Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 106. Exhibit A Nina Perales Declaration

Transcription

1 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 106 Exhibit A Nina Perales Declaration

2 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 106 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, et al., - and - Plaintiffs, EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, et al., - and - TEXAS STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, et al., v. Plaintiff Intervenors, RICK PERRY, et al., Defendants, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (MALC, - and - Plaintiffs, HONORABLE HENRY CUELLAR, et al., v. Plaintiff Intervenors, STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR [Lead case] CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated case]

3 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 106 TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICK PERRY, et al., Defendants, MARAGARITA v. QUESADA, et al., v. Plaintiffs, RICK PERRY, et al., Defendants, JOHN T. MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-490-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated case] CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-592-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated case] CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-615-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated case] 2

4 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 106 EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-11-CA-635-OLG-JES-XR [Consolidated case] DECLARATION OF NINA PERALES I, Nina Perales, declare as follows, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746: I am the Vice President of Litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. ( MALDEF. I submit this declaration in support of the Latino Redistricting Task Force, et al., Plaintiffs Motion for Interim Attorneys Fees and Costs in this matter. I am thoroughly familiar with the facts, proceedings and arguments in this case and am fully competent to testify to the matters set forth in this declaration. The facts stated in this declaration are within my personal knowledge. Experience of MALDEF Attorneys 1. The team of MALDEF attorneys that litigated this case on behalf of the Latino Redistricting Task Force, et al., plaintiffs ( Task Force Plaintiffs included attorneys with substantial federal court litigation experience. Founded in 1968 in San Antonio, Texas, MALDEF specializes in civil rights impact litigation on behalf of Latinos in the areas of political access, education, employment, and immigration. Beginning with MALDEF s first case, a successful challenge to the exclusion of Mexican Americans from Bexar County juries, MALDEF has maintained an active docket of civil rights litigation that has resulted in significant advances in the rights of Latinos 3

5 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 5 of 106 in the United States. Among other important cases, MALDEF successfully litigated: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 133 S.Ct (2013 (invalidating a state voter registration law as preempted by the National Voter Registration Act; LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006 (finding that Texas s 2003 congressional redistricting plan violated section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act; White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973 (establishing minority vote dilution as a cognizable claim for Latino voters; Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982 (establishing the right of children to attend public K-12 school regardless of immigration status; and Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391 (Tex (finding unconstitutional the Texas school finance system and creating greater funding equity between high and low wealth school districts in the State. Because it is a non-profit organization, MALDEF conducts its large scale and complex litigation with relatively few attorneys assigned to each case. 2. MALDEF has litigated a significant number of cases related to voting rights and redistricting. These cases presented complex questions of law and fact and have been litigated in the U.S. district courts, the circuit courts of appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result of their work on these cases, MALDEF attorneys have developed a particular expertise as well as a national reputation in the area of voting rights. 3. I have served as lead counsel in the following voting rights and redistricting cases: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 133 S.Ct (2013 (described above; Texas v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 2d133 (D.D.C. 2012, vacated on jurisdictional grounds, 133 S. Ct (2013 (represented Latino coalition in opposition to federal preclearance of Texas 2011 redistricting plans; Texas v. Holder, 4

6 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 6 of F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2012, vacated on jurisdictional grounds, 133 S. Ct (2013 (represented Latino coalition in opposition to federal preclearance of Texas voter ID law; LULAC v. Perry, 126 S. Ct (2006 (successfully briefed and argued case before U.S. Supreme Court; lead counsel at trial for Latino plaintiffs; won order invalidating congressional redistricting plan under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.; NW Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (2009 (lead counsel for Latino residents of MUD who intervened to defend the Voting Rights Act; with aligned counsel secured Supreme Court ruling preserving the protections of section 5 of the Act; Padilla v. Lever, 463 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. (en banc (arguing counsel in en banc court; Balderas v. Texas, No. 01-CV-158 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2011 aff d 122 S.Ct (2002 (2001 challenge to malapportionment and minority vote dilution in the Texas Senate, House and congressional redistricting plans; Arizona Minority Coal. for Fair Redistricting v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm n, Nos. CV , CV , 2004 WL (Ariz. Super. Jan. 16, 2004 (successful defense of Latino-majority Congressional District 4, aff d in part rev d in part, Arizona Minority Coal. for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, 121 P.3d 843 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005; Save Our Aquifer v. City of San Antonio, 237 F.Supp.2d 721 (W.D. Tex. 2002, aff d, 108 Fed. Appx. 863 (5th Cir (enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; Ramos v. City of San Antonio, No. SA-05-CA-0500-RF, 2005 WL (W.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2005 (enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; LULAC Council No. 682 v. City of Seguin, No. SA-02-CA-369 (W.D. Tex 2002 (enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; 5

7 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 7 of 106 Miguel Hernandez Chapter of the Am. GI Forum v. Bexar Cnty, No. SA-04-CA-181 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2003 (enforcement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; and Perry v. Del Rio, 53 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. App. Austin 2001, pet. dism d, 66. S.W.3d 239 (Tex. (redistricting challenge. 4. In addition, I served as co-counsel in the following voting rights cases: Lepak v. City of Irving, 453 Fed. Appx. 522 (5th Cir (lead counsel for Latino residents who intervened to defend equal population rule in redistricting; with aligned counsel secured favorable ruling on summary judgment and in Fifth Circuit, cert denied, 133 S.Ct (2013; Reynoso v. Amarillo Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 98-CV-186 (N.D. Tex (challenge to at-large school trustee elections; and Ruiz v. City of Santa Maria, 160 F.3d 543 (9th Cir (trial co-counsel in challenge to at-large municipal elections, cert. denied, 527 U.S ( I am a 1986 graduate of Brown University and a 1990 graduate of Columbia University School of Law. As Vice President of Litigation, I manage MALDEF s extensive litigation docket in the areas of political access, immigrants rights, education, and employment in four regional offices across the nation and I continue to serve as lead counsel in a number of voting and immigrant rights cases. Most recently, I served as lead counsel and successfully argued Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, 2013 WL (5th Cir (en banc (upholding federal preemption challenge to anti-immigrant local ordinance. 6. In addition, I have served as counsel in and supervised many of the MALDEF cases listed below in paragraphs 13, 14, 17, 20, and 24, as well as the following additional cases handled by my office: United States v. Ector County Indep. Sch. Dist., 722 6

8 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 8 of 106 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir (school desegregation and EEOA; Morales v. Shannon, No. 70-CV (W.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2012 (school desegregation and EEOA case; Fisher v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 652 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir (school desegregation; and Dominguez v. Texas, No. 07-CV-0549 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2008 (Fourteenth Amendment challenge to state s denial of tuition benefits to U.S. citizen military veterans who were legal permanent resident immigrants at the time they entered the military. 7. I am admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York and the State of Texas and admitted to practice before the following additional courts: United States Supreme Court; United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits; United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of Texas; United States District Court for the District of Columbia; United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. 8. I have testified on voting rights before committees of the U.S. Congress, including: testifying on The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election on December 19, 2012 before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary; testifying in support of the 2006 congressional reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights; and testifying before the U.S. House of Representatives Government Reform Committee Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census in opposition to a 2005 proposal to exclude non-u.s. citizens from congressional apportionment. 7

9 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 9 of I also co-authored an article titled Voting Rights in Texas: , 17 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Soc. Just. 713 ( My professional experience also includes advocacy in federal administrative proceedings, testimony before state legislative committees and service in an advisory capacity to attorneys handling similar cases. I have lectured extensively on civil rights, the Voting Rights Act and minority vote dilution litigation, and anti-immigrant ordinances, including at meetings of the National Council of State Legislatures, the Brookings Institution, the American Bar Association, the American Constitution Society, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association. I have lectured or participated as a panelist at University-sponsored events on voting rights at Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, Berkeley, Northeastern, the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Houston. 11. I am a former member of the Litigation Section Council of the State Bar of Texas and a current member of the American Law Institute. I also serve on the ABA Standing Committee on Election Law, as a Council member of the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and as the IR&R Chair of the Committee on Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity. See Attachment 1 (Résumé of Nina Perales. 12. Marisa Bono, who worked under my supervision in this matter, is a 2005 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, where she was the Managing Editor of the Michigan Law Review and recipient of the prestigious Clarence Darrow Full Merit Scholarship. She has a B.A. in Political Science from Rice University and an M.P.P. from the University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy. After graduating from 8

10 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 10 of 106 law school, Ms. Bono clerked for the Honorable Jerry Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. After clerking, she accepted a national Skadden Fellowship to work as a staff attorney for MALDEF in San Antonio, Texas for two years. 13. While at MALDEF as a Skadden fellow, Ms. Bono practiced law exclusively in the area of civil rights. She served as co-lead appellate counsel in Vicente v. Barnett, No (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2011 (vigilante rancher assault and battery; and on the litigation team for: United States, GI Forum and LULAC v. Texas, 601 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. Tex (statewide EEOA challenge; Dominguez v. Texas, No. 07-CA-0549 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2008 (Equal Protection, Supremacy Clause and Title VI challenge to exclusion of veterans tuition grant; United States v. Ector County Indep. Sch. Dist., 722 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir (school desegregation and EEOA; Vasquez v. City of Farmers Branch, No. 6-CV (N.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2008 (preemption challenge to municipal ordinance; Morales v. Barnett, 2008 WL (Ariz. Ct. App (vigilante rancher assault and battery; Gonzalez v. Arizona, No. CV (D. Ariz. Aug. 15, 2012 (constitutional and Voting Rights Act challenge to state voter registration law. 14. At the conclusion of her fellowship, Ms. Bono joined the law firm of Kustoff & Phipps, LLP, in 2008, where she litigated civil cases in Bexar and surrounding counties. She returned to MALDEF as a staff attorney in December of 2010, where she served as lead trial counsel in Jornaleros de Las Palmas v. City of League City, 2013 WL (S.D. Tex. 2013, a successful First Amendment challenge to a municipal day laborer ordinance. She also served as co-counsel in a successful three- 9

11 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 11 of 106 month trial in Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition, Edgewood Independent School District v. Williams (consolidated No. D-1-GN (200th Dist., Travis Co., Tex. (state constitutional challenge to Texas school funding system; in a five-week trial in Lobato v. Colorado, 2013 WL (Colo (state constitutional challenge to Colorado school funding system; and in Salazar v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety, No. D-1 GN (345th Dist., Travis Co., Tex. July 27, 2011 (successful challenge enjoining driver s license regulations. 15. Ms. Bono is licensed to practice in the State of Texas. She is admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Northern and Western Districts of Texas. Ms. Bono has provided testimony to Texas legislative committees on various civil rights issues and speaks frequently at conferences. See Attachment 2 (Résumé of Marisa Bono. 16. Mr. Nicholás Espíritu, who worked under my supervision in this matter, received his B.A. from San Jose State University in 2001 and his J.D. from the University of California Los Angeles in Mr. Espíritu served as Managing Editor of the Chicano-Latino Law Review. Prior to joining MALDEF, Mr. Espíritu worked as an attorney at the Equal Justice Society and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. See Attachment 3 (Résumé of Nicholás Espíritu. 17. As a staff attorney at MALDEF, Mr. Espíritu practiced in the areas of voting rights and immigrants rights. Mr. Espiritu gained experience as co-counsel in a number of civil rights cases, including Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 133 S.Ct (2013 (invalidating a state voter registration law as preempted by the National 10

12 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 12 of 106 Voter Registration Act; Sanchez v. City of Modesto, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 821 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006, (challenging City of Modesto s at-large city counsel election under California Voting Rights Act, rev. denied, Mar. 21, 2007; Friendly House v. Whiting, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (D. Ariz. 2012, aff'd sub nom. Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 709 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2013; Martinez v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 241 P.3d 855 (Cal (representing undocumented students seeking to ensure access to California public colleges and universities; Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936 (9th Cir (challenging anti-solicitation ordinance targeting day laborers, cert. denied, 132 S. Ct (2012; Comite de Jornaleros de Glendale v. City of Glendale, No (9th Cir (same; Asociacion de Jornaleros de Costa Mesa v. City of Costa Mesa, SA-CV , 2010 WL (C.D. Cal (same. 18. Mr. Espíritu is licensed to practice law in California and is admitted to practice in the U.S. Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States District Courts for the Central, Northern and Eastern Districts of California. 19. Ms. Rebecca Couto da Silva, who worked under my supervision in this matter, received her B.A. from Stanford University and her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in She served as the Executive Editor of the Michigan Law Review. From , Ms. Couto served as an Associate at Latham & Watkins, LLP, in the Los Angeles office, where she litigated complex civil cases, including international investments, First Amendment, insurance coverage, ERISA and mass tort cases. 11

13 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 13 of Ms. Couto joined MALDEF in 2011, and gained experience as co-counsel in a number of civil rights cases, including: Texas v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 2d133 (D.D.C. 2012, vacated on jurisdictional grounds, 133 S. Ct (2013 (represented Latino coalition in opposition to federal preclearance of Texas 2011 redistricting plans; Jornaleros de Las Palmas v. City of League City, 2013 WL (S.D. Tex (successful First Amendment challenge to a municipal day laborer ordinance; Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition, Edgewood Independent School District v. Williams (consolidated No. D-1-GN (200th Dist., Travis Co., Tex. (state constitutional challenge to Texas school funding system; and Lobato v. State, 2013 WL (Colo (state constitutional challenge to Colorado school funding system. Ms. Couto also drafted portions of briefs in cases before the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court of Colorado. 21. Ms. Couto is licensed to practice law in the States of Texas and California. She is admitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, and the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern, Southern, Northern and Western Districts of Texas, the Central District of California, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Ms. Couto has also presented in various settings on constitutional law, civil rights, labor rights and education law. See Attachment 4 (Résumé of Rebecca Couto da Silva. 22. Ms. Karolina Lyznik, who worked under my supervision in this matter, received her B.A. from Boston University in 2003 and her J.D. from American University in She also received a Master s degree in International Development from the University of Pittsburgh in

14 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 14 of From January 2010 to November 2011, Ms. Lyznik worked as an Associate at the firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP in New York. At Fried Frank, Ms. Lyznik practiced law in the areas of complex litigation, including antitrust and commercial real estate litigation, and securities enforcement and regulation. Ms. Lyznik had an extensive pro bono practice focused on constitutional rights and immigrant civil rights, including legal research and briefing in Texas v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 2d133 (D.D.C. 2012, vacated on jurisdictional grounds, 133 S. Ct (2013 (represented Latino coalition in opposition to federal preclearance of Texas 2011 redistricting plans, and briefing and oral argument in a criminal appellate case. 24. Since arriving at MALDEF in November 2011, Ms. Lyznik has worked exclusively in civil rights litigation. She worked as co-counsel in Texas v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 2d133 (D.D.C (described above; Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 133 S.Ct (2013 (described above; Texas v. Holder, 888 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2012, vacated on jurisdictional grounds, 133 S. Ct (2013 (opposing federal preclearance of Texas voter ID law; Jornaleros de Las Palmas v. City of League City, 2013 WL (S.D. Tex (successful First Amendment challenge to a municipal day laborer ordinance; Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 133 S. Ct (2013 (representing amici in appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court in Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim, Montaño v. New Mexico Motor Vehicle Div., No. 101-CV (N.M. Apr. 3, 2013 (employment retaliation claim, and United States v. Texas, No. 71-CV-5281 (E.D. 13

15 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 15 of 106 Tex. March 21, 2013 (challenge to Texas s educational programs for English language learner children under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. 25. Ms. Lyznik is licensed to practice in the States of Texas and New York. She is admitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Western Districts of Texas. Ms. Lyznik has also taught continuing legal education training on voting rights and presented on civil rights litigation. See Attachment 5 (Résumé of Karolina Lyznik. 26. Ms. Sara Stefka, who worked under my supervision in this matter, earned a Master of Applied Geography degree from Texas State University San Marcos, TX, in In addition to experienced attorneys, this case also demanded highly specialized skill in Geographic Information Systems (GIS and database management in order for the Task Force Plaintiffs to analyze the 2011 enacted redistricting plans and develop proposed remedial plans. The work performed by Ms. Stefka in this case as a GIS Assistant, included but is not limited to: election, voter registration and demographic data preparation, disaggregation, and analysis; GIS mapping and analysis; map layout and exhibit preparation. Ms. Stefka s specialized knowledge was indispensable to the successful prosecution of the Task Force Plaintiffs claims. See Attachment 6 (Résumé of Sara Stefka. 27. As lead attorney in this case, I coordinated the work among the MALDEF and Gale, Wilson & Sanchez, PLLC, attorneys on our legal team. Lawyers from MALDEF and Gale, Wilson & Sanchez, collaborated on the litigation of this case in order to provide expertise and efficient representation to the clients. 14

16 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 16 of As counsel for the Task Force Plaintiffs, my employer, MALDEF, took representation of this action and advanced attorneys fees and costs to the clients, understanding that any fee would be contingent on the success of this litigation and recovery of fees from the federal fee shifting statutes. 29. The issues raised in the case were both novel and difficult. The procedural history of the case (and related litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia included extensive discovery, two trials, and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case required highly-skilled attorneys who have experience in complex federal court litigation, as well as expertise in federal constitutional cases. Challenges to state-wide redistricting plans require the skill of experienced attorneys familiar with litigating issues under the Voting Rights Act, as well as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and federal civil rights statutes. The attorneys for Task Force Plaintiffs are talented, uniquely experienced and include national experts in the fields of civil rights and voting rights. The work of each attorney on our team was essential. 30. The case demanded extensive legal research and analysis, written product that could clarify the complex issues before the court as well as skilled lawyering. The work of MALDEF attorneys on this case precluded our ability to accept other employment on behalf of individuals who requested our representation. For example, during the period in which MALDEF was litigating this case, we were asked to represent residents of a number of Texas and California jurisdictions in challenges to local redistricting plans but were unable to accept these cases because of the press of work in this matter. 15

17 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 17 of The Task Force Plaintiffs are comprised of individuals and organizations with whom MALDEF has a long-standing relationship. For example, MALDEF has worked for years to advocate on voting rights issues with Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, the William C. Velasquez Institute, Mexican American Bar Association of Texas, Southwest Worker s Union, and Tejas Nomar. Many of the 17 individual plaintiffs represented by MALDEF in this case include long-time community leaders from around Texas. 32. The time reflected in the attached chronology is the minimum necessary for the development of this case through all stages, including the strategy required for successful presentation of the matter before this Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, preparation of motions, briefs, evidence and pleadings and preparation for oral argument at hearings on the relationship between this case and the related proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, creation of interim redistricting plans and scheduling of the 2012 primary election. This case presented complex issues of law, and the time and labor required by this case was substantial. 33. Due to my experience in federal litigation and in the area of civil rights litigation, I did not spend unnecessary time on issues and evidence not relevant to this action. Similarly, the MALDEF attorneys under my direction in this case did not spend unnecessary time on issues and evidence not relevant to this action. Further, because we are a non-profit organization, and there are many more potential clients that need our services than we are able to serve, we have no economic incentive to do any more work on any particular case than necessary to serve the interests of the client. 16

18 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 18 of The chronology attached as Attachment 7 includes the daily time records of MALDEF attorneys who worked on this case, kept contemporaneously as work was performed. I have reviewed these attorney time records and ensured their accuracy. A brief summary of our legal work in this case follows. 35. The Task Force Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 17, 2011 challenging the 2011 congressional and State House redistricting plans. The Task Force Plaintiffs maintained that the state s plans diluted Latino voting strength and were intentionally discriminatory. During the two week trial, The Task Force Plaintiffs presented evidence of discrimination in the state s failure to create additional Latino opportunity districts in the state House and congressional redistricting plans and presented evidence of specific vote dilution in South and West Texas and the Dallas- Ft. Worth Metroplex. The Task Force Plaintiffs trial presentation included a substantial amount of statistical analysis of Texas demographics and elections and included the testimony of expert witnesses on demography, racially polarized voting, intentional racial discrimination and historical discrimination against Latinos in Texas. 36. Following trial, and in light of the failure of Texas to secure preclearance for its redistricting plans, this Court held hearings the last week of October on proposed interim plans. The Task Force Plaintiffs submitted proposed interim state House and congressional redistricting plans with extensive analysis. Thereafter, the Court ordered interim, judicially-drawn redistricting plans into effect on November 23 and 26, 2011, respectively. Texas appealed to the United States Supreme Court. After extensive briefing and oral argument, the Supreme Court reversed this Court s prior 17

19 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 19 of 106 order and remanded the case to this Court with additional instructions on creating interim plans. Thereafter, this Court held a status conference and instructed the parties to negotiate on interim maps. The Task Force Plaintiffs complied with the Court s order and held discussions with Texas on what changes were necessary in the view of the Task Force Plaintiffs goals to cure the discrimination in the 2011 plans. At the February 14 and 15 hearings held by this Court regarding the proposed interim plans, the Task Force Plaintiffs presented extensive analysis of the State s proposed congressional and State House plans and indicated where the plans addressed the Task Force Plaintiffs claims of discrimination. 37. On March 19, 2012, the Court issued interim congressional and State House plans for the 2012 election cycle. As requested by the Task Force Plaintiffs, the court created two new Latino opportunity congressional seats and increased by three the number of Latino opportunity seats in the State House (when compared to the 2011 plan. 38. Following the denial of preclearance of Texas s redistricting plans by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Texas v. United States, the case resumed in this Court. On August 31, 2012, the Task Force Plaintiffs presented argument on the appropriate schedule for the Court s consideration of remedial redistricting plans for the 2014 election cycle. The Task Force Plaintiffs also opposed attempts by other litigants to postpone the 2012 General Election pending the creation of new remedial plans. On September 7, 2012, the Court ordered that the 2012 elections would proceed under the Court's remedial plans that were entered in March and used for the primary elections. 18

20 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 20 of The amount of work involved in the prosecution of this case by the Task Force Plaintiffs was necessary to secure the preliminary findings and interim relief ordered by this Court. Counsel for the Task Force Plaintiffs presented legal challenges to two statewide redistricting plans and offered specific, quantitative analysis to support the claims of vote dilution and intentional discrimination. In the appeal from the initial order of interim plans, counsel for the Task Force Plaintiffs successfully opposed the request by Texas that the Supreme Court order the 2011 enacted plans into effect pending resolution of the section 5 preclearance process. In order to protect their clients interests, counsel for the Task Force Plaintiffs represented the Task Force in an intervention in the related case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and presented their evidence of discrimination in that forum, securing a decision that Texas s 2011 plans could not be precleared. In sum, the amount of work performed by counsel for the Task Force Plaintiffs was directly related to obtaining the dual results of blocking implementation of the 2011 plans and securing interim redistricting plans that remedied dilution and intentional discrimination. 40. The attorneys fees charged in this case were necessary, reasonable, and incurred in the prosecution of this suit. The specific, coordinated tasks performed by the Task Force legal team included: meeting with community members to investigate the facts of the case and discuss their constitutional rights and legal representation; conducting research of laws and statutes; conducting extensive statistical analysis of the 2011 plans; drafting the complaint, motions and legal memoranda; preparing declarations and advising clients prior to their signing declarations; responding to motions filed by Texas; preparing demonstrative remedial redistricting plans, with associated analysis; 19

21 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 21 of 106 collecting and reviewing materials related to the case as potential exhibits; taking and defending depositions; responding to written discovery; coordinating discovery and negotiating discovery disputes; reviewing and responding to the numerous proposed redistricting plans presented by other parties in this case; preparing and presenting witnesses to testify; cross-examining witnesses testifying in this case; coordinating expert reports and expert testimony; briefing the Supreme Court appeal and preparing aligned counsel for oral argument to the Supreme Court. 41. There was no unnecessary duplication of effort in either the pre-litigation or litigation activities involved in representing the Task Force Plaintiffs in this action. In order to present the Task Force Plaintiffs case to the Court effectively, attorneys divided tasks among the team and worked in partnership with other attorneys and support staff to avoid duplication. Typically, the attorneys conferred to discuss the work that needed to be done and then took responsibility for discrete tasks, including investigation, client communication, analysis of redistricting plans, depositions, document review, and legal research and writing. The work in the case was performed under strict deadlines; working within these short deadlines forced the team to delegate and coordinate the work carefully in order to provide a well-written and substantive product to the Court. 42. The Task Force legal team typically assigned legal tasks to one attorney and only collaborated on major submissions to the Court. For example, when drafting important motions, responses or replies, individual topics for research and drafting were assigned to different members of the team. To ensure quality written submissions, attorneys on the Task Force team also reviewed drafts on major briefs 20

22 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 22 of 106 and shared comments and exchanged proposed edits to increase efficiency. This is typical and to be expected when preparing or responding to dispositive motions and requests for relief. 43. Furthermore, Task Force attorney hours related to pre-filing activities were also reasonable and necessary. Because MALDEF is a non-profit organization with a well-established history of representing individuals who need pro bono assistance in civil rights matters, our office fielded numerous calls and requests for assistance from across Texas. MALDEF consulted extensively with organizations and individuals regarding the impact of the 2011 redistricting plans and fielded numerous requests for representation in the case. MALDEF also conducted intensive research of the redistricting plans themselves, with an emphasis on evaluating the districts opportunity to elect Latino-preferred candidates. 44. Because MALDEF has a limited operating budget and works in many cases on a contingency basis, Task Force attorneys pre-filing activities were prudent. The attorneys pre-filing activities were also necessary to develop properly this complex case and fulfill our obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P The contingent nature of the claims, combined with the complex issues of law and the significant costs of qualified expert testimony, made this case less attractive to most attorneys. There are very few attorneys who specialize in voting rights actions in Texas and even fewer who can represent non-partisan clients who do not have the financial backing to pay the costs for such litigation. 46. I believe that based upon the foregoing, my hourly rate in this case in the relevant market of San Antonio should be at least $525. I also believe that based upon the 21

23 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 23 of 106 foregoing, my co-counsel Marisa Bono s hourly rate should be at least $225, Nicholás Espíritu s rate should be at least $225, Rebecca Couto da Silva s rate should be at least $195, Karolina Lyznik s hourly rate should be at least $175, and Sara Stefka s hourly rate should be at least $65. I also request reasonable hourly rates for travel at a reduced rate of 50% of the aforementioned rates. 47. The fees charged in this case are customarily charged in this area for the same or similar services for attorneys with our experience, reputation, and ability considering the type of litigation, the time limitations imposed, and the results obtained. 48. With regard to applicable and reasonable hourly rates, in 2006 I was awarded attorneys fees by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas based upon a fee application that included a rate of $400 per hour for my work as lead counsel in the case LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006. Since that time, and as described above, I have had additional, substantial litigation experience in civil rights, and specifically voting rights. 49. Attachment 8 to this Declaration is the summary list of expenses incurred by MALDEF and produced by the MALDEF accounting department. The expenses claimed in Attachment 8 are correct, have necessarily been incurred in the case, and the services for which the expenses were charged were actually and necessarily performed. The expenses claimed in Attachment 8 are the actual expenses incurred in the case. 50. MALDEF counsel for Task Force Plaintiffs exercised billing judgment in its request for fees and costs. With respect to costs, MALDEF counsel for Task Force Plaintiffs excluded costs prior to the litigation with the exception of the filing fee and a process 22

24 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 24 of 106 server fee. Additionally, all costs incurred by MALDEF counsel for Task Force Plaintiffs were reviewed and approved first by me and then also by MALDEF s Accounting Department staff before being recorded in this case. MALDEF s reported travel costs in this case include: airfare, car rental, parking, hotel, and meals. Other travel cost entries similarly include airfare, car rental, parking, hotel, and meals and correspond with time entries showing attorney travel to the appropriate location for hearings, depositions, case investigation, and periodic meetings with witnesses and clients. These costs were reasonable and necessarily incurred in prosecuting this case. 51. Further, I exercised billing judgment by removing any time entries for efforts that were duplicative, excessive or otherwise non-compensable and adjusting the hourly billing rate for travel time. In addition, I excluded all of the time entries related to work performed by paralegal Carmen Leija and Redistricting Assistant Matthew Garcia. I excluded most of time entries related to work performed by attorneys Nicholás Espíritu and Rebecca Couto. I also excluded many time entries for participation of attorneys in team discussions and telephone conferences in this case. Finally, I excluded hours for duplicative legal research and daily communications between the attorneys concerning trial strategy. In total, these hours amounted to well-over 500 hours of compensable time. 52. In addition, I excluded time spent on the issue of retrogression in the related litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and retained only the time spent litigating the question of intentional discrimination. 23

25 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 25 of Although MALDEF is recognized as a national leader in litigating civil rights cases, MALDEF is not seeking an enhancement of the lodestar fee for attorney work in this case. 54. MALDEF attorneys incurred reasonable and necessary interim attorneys fees in the amount of $956, based on the aforementioned reasonable hourly rates. 55. The total interim costs incurred by MALDEF are in the amount of $242, The record of this case shows that the Task Force Plaintiffs are prevailing parties and should be awarded attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e and Moreover, the time reflected in the attached chronology is reasonable and should be fully compensated at the prevailing market rates set out in 46 above and supported by Ex. C to the Brief in Support of the Task Force Plaintiffs Motion for Interim Attorneys Fees and Costs. 24

26 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 26 of 106

27 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 27 of 106 ATTACHMENT 1 Nina Perales Resume

28 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 28 of 106 NINA PERALES BAR ADMISSION United States Supreme Court State of Texas State of New York United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of Texas United States District Court for the District of Columbia United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York EDUCATION COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, J.D., May 1990 Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, 1989, 1990 Samuel I. Rosenman Prize for academic excellence and outstanding qualities of leadership and citizenship, 1990 Jane Marks Murphy Prize for exceptional proficiency in clinical advocacy, 1990 Charles Evans Hughes Fellow, for demonstrated commitment to the legal problems of the disadvantaged, 1989 Paul Robeson Scholarship in Minority Legal Studies, 1989 BROWN UNIVERSITY, A.B. with Honors, January, 1987 Double major in Women's Studies and Political Science Joan Wallach Scott Prize for women's studies thesis of the year, 1987 Ruth Wolf Scholarship for Women's Studies, 1986 SIMON'S ROCK EARLY COLLEGE, A.A., June 1984; Liberal Arts LEGAL EXPERIENCE MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND San Antonio, Texas Vice President of Litigation 03/11- present National Senior Counsel 09/10-02/11 Southwest Regional Counsel 07/02-09/10 Staff Attorney, Political Access Program 11/96-07/02 Direct MALDEF s litigation nationwide. Supervise attorneys working in the areas of education, employment and immigrants rights and maintain a substantial and active caseload of litigation and advocacy to promote the civil rights of Latinos. Significant representations: Arizona v. ITCA, 133 S. Ct (2013 (lead counsel in challenge under National Voter Registration Act to Arizona voter registration law; argued case successfully in Ninth Circuit and Ninth Circuit en banc Vasquez v. City of Farmers Branch, No. 08-CV-1551 (N.D. Tex. May 28, 2008 and Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, No. 08-CV-1551 (N.D.TX March 24, 2010 and Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, 2013 WL (5th Cir (en banc. (lead counsel for Latino plaintiffs in challenge to serial city ordinances banning apartment rentals to certain immigrants; won preliminary and permanent injunctions invalidating ordinances as unconstitutional and successfully defended appeal before 3-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit en banc

29 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 29 of 106 Resume of Nina Perales page 2 Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force v. Perry, No. 11-CV-360 (W.D. TX, March 19, 2012 (lead counsel for Latino coalition challenging statewide redistricting plans for Congress and Texas House of Representatives Texas v. United States, 887 F. Supp. 2d133 (D.D.C vacated on jurisdictional grounds, 133 S. Ct (2013 (lead counsel for Latino coalition that intervened to oppose federal preclearance of Texas 2011 redistricting plans Lepak v. City of Irving, 453 Fed.Appx. 522 (5 th Cir., cert. denied 133 S.Ct (lead counsel for Latino residents who intervened to defend equal population rule in redistricting; with aligned counsel secured favorable ruling on summary judgment and in Fifth Circuit NW Austin MUD No. 1 v. Holder, No (U.S. Supreme Court, June 22, 2009 (lead counsel for Latino residents of MUD who intervened to defend the Voting Rights Act; with aligned counsel secured Supreme Court ruling preserving the protections of section 5 of the Act LULAC v. Perry, 126 S. Ct (2006. (successfully briefed and argued case before U.S. Supreme Court; lead counsel at trial for Latino plaintiffs; won order invalidating congressional redistricting plan under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AID, PRIVATE ATTORNEY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Laredo, Texas 2/96-10/96 Assisted low-income residents of two colonias with issues related to responsive local government and infrastructure development. PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND New York, New York Coordinator of the Latina Rights Initiative 10/93-12/95 Directed the litigation and advocacy of PRLDEF's Latina Rights Initiative, created to address civil rights problems of women in the Latino community. Associate Counsel 9/90-12/95 Developed and litigated civil rights class action cases and performed national advocacy on behalf of Puerto Ricans and other Latinos in the areas of health, language rights, and public assistance. Position funded by the Skadden Fellowship, 9/90-9/92 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND RECOGNITION American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Election Law American Bar Association, Council member, Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, Chair of the Committee on Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity American Law Institute, 2007 present Council Member, Litigation Section of the State Bar of Texas, Co-chair, Democracy and Voting Issue Group, American Constitution Society, 2006 present Wasserstein Fellow, Harvard Law School, 2010 American Association for Justice (formerly Assn. of Trial Lawyers of America, Soaring Eagles Award, 2009 Hispanic National Bar Association, Latina Lawyer of the Year, 2008 Texas Lawyer, profiled as one of 30 Extraordinary Women in Texas Law, 2008 Givelber Distinguished Lecturer on Public Interest Law, Northeastern University School of Law, June 2008 Practitioner-in-Residence, Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice, Berkeley Law School, Spring 2007

30 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 30 of 106 ATTACHMENT 2 Marisa Bono s Resume

31 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 31 of 106 MARISA BONO PROFILE Native San Antonio attorney with broad experience in pre-trial litigation, discovery, and trial, and appellate work in state and federal court. Licensed to practice in the United States Supreme Court, the Western, Northern, and Southern Districts of Texas, and Texas state court. LEGAL EXPERIENCE Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF (San Antonio, Texas Staff Attorney, December 2010 to Present Attorney handling immigration-related cases in MALDEF s Southwest Regional Office, covering states in Fifth and Tenth Circuits. Specialize in constitutional law, school funding immigration, and discrimination issues. Led litigation team in First and Fourteenth amendment case on the behalf of day laborers in Texas federal court. Co-chair litigation team in school funding case in three-month bench trial in Texas state court. Co-chair litigation team in school funding case in two-month bench trial in Colorado state court. Led appellate team in vigilante rancher civil assault case in Ninth Circuit and United States Supreme Court. Kustoff & Phipps, L.L.P. (San Antonio, Texas Associate Attorney, August Handled all aspects of litigation in high volume, plaintiff-side civil practice, including investigation, discovery, motion practice, and trial. Handled primarily DTPA, fraud, and personal injury cases in Bexar and surrounding counties. Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF (San Antonio, Texas Staff Attorney and Skadden Fellow, Co-chair litigation team in 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1985 action including claims of civil assault and battery in Arizona federal district court. Co-chair litigation team in Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI lawsuit on the behalf of veterans against state entities. Co-chair appellate team in civil assault case in Arizona state court. Member of litigation team for Voter ID case in Arizona federal district court. Investigated and developed FLSA class action on the behalf of janitorial workers in New Mexico. Provide direct representation for immigrant victims of crime applying for temporary status. United States District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas, Texas Judicial Clerk to the Honorable Jerry Buchmeyer, Senior District Judge, Completed bench and research memorandums and jury instructions in civil and criminal dockets. Drafted opinions and summary memorandum opinions for both civil and criminal cases.

32 Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document Filed 08/09/13 Page 32 of 106 EDUCATION University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, MI Juris Doctor, 2005, Clarence Darrow Full Merit Scholarship MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, Managing Editor Latino Law Students Association, President Child Advocacy Law Clinic, Student Attorney Recipient of 2002 Legal Research and Writing Prize, Best Oral Argument University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy, Ann Arbor, MI Masters in Public Policy, 2005, Full Merit Scholarship Rice University, Houston, Texas Bachelor of Arts, Political Science NCAA Div. I Cross Country and Track SKILLS AND ASSOCIATIONS Proficient in written and spoken Spanish San Antonio Ethics Review Board Mayor s Appointment AVANCE-San Antonio, Board of Directors, Board Chair of Development, 2009 Present San Antonio Mayors Commission on the Status of Women District 7 Appointment, Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Board of Advocates, San Antonio Trial Lawyers Association, Board of Directors,