F a rr a khan v. G r e goi r e , N o. 06- 35669

G R A B E R , C ir c u it J u d g e , c o n c u rr in g in th e ju d g m e n t: I c onc uri n the j udgm e nt . B e c aus e I w oul d r e s ol ve the c a s e on the gr ound tha tw e s pe c i f

i c a l l y r e m a nde d t o the di s tr i c tc our t , I w oul d notr e a c h the i s s ue a ddr e s s e d by the m a

j or i ty . I the r e f

or e do notc onc uri n the m a j or i ty opi ni on. I n F a rr a k h a n v . W a s h in g to n , 3 3 8 F .3 d 1 0 0 9 , 1 0 1 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , w e h e ld tha tP l a i nt i f

f s ’ f e l on di s e nf

r a nc hi s e m e ntc l a i m i s c ogni z abl e unde rS e c t i on 2 of the V ot i ng R i gh t s A ct(" V R A ") . W e hel d thatthe di stri ctcourthad app l i ed an e rr o n e o u s s ta n d a r d in s te a d o f th e c o rr e c t " to ta lity o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s " s ta n d a r d . Id. at10 16 -19. R ather than app l y the t es tou rs el ves, w e r em anded t o the di stri ct c o u r t f o rit to " m a k e an y r e q u is ite f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o llo w in g a n ap p r o p r ia te e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng, i f

ne c e s s a ry , a nd a s s e s s the t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s . " I d. a t1020. W e de ni e d D e f

e nda nt s ’ pe t i t i on f

orr e he a r i ng e n ba nc . F a rr a kha n v. W as hi ng t on , 35 9 F . 3d 11 16 , 11 16 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( order) . S even j ud ges di ss ent ed f r om de ni a l of

r e he a r i ng e n ba nc . I d. a t1116- 27 ( K oz i ns ki , J . , di s s e nt i ng f r om de ni a l of r e he a r i ng e n ba nc ) . T he di s s e nt i ng j udge s w oul d ha ve r e ve r s e d the j u d g me n to f

th e th r e e -

j u d g e p a n e l b e c au s e o f

th e i rv i e w th a tSe c t i o n 2 o f th e V RA do es no tre ac h fel on di se nfra nchi se m entl aw s. Id. T he S up re m e C ou rtdeni ed 

# FI LED OC T 07 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSI not e thatw e vot ed t o d eny r ehea ri ng en banc and thatthe S up re m e C ou rt 1 deni ed ce rt i orar i on l y a s i m po rt antprocedural hi st ory. I do n oti nt end t o i m pl y that ei ther w e or the C ou rtac tual l y vot ed on the m er i t s of the l egal i ss ue. 2 ce rt i orar i . L ocke v. F arra kh an, 54 3 U . S . 98 4 (20 04 ).

1 O n rem and, the part i es cond uct ed addi t i on al di sc ov ery a nd fi l ed new af fi davi t s and other s ub m i ss i on s, i ncl ud i ng expertre po rt s. T he di stri ctcourt d u tif u lly ap p lie d th e " to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s " te s t a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t,

" [ t ] a ki ng a l l of

the r e l e va ntf

a c t or s i nt o a c c ount , " W a s hi ngt on’ s f e l on d i s e n f r a n c h i s e m e n tl a w d o e s n o tv i o l a t e th e VR A. F a rr a k h a n v . Gr e g o i r e , No . C V96 -076 , 20 06 W L 18 89 27 3, at*9 (E . D . W as h. Jul y 7, 20 06 ) ( un pu bl i shed). I a gree w i th the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s thor ough a na l y s i s a nd i t s c onc l us i on tha t , a l though one of the m any r el evantfa ct ors s up po rt s afi nd i ng of di sc ri m i nat i on , no ne of the other f a c t or s doe s . I d. a t*6- 9. I w o u ld a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u r t o n th a t g r o u n d . A c c or di ngl y , the r e i s no ne e d t o r e a c h the que s t i on w he the rf e l on d is e n f r a n c h is e m e n t la w s m a y b e c h a lle n g e d u n d e rS e c tio n 2 o f th e V R A . R e a c hi ng tha tque s t i on i s unne c e s s a ry be c aus e w e c a n a f f i rm on the gr ound desc ri bed abo ve— the grou nd thatw e m andat ed the di stri ctcourtt o d et erm i ne. P e rh ap s m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , j u d i c i a l p ru d e n c e s tr o n g l y s u g g e s t s th a twe decl i ne t o rea ch thatqu es t i on . W e a l re ady dec i ded thatqu es t i on i n thi s c as e m ore tha n s e ve n y e a r s a go. W e de c l i ne d t o r e he a rthe c a s e e n ba nc , ove ravi gor ousT h e d eci si o n t o rev i si ta p reced en ti n a l at er, d i fferen tcase p resen t s a 2 di f f e r e nti s s ue tha n w he the rt o r e vi s i ta n i s s ue de c i de d i n a n e a r l i e rs t a ge of the sa m e c as e. 3 di s s e nt , a nd the S upr e m e C our tde ni e d c e r t i or a r i . I n the m a ny y e a r s tha tha ve f ol l ow e d, the pa r t i e s ha ve c onduc t e d a ddi t i ona l di s c ove ry , f i l e d vol um i nous s ubm i s s i ons , a nd w r i tt e n doz e ns of pa ge s of br i e f s . T he di s tr i c tc our tf

ol l ow e d our m a n d a t e i n d e t a i l a n d r e s o l v e d th e c a s e o n th e g r o u n d th a twe h a d s p e c i f i e d . On ap p e a l to th is c o u r t, th e p a r tie s f ile d a d d itio n a l b r ie f

s , a n d th e th r e e -

ju d g e p a n e l, t oo, r e s ol ve d the appe a l on the gr ound tha ti tpr e vi ous l y ha d s pe c i f i e d. O n c e w e h a v e r e s o lv e d ap r e lim in a ry a n d im p o r ta n t p o in t o f la w a n d th e f

u ll c o u r t a n d th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a v e d e c lin e d to in te rv e n e , ju d ic ia l p ru d e n c e s tr o n g ly s ugge s t s tha tw e s houl d notl a t e rdi s turb tha trul i ng— a nd the r e by undo y e a r s of e f f o r t b y th e p ar tie s a n d th e c o u r ts

— in th e v e ry s a m e c a s e w h e n d o in g s o is e nt i r e l y unne c e s s a ry . T he a ni m a t i ng pr i nc i pl e s of the " l a w of

the c a s e " doc tr i ne ap p ly h e r e : " w h e n ac o u r t d e c id e s u p o n aru le o f la w , th a t d e c is io n s h o u ld co n t i n u e t o g o v ern th e sam e i ssu es i n su b seq u en tst ag es i n th e sam e case." A r i z onav. C a l i f

orni a , 460 U . S . 605, 618 ( 1983) . I do notque s t i on the author i ty or l egi t i m ac y of the m aj ori ty’ s opi ni on ; I m er el y di sa gree w i th i t s di sc re t i on ary d e c is io n to r e s o lv e th is c a s e o n its c h o s e n g r o u n d . W e r e th e r e s u lt o f th is c a s e to 2T h a t th e S u p r e m e C o u r t m a y s o o n v o te to d e c id e th e is s u e is , in m y v ie w , a 3 re as on t o d ef

ersubm i ss i on of thi s c as e, no ta r ea son t o d ec i de thi s c as e w i th h as t e. 4 hi ng e on thatgrou nd , or w er e there som e c om pel l i ng re as on t o rea ch the i ss ue, I 3 m i ghtw e l l c om e t o adi f f e r e ntc onc l us i on.