May a single-judge district court's ruling on a Section 2 claim divest a 3-judge panel of jurisdiction to decide a Fourteenth Amendment claim?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Alongside Defendant State of Washington, Intervenor (“Soto Palmer Intervenors”) defended against a Voting Rights Act (VRA”) Section 2 claim that challenged Legislative District 15 (“LD-15”) of Washington’s recently enacted state legislative map (“Enacted Plan’). Simultaneously, the State defended against a Fourteenth Amendment racial gerrymandering claim in the separate case Garcia v. Hobbs, which also challenged LD-15. Both cases were heard in a consolidated trial (the constitutional claim by a threejudge panel, the VRA claim by a single judge who also served on the panel). Both cases were submitted together on July 12, 2023, to the three judges comprising the two courts. The single-judge Soto Palmer Court issued its Section 2 decision first, finding that the majorityHispanic LD-15 diluted Hispanic voting power, even though the only election conducted in LD-15 resulted in a 35-point victory for a Latina candidate. The Soto Palmer Court also ordered the creation of a remedial map that increases the district’s Hispanic citizen voting age population (“(HCVAP’”). Then, a majority of the three-judge Garcia Court dismissed the constitutional racial gerrymandering claim as moot under the theory that the Soto Palmer injunction cut off any path to relief. The questions presented are: 1. May a single-judge district court’s ruling on a Section 2 claim, challenging a legislative district, ii divest a 3-judge panel of jurisdiction to decide a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to that same district? 2. Did the lower court err by deciding Soto Palmer (the Section 2 claim) before the Garcia Court issued its opinion on the Fourteenth Amendment claim regarding the same legislative district? 3. Did the lower court err by finding that Plaintiffs satisfied the first Gingles precondition even though none of Plaintiff's experts analyzed whether the minority community was geographically compact enough to constitute a majority in a single-emember district? 4. Did the district court err when it found that the Hispanic population of LD-15 was politically cohesive and preferred Democratic candidates, even though LD-15 is a majority-Hispanic district where a Latina Republican won by a 35-point margin in the only election held in the district? 5. Did the lower court err in finding that White voters—who comprise a minority portion of the citizen voting age population in LD-15—voted as a bloc against the Hispanic-majority’s preferred candidates, despite the lack of legally-significant raciallypolarized voting? 6. Did the district court err in its totality of the circumstances analysis in light of Brnovich v. DNC and Allen v. Milligan? 7. Did the single-judge court have jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 2284?