DOCSLIB.ORG

UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Introducing "Clustering:" Redistricting in Geographic Perspective Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4689t4s6 Author Levitt, Justin Mark Publication Date 2016 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Introducing “Clustering:” Redistricting in Geographic Perspective A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Justin Mark Levitt Committee in charge: Professor Thad Kousser, Chair Professor Christopher Elmendorf Professor Gary Jacobson Professor Gerry Mackie Professor Isaac Martin 2016 This Dissertation of Justin Mark Levitt is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2016 iii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my grandfather, Nissel “Sol” Levitt. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page ..................................................................................................................................... iii Dedication ............................................................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures (including Maps) ........................................................................................................ x Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ xii Vita ...................................................................................................................................................... xiv Abstract of the Dissertation ............................................................................................................. xv Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Making Decisions in San Diego ..................................................................................................... 1 Overview of the Argument ............................................................................................................. 3 Connecting Geography and Representation ................................................................................ 6 Redistricting Institutions in Geographic Context ................................................................... 6 Redistricting Reform and its Contexts ...................................................................................... 7 Urbanization and the “Long Shadow of the Industrial Revolution” ................................. 10 Sorting ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Technological Advancement .................................................................................................... 13 Plan of the Work ............................................................................................................................ 15 Works Cited .................................................................................................................................... 17 v Chapter 2: Evaluating Clustering and Redistricting Criteria ........................................................ 19 A Political Windfall? ...................................................................................................................... 19 Clustering: Theory and Definition ............................................................................................... 21 Measuring Clustering ................................................................................................................. 22 Why Clustering? ......................................................................................................................... 24 Clustering in the American States ................................................................................................ 27 General Observations ............................................................................................................... 27 Patterns of Clustering ................................................................................................................ 28 Measurement in Redistricting ....................................................................................................... 30 Measurement and Representation Theory ............................................................................. 30 Compactness ............................................................................................................................... 32 Competitiveness ......................................................................................................................... 35 Communities of Interest and Race .......................................................................................... 37 Other Potential Measures and Constraints ............................................................................ 39 Constraints ............................................................................................................................. 39 Political Subdivisions ............................................................................................................ 40 Substantive Representation ................................................................................................. 42 Works Cited .................................................................................................................................... 55 Chapter 3: How Clustering Shapes Redistricting Tradeoffs ........................................................ 59 Washington and Arizona: A Tale of Two Commissions ......................................................... 60 vi Demographic Transition on the Ground ................................................................................... 62 Predicting the Effect of Clustering on Districts ........................................................................ 64 Direct Effects ............................................................................................................................. 64 Tradeoffs ..................................................................................................................................... 65 Research Design and Hypotheses ................................................................................................ 67 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................. 67 Overview of Approach ............................................................................................................. 68 Automated Districting Procedure ........................................................................................... 69 Case Selection ............................................................................................................................. 70 Redistricting Criteria .................................................................................................................. 72 Cluster Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 73 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 74 Direct Effects ............................................................................................................................. 74 Tradeoffs ..................................................................................................................................... 75 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 79 Works Cited .................................................................................................................................... 93 Chapter 4: The Impact of Clustering on Redistricting Institutions ............................................ 95 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 96 Geography Reconsidered .............................................................................................................. 97 Rules of the Game ......................................................................................................................... 99 vii Institutional Preferences ............................................................................................................. 102 Research Design and Hypotheses .............................................................................................. 104 Method and Data ......................................................................................................................... 108
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Introduction to the Joint Principles for Data Citation
    RDAP Review EDITOR’S SUMMARY While the conventions of An Introduction to the Joint Principles for Data Citation bibliographic citation have been by Micah Altman, Christine Borgman, Mercè Crosas and Maryann Martone long established, the sole focus is on reference to other scholarly 3 works. Access to the data serving NOTE: This article summarizes and extends a longer report r of the manuscript must be available to any reader of Science ” e b as the basis for scholarly work has published as [ 1]. Contributors are listed in alphabetical order. We and that “ citations to unpublished data [emphasis added] m u been limited. Data citation extends describe contributions to the paper using a standard taxonomy N and personal communications cannot be used to support , described in [ 2]. Micah Altman and Mercè Crosas were the lead 1 important access to material that 4 authors, taking equal responsibility for revisions and authoring claims in a published paper” [ 4]. Too often, however, this e has been largely unavailable for m the first draft of the manuscript from which this is derived. All u proscription and others like it have been honored only in the l o sharing, verification and reuse. The authors contributed to the conception of the Force 11 principles V breach. Few research articles provide access to the data on – Joint Declaration of Data Citation discussed, to the methodology, to the project administration 5 1 and to the writing through critical review and commentary. which they are based, nor specific citations to data on which 0 Principles, finalized in February 2 the findings rely, nor protocols, algorithms, code or other h 2014, is a formal statement pulling c r a together practices used in the ata citation is rapidly emerging as a key practice technology necessary to reproduce, reuse or extend results.
    [Show full text]
  • Plaintiff's Motion for the Court to Issue Direction To
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 18CVS 014001 COMMON CAUSE,etal, Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO LEGISLATIVE DEFENDANTS DAVID LEWIS,IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SENIOR CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON REDISTRICTING, et al., Defendants. m a EXHIBIT A STEPHANIE HOFELLER May 17, 2019 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE 1 A P P E A R A N C E S (continued) SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 2 Counsel for the Defendant-Intervenors: COUNTY OF WAKE 18 CVS 014001 3 Shanahan Law Group BY: John E. Branch, III COMMON CAUSE, ET AL., ) 4 128 E. Hargett Street, Suite 300 ) Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Plaintiffs, ) 5 (919) 856-9494 ) [email protected] vs. ) 6 ) Counsel for the Deponent: DAVID LEWIS, IN HIS OFFICIAL ) 7 CAPACITY AS SENIOR CHAIRMAN ) Fiduciary Litigation Group OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ) 8 BY: Tom Sparks ON REDISTRICTING, ET AL., ) 223 South West Street, Suite 900 ) 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Defendants. ) (919) 229-0845 10 [email protected] 11 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 12 Also Present: Trae Howerton, Videographer STEPHANIE HOFELLER 13 ________________________________________________ 14 9:38 A.M. 15 FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2019 16 Reported By: Discovery Court Reporters and Legal ________________________________________________ Videographers 17 BY: Lisa A. Wheeler, RPR, CRR POYNER SPRUILL 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1000 18 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 301 FAYETTEVILLE STREET, SUITE 1900 (919) 649-9998 19 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA --oOo-- 20 21 22 23 BY: LISA A. WHEELER, RPR, CRR 24 25 1 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 1 I N D E X 2 Counsel for the Plaintiffs: PAGE 3 Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer 2 BY: R.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:18-Cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 1 of 28
    Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 1 of 28 EXHIBIT 10 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 2 of 28 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 3 of 28 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 4 of 28 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 5 of 28 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 6 of 28 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 7 of 28 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 8 of 28 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 9 of 28 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 10 of 28 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 11 of 28 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 12 of 28 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 13 of 28 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 14 of 28 Case 1:18-cv-04727-ELR Document 17-11 Filed 10/19/18 Page 15 of 28 Dr. Michael P.
    [Show full text]
  • 00017-89121.Pdf (110.8
    March 19, 2014 To: The Federal Trade Commision Re: Mobile Device Tracking From: Micah Altman, Director of Research, MIT Libraries; Non Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the FTC’s considerations of Mobile Device Tracking. These comments address selected privacy risks and mitigation methods. Our perspective is informed by substantial advances in privacy science that have been made in the computer science literature and by recent research conducted by the members of the Privacy Tools for Sharing Research Data project at Harvard University.1 Scope of information The speakers focussed primarily on businesses use of mobile devices to track consumers’ movements through retail stores and nearby environments. However, as noted in the comments made by the Center for Digital Democracy [CDD 2014] and in the workshop discussion (as documented in the transcript), the the general scope of mobile information tracking businesses and third parties extends far beyond this scenario. Based on the current ability for third parties to collect location information from mobile phones alone, third parties have the potential to collect extensive, fine grained, continuous and identifiable records of a persons location and movement history, accompanied with a partial record of other devices (potentially linked to people) encountered over that history. Information sensitivity Generally, information policy should treat information as sensitive when that information, if linked to a person, even partially or probabilistically, is likely to cause substantial harm. There is a broad range of informational harms that are recognized by regulation and by researchers and 1 The Privacy Tools for Sharing Research Data project is a National Science Foundation funded collaboration at Harvard University involving the Center for Research on Computation and Society, the Institute for Quantitative Social Science, the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and the Data Privacy Lab.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Models and Post-Bandemer Redistricting
    Computer Models and Post-Bandemer Redistricting Michelle H. Browdy Since the Supreme Court first held political redistricting1 to be justicia- ble in Baker v. Carr,2 legal challenges to districting plans have increased dramatically.3 Because the Court's 1986 decision in Davis v. Bandemer4 held partisan gerrymandering5 to be justiciable for the first time,6 even more litigation will likely accompany redistricting following the 1990 cen- 1. States are divided into geographical districts from which representatives are elected either for the United States House of Representatives or for state legislative bodies. Political redistricting occurs when states redraw their political boundary lines after each decennial census. Since the benefits and detriments of automated redistricting apply equally to both congressional and state legislative redis- triting, this Note will not distinguish between them. The Supreme Court, however, does treat chal- lenges to the two types of districts differently, applying tighter standards of population equality to congressional districts than to state legislative districts. Compare Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) (invalidating plan for New Jersey's congressional districts with average deviation from perfect population equality of 0.1384%) with Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983) (upholding plan for Wyoming state legislature with maximum population deviation of 89%). 2. 369 U.S. 186 (1962). In Baker, the Court held that a challenge to the disparity of population size in districts of the Tennessee General Assembly was justiciable under the equal protection clause, U.S. CoN sT. amend XIV, § 1. A previous challenge to the lack of population equality in districts in Illinois had been held nonjusticiable when it was brought under the guaranty clause, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Issues in Statistical Computing for the Social Scientist
    Numerical Issues in Statistical Computing for the Social Scientist MICAH ALTMAN JEFF GILL MICHAEL P. McDONALD A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., PUBLICATION Numerical Issues in Statistical Computing for the Social Scientist ii WILEY SERIES IN PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS Established by WALTER A. SHEWHART and SAMUEL S. WILKS Editors: David J. Balding, Noel A. C. Cressie, Nicholas I. Fisher, Iain M. Johnstone, J. B. Kadane, Louise M. Ryan, David W. Scott, Adrian F. M. Smith, Jozef L. Teugels; Editors Emeriti: Vic Barnett, J. Stuart Hunter, David G. Kendall A complete list of the titles in this series appears at the end of this volume. Numerical Issues in Statistical Computing for the Social Scientist MICAH ALTMAN JEFF GILL MICHAEL P. McDONALD A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., PUBLICATION Copyright c 2004 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Published simultaneously in Canada. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, e-mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Issues in Statistical Computing for the Social Scientist
    JSS Journal of Statistical Software April 2005, Volume 12, Book Review 5. http://www.jstatsoft.org/ Reviewer: Frauke Kreuter University of Maryland, College Park Numerical Issues in Statistical Computing for the Social Scientist Micah Altman, Jeff Gill, Michael P. McDonald John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2004. ISBN 0-471-23633-0. xv + 323 pp. $94.95. http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu/numerical_issues/ This is a very interesting book in an area that hasn’t gotten much attention in the so- cial sciences, but can expect to have more than just a niche audience with the increase of maximum-likelihood-based applications, a heightened interest in simulations, and a general appreciation for computational statistics. Numerical Issues in Statistical Computing for the Social Scientist is the right book for any social scientist who has stumbled upon error mes- sages relating to convergence problems, non-invertible, or ill-conditioned matrices, and who is not just interested in some rough guidance on what to watch out for, but rather wants to understand the source of these problems down to effects of errors in floating point arithmetic. Micah Altman, Jeff Gill, and Michael P. McDonald state in their preface that this book is intended to serve multiple purposes: Introducing new principles, algorithms and solutions while at the same time serving as a guide to statistical computing. There is a benefit to including new research results in a guidebook, but with it comes the challenge to find the right level of difficulty. As a result, the book seems bimodal, sometimes missing the intermediate applied researcher, who writes modest programs within a given statistical package.
    [Show full text]
  • Micah Altman
    Micah Altman Curriculum Vitae Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University 1737 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 Phone: (585) 466-4224 Fax: (617) 963-7370 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://futurelib.org Education Harvard University 1999-2001 Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Department of Government California Institute of Technology 1998 Ph.D., Social Sciences Brown University 1989 B.A., Magna Cum Laude*, Computer Science B.A., Magna Cum Laude*, Ethics and Political Philosophy [*Highest distinction awarded by the University] Honors & Senior Fellow, Information Technology & Politics Section, 2011 Awards American Political Science Association Best Research Software 2009 American Political Science Association (ITP) for BARD Library Technology Excellence Award, Honorable Mention 2009 IGI Global (for The Henry A. Murray Archive) Listed in (Marquis) 2003-4, 2009 Who's Who in America, 57th, 58th, 63rd Edition Best Research Software Award, 2005 American Political Science Association (ITP); (for the VDC System) Annual Meeting Enrichment Fund Award, 2001 Association of American Geographers Best Political Science Research Website, 1999 (for The Record of American Democracy website) Outstanding Dissertation Award, 1999 Western Political Science Association (for the best political science dissertation) Weaver Award, Representation and Electoral Systems Section, 1998 American Political Science Association (for best paper presented at previous meeting) Pre-doctoral Fellowship 1996-7 Harvard-MIT Research Training Group in Political Economy John Randolf Haynes and Dora Haynes Fellowship 1995-6 Anna and James McDonnell Memorial Fellowship 1994-5 Phi Beta Kappa 1989 9/15/2011 Sigma Xi 1989 Research Senior Research Scientist 2006-Present Positions Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University Archival Director 2007-Present Henry A.
    [Show full text]
  • Districting Criteria and a Proposal for Their Empirical Redefinition
    GERRYMANDERED BY DEFINITION: THE DISTORTION OF “TRADITIONAL” DISTRICTING CRITERIA AND A PROPOSAL FOR THEIR EMPIRICAL REDEFINITION YUNSIEG P. KIM* & JOWEI CHEN† What are “traditional” districting criteria? The meaning of that term is critical to curbing abusive districting practices because adherence to traditional criteria grants districting plans a prima facie impression of constitutionality and serves as a strong defense to racial gerrymandering claims. Yet, the Supreme Court has never intelligibly defined “traditional” districting criteria or its indicative qualities. Exploiting this silence, various actors are attempting to define that term in service of their own interests, usually at the expense of the public’s. For example, legislatures pushing redistricting plans that would advantage certain parties or incumbents claim that those districting goals are “traditional”—and therefore must be judicially protected—by relying on anecdotal examples of a state having used them. This Article proposes a definition of “traditional” districting criteria that would both reduce such abuse and adhere to a commonly understood meaning of that word: widely accepted as standard practice. Under this alternative, which we call the empirical definition, a criterion is “traditional” only if a majority of states require or allow it and fewer than a quarter prohibit it in state constitutions, statutes, or legislative guidelines. According to the empirical definition and our database of the fifty states’ redistricting laws, compactness, contiguity, equal population, and preserving county and city boundaries are traditional criteria. Among others, partisan advantage, incumbent protection, and preserving communities of interest are nontraditional. The empirical definition would not only curb abusive districting but also reduce the influence of undesirable judicial activism by binding judges’ discretion to an objectively discernible definition of “traditional” criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2018 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus RUCHO ET AL. v. COMMON CAUSE ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 18–422. Argued March 26, 2019—Decided June 27, 2019* Voters and other plaintiffs in North Carolina and Maryland filed suits challenging their States’ congressional districting maps as unconsti- tutional partisan gerrymanders. The North Carolina plaintiffs claimed that the State’s districting plan discriminated against Demo- crats, while the Maryland plaintiffs claimed that their State’s plan discriminated against Republicans. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Four- teenth Amendment, the Elections Clause, and Article I, §2. The Dis- trict Courts in both cases ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the de- fendants appealed directly to this Court. Held: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions be- yond the reach of the federal courts. Pp. 6–34. (a) In these cases, the Court is asked to decide an important ques- tion of constitutional law. Before it does so, the Court “must find that the question is presented in a ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ that is .
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Marland Greenbelt Division
    Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 43-16 Filed 12/07/11 Page 1 of 53 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARLAND GREENBELT DIVISION MS.PATRICIA FLETCHER, ) et al., ) ) Civ. Action No.: RWT-11-3220 ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) LINDA LAMONE in her official ) capacity as State Administrator of ) Elections for the state of Maryland; ) And ROBERT L. WALKER in his ) official capacity as Chairman of the ) State Board of Elections, ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________) DECLARATION AND EXPERT REPORT OF RONALD KEITH GADDIE, Ph.D. Case 8:11-cv-03220-RWT Document 43-16 Filed 12/07/11 Page 2 of 53 DECLARATION OF RONALD KEITH GADDIE I, Ronald Keith Gaddie, being competent to testify, hereby affirm on my personal knowledge as follows: 1. My name is Ronald Keith Gaddie. I reside at 3801 Chamberlyne Way, Norman, Oklahoma, 73072. I have been retained as an expert to provide analysis of the Maryland congressional districts by counsel for the Fannie Lou Hamer Coalition. I am being compensated at a rate of $300.00 per hour. I am a tenured professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma. I teach courses on electoral politics, research methods, and southern politics at the undergraduate and graduate level. I am also the general editor (with Kelly Damphousse) of the journal Social Science Quarterly. I am the author or coauthor of several books, journal articles, law review articles, and book chapters and papers on aspects of elections, including most recently The Triumph of Voting Rights in the South. In the last decade I have worked on redistricting cases in several states, and I provided previous expert testimony on voting rights, redistricting, and statistical issues.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 214 Filed 05/30/19 Page 1 of 5 1 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 2 MARK R. BECKINGTON ANTHONY R. HAKL 3 Supervising Deputy Attorneys General GABRIELLE D. BOUTIN, SBN 267308 4 R. MATTHEW WISE, SBN 238485 ANNA T. FERRARI, SBN 261579 5 TODD GRABARSKY, SBN 286999 NOREEN P. SKELLY, SBN 186135 6 Deputy Attorneys General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 7 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 8 Telephone: (916) 210-6053 Fax: (916) 324-8835 9 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California, by and 10 through Attorney General Xavier Becerra 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. Case No. 18-cv-01865-RS 16 Plaintiffs, 18-cv-02279-RS 17 v. 18 NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS IN WILBUR L. ROSS, et al., RELATED ACTION 19 Defendants. 20 ------------------------------------------------------ 21 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., 22 Plaintiffs, 23 v. 24 WILBUR L. ROSS, et al., 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 Case 3:18-cv-01865-RS Document 214 Filed 05/30/19 Page 2 of 5 1 The plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases respectfully provide notice to the Court of 2 proceedings in the related action of State of New York v. U.S. Department of Commerce, 18-CV- 3 2921 in the United States Court for the Southern District of New York (New York action). 4 On May 30, 2019, certain plaintiffs in the New York action filed in the district court a 5 request for an order to show cause whether sanctions or other appropriate relief are warranted in 6 light of new evidence contradicting sworn deposition testimony in that case.
    [Show full text]