No. 5:08-cv-3893from the Senatorial District conventions—who represented their districts basedon the raw vote totals for Bell in 2006—to attend the Democratic NationalConvention. Plaintiffs assert that this delegate allocation plan discriminatesagainst Latino voters. They claim that Latino majority Senatorial districts thatvoted overwhelmingly for Bell in 2006 received fewer delegates than whitemajority districts that gave a smaller percentage of support to Bell. That is, theLatino majority districts were smaller in size than the white majority districts,so even though they may have supported Bell to a greater percentage, there werestill more raw votes for Bell in the white majority districts. Therefore, the whitemajority districts received more delegates in 2008. Plaintiffs assert that theTDP should allocate delegates based on either the district’s percentage supportfor the Democratic gubernatorial candidate or the proportion of the vote for allDemocratic candidates, not the raw vote. This, Plaintiffs contend, would rewardDemocratic loyalty without “punishing” Latino voters for living in smallerdistricts, especially because they generated a greater amount of support for Bellwithin their districts.Importantly, whether the TDP’s delegate allocation plan actuallydiscriminates against minority voters (i.e., whether it “has the purpose [or] willhave the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race orcolor,” 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(a)) is
at issue in this summary judgment motion.That is a question for the Attorney General or the D.C. District Court should weconclude that preclearance is required.
See Morse v. Republican Party of Va.
,517 U.S. 186, 216-17 (1996). Instead, we simply must determine whether theTDP must preclear its delegate selection formula because it has the
fordiscrimination, not whether that formula actually violates the Voting Rights Act.
at 216 (noting that “the decision whether discrimination has occurred orwas intended to occur . . . is for the Attorney General or the District Court forthe District of Columbia to make in the first instance”);
see also City of Lockhart
Case 5:08-cv-00389-FB-ECP-XR Document 43 Filed 08/24/2009 Page 3 of 25