about if we adopt your rationale and express it as to texas but we say if you're completely right in your theory unconstitutionality then that if applied to all fifty one jurisdictions would mean did the players getting relief in the district court the motions to dismiss were granted in each of the district courts largely based on the summary affirm and says in these two so that was that was the focus of that that argument now have available today identifying the factors that a court must consider and determining whether there was in fact invidious among the factors that a court needs to look at is the size of the district the multi district and the percentage of members of that district that are elected through an out large election cases such as  and rogers the lodge were decided after williams and provide that in addition at the time williams was decided the supreme court had not yet held that an at large multi for and also the court and rogers v lodge explain that intent it does not just focus on the reason for adoption you also have to focus on why the multi member election is being maintained and that and you can determine that not only based on direct evidence but circumstantial us as to why it's being maintained here in our complain and whether it's indicative of invidious intent you have to remember that this case was at the motion to dismiss stage so the question is whether we stay the claim and whether we were entitled to discovery in the district court in addition to identifying the factors that would come and and roger said were sufficient and we also in response to the state's motion to dismiss presented historical  maintaining that is equally as relevant to the intent inquiry as why it was originally adopted as the court in rogers be large said even in the electoral system that was adopted originally electoral system system to operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of my voters here we have a situation where plaintiffs are as short zero representation interested in maximize the the power of the party in power as opposed to the state because no matter what the state will have the same number of electors because that's determined by the constitution not whether they're participation in the presidential process and then to the compelling state interest the state improperly this we have addressed with the states and then applied interest is but which a representative be chosen that every person in that unit must have any way to vote but the court explained in westbury vs sanders a year that that rule is followed automatically when representatives are chosen as a group on a state wife and so that results there but now there has been some confusion in their theory about whether they're alleging texas conducts a statewide election for president or a statewide election for thirty bush was that the question there was a question of voter's intent based on the ballot and the problem was that voters or elector election administrators in different precincts and sometimes even different administrators in the same precinct were applying different standards to determine the intent of the voter and so the supreme court held limited to the circumstances that's arbitrary and disparate so that's the basis of if i could move on to the st amendment claim the district court correctly dismissed this claim and held that the plaintiffs allege no cognizable burden on the rights of assembly expression or association that is the supreme court's been clear that the constitution doesn't guarantee that speech will persuade or the absolute will be affected be effective and the constitution certainly doesn't guarantee that the political parties  so even if there were a cognized burden here it couldn't outweigh the state's interest in maximizing its influence as a state in the national and it's important to be clear alleged a delusion claim we in for instance paragraph forty three of our complaint say that under the system all of texas is the thirty eight electors are members of the political party the nominated the cand wins the popular vote the consequence of the system is to give no up fact to the votes of the citizens who voted for a losing candidate that's exactly the standard for dilution a system that's conceived choice is of the essence of a democratic society and any respect sions on that right strike at the heart of representative government and the right of suffrage can be denied by a did basement of dilution of the weight of a s circumstances or particular case may operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial or political elements of the voting populace it is also  important to remember that this was a motion to dismiss so the question is whether we stated a claim and the allegations in this can clearly do and it was