for the provisional restoration of the vot-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (153) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 217 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 210 0 obj<> endobj 218 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.2 Tw 0 Tc (ing rights of felons upon their release from prison or from) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.55 Tw (community custody \(a Washington program through which) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.18 Tw (offenders live in the community, but are subject to restraints) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .75 Tw (imposed by the Department of Corrections\). ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Wash. Laws) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .22 Tw (of 2009, ch. 325, HB 1517; Wash. Rev. Code ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .22 Tw (9.94A.030\(5\).) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .55 Tw (A released felon's provisionally restored right to vote may be) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2 Tw (revoked for willful failure to fulfill all financial obligations) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.09 Tw (imposed as part of his sentence. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 2\(a\). Under the previ-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.93 Tw (ous law, a felon was barred from voting until he had com-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .46 Tw (pleted all the requirements of his criminal sentence, including) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .47 Tw (any financial obligations imposed as part of that sentence and) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .03 Tw (had obtained certificates of discharge restoring his civil rights.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (See Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 338 F. 3d at 1012. ) Tj 12 -26.5 Td 2.45 Tw (Defendants first contend that if felon disenfranchisement) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 3.61 Tw (laws disproportionately affect minorities, then the amend-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.42 Tw (ment, which reduces the number of felons disenfranchised,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.37 Tw (disproportionately benefits minorities, and in so doing pro-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.47 Tw (vides evidence of positive action by the state with regard to) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.43 Tw (minority voting rights that is relevant to Senate Factors 1, 3) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.15 Tw (and 8.) Tj ( However, a mere decrease in the length of time for) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 5.1 Tw (which the State's discriminatory criminal justice system) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.6 Tw (deprives minorities of the right to vote does not change our) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.66 Tw (determination that those Factors have little relevance to this) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (case. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.4 Td 2.96 Tw ([27]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In terms of Factor 5, the gravamen of defendants') Tj -12 -13.3 Td .25 Tw (argument is that the amendment decreases the total number of) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.92 Tw (minorities who are without voting rights at any given time,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.36 Tw (and so diminishes the extent of the discriminatory effects of) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.81 Tw (the State's felon disenfranchisement system.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (31) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We hope that) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .11 Tw (defendants are correct about the positive effects of the amend-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.1 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .1 Tw (31) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Whether this is true remains to be seen. The amended Washington law) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .5 Tw (only ) Tj (provisionally) Tj ( restores the voting rights of felons upon their release) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.11 Tw (from custody. HB 1517 ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.11 Tw (1.1. Permanent restoration of the voting rights) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .98 Tw (requires additional action by the sentencing court, the indeterminate sen-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (tence review board or the governor. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( at 5\(f\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (154) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 219 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 220 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 221 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 222 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 223 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 224 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 0 Tw 0 Tc (ment: it appears that under the old law almost a quarter of oth-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.38 Tw (erwise qualified African American men in Washington were) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (disenfranchised. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (Jamie Fellner & Marc Mauer, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Losing the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.32 Tw (Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 9-10 \(1998\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Jeff Manza & Christopher) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (Uggen, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.04 Tw (Democracy) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 250 \(2006\) \(over 17% of the entire adult black) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.86 Tw (population of Washington disenfranchised\). However, no) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.6 Tw (matter how well the amended law functions to restore at an) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.7 Tw (earlier time the voting rights of felons who have emerged) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.37 Tw (from incarceration, it does not protect minorities from being) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (denied the right to vote upon conviction by a criminal justice) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (system that Plaintiffs have demonstrated is materially tainted) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .84 Tw (by discrimination and bias.) Tj ( Accordingly, it does not alter our) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.15 Tw (analysis as to Senate Factor 5 or as to the totality of the cir-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (cumstances.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 95.166 -26 Td (IV.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (CONCLUSION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -83.166 -26.1 Td 2.57 Tw (We are bound by ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ('s holding that ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.57 Tw (2 of the) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.38 Tw (VRA applies to Washington's felon disenfranchisement law.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .32 Tw (Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the discriminatory impact of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.66 Tw (Washington's felon disenfranchisement is attributable to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (racial discrimination in Washington's criminal justice system;) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (thus, that Washington's felon disenfranchisement law violates) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.53 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.53 Tw (2 of the VRA. The judgment of the district court granting) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.88 Tw (Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.26 Tw (Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz ( REVERSED) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.82 Tw (and the case is ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz (REMANDED) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( with instructions to ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz (GRANT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (summary judgment to Plaintiffs.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -51 Td (McKEOWN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:) Tj 12 -26.1 Td 2.28 Tw (In granting summary judgment to plaintiffs, the majority) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .87 Tw (has charted territory that none of our sister circuits has dared) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.12 Tw (to explore. The First, Second, and Eleventh Circuits have) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -413.15 m 300 -413.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (155) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 225 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 3.38 Tw 0 Tc (determined that vote denial challenges to felon disenfran-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.08 Tw (chisement laws are not cognizable under the Voting Rights) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.63 Tw (Act. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Simmons v. Galvin) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 575 F.3d 24 \(1st Cir. 2009\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td 2.47 Tw (Hayden v. Pataki) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 449 F.3d 305 \(2d Cir. 2006\) \(en banc\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td 2.06 Tw (Johnson v. Governor of State of Fla.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 405 F.3d 1214 \(11th) Tj 0 -13 Td .11 Tw (Cir. 2005\) \(en banc\). That preliminary question was settled by) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.47 Tw (our circuit in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan v. Washington) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 338 F.3d 1009 \(9th) Tj 0 -13 Td .27 Tw (Cir. 2003\) ) Tj (\() Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (\). While I believe that the felon dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (enfranchisement challenge is not a comfortable fit within the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (Voting Rights Act, I do not dispute the continuing validity of) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. The wisdom of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is not within the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (purview of the panel to reconsider here. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Miller v. Gam-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (mie) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 335 F.3d 889, 893 \(9th Cir. 2003\) \(en banc\) \(holding that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .82 Tw (prior circuit authority is binding on three-judge panels unless) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.58 Tw (clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of inter-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (vening higher authority) Tj (\). However, in part because the hold-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (ing of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( places us in a crowd of one amongst the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.21 Tw (circuits, I believe we should be particularly mindful before) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.95 Tw (reversing the district court and invalidating felon disenfran-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (chisement in the State of Washington. The majority has failed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (to act with appropriate caution. I respectfully dissent.) Tj 12 -26 Td .33 Tw (I first note that the landscape of this case has changed from) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (the time the district court dismissed the case and even since) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (we heard oral argument. As of July 26, 2009, Washington law) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (now provides that the State will provisionally restore voting) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.06 Tw (rights to felons convicted in Washington state courts so long) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.6 Tw (as the individual is no longer under the authority of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.05 Tw (Department of Corrections, and to those convicted of federal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (felonies or felonies in other states as long as the person is no) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.34 Tw (longer incarcerated. Washington Laws of 2009, chapter 325,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (HB 1517.) Tj 12 -26 Td .78 Tw (Following this significant legislative change, we are left to) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (consider the Voting Rights Act challenge of only those felons) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.95 Tw (still serving their prison terms. Interestingly, the case up to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (this point has never contemplated the two distinct sets of fel-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (ons affected by the prior Washington lawthose still incar-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (156) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 226 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.77 Tw 0 Tc (cerated and those already released. Both the parties and the) Tj 0 -13 Td .21 Tw (courts have seemingly considered felons generally, as a single) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.13 Tw (group; the bifurcation of classes of felons came about as a) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.32 Tw (consequence of this new legislation. Thus, within this litiga-) Tj 0 -13 Td .1 Tw (tion, no court has addressed whether these two sets of individ-) Tj 0 -13 Td .38 Tw (uals present meaningful analytical differences. This posture is) Tj 0 -13 Td .27 Tw (not surprising because the statute did not make such a distinc-) Tj 0 -13 Td .9 Tw (tion before it was amended and, as the State notes in supple-) Tj 0 -13 Td 5.52 Tw (mental briefing, the case now presents ) Tj (a substantially) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.5 Tw (different controversy.) Tj ( Although the majority concludes that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (the new law has limited effect on the case, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Maj. Op. at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (119, the supplemental briefing suggests otherwise. Indeed, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (State of Washington claims the entire case is moot because) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .06 Tw (the statute at issue has substantially changed, that a significant) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (part of the case involved the ) Tj (continuing disenfranchisement) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (of felons upon release from incarceration,) Tj (a point that is no) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (longer at issueand that the new law ) Tj (necessarily alters the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.12 Tw (totality of the circumstances) Tj ( analysis. The State views the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (new law as a game changer supporting affirmance of the dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (trict court.) Tj 12 -26 Td .2 Tw (It bears noting that none of the three recent felon disenfran-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.58 Tw (chisement cases to percolate through the circuit courts has) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (encompassed both classes of felons. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Simmons v. Galvin) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.5 Tw (First Circuit considered a challenge brought solely by cur-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (rently incarcerated felons to the Massachusetts law prohibit-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (ing incarcerated felons from voting. 575 F.3d at 26. Similarly,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.15 Tw (in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Hayden v. Pataki) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 449 F.3d 305 \(2d Cir. 2006\) \(en banc\),) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.71 Tw (the Second Circuit considered N.Y. Election Law ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.71 Tw (5-106,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.8 Tw (which ) Tj (disenfranchises only currently incarcerated prisoners) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .04 Tw (and parolees.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 314. That court remarked that ) Tj (the statute) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.87 Tw (may not raise the same issues that are implicated by provi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.22 Tw (sions disenfranchising ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (for life ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (those convicted of felonies,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .69 Tw (such as the . . . provision of the . . . Washington Constitution) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (addressed in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Farrakhan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( \(emphasis added\). The court did) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (not elaborate on the contours of any distinctions. The Elev-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .05 Tw (enth Circuit, in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Johnson v. Governor of State of Fla.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 405 F.3d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.25 Tw (1214 \(11th Cir. 2005\) \(en banc\), considered the converse) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (157) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 227 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.32 Tw 0 Tc (class of individuals) Tj (Florida citizens who have been con-) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .27 Tw (victed of a felony and have completed all terms of their incar-) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 4.17 Tw (ceration, probation, and parole but who are barred from) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .91 Tw (voting under the state's felon disenfranchisement law.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .57 Tw (1216-17. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit, too, did not contemplate) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.2 Tw (a bifurcated group of felons. ) Tj 12 -26.9 Td 1.93 Tw (In an earlier case, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Wesley v. Collins) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 791 F.2d 1255 \(6th) Tj -12 -13.6 Td 1.22 Tw (Cir. 1986\), the Sixth Circuit considered a Voting Rights Act) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 7.14 Tw (challenge to Tennessee's felon disenfranchisement law) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.42 Tw (brought by a public interest group and an African-American) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.33 Tw (man convicted of a felony. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1257. Though Tennessee's) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .76 Tw (law appears to have affected both currently incarcerated pris-) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.9 Tw (oners and felons already released, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the court did not) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .11 Tw (focus on this distinction when it dismissed the plaintiffs' chal-) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.96 Tw (lenge. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1260-62. Thus, even considering ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Wesley) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .97 Tw (because of the recent statutory change, ours is the only court) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 4.14 Tw (clearly presented with the question whether the different) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.08 Tw (groups of felons present a meaningful distinction under the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (VRA's totality of the circumstances inquiry.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( ) Tj 12 -26.9 Td .54 Tw (Thus, the enactment of HB 1517 is the first reason I would) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .71 Tw (remand this case to the district court. It is not our job to con-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.75 Tw (sider, in the first instance, the effect this new law has on) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.33 Tw (plaintiffs' case and whether the totality of the circumstances) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .83 Tw (analysis under ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .83 Tw (2 of the Voting Rights Act should be differ-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.13 Tw (ent now that plaintiffs' case remains viable only as to cur-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (rently incarcerated felons. ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.5 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.51 Tw (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (In addition, the Fourth Circuit has considered a challenge to a felon) Tj -10 -11.4 Td 1.23 Tw (disenfranchisement law in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In an unpub-) Tj 0 -11.4 Td .75 Tw (lished decision, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Howard v. Gilmore) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 99-2285, 2000 WL 203984 \(4th) Tj 0 -11.4 Td .41 Tw (Cir. Feb. 23, 2000\), the court determined that the plaintiff failed ) Tj (to plead) Tj 0 -11.4 Td .9 Tw (any nexus between the disenfranchisement of felons and race.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( at *1.) Tj 0 -11.4 Td .12 Tw (It is unclear from the decision whether the plaintiff was currently incarcer-) Tj 0 -11.4 Td .36 Tw (ated or already released at the time of his suit. Regardless, the Fourth Cir-) Tj 0 -11.4 Td 1.67 Tw (cuit's decision makes no mention of any distinction between classes of) Tj 0 -11.4 Td 1 Tw (felons.) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -386.25 m 300 -386.25 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (158) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 228 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .36 Tw 0 Tc (Next, I take issue with the majority's conclusion that plain-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 1.92 Tw (tiffs prevail by offering evidence regarding Senate Factor 5) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.4 Tw (alone. As detailed in the majority opinion, Maj. Op. at) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.36 Tw (123-24, the Senate Report on the 1982 amendments to the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.07 Tw (Voting Rights Act listed ) Tj (typical factors) Tj ( that courts might) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .66 Tw (consider in determining whether, under the totality of the cir-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.1 Tw (cumstances, a challenged voting practice ) Tj (results in) Tj ( the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .72 Tw (denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .9 Tw (Evidence of racial discrimination in the Washington criminal) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3 Tw (justice system falls primarily under Senate Factor 5) Tj (the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .45 Tw (extent to which members of the minority group in the state or) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .41 Tw (political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 0 Tw (areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.08 Tw (ability to participate effectively in the political process.) Tj ( S.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.58 Tw (Rep. No. 97-417, at 29. The majority concludes that having) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.28 Tw (found discrimination in the Washington criminal justice sys-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.17 Tw (tem, ) Tj (the district court should not have required Plaintiffs to) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.33 Tw (produce additional circumstantial evidence) Tj ( because the evi-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.75 Tw (dence of discrimination in the criminal justice system alone) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.23 Tw (would establish a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.23 Tw (2 violation under the totality of the cir-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.22 Tw (cumstances. Maj. Op. at 145-46. As a result, the majority) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.18 Tw (itself considers only evidence of Factor 5 in granting sum-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (mary judgment to plaintiffs.) Tj 12 -26.6 Td 3.33 Tw (I take issue with the majority's limitation. My view is) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.75 Tw (largely driven by my disagreement with the majority's con-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.07 Tw (clusion that there is a per se ) Tj (analytical distinction) Tj ( between) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.74 Tw (vote denial and vote dilution cases in the circumstance pre-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .53 Tw (sented here. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Maj. Op. at 137. To be sure, there are differ-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.77 Tw (ences between the two types of cases, but those differences) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.1 Tw (should not force an absolute dichotomy in our analysis. As I) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .67 Tw (have already noted, the felon disenfranchisement challenge is) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .6 Tw (not a comfortable fit within the Voting Rights Act. That said,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.18 Tw (there is arguably a continuum of conduct that constitutes a) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.26 Tw (denial or abridgement of the right to vote within the context) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.42 Tw (of the Voting Rights Act, and this case need not be shoe-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (horned into a single category.) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (159) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 229 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 211 0 obj<> endobj 230 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .53 Tw 0 Tc (Indeed, academic literature suggests that one of the driving) Tj -12 -13 Td 8.82 Tw (concerns surrounding felon disenfranchisement laws) Tj 0 -13 Td .4 Tw (advanced in this litigation through a vote denial claimis the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.81 Tw (effect the regulations have on the voting power of minority) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.3 Tw (blocs, which is the thrust of a vote dilution inquiry. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td .57 Tw (Pamela S. Karlan, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Convictions and Doubts: Retribution, Rep-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.11 Tw (resentation, and the Debate Over Felon Disenfranchisement) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13 Td .58 Tw (56 Stan. L. Rev. 1147, 1155-64 \(2004\). ) Tj (Virtually every con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.55 Tw (temporary discussion of criminal disenfranchisement in the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.47 Tw (United States begins by noting the sheer magnitude of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (exclusion, and its racial salience.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1156. This observa-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.85 Tw (tion is not surprising, as ) Tj (groups of voters elect representa-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.82 Tw (tives, individual voters do not.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Davis v.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (Bandemer) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 478 U.S. 109, 167 \(1986\) \(Powell, J., concurring) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (in part and dissenting in part\)\).) Tj 12 -26 Td .7 Tw (Thus, taking away the right to vote of minority felons may) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.47 Tw (very well have a significant effect on the voting power of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.73 Tw (minorities as a whole in any given jurisdiction. As a result,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (those urging the repeal of felon disenfranchisement laws are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.02 Tw (often driven not only by their concern for the rights of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.07 Tw (individual felons, but also by their worries about the effect) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.6 Tw (that such laws have on the voting power of minority voting) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (blocs. Indeed, the concern for the effect on the voting power) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .76 Tw (of minorities is evidenced by ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Wesley) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, in which the Sixth Cir-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.85 Tw (cuit considered the plaintiffs' challenge to the Tennessee) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.53 Tw (felon disenfranchisement law as a ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (vote dilution) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( claim. 791) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw (F.2d at 1260-62. Based on the interwoven concerns in vote) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (denial and vote dilution cases, I am not comfortable dictating) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.66 Tw (that a district court should not consider certain factors) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.92 Tw (Senate Factors or otherwisein vote denial cases, nor do I) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (agree with the majority's conclusion that the plaintiffs prevail) Tj 0 -13.1 Td (solely by establishing evidence that falls within Senate Factor) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (5.) Tj 12 -26 Td 4.2 Tw (As to Senate Factor 5 itself, significant factual issues) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (remain. The existence of these unresolved issues is another) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (reason why I part company with the majority. The majority) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (160) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 231 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 232 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 233 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.75 Tw 0 Tc (makes much of the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs) Tj 0 -13 Td 0 Tw (have presented ) Tj (compelling) Tj ( evidence of racial discrimination) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.66 Tw (in the criminal justice system. Maj. Op. at 143. The district) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.41 Tw (court made this conclusion, of course, while considering the) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.28 Tw (State's motion for summary judgment, thereby viewing the) Tj 0 -13 Td .5 Tw (evidence in the light most favorable to the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (plaintiffs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. In deter-) Tj 0 -13 Td .37 Tw (mining whether to now grant summary judgment to plaintiffs,) Tj 0 -13 Td .33 Tw (the majority should view the evidence in the light most favor-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.07 Tw (able to the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (defendants) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. Thus, the district court's conclusion) Tj 0 -13 Td .81 Tw (that the evidence is ) Tj (compelling) Tj ( is of little use at this stage;) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.5 Tw (the majority seriously errs in failing to acknowledge that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (conundrum.) Tj 12 -26 Td .27 Tw (A review of the evidence reveals the risk the majority takes) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.6 Tw (in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (plaintiffs while granting summary judgment to plaintiffsa) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (complete reversal of the normal procedure on summary judg-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (ment. For example, in reviewing Professor Beckett's report,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (the district court ) Tj (extrapolate[d]) Tj ( her ) Tj (drug-arrest-in-Seattle-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .04 Tw (specific findings to Washington felony arrests and convictions) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.09 Tw (in general.) Tj ( When put to the test, it is unclear whether the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (extrapolation would hold up, as Beckett's study does not con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (sider non-drug related arrests in Seattle or any arrests outside) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (of Seattle. While Dr. Crutchfield's report does encompass the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .05 Tw (entire State, the studies he details do not paint a definitive pic-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw (ture of racial discrimination in the Washington criminal jus-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.46 Tw (tice system. In making this observation, I do not deny the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.21 Tw (existence of discrimination, my point rests on the evidence) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.88 Tw (presented. For example, Crutchfield discusses the Klement) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.16 Tw (and Siggins \(2001\) study of drug enforcement patterns in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .32 Tw (Seattle. Crutchfield notes that within the drug-crime category,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.42 Tw (the police department focuses most heavily on ) Tj (observable) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.17 Tw (street level drug markets,) Tj ( which have much more of a ) Tj (mi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.1 Tw (nority flavor) Tj ( than the general population. Crutchfield goes) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (on to explain that ) Tj ([b]usiness owners and residents call the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (police when visible drug activity threatens their interests) Tj ( and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .15 Tw (that drug sales in the ) Tj (street markets) Tj ( are more likely to affect) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw (those interests than other sorts of drug crimes. A reasonable) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 439.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (161) Tj -187.5001 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 234 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.26 Tw 0 Tc (factfinder may very well conclude that the police focus on) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.55 Tw (street markets has little to do with racial discrimination, but) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .5 Tw (instead relates much more strongly to the police department's) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.8 Tw (desire to target crimes likely to affect the well-being of the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .55 Tw (greatest majority of businesses and individuals. Alternatively,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .34 Tw (a factfinder may determine that the focus results from the fact) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.55 Tw (that police are tasked with responding to citizens' calls; if) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.13 Tw (people are more likely to call the authorities only when they) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .72 Tw (can actually view a drug crime occurring out in the open, i.e.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .08 Tw (on the street, then of course it is more likely that police arrests) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.63 Tw (will over represent street market drug sales, as compared to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.63 Tw (other types of drug crimes. Or finally, it may be that this) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .7 Tw (approach to policing is race-based. The point is that there are) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (material factual questions as to cause and effect.) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 3.22 Tw (I stress these examples to emphasize my view that the) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .45 Tw (majority errs in granting summary judgment to plaintiffs. The) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .1 Tw (proper course at this stage is to remand to the district court for) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .18 Tw (consideration of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .5 Tw (On remand, a factfinder should be able to weigh the evidence) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .08 Tw (concerning whether there is racial discrimination in the Wash-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.7 Tw (ington criminal justice system, along with other factors \(the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (Senate Factors and perhaps additional relevant considerations\)) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .55 Tw (to determine if plaintiffs have demonstrated a violation of the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.53 Tw (Voting Rights Act. This court overreaches when it bypasses) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.5 Tw (that crucial exercise. And, considering the potential holes in) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (the evidence, the majority is remiss in doing so. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (162) Tj 95.9999 0 Td (F) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ARRAKHAN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. G) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (REGOIRE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 235 0 obj<> endobj xref 0 236 0000000000 65535 f 0000000015 00000 n 0000000102 00000 n 0000000178 00000 n 0000000368 00000 n 0000000444 00000 n 0000000633 00000 n 0000000709 00000 n 0000000899 00000 n 0000000975 00000 n 0000001165 00000 n 0000001242 00000 n 0000001433 00000 n 0000001510 00000 n 0000001701 00000 n 0000001778 00000 n 0000001969 00000 n 0000002046 00000 n 0000002237 00000 n 0000002314 00000 n 0000002505 00000 n 0000002582 00000 n 0000002774 00000 n 0000002851 00000 n 0000003044 00000 n 0000003121 00000 n 0000003314 00000 n 0000003391 00000 n 0000003583 00000 n 0000003660 00000 n 0000003852 00000 n 0000003929 00000 n 0000004121 00000 n 0000004198 00000 n 0000004390 00000 n 0000004467 00000 n 0000004659 00000 n 0000004736 00000 n 0000004928 00000 n 0000005005 00000 n 0000005197 00000 n 0000005274 00000 n 0000005466 00000 n 0000005543 00000 n 0000005735 00000 n 0000005812 00000 n 0000006005 00000 n 0000006082 00000 n 0000006274 00000 n 0000006351 00000 n 0000006544 00000 n 0000006621 00000 n 0000006814 00000 n 0000006891 00000 n 0000007084 00000 n 0000007161 00000 n 0000007354 00000 n 0000007431 00000 n 0000007623 00000 n 0000007700 00000 n 0000007893 00000 n 0000007970 00000 n 0000008163 00000 n 0000008240 00000 n 0000008432 00000 n 0000008509 00000 n 0000008702 00000 n 0000008779 00000 n 0000008972 00000 n 0000009049 00000 n 0000009242 00000 n 0000009319 00000 n 0000009512 00000 n 0000009589 00000 n 0000009782 00000 n 0000009859 00000 n 0000010052 00000 n 0000010129 00000 n 0000010322 00000 n 0000010399 00000 n 0000010592 00000 n 0000010669 00000 n 0000010862 00000 n 0000010939 00000 n 0000011132 00000 n 0000011209 00000 n 0000011402 00000 n 0000011479 00000 n 0000011671 00000 n 0000011748 00000 n 0000011941 00000 n 0000012018 00000 n 0000012211 00000 n 0000012288 00000 n 0000012481 00000 n 0000012558 00000 n 0000012751 00000 n 0000012828 00000 n 0000013020 00000 n 0000013097 00000 n 0000013289 00000 n 0000013367 00000 n 0000013560 00000 n 0000013638 00000 n 0000013832 00000 n 0000013860 00000 n 0000013908 00000 n 0000027062 00000 n 0000185450 00000 n 0000013993 00000 n 0000014213 00000 n 0000014322 00000 n 0000018252 00000 n 0000019430 00000 n 0000020604 00000 n 0000021774 00000 n 0000027172 00000 n 0000027381 00000 n 0000027601 00000 n 0000027821 00000 n 0000028043 00000 n 0000022947 00000 n 0000023983 00000 n 0000024223 00000 n 0000025259 00000 n 0000025499 00000 n 0000025557 00000 n 0000025783 00000 n 0000026819 00000 n 0000050833 00000 n 0000077234 00000 n 0000104428 00000 n 0000128554 00000 n 0000156667 00000 n 0000028265 00000 n 0000030981 00000 n 0000035468 00000 n 0000037928 00000 n 0000042609 00000 n 0000046619 00000 n 0000036648 00000 n 0000037684 00000 n 0000050611 00000 n 0000050942 00000 n 0000055621 00000 n 0000055843 00000 n 0000056065 00000 n 0000056287 00000 n 0000056510 00000 n 0000056733 00000 n 0000060656 00000 n 0000064568 00000 n 0000069548 00000 n 0000073318 00000 n 0000077011 00000 n 0000077343 00000 n 0000080662 00000 n 0000080885 00000 n 0000081108 00000 n 0000081331 00000 n 0000081554 00000 n 0000081766 00000 n 0000086030 00000 n 0000091276 00000 n 0000095508 00000 n 0000100237 00000 n 0000104205 00000 n 0000104537 00000 n 0000108424 00000 n 0000108636 00000 n 0000108848 00000 n 0000109060 00000 n 0000109283 00000 n 0000109506 00000 n 0000113175 00000 n 0000117093 00000 n 0000120841 00000 n 0000124220 00000 n 0000128331 00000 n 0000128663 00000 n 0000133111 00000 n 0000133334 00000 n 0000133557 00000 n 0000133780 00000 n 0000134003 00000 n 0000134215 00000 n 0000138387 00000 n 0000143432 00000 n 0000147999 00000 n 0000152067 00000 n 0000156455 00000 n 0000156776 00000 n 0000160680 00000 n 0000160892 00000 n 0000161104 00000 n 0000161316 00000 n 0000161528 00000 n 0000161740 00000 n 0000165565 00000 n 0000169186 00000 n 0000173130 00000 n 0000176653 00000 n 0000180732 00000 n 0000180955 00000 n 0000181064 00000 n 0000185536 00000 n 0000185748 00000 n 0000185960 00000 n 0000186183 00000 n 0000186406 00000 n 0000205920 00000 n 0000231018 00000 n 0000186618 00000 n 0000190402 00000 n 0000194249 00000 n 0000197622 00000 n 0000201917 00000 n 0000205697 00000 n 0000206029 00000 n 0000210035 00000 n 0000210247 00000 n 0000210459 00000 n 0000210671 00000 n 0000210894 00000 n 0000211108 00000 n 0000214779 00000 n 0000218778 00000 n 0000222912 00000 n 0000227124 00000 n 0000230804 00000 n 0000231103 00000 n 0000234946 00000 n 0000235158 00000 n 0000235359 00000 n 0000239196 00000 n 0000241915 00000 n trailer <> startxref 242027 %%EOF