Cano

Cano v. Davis

Good Law
191 F. Supp. 2d 1135·2001 WL 1821874·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23995
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaNovember 5, 2001CV 01-08477MMMRCXCalifornia1,967 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Following the decennial census conducted in 2000, the California legislature passed, and the Governor signed, a bill that re-drew state and federal legislative district boundaries in accordance with the new census data. The redistricting legislation was signed into law by the Governor on September 27, 2001. A number of Latino voters filed this action challenging the legality of the redistricting plan four days thereafter. The plaintiffs assert that three of the plan’s provisions have the unlawful effect of diluting Latino voters’ ability to elect representatives of choice.

Specifically, plaintiffs contend that: (1) Congressional districts 27 and 28 unlawfully divide the Latino community in a portion of Los Angeles County’s San Fernando Valley into two districts instead of preserving the integrity of that community and establishing one majority-Latino district in which Latinos could elect a representative of choice; (2) Congressional district 51, which encompasses parts of San Diego and Imperial Counties, unlawfully excludes certain Latino neighborhoods that, if included, would preserve the integrity of that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.