Whether a state statute that mandates the dismantling of at-large electoral systems whenever racially polarized voting is demonstrated violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by making race the determinative factor in electoral system design

No question identified. : To the Honorable Elena Kagan, as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, Applicant James Gimenez respectfully requests a 30-day extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, to and including October 13, 2023. In support of this request, Applicant states as follows: 1. The Supreme Court of Washington issued its opinion on June 15, 2023. See Ex. 1. Absent an extension of time, the petition for certiorari would be due on September 13, 2023. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1257(a). 2. This case involves the important issue of whether the Washington Voting Rights Act violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 3. In Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), this Court held that a municipality’s at-large voting system does not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act merely because there is racially polarized voting. Dissatisfied with this interpretation of Section 2, Washington adopted the Washington Voting Rights Act, which “recognizes a broader range of redressable claims for vote dilution than those recognized by Section 2.” Ex. 1 at 9. To that end, the WVRA requires municipalities to dismantle at-large voting systems whenever there is racially polarized voting in the community—i.e., when the race of voters tends to correlate with the selection of certain candidates. The WVRA, in other words, makes race not just the dominant factor but the only factor for determining whether municipalities may use at-large systems. 4. In this case, three voters challenged Franklin County’s at-large system for electing its board of commissioners. They argued that such a system violated the WVRA because it “dilut[ed] the votes of Latino/a voters.” Ex. 1 at 2. 5. Applicant James Gimenez, a Franklin County voter, intervened in the trial court. He moved to dismiss the challenger’s claims, arguing (among other things) that the WVRA is unconstitutional because it requires municipalities to implement electoral systems based on race. 6. The trial court denied Mr. Gimenez’s motion to dismiss. Mr. Gimenez appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, arguing (among other things) that the WVRA violates the Equal Protection of the U.S. Constitution. 7. Despite the serious constitutional concerns raised by Mr. Gimenez, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the WVRA. The court determined that the WVRA was not subject to strict scrutiny. Ex. 1 at 34-35. And the Court concluded that the WVRA “easily satisfies [rational basis] on its face.” Jd. at 11. 8. Good cause exists for granting Applicant’s request for an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. First, an extension is warranted because this case presents substantial and important questions involving the constitutionality of using racial considerations to design electoral systems. Second, Applicant is retaining new counsel with Supreme Court expertise to serve as counsel of record in this Court. Additional time is necessary and warranted for counsel to review the record in the case, research relevant case law, and prepare a clear and concise petition for certiorari for the Court’s review. Finally, this is Applicant’s first request for an extension of time, and no prejudice will result to Respondents if this extension is granted. Conclusion For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Court extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this to and including October 13, 2023. Dated: August 30, 2023 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Joel Ard Joel Ard ARD LAW GROUP PLLC PO Box 11633 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 701-9243 joel@ard.law Certificate of Service A copy of this application was served by email and by mail to the counsel listed below in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 22.2 and 29.3: Francis Floyd Amanda Daylong Floyd, Pflueger & Ringer, P.S. 200 W. Thomas St., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98119 Shawn Sant