Source: https://casetext.com/case/thornburg-v-gingles
Timestamp: 2019-11-21 01:42:33
Document Index: 235386715

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1973', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1253', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1973', '§ 2', '§ 1973', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1973', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1973', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1973', '§ 2']

Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 | Casetext
ReadReadAttorney AnalysesAnalyses2Citing BriefsBriefs39Citing CasesCiting Cases777
Thornburgv.Gingles
U.S.Jun 30, 1986
See Chisom v. Roemer, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 111 S.Ct. 2354, 2363, 115 L.Ed.2d 348 (1991). The phrase "on account…
Sometimes, as is the case here, hard cases make no law at all. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit was evenly…
777 Citing cases
holding that the minority proves the third precondition by showing that "submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect its chosen representatives" because the district's "white majority" votes sufficiently as a bloc
holding that a violation of § 1973 occurs only when "a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives"
Summary of this case from Muntaqim v. Coombe
Argued December 4, 1985 Decided June 30, 1986
In 1982, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a legislative redistricting plan for the State's Senate and House of Representatives. Appellees, black citizens of North Carolina who are registered to vote, brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging one single-member district and six multimember districts on the ground, inter alia, that the redistricting plan impaired black citizens' ability to elect representatives of their choice in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. After appellees brought suit, but before trial, § 2 was amended, largely in response to Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, to make clear that a violation of § 2 could be proved by showing discriminatory effect alone, rather than having to show a discriminatory purpose, and to establish as the relevant legal standard the "results test." Section 2(a), as amended, prohibits a State or political subdivision from imposing any voting qualifications or prerequisites to voting, or any standards, practices, or procedures that result in the denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color. Section 2(b), as amended, provides that § 2(a) is violated where the "totality of circumstances" reveals that "the political processes leading to nomination or election . . . are not equally open to participation by members of a [protected class] . . . in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice," and that the extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office is one circumstance that may be considered. The District Court applied the "totality of circumstances" test set forth in § 2(b) and held that the redistricting plan violated § 2(a) because it resulted in the dilution of black citizens' votes in all of the disputed districts. Appellants, the Attorney General of North Carolina and others, took a direct appeal to this Court with respect to five of the multimember districts.
1. Minority voters who contend that the multimember form of districting violates § 2 must prove that the use of a multimember electoral structure operates to minimize or cancel out their ability to elect their preferred candidates. While many or all of the factors listed in the Senate Report may be relevant to a claim of vote dilution through submergence in multimember districts, unless there is a conjunction of the following circumstances, the use of multimember districts generally will not impede the ability of minority voters to elect representatives of their choice. Stated succinctly, a bloc voting majority must usually be able to defeat candidates supported by a politically cohesive, geographically insular minority group. The relevance of the existence of racial bloc voting to a vote dilution claim is twofold: to ascertain whether minority group members constitute a politically cohesive unit and to determine whether whites vote sufficiently as a bloc usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. Thus, the question whether a given district experiences legally significant racial bloc voting requires discrete inquiries into minority and white voting practices. A showing that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidates is one way of proving the political cohesiveness necessary to a vote dilution claim, and consequently establishes minority bloc voting within the meaning of § 2. And, in general, a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white "crossover" votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting. Because loss of political power through vote dilution is distinct from the mere inability to win a particular election, a pattern of racial bloc voting that extends over a period of time is more probative of a claim that a district experiences significant polarization than are the results of a single election. In a district where elections are shown usually to be polarized, the fact that racially polarized voting is not present in one election or a few elections does not necessarily negate the conclusion that the district experiences legally significant bloc voting. Furthermore, the success of a minority candidate in a particular election does not necessarily prove that the district did not experience polarized voting in that election. Here, the District Court's approach, which tested data derived from three election years in each district in question, and which revealed that blacks strongly supported black candidates, while, to the black candidates' usual detriment, whites rarely did, satisfactorily addresses each facet of the proper standard for legally significant racial bloc voting. Pp. 52-61.
3. The clearly-erroneous test of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) is the appropriate standard for appellate review of ultimate findings of vote dilution. As both amended § 2 and its legislative history make clear, in evaluating a statutory claim of vote dilution through districting, the trial court is to consider the "totality of circumstances" and to determine, based upon a practical evaluation of the past and present realities, whether the political process is equally open to minority voters. In this case, the District Court carefully considered the totality of the circumstances and found that in each district racially polarized voting; the legacy of official discrimination in voting matters, education, housing, employment, and health services; and the persistence of campaign appeals to racial prejudice acted in concert with the multimember districting scheme to impair the ability of geographically insular and politically cohesive groups of black voters to participate equally in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice. Pp. 77-79.
JUSTICE BRENNAN, joined by JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS, concluded in Part III-C that for purposes of § 2, the legal concept of racially polarized voting, as it relates to claims of vote dilution — that is, when it is used to prove that the minority group is politically cohesive and that white voters will usually be able to defeat the minority's preferred candidates — refers only to the existence of a correlation between the race of voters and the selection of certain candidates. Plaintiffs need not prove causation or intent in order to prove a prima facie case of racial bloc voting, and defendants may not rebut that case with evidence of causation or intent. Pp. 61-73.
1. Insofar as statistical evidence of divergent racial voting patterns is admitted solely to establish that the minority group is politically cohesive and to assess its prospects for electoral success, such a showing cannot be rebutted by evidence that the divergent voting patterns may be explained by causes other than race. However, evidence of the reasons for divergent voting patterns can in some circumstances be relevant to the overall vote dilution inquiry, and there is no rule against of all evidence concerning voting preferences other than statistical evidence of racial voting patterns. Pp. 100-101.
Julius LeVonne Chambers argued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefs for appellees Gingles et al. were Eric Schnapper, C. Lani Guinier, and Leslie J. Winner. C. Allen Foster, Kenneth J. Gumbiner, Robert N. Hunter, Jr., and Arthur J. Donaldson filed briefs for appellees Eaglin et al.
Page 34 Daniel J. Popeo and George C. Smith filed a brief for the Washington Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging reversal. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc., et al. by Cynthia Hill, Maureen T. Thornton, Laughlin McDonald, and Neil Bradley; for Common Cause by William T. Lake; for the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law et al. by James Robertson, Harold R. Tyler, Jr., Norman Redlich, William L. Robinson, Frank R. Parker, Samuel Rabinove, and Richard T. Foltin; for James G. Martin, Governor of North Carolina, by Victor S. Friedman; for Legal Services of North Carolina by David H. Harris, Jr., Susan M. Perry, Richard Taylor, and Julian Pierce; for the Republican National Committee by Roger Allan Moore and Michael A. Hess; and for Senator Dennis DeConcini et al. by Walter J. Rockler.
In April 1982, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a legislative redistricting plan for the State's Senate and House of Representatives. Appellees, black citizens of North Carolina who are registered to vote, challenged seven districts, one single-member and six multimember districts, alleging that the redistricting scheme impaired black citizens' ability to elect representatives of their choice in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Appellees challenged the following multimember districts: Senate No. 22 (Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties — four members), House No. 36 (Mecklenburg County — eight members), House No. 39 (part of Forsyth County — five members), House No. 23 (Durham County — three members), House No. 21 (Wake County — six members), and House No. 8 (Wilson, Nash, and Edgecombe Counties — four members).
Appellants initiated this action in September 1981, challenging the North Carolina General Assembly's July 1981 redistricting. The history of this action is recounted in greater detail in the District Court's opinion in this case, Gingles v. Edmisten, 590 F. Supp. 345, 350-358 (EDNC 1984). It suffices here to note that the General Assembly revised the 1981 plan in April 1982 and that the plan at issue in this case is the 1982 plan.
After appellees brought suit, but before trial, Congress amended § 2. The amendment was largely a response to this Court's plurality opinion in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), which had declared that, in order to establish a violation either of § 2 or of the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments, minority voters must prove that a contested electoral mechanism was intentionally adopted or maintained by state officials for a discriminatory purpose. Congress substantially revised § 2 to make clear that a violation could be proved by showing discriminatory effect alone and to establish as the relevant legal standard the "results test," applied by this Court in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), and by other federal courts before Bolden, supra. S. Rep. No. 97-417, p. 28 (1982) (hereinafter S. Rep.).
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority Report accompanying the bill that amended § 2 elaborates on the circumstances that might be probative of a § 2 violation, noting the following "typical factors":
These factors were derived from the analytical framework of White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), as refined and developed by the lower courts, in particular by the Fifth Circuit in Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (1973) (en banc), aff'd sub nom. East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 (1976) (per curiam). S. Rep., at 28, n. 113.
The District Court applied the "totality of the circumstances" test set forth in § 2(b) to appellees' statutory claim, and, relying principally on the factors outlined in the Senate Report, held that the redistricting scheme violated § 2 because it resulted in the dilution of black citizens' votes in all seven disputed districts. In light of this conclusion, the court did not reach appellees' constitutional claims. Gingles v. Edmisten, 590 F. Supp. 345 (EDNC 1984).
First, the court found that North Carolina had officially discriminated against its black citizens with respect to their exercise of the voting franchise from approximately 1900 to 1970 by employing at different times a poll tax, a literacy test, a prohibition against bullet (single-shot) voting, and designated seat plans for multimember districts. The court observed that even after the removal of direct barriers to black voter registration, such as the poll tax and literacy test, black voter registration remained relatively depressed; in 1982 only 52.7% of age-qualified blacks statewide were registered to vote, whereas 66.7% of whites were registered. The District Court found these statewide depressed levels of black voter registration to be present in all of the disputed districts and to be traceable, at least in part, to the historical pattern of statewide official discrimination.
Bullet (single-shot) voting has been described as follows: "`Consider [a] town of 600 whites and 400 blacks with an at-large election to choose four council members. Each voter is able to cast four votes. Suppose there are eight white candidates, with the votes of the whites split among them approximately equally, and one black candidate, with all the blacks voting for him and no one else. The result is that each white candidate receives about 300 votes and the black candidate receives 400 votes. The black has probably won a seat. This technique is called single-shot voting. Single-shot voting enables a minority group to win some at-large seats if it concentrates its vote behind a limited number of candidates and if the vote of the majority is divided among a number of candidates.'" City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 184, n. 19 (1980), quoting United States Commission on Civil Rights, The Voting Rights Act: Ten Years After, pp. 206-207 (1975).
Designated (or numbered) seat schemes require a candidate for election in multimember districts to run for specific seats, and can, under certain circumstances, frustrate bullet voting. See, e. g., City of Rome, supra, at 185, n. 21.
Fifth, the court examined the extent to which blacks have been elected to office in North Carolina, both statewide and in the challenged districts. It found, among other things, that prior to World War II, only one black had been elected to public office in this century. While recognizing that "it has now become possible for black citizens to be elected to office at all levels of state government in North Carolina," 590 F. Supp., at 367, the court found that, in comparison to white candidates running for the same office, black candidates are at a disadvantage in terms of relative probability of success. It also found that the overall rate of black electoral success has been minimal in relation to the percentage of blacks in the total state population. For example, the court noted, from 1971 to 1982 there were at any given time only two-to-four blacks in the 120-member House of Representatives — that is, only 1.6% to 3.3% of House members were black. From 1975 to 1983 there were at any one time only one or two blacks in the 50-member State Senate — that is, only 2% to 4% of State Senators were black. By contrast, at the time of the District Court's opinion, blacks constituted about 22.4% of the total state population.
With respect to the success in this century of black candidates in the contested districts, see also Appendix B to opinion, post, p. 82, the court found that only one black had been elected to House District 36 — after this lawsuit began. Similarly, only one black had served in the Senate from District 22, from 1975-1980. Before the 1982 election, a black was elected only twice to the House from District 39 (part of Forsyth County); in the 1982 contest two blacks were elected. Since 1973 a black citizen had been elected each 2-year term to the House from District 23 (Durham County), but no black had been elected to the Senate from Durham County. In House District 21 (Wake County), a black had been elected twice to the House, and another black served two terms in the State Senate. No black had ever been elected to the House or Senate from the area covered by House District No. 8, and no black person had ever been elected to the Senate from the area covered by Senate District No. 2.
Based on these findings, the court declared the contested portions of the 1982 redistricting plan violative of § 2 and enjoined appellants from conducting elections pursuant to those portions of the plan. Appellants, the Attorney General of North Carolina and others, took a direct appeal to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1253, with respect to five of the multimember districts — House Districts 21, 23, 36, and 39, and Senate District 22. Appellants argue, first, that the District Court utilized a legally incorrect standard in determining whether the contested districts exhibit racial bloc voting to an extent that is cognizable under § 2. Second, they contend that the court used an incorrect definition of racially polarized voting and thus erroneously relied on statistical evidence that was not probative of polarized voting. Third, they maintain that the court assigned the wrong weight to evidence of some black candidates' electoral success. Finally, they argue that the trial court erred in concluding that these multimember districts result in black citizens having less opportunity than their white counterparts to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. We noted probable jurisdiction, 471 U.S. 1064 (1985), and now affirm with respect to all of the districts except House District 23. With regard to District 23, the judgment of the District Court is reversed.
Subsection 2(a) prohibits all States and political subdivisions from imposing any voting qualifications or prerequisites to voting, or any standards, practices, or procedures which result in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote of any citizen who is a member of a protected class of racial and language minorities. Subsection 2(b) establishes that § 2 has been violated where the "totality of circumstances" reveal that "the political processes leading to nomination or election . . . are not equally open to participation by members of a [protected class] . . . in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." While explaining that "[t]he extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered" in evaluating an alleged violation, § 2(b) cautions that "nothing in [§ 2] establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population."
The Senate Report which accompanied the 1982 amendments elaborates on the nature of § 2 violations and on the proof required to establish these violations. First and foremost, the Report dispositively rejects the position of the plurality in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), which required proof that the contested electoral practice or mechanism was adopted or maintained with the intent to discriminate against minority voters. See, e. g., S. Rep., at 2, 15-16, 27. The intent test was repudiated for three principal reasons — it is "unnecessarily divisive because it involves charges of racism on the part of individual officials or entire communities," it places an "inordinately difficult" burden of proof on plaintiffs, and it "asks the wrong question." Id., at 36. The "right" question, as the Report emphasizes repeatedly, is whether "as a result of the challenged practice or structure plaintiffs do not have an equal opportunity to participate in the political processes and to elect candidates of their choice." Id., at 28. See also id., at 2, 27, 29, n. 118, 36.
The United States urges this Court to give little weight to the Senate Report, arguing that it represents a compromise among conflicting "factions," and thus is somehow less authoritative than most Committee Reports. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8, n. 12, 24, n. 49. We are not persuaded that the legislative history of amended § 2 contains anything to lead us to conclude that this Senate Report should be accorded little weight. We have repeatedly recognized that the authoritative source for legislative intent lies in the Committee Reports on the bill. See, e. g., Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 76, and n. 3 (1984); Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168, 186 (1969).
The Senate Report states that amended § 2 was designed to restore the "results test" — the legal standard that governed voting discrimination cases prior to our decision in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). S. Rep., at 15-16. The Report notes that in pre- Bolden cases such as White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), and Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (CA5 1973), plaintiffs could prevail by showing that, under the totality of the circumstances, a challenged election law or procedure had the effect of denying a protected minority an equal chance to participate in the electoral process. Under the "results test," plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate that the challenged electoral law or structure was designed or maintained for a discriminatory purpose. S. Rep., at 16.
The Senate Committee found that "voting practices and procedures that have discriminatory results perpetuate the effects of past purposeful discrimination." Id., at 40 (footnote omitted). As the Senate Report notes, the purpose of the Voting Rights Act was "`not only to correct an active history of discrimination, the denying to Negroes of the right to register and vote, but also to deal with the accumulation of discrimination.'" Id., at 5 (quoting 111 Cong. Rec. 8295 (1965) (remarks of Sen. Javits)).
In order to answer this question, a court must assess the impact of the contested structure or practice on minority electoral opportunities "on the basis of objective factors." Id., at 27. The Senate Report specifies factors which typically may be relevant to a § 2 claim: the history of voting-related discrimination in the State or political subdivision; the extent to which voting in the elections of the State or political subdivision is racially polarized; the extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting; the exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate slating processes; the extent to which minority group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process; the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns; and the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. Id., at 28-29; see also supra, at 36-37. The Report notes also that evidence demonstrating that elected officials are unresponsive to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group and that the policy underlying the State's or the political subdivision's use of the contested practice or structure is tenuous may have probative value. Id., at 29. The Report stresses, however, that this list of typical factors is neither comprehensive nor exclusive. While the enumerated factors will often be pertinent to certain types of § 2 violations, particularly to vote dilution claims, other factors may also be relevant and may be considered. Id., at 29-30. Furthermore, the Senate Committee observed that "there is no requirement that any particular number of factors be proved, or that a majority of them point one way or the other." Id., at 29. Rather, the Committee determined that "the question whether the political processes are `equally open' depends upon a searching practical evaluation of the `past and present reality,'" id., at 30 (footnote omitted), and on a "functional" view of the political process. Id., at 30, n. 120.
Section 2 prohibits all forms of voting discrimination, not just vote dilution. S. Rep., at 30.
Appellees contend that the legislative decision to employ multimember, rather than single-member, districts in the contested jurisdictions dilutes their votes by submerging them in a white majority, thus impairing their ability to elect representatives of their choice.
Dilution of racial minority group voting strength may be caused by the dispersal of blacks into districts in which they constitute an ineffective minority of voters or from the concentration of blacks into districts where they constitute an excessive majority. Engstrom Wildgen, Pruning Thorns from the Thicket: An Empirical Test of the Existence of Racial Gerrymandering, 2 Legis. Stud. Q. 465, 465-466 (1977) (hereinafter Engstrom Wildgen). See also Derfner, Racial Discrimination and the Right to Vote, 26 Vand. L. Rev. 523, 553 (1973) (hereinafter Derfner); F. Parker, Racial Gerrymandering and Legislative Reapportionment (hereinafter Parker), in Minority Vote Dilution 86-100 (Davidson ed., 1984) (hereinafter Minority Vote Dilution).
The claim we address in this opinion is one in which the plaintiffs alleged and attempted to prove that their ability to elect the representatives of their choice was impaired by the selection of a multimember electoral structure. We have no occasion to consider whether § 2 permits, and if it does, what standards should pertain to, a claim brought by a minority group, that is not sufficiently large and compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district, alleging that the use of a multimember district impairs its ability to influence elections. We note also that we have no occasion to consider whether the standards we apply to respondents' claim that multimember districts operate to dilute the vote of geographically cohesive minority groups that are large enough to constitute majorities in single-member districts and that are contained within the boundaries of the challenged multimember districts, are fully pertinent to other sorts of vote dilution claims, such as a claim alleging that the splitting of a large and geographically cohesive minority between two or more multimember or single-member districts resulted in the dilution of the minority vote.
The essence of a § 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives. This Court has long recognized that multimember districts and at-large voting schemes may "`operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength of racial [minorities in] the voting population.'" Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 88 (1966) (quoting Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433, 439 (1965)). See also Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 617 (1982); White v. Regester, 412 U.S., at 765; Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 143 (1971). The theoretical basis for this type of impairment is that where minority and majority voters consistently prefer different candidates, the majority, by virtue of its numerical superiority, will regularly defeat the choices of minority voters. See, e. g., Grofman, Alternatives, in Representation and Redistricting Issues 113-114. Multimember districts and at-large election schemes, however, are not per se violative of minority voters' rights. S. Rep., at 16. Cf. Rogers v. Lodge, supra, at 617; Regester, supra, at 765; Whitcomb, supra, at 142. Minority voters who contend that the multimember form of districting violates § 2 must prove that the use of a multimember electoral structure operates to minimize or cancel out their ability to elect their preferred candidates. See, e. g., S. Rep., at 16.
Commentators are in widespread agreement with this conclusion. See, e. g., Berry Dye, The Discriminatory Effects of At-Large Elections, 7 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 85 (1979) (hereinafter Berry Dye); Blacksher Menefee, From Reynolds v. Sims to City of Mobile v. Bolden, 34 Hastings L. J. 1 (1982) (hereinafter Blacksher Menefee); Bonapfel, Minority Challenges to At-Large Elections: The Dilution Problem, 10 Ga. L. Rev. 353 (1976) (hereinafter Bonapfel); Butler, Constitutional and Statutory Challenges to Election Structures: Dilution and the Value of the Right to Vote, 42 La. L. Rev. 851 (1982) (hereinafter Butler); Carpeneti, Legislative Apportionment: Multimember Districts and Fair Representation, 120 U. Pa. L. Rev. 666 (1972) (hereinafter Carpeneti); Davidson Korbel, At-Large Elections and Minority Group Representation, in Minority Vote Dilution 65; Derfner; B. Grofman, Alternatives to Single-Member Plurality Districts: Legal and Empirical Issues (hereinafter Grofman, Alternatives), in Representation and Redistricting Issues 107 (B. Grofman, R. Lijphart, H. McKay, H. Scarrow eds., 1982) (hereinafter Representation and Redistricting Issues); Hartman, Racial Vote Dilution and Separation of Powers, 50 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 689 (1982); Jewell, The Consequences of Single- and Multimember Districting, in Representation and Redistricting Issues 129 (1982) (hereinafter Jewell); Jones, The Impact of Local Election Systems on Political Representation, 11 Urb. Aff. Q. 345 (1976); Karnig, Black Resources and City Council Representation, 41 J. Pol. 134 (1979); Karnig, Black Representation on City Councils, 12 Urb. Aff. Q. 223 (1976); Parker 87-88.
Not only does "[v]oting along racial lines" deprive minority voters of their preferred representative in these circumstances, it also "allows those elected to ignore [minority] interests without fear of political consequences," Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S., at 623, leaving the minority effectively unrepresented. See, e. g., Grofman, Should Representatives Be Typical of Their Constituents?, in Representation and Redistricting Issues 97; Parker 108.
While many or all of the factors listed in the Senate Report may be relevant to a claim of vote dilution through submergence in multimember districts, unless there is a conjunction of the following circumstances, the use of multimember districts generally will not impede the ability of minority voters to elect representatives of their choice. Stated succinctly, a bloc voting majority must usually be able to defeat candidates supported by a politically cohesive, geographically insular minority group. Bonapfel 355; Blacksher Menefee 34; Butler 903; Carpeneti 696-699; Davidson, Minority Vote Dilution: An Overview (hereinafter Davidson), in Minority Vote Dilution 4; Grofman, Alternatives 117. Cf. Bolden, 446 U.S., at 105, n. 3 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting) ("It is obvious that the greater the degree to which the electoral minority is homogeneous and insular and the greater the degree that bloc voting occurs along majority-minority lines, the greater will be the extent to which the minority's voting power is diluted by multimember districting"). These circumstances are necessary preconditions for multimember districts to operate to impair minority voters' ability to elect representatives of their choice for the following reasons. First, the minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district. If it is not, as would be the case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. Cf. Rogers, 458 U.S., at 616. See also, Blacksher Menefee 51-56, 58; Bonapfel 355; Carpeneti 696; Davidson 4; Jewell 130. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. If the minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. Blacksher Menefee 51-55, 58-60, and n. 344; Carpeneti 696-697; Davidson 4. Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it — in the absence of special circumstances, such as the minority candidate running unopposed, see, infra, at 57, and n. 26 — usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. See, e. g., Blacksher Menefee 51, 53, 56-57, 60. Cf. Rogers, supra, at 616-617; Whitcomb, 403 U.S., at 158-159; McMillan v. Escambia County, Fla., 748 F.2d 1037, 1043 (CA5 1984). In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect its chosen representatives.
Under a "functional" view of the political process mandated by § 2, S. Rep., at 30, n. 120, the most important Senate Report factors bearing on § 2 challenges to multimember districts are the "extent to which minority group members have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction" and the "extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized." Id., 28-29. If present, the other factors, such as the lingering effects of past discrimination, the use of appeals to racial bias in election campaigns, and the use of electoral devices which enhance the dilutive effects of multimember districts when substantial white bloc voting exists — for example antibullet voting laws and majority vote requirements, are supportive of, but not essential to, a minority voter's claim. In recognizing that some Senate Report factors are more important to multimember district vote dilution claims than others, the Court effectuates the intent of Congress. It is obvious that unless minority group members experience substantial difficulty electing representatives of their choice, they cannot prove that a challenged electoral mechanism impairs their ability "to elect." § 2(b). And, where the contested electoral structure is a multimember district, commentators and courts agree that in the absence of significant white bloc voting it cannot be said that the ability of minority voters to elect their chosen representatives is inferior to that of white voters. See, e. g., McMillan v. Escambia County, Fla., 748 F.2d 1037, 1043 (CA5 1984); United States v. Marengo County Comm'n, 731 F.2d 1546, 1566 (CA11), appeal dism'd and cert. denied, 469 U.S. 976 (1984); Nevett v. Sides, 571 F.2d 209, 223 (CA5 1978), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 951 (1980); Johnson v. Halifax County, 594 F. Supp. 161, 170 (EDNC 1984); Blacksher Menefee; Engstrom Wildgen 469; Parker 107. Consequently, if difficulty in electing and white bloc voting are not proved, minority voters have not established that the multimember structure interferes with their ability to elect their preferred candidates. Minority voters may be able to prove that they still suffer social and economic effects of past discrimination, that appeals to racial bias are employed in election campaigns, and that a majority vote is required to win a seat, but they have not demonstrated a substantial inability to elect caused by the use of a multimember district. By recognizing the primacy of the history and extent of minority electoral success and of racial bloc voting, the Court simply requires that § 2 plaintiffs prove their claim before they may be awarded relief.
The reason that a minority group making such a challenge must show, as a threshold matter, that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district is this: Unless minority voters possess the potential to elect representatives in the absence of the challenged structure or practice, they cannot claim to have been injured by that structure or practice. The single-member district is generally the appropriate standard against which to measure minority group potential to elect because it is the smallest political unit from which representatives are elected. Thus, if the minority group is spread evenly throughout a multimember district, or if, although geographically compact, the minority group is so small in relation to the surrounding white population that it could not constitute a majority in a single-member district, these minority voters cannot maintain that they would have been able to elect representatives of their choice in the absence of the multimember electoral structure. As two commentators have explained: "To demonstrate [that minority voters are injured by at-large elections], the minority voters must be sufficiently concentrated and politically cohesive that a putative districting plan would result in districts in which members of a racial minority would constitute a majority of the voters, whose clear electoral choices are in fact defeated by at-large voting. If minority voters' residences are substantially integrated throughout the jurisdiction, the at-large district cannot be blamed for the defeat of minority-supported candidates . . . . [This standard] thus would only protect racial minority votes from diminution proximately caused by the districting plan; it would not assure racial minorities proportional representation." Blacksher Menefee 55-56 (footnotes omitted; emphasis added).
Finally, we observe that the usual predictability of the majority's success distinguishes structural dilution from the mere loss of an occasional election. Cf. Davis v. Bandemer, post, at 131-133, 139-140 (opinion of WHITE, J.); Bolden, supra, at 111, n. 7 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Whitcomb, supra, at 153. See also Blacksher Menefee 57, n. 333; Note, Geometry and Geography: Racial Gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act, 94 Yale L. J. 189, 200, n. 66 (1984) (hereinafter Note, Geometry and Geography).
Having stated the general legal principles relevant to claims that § 2 has been violated through the use of multimember districts, we turn to the arguments of appellants and of the United States as amicus curiae addressing racially polarized voting. First, we describe the District Court's treatment of racially polarized voting. Next, we consider appellants' claim that the District Court used an incorrect legal standard to determine whether racial bloc voting in the contested districts was sufficiently severe to be cognizable as an element of a § 2 claim. Finally, we consider appellants' contention that the trial court employed an incorrect definition of racially polarized voting and thus erroneously relied on statistical evidence that was not probative of racial bloc voting.
The investigation conducted by the District Court into the question of racial bloc voting credited some testimony of lay witnesses, but relied principally on statistical evidence presented by appellees' expert witnesses, in particular that offered by Dr. Bernard Grofman. Dr. Grofman collected and evaluated data from 53 General Assembly primary and general elections involving black candidacies. These elections were held over a period of three different election years in the six originally challenged multimember districts. Dr. Grofman subjected the data to two complementary methods of analysis — extreme case analysis and bivariate ecological regression analysis — in order to determine whether blacks and whites in these districts differed in their voting behavior. These analytic techniques yielded data concerning the voting patterns of the two races, including estimates of the percentages of members of each race who voted for black candidates.
The District Court found both methods standard in the literature for the analysis of racially polarized voting. 590 F. Supp., at 367, n. 28, 368, n. 32. See also Engstrom McDonald, Quantitative Evidence in Vote Dilution Litigation: Political Participation and Polarized Voting, 17 Urb. Law. 369 (Summer 1985); Grofman, Migalski, Noviello, The "Totality of Circumstances Test" in Section 2 of the 1982 Extension of the Voting Rights Act: A Social Science Perspective, 7 Law Policy 199 (Apr. 1985) (hereinafter Grofman, Migalski, Noviello).
The court's initial consideration of these data took the form of a three-part inquiry: did the data reveal any correlation between the race of the voter and the selection of certain candidates; was the revealed correlation statistically significant; and was the difference in black and white voting patterns "substantively significant"? The District Court found that blacks and whites generally preferred different candidates and, on that basis, found voting in the districts to be racially correlated. The court accepted Dr. Grofman's expert opinion that the correlation between the race of the voter and the voter's choice of certain candidates was statistically significant. Finally, adopting Dr. Grofman's terminology, see Tr. 195, the court found that in all but 2 of the 53 elections the degree of racial bloc voting was "so marked as to be substantively significant, in the sense that the results of the individual election would have been different depending upon whether it had been held among only the white voters or only the black voters." 590 F. Supp., at 368.
The court used the term "racial polarization" to describe this correlation. It adopted Dr. Grofman's definition — "racial polarization" exists where there is "a consistent relationship between [the] race of the voter and the way in which the voter votes," Tr. 160, or to put it differently, where "black voters and white voters vote differently." Id., at 203. We, too, adopt this definition of "racial bloc" or "racially polarized" voting. See infra, at 55-58.
The court found that the data reflected positive relationships and that the correlations did not happen by chance. 590 F. Supp., at 368, and n. 30. See also D. Barnes J. Conley, Statistical Evidence in Litigation 32-34 (1986); Fisher, Multiple Regression in Legal Proceedings, 80 Colum. L. Rev. 702, 716-720 (1980); Grofman, Migalski, Noviello 206.
The two exceptions were the 1982 State House elections in Districts 21 and 23. 590 F. Supp., at 368, n. 31.
The Senate Report states that the "extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized," S. Rep., at 29, is relevant to a vote dilution claim. Further, courts and commentators agree that racial bloc voting is a key element of a vote dilution claim. See, e. g., Escambia County, Fla., 748 F.2d, at 1043; United States v. Marengo County Comm'n, 731 F.2d 1546, 1566 (CA11), appeal dism'd and cert. denied, 469 U.S. 976 (1984); Nevett v. Sides, 571 F.2d 209, 223 (CA5 1978), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 951 (1980); Johnson v. Halifax County, 594 F. Supp. 161, 170 (EDNC 1984); Blacksher Menefee; Engstrom Wildgen, 465, 469; Parker 107; Note, Geometry and Geography 199. Because, as we explain below, the extent of bloc voting necessary to demonstrate that a minority's ability to elect its preferred representatives is impaired varies according to several factual circumstances, the degree of bloc voting which constitutes the threshold of legal significance will vary from district to district. Nonetheless, it is possible to state some general principles and we proceed to do so.
The purpose of inquiring into the existence of racially polarized voting is twofold: to ascertain whether minority group members constitute a politically cohesive unit and to determine whether whites vote sufficiently as a bloc usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidates. See supra, at 48-51. Thus, the question whether a given district experiences legally significant racially polarized voting requires discrete inquiries into minority and white voting practices. A showing that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidates is one way of proving the political cohesiveness necessary to a vote dilution claim, Blacksher Menefee 59-60, and n. 344, and, consequently, establishes minority bloc voting within the context of § 2. And, in general, a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white "crossover" votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting. Id., at 60. The amount of white bloc voting that can generally "minimize or cancel," S. Rep., at 28; Regester, 412 U.S., at 765, black voters' ability to elect representatives of their choice, however, will vary from district to district according to a number of factors, including the nature of the allegedly dilutive electoral mechanism; the presence or absence of other potentially dilutive electoral devices, such as majority vote requirements, designated posts, and prohibitions against bullet voting; the percentage of registered voters in the district who are members of the minority group; the size of the district; and, in multimember districts, the number of seats open and the number of candidates in the field. See, e. g., Butler 874-876; Davidson 5; Jones, The Impact of Local Election Systems on Black Political Representation, 11 Urb. Aff. Q. 345 (1976); United States Commission on Civil Rights, The Voting Rights Act: Unfulfilled Goals 38-41 (1981).
Because loss of political power through vote dilution is distinct from the mere inability to win a particular election, Whitcomb, 403 U.S., at 153, a pattern of racial bloc voting that extends over a period of time is more probative of a claim that a district experiences legally significant polarization than are the results of a single election. Blacksher Menefee 61; Note, Geometry and Geography 200, n. 66 ("Racial polarization should be seen as an attribute not of a single election, but rather of a polity viewed over time. The concern is necessarily temporal and the analysis historical because the evil to be avoided is the subordination of minority groups in American politics, not the defeat of individuals in particular electoral contests"). Also for this reason, in a district where elections are shown usually to be polarized, the fact that racially polarized voting is not present in one or a few individual elections does not necessarily negate the conclusion that the district experiences legally significant bloc voting. Furthermore, the success of a minority candidate in a particular election does not necessarily prove that the district did not experience polarized voting in that election; special circumstances, such as the absence of an opponent, incumbency, or the utilization of bullet voting, may explain minority electoral success in a polarized contest.
The District Court clearly did not employ the simplistic standard identified by North Carolina — legally significant bloc voting occurs whenever less than 50% of the white voters cast a ballot for the black candidate. Brief for Appellants 36. And, although the District Court did utilize the measure of "substantive significance" that the United States ascribes to it — "`the results of the individual election would have been different depending on whether it had been held among only the white voters or only the black voters,'" Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 29 (quoting 590 F. Supp., at 368) — the court did not reach its ultimate conclusion that the degree of racial bloc voting present in each district is legally significant through mechanical reliance on this standard. While the court did not phrase the standard for legally significant racial bloc voting exactly as we do, a fair reading of the court's opinion reveals that the court's analysis conforms to our view of the proper legal standard.
The District Court's findings concerning black support for black candidates in the five multimember districts at issue here clearly establish the political cohesiveness of black voters. As is apparent from the District Court's tabulated findings, reproduced in Appendix A to opinion, post, p. 80, black voters' support for black candidates was overwhelming in almost every election. In all but 5 of 16 primary elections, black support for black candidates ranged between 71% and 92%; and in the general elections, black support for black Democratic candidates ranged between 87% and 96%.
While the District Court did not state expressly that the percentage of whites who refused to vote for black candidates in the contested districts would, in the usual course of events, result in the defeat of the minority's candidates, that conclusion is apparent both from the court's factual findings and from the rest of its analysis. First, with the exception of House District 23, see infra, at 77, the trial court's findings clearly show that black voters have enjoyed only minimal and sporadic success in electing representatives of their choice. See Appendix B to opinion, post, p. 82. Second, where black candidates won elections, the court closely examined the circumstances of those elections before concluding that the success of these blacks did not negate other evidence, derived from all of the elections studied in each district, that legally significant racially polarized voting exists in each district. For example, the court took account of the benefits incumbency and running essentially unopposed conferred on some of the successful black candidates, as well as of the very different order of preference blacks and whites assigned black candidates, in reaching its conclusion that legally significant racial polarization exists in each district.
For example, the court found that incumbency aided a successful black candidate in the 1978 primary in Senate District 22. The court also noted that in House District 23, a black candidate who gained election in 1978, 1980, and 1982, ran uncontested in the 1978 general election and in both the primary and general elections in 1980. In 1982 there was no Republican opposition, a fact the trial court interpreted to mean that the general election was for all practical purposes unopposed. Moreover, in the 1982 primary, there were only two white candidates for three seats, so that one black candidate had to succeed. Even under this condition, the court remarked, 63% of white voters still refused to vote for the black incumbent — who was the choice of 90% of the blacks. In House District 21, where a black won election to the six-member delegation in 1980 and 1982, the court found that in the relevant primaries approximately 60% to 70% of white voters did not vote for the black candidate, whereas approximately 80% of blacks did. The court additionally observed that although winning the Democratic primary in this district is historically tantamount to election, 55% of whites declined to vote for the Democratic black candidate in the general election.
North Carolina and the United States also contest the evidence upon which the District Court relied in finding that voting patterns in the challenged districts were racially polarized. They argue that the term "racially polarized voting" must, as a matter of law, refer to voting patterns for which the principal cause is race. They contend that the District Court utilized a legally incorrect definition of racially polarized voting by relying on bivariate statistical analyses which merely demonstrated a correlation between the race of the voter and the level of voter support for certain candidates, but which did not prove that race was the primary determinant of voters' choices. According to appellants and the United States, only multiple regression analysis, which can take account of other variables which might also explain voters' choices, such as "party affiliation, age, religion, income[,] incumbency, education, campaign expenditures," Brief for Appellants 42, "media use measured by cost, . . . name, identification, or distance that a candidate lived from a particular precinct," Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 30, n. 57, can prove that race was the primary determinant of voter behavior.
Whether appellants and the United States believe that it is the voter's race or the candidate's race that must be the primary determinant of the voter's choice is unclear; indeed, their catalogs of relevant variables suggest both. Age, religion, income, and education seem most relevant to the voter; incumbency, campaign expenditures, name identification, and media use are pertinent to the candidate; and party affiliation could refer both to the voter and the candidate. In either case, we disagree: For purposes of § 2, the legal concept of racially polarized voting incorporates neither causation nor intent. It means simply that the race of voters correlates with the selection of a certain candidate or candidates; that is, it refers to the situation where different races (or minority language groups) vote in blocs for different candidates. Grofman, Migalski, Noviello 203. As we demonstrate infra, appellants' theory of racially polarized voting would thwart the goals Congress sought to achieve when it amended § 2 and would prevent courts from performing the "functional" analysis of the political process, S. Rep., at 30, n. 119, and the "searching practical evaluation of the `past and present reality,'" id., at 30 (footnote omitted), mandated by the Senate Report.
Both § 2 itself and the Senate Report make clear that the critical question in a § 2 claim is whether the use of a contested electoral practice or structure results in members of a protected group having less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. See, e. g., S. Rep., at 2, 27, 28, 29, n. 118, 36. As we explained, supra, at 47-48, multimember districts may impair the ability of blacks to elect representatives of their choice where blacks vote sufficiently as a bloc as to be able to elect their preferred candidates in a black majority, single-member district and where a white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc usually to defeat the candidates chosen by blacks. It is the difference between the choices made by blacks and whites — not the reasons for that difference — that results in blacks having less opportunity than whites to elect their preferred representatives. Consequently, we conclude that under the "results test" of § 2, only the correlation between race of voter and selection of certain candidates, not the causes of the correlation, matters.
The first problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that members of geographically insular racial and ethnic groups frequently share socioeconomic characteristics, such as income level, employment status, amount of education, housing and other living conditions, religion, language, and so forth. See, e. g., Butler 902 (Minority group "members' shared concerns, including political ones, are . . . a function of group status, and as such are largely involuntary. . . . As a group blacks are concerned, for example, with police brutality, substandard housing, unemployment, etc., because these problems fall disproportionately upon the group"); S. Verba N. Nie, Participation in America 151-152 (1972) ("Socioeconomic status . . . is closely related to race. Blacks in American society are likely to be in lower-status jobs than whites, to have less education, and to have lower incomes"). Where such characteristics are shared, race or ethnic group not only denotes color or place of origin, it also functions as a shorthand notation for common social and economic characteristics. Appellants' definition of racially polarized voting is even more pernicious where shared characteristics are causally related to race or ethnicity. The opportunity to achieve high employment status and income, for example, is often influenced by the presence or absence of racial or ethnic discrimination. A definition of racially polarized voting which holds that black bloc voting does not exist when black voters' choice of certain candidates is most strongly influenced by the fact that the voters have low incomes and menial jobs — when the reason most of those voters have menial jobs and low incomes is attributable to past or present racial discrimination — runs counter to the Senate Report's instruction to conduct a searching and practical evaluation of past and present reality, S. Rep., at 30, and interferes with the purpose of the Voting Rights Act to eliminate the negative effects of past discrimination on the electoral opportunities of minorities. Id., at 5, 40.
To illustrate, assume a racially mixed, urban multimember district in which blacks and whites possess the same socioeconomic characteristics that the record in this case attributes to blacks and whites in Halifax County, a part of Senate District 2. The annual mean income for blacks in this district is $10,465, and 47.8% of the black community lives in poverty. More than half — 51.5% — of black adults over the age of 25 have only an eighth-grade education or less. Just over half of black citizens reside in their own homes; 48.9% live in rental units. And, almost a third of all black households are without a car. In contrast, only 12.6% of the whites in the district live below the poverty line. Whites enjoy a mean income of $19,042. White residents are better educated than blacks — only 25.6% of whites over the age of 25 have only an eighth-grade education or less. Furthermore, only 26.2% of whites live in rental units, and only 10.2% live in households with no vehicle available. 1 App., Ex-44. As is the case in Senate District 2, blacks in this hypothetical urban district have never been able to elect a representative of their choice.
Congress could not have intended that courts employ this definition of racial bloc voting. First, this definition leads to results that are inconsistent with the effects test adopted by Congress when it amended § 2 and with the Senate Report's admonition that courts take a "functional" view of the political process, S. Rep. 30, n. 119, and conduct a searching and practical evaluation of reality. Id., at 30. A test for racially polarized voting that denies the fact that race and socioeconomic characteristics are often closely correlated permits neither a practical evaluation of reality nor a functional analysis of vote dilution. And, contrary to Congress' intent in adopting the "results test," appellants' proposed definition could result in the inability of minority voters to establish a critical element of a vote dilution claim, even though both races engage in "monolithic" bloc voting, id., at 33, and generations of black voters have been unable to elect a representative of their choice.
Second, appellants' interpretation of "racially polarized voting" creates an irreconcilable tension between their proposed treatment of socioeconomic characteristics in the bloc voting context and the Senate Report's statement that "the extent to which members of the minority group . . . bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health" may be relevant to a § 2 claim. Id., at 29. We can find no support in either logic or the legislative history for the anomalous conclusion to which appellants' position leads — that Congress intended, on the one hand, that proof that a minority group is predominately poor, uneducated, and unhealthy should be considered a factor tending to prove a § 2 violation; but that Congress intended, on the other hand, that proof that the same socioeconomic characteristics greatly influence black voters' choice of candidates should destroy these voters' ability to establish one of the most important elements of a vote dilution claim.
First, both the language of § 2 and a functional understanding of the phenomenon of vote dilution mandate the conclusion that the race of the candidate per se is irrelevant to racial bloc voting analysis. Section 2(b) states that a violation is established if it can be shown that members of a protected minority group "have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to . . . elect representatives of their choice." (Emphasis added.) Because both minority and majority voters often select members of their own race as their preferred representatives, it will frequently be the case that a black candidate is the choice of blacks, while a white candidate is the choice of whites. Cf. Letter to the Editor from Chandler Davidson, 17 New Perspectives 38 (Fall 1985). Indeed, the facts of this case illustrate that tendency — blacks preferred black candidates, whites preferred white candidates. Thus, as a matter of convenience, we and the District Court may refer to the preferred representative of black voters as the "black candidate" and to the preferred representative of white voters as the "white candidate." Nonetheless, the fact that race of voter and race of candidate is often correlated is not directly pertinent to a § 2 inquiry. Under § 2, it is the status of the candidate as the chosen representative of a particular racial group, not the race of the candidate, that is important.
An understanding of how vote dilution through submergence in a white majority works leads to the same conclusion. The essence of a submergence claim is that minority group members prefer certain candidates whom they could elect were it not for the interaction of the challenged electoral law or structure with a white majority that votes as a significant bloc for different candidates. Thus, as we explained in Part III, supra, the existence of racial bloc voting is relevant to a vote dilution claim in two ways. Bloc voting by blacks tends to prove that the black community is politically cohesive, that is, it shows that blacks prefer certain candidates whom they could elect in a single-member, black majority district. Bloc voting by a white majority tends to prove that blacks will generally be unable to elect representatives of their choice. Clearly, only the race of the voter, not the race of the candidate, is relevant to vote dilution analysis. See, e. g., Blacksher Menefee 59-60; Grofman, Should Representatives be Typical?, in Representation and Redistricting Issues 98; Note, Geometry and Geography 207.
Congress intended that the Voting Rights Act eradicate inequalities in political opportunities that exist due to the vestigial effects of past purposeful discrimination. S. Rep., at 5, 40; H.R. Rep. No. 97-227, p. 31 (1981). Both this Court and other federal courts have recognized that political participation by minorities tends to be depressed where minority group members suffer effects of prior discrimination such as inferior education, poor employment opportunities, and low incomes. See, e. g., White v. Regester, 412 U.S., at 768-769; Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors of Hinds County, Miss., 554 F.2d 139, 145-146 (CA5) (en banc), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 968 (1977). See also S. Verba N. Nie, Participation in America 152 (1972). The Senate Report acknowledges this tendency and instructs that "the extent to which members of the minority group . . . bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process," S. Rep., at 29 (footnote omitted), is a factor which may be probative of unequal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives. Courts and commentators have recognized further that candidates generally must spend more money in order to win election in a multimember district than in a single-member district. See, e. g., Graves v. Barnes, 343 F. Supp. 704, 720-721 (WD Tex. 1972), aff'd in part and rev'd in part sub nom. White v. Regester, supra. Berry Dye 88; Davidson Fraga, Nonpartisan Slating Groups in an At-Large Setting, in Minority Vote Dilution 122-123; Derfner 554, n. 126; Jewell 131; Karnig, Black Representation on City Councils, 12 Urb. Aff. Q. 223, 230 (1976). If, because of inferior education and poor employment opportunities, blacks earn less than whites, they will not be able to provide the candidates of their choice with the same level of financial support that whites can provide theirs. Thus, electoral losses by candidates preferred by the black community may well be attributable in part to the fact that their white opponents outspent them. But, the fact is that, in this instance, the economic effects of prior discrimination have combined with the multimember electoral structure to afford blacks less opportunity than whites to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. It would be both anomalous and inconsistent with congressional intent to hold that, on the one hand, the effects of past discrimination which hinder blacks' ability to participate in the political process tend to prove a § 2 violation, while holding on the other hand that, where these same effects of past discrimination deter whites from voting for blacks, blacks cannot make out a crucial element of a vote dilution claim. Accord, Escambia County, 748 F.2d, at 1043 ("`[T]he failure of the blacks to solicit white votes may be caused by the effects of past discrimination'") (quoting United States v. Dallas County Comm'n, 739 F.2d 1529, 1536 (CA11 1984)); United States v. Marengo County Comm'n, 731 F.2d, at 1567.
Finally, we reject the suggestion that racially polarized voting refers only to white bloc voting which is caused by white voters' racial hostility toward black candidates. To accept this theory would frustrate the goals Congress sought to achieve by repudiating the intent test of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), and would prevent minority voters who have clearly been denied an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice from establishing a critical element of a vote dilution claim.
It is true, as we have recognized previously, that racial hostility may often fuel racial bloc voting. United Jewish Organizations v. Carey, 430 U.S. 144, 166 (1977); Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S., at 623. But, as we explain in this decision, the actual motivation of the voter has no relevance to a vote dilution claim. This is not to suggest that racial bloc voting is race neutral; because voter behavior correlates with race, obviously it is not. It should be remembered, though, as one commentator has observed, that "[t]he absence of racial animus is but one element of race neutrality." Note, Geometry and Geography 208.
In amending § 2, Congress rejected the requirement announced by this Court in Bolden, supra, that § 2 plaintiffs must prove the discriminatory intent of state or local governments in adopting or maintaining the challenged electoral mechanism. Appellants' suggestion that the discriminatory intent of individual white voters must be proved in order to make out a § 2 claim must fail for the very reasons Congress rejected the intent test with respect to governmental bodies. See Engstrom, The Reincarnation of the Intent Standard: Federal Judges and At-Large Election Cases, 28 How. L. J. 495 (1985).
The Senate Report rejected the argument that the words "on account of race," contained in § 2(a), create any requirement of purposeful discrimination. "[I]t is patently [clear] that Congress has used the words `on account of race or color' in the Act to mean `with respect to' race or color, and not to connote any required purpose of racial discrimination." S. Rep., at 27-28, n. 109.
The Senate Report states that one reason the Senate Committee abandoned the intent test was that "the Committee . . . heard persuasive testimony that the intent test is unnecessarily divisive because it involves charges of racism on the part of individual officials or entire communities." S. Rep., at 36. The Committee found the testimony of Dr. Arthur S. Flemming, Chairman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, particularly persuasive. He testified:
A second reason Congress rejected the old intent test was that in most cases it placed an "inordinately difficult burden" on § 2 plaintiffs. Ibid. The new intent test would be equally, if not more, burdensome. In order to prove that a specific factor — racial hostility — determined white voters' ballots, it would be necessary to demonstrate that other potentially relevant causal factors, such as socioeconomic characteristics and candidate expenditures, do not correlate better than racial animosity with white voting behavior. As one commentator has explained:
Focusing on the discriminatory intent of the voters, rather than the behavior of the voters, also asks the wrong question. All that matters under § 2 and under a functional theory of vote dilution is voter behavior, not its explanations. Moreover, as we have explained in detail, supra, requiring proof that racial considerations actually caused voter behavior will result — contrary to congressional intent — in situations where a black minority that functionally has been totally excluded from the political process will be unable to establish a § 2 violation. The Senate Report's remark concerning the old intent test thus is pertinent to the new test: The requirement that a "court . . . make a separate . . . finding of intent, after accepting the proof of the factors involved in the White [v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755] analysis . . . [would] seriously clou[d] the prospects of eradicating the remaining instances of racial discrimination in American elections." Id., at 37. We therefore decline to adopt such a requirement.
North Carolina and the United States maintain that the District Court failed to accord the proper weight to the success of some black candidates in the challenged districts. Black residents of these districts, they point out, achieved improved representation in the 1982 General Assembly election. They also note that blacks in House District 23 have enjoyed proportional representation consistently since 1973 and that blacks in the other districts have occasionally enjoyed nearly proportional representation. This electoral success demonstrates conclusively, appellants and the United States argue, that blacks in those districts do not have "less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b). Essentially, appellants and the United States contend that if a racial minority gains proportional or nearly proportional representation in a single election, that fact alone precludes, as a matter of law, finding a § 2 violation.
Section 2(b) provides that "[t]he extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office . . . is one circumstance which may be considered." 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b). The Senate Committee Report also identifies the extent to which minority candidates have succeeded as a pertinent factor. S. Rep., at 29. However, the Senate Report expressly states that "the election of a few minority candidates does not `necessarily foreclose the possibility of dilution of the black vote,'" noting that if it did, "the possibility exists that the majority citizens might evade [§ 2] by manipulating the election of a `safe' minority candidate." Id., at 29, n. 115, quoting Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297, 1307 (CA5 1973) (en banc), aff'd sub nom. East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 (1976) (per curiam). The Senate Committee decided, instead, to "`require an independent consideration of the record.'" S. Rep., at 29, n. 115. The Senate Report also emphasizes that the question whether "the political processes are `equally open' depends upon a searching practical evaluation of the `past and present reality.'" Id., at 30 (footnote omitted). Thus, the language of § 2 and its legislative history plainly demonstrate that proof that some minority candidates have been elected does not foreclose a § 2 claim.
Moreover, in conducting its "independent consideration of the record" and its "searching practical evaluation of the `past and present reality,'" the District Court could appropriately take account of the circumstances surrounding recent black electoral success in deciding its significance to appellees' claim. In particular, as the Senate Report makes clear, id., at 29, n. 115, the court could properly notice the fact that black electoral success increased markedly in the 1982 election — an election that occurred after the instant lawsuit had been filed — and could properly consider to what extent "the pendency of this very litigation [might have] worked a one-time advantage for black candidates in the form of unusual organized political support by white leaders concerned to forestall single-member districting." 590 F. Supp., at 367, n. 27.
See also Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d, at 1307 ("[W]e cannot endorse the view that the success of black candidates at the polls necessarily forecloses the possibility of dilution of the black vote. Such success might, on occasion, be attributable to the work of politicians, who, apprehending that the support of a black candidate would be politically expedient, campaign to insure his election. Or such success might be attributable to political support motivated by different considerations — namely that election of a black candidate will thwart successful challenges to electoral schemes on dilution grounds. In either situation, a candidate could be elected despite the relative political backwardness of black residents in the electoral district").
In some situations, it may be possible for § 2 plaintiffs to demonstrate that such sustained success does not accurately reflect the minority group's ability to elect its preferred representatives, but appellees have not done so here. Appellees presented evidence relating to black electoral success in the last three elections; they failed utterly, though, to offer any explanation for the success of black candidates in the previous three elections. Consequently, we believe that the District Court erred, as a matter of law, in ignoring the sustained success black voters have enjoyed in House District 23, and would reverse with respect to that District.
As an initial matter, both North Carolina and the United States contend that the District Court's ultimate conclusion that the challenged multimember districts operate to dilute black citizens' votes is a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review on appeal. In support of their proposed standard of review, they rely primarily on Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984), a case in which we reconfirmed that, as a matter of constitutional law, there must be independent appellate review of evidence of "actual malice" in defamation cases. Appellants and the United States argue that because a finding of vote dilution under amended § 2 requires the application of a rule of law to a particular set of facts it constitutes a legal, rather than factual, determination. Reply Brief for Appellants 7; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18-19. Neither appellants nor the United States cite our several precedents in which we have treated the ultimate finding of vote dilution as a question of fact subject to the clearly-erroneous standard of Rule 52(a). See, e. g., Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S., at 622-627; City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 183 (1980); White v. Regester, 412 U.S., at 765-770. Cf. Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985).
Quoting this passage from Regester with approval, we expressly held in Rogers v. Lodge, supra, that the question whether an at-large election system was maintained for discriminatory purposes and subsidiary issues, which include whether that system had the effect of diluting the minority vote, were questions of fact, reviewable under Rule 52(a)'s clearly-erroneous standard. 458 U.S., at 622-623. Similarly, in City of Rome v. United States, we declared that the question whether certain electoral structures had a "discriminatory effect," in the sense of diluting the minority vote, was a question of fact subject to clearly-erroneous review. 446 U.S., at 183.
We reaffirm our view that the clearly-erroneous test of Rule 52(a) is the appropriate standard for appellate review of a finding of vote dilution. As both amended § 2 and its legislative history make clear, in evaluating a statutory claim of vote dilution through districting, the trial court is to consider the "totality of the circumstances" and to determine, based "upon a searching practical evaluation of the `past and present reality,'" S. Rep., at 30 (footnote omitted), whether the political process is equally open to minority voters. "`This determination is peculiarly dependent upon the facts of each case,'" Rogers, supra, at 621, quoting Nevett v. Sides, 571 F.2d 209, 224 (CA5 1978), and requires "an intensely local appraisal of the design and impact" of the contested electoral mechanisms. 458 U.S., at 622. The fact that amended § 2 and its legislative history provide legal standards which a court must apply to the facts in order to determine whether § 2 has been violated does not alter the standard of review. As we explained in Bose, Rule 52(a) "does not inhibit an appellate court's power to correct errors of law, including those that may infect a so-called mixed finding of law and fact, or a finding of fact that is predicated on a misunderstanding of the governing rule of law." 466 U.S., at 501, citing Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 287 (1982); Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 855, n. 15 (1982). Thus, the application of the clearly-erroneous standard to ultimate findings of vote dilution preserves the benefit of the trial court's particular familiarity with the indigenous political reality without endangering the rule of law.
Senate District 22 Primary General White Black White Black
1978 (Alexander) 47 87 41 94 1980 (Alexander) 23 78 n/a n/a 1982 (Polk) 32 83 33 94 House District 21 Primary General White Black White Black
House District 23 Primary General White Black White Black
House District 36 Primary General White Black White Black
House District 39 Primary General White Black White Black
1978 House Kennedy, H. 28 76 32 93 Norman 8 29 n/a n/a Ross 17 53 n/a n/a Sumter (Repub.) n/a n/a 33 25 House District 39 Primary General White Black White Black
(No. Seats) 1972 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 House 8(4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 House 21(6) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 House 23(3) 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 House 36(8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 House 39(5) 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Senate 2(2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Senate 22(4) 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
In this case, we are called upon to construe § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended June 29, 1982. Amended § 2 is intended to codify the "results" test employed in Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 (1971), and White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), and to reject the "intent" test propounded in the plurality opinion in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). S. Rep. No. 97-417, pp. 27-28 (1982) (hereinafter S. Rep.). Whereas Bolden required members of a racial minority who alleged impairment of their voting strength to prove that the challenged electoral system was created or maintained with a discriminatory purpose and led to discriminatory results, under the results test, "plaintiffs may choose to establish discriminatory results without proving any kind of discriminatory purpose." S. Rep., at 28. At the same time, however, § 2 unequivocally disclaims the creation of a right to proportional representation. This disclaimer was essential to the compromise that resulted in passage of the amendment. See id., at 193-194 (additional views of Sen. Dole).
Although § 2 does not speak in terms of "vote dilution," I agree with the Court that proof of vote dilution can establish a violation of § 2 as amended. The phrase "vote dilution," in the legal sense, simply refers to the impermissible discriminatory effect that a multimember or other districting plan has when it operates "to cancel out or minimize the voting strength of racial groups." White, 412 U.S., at 765. See also Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433, 439 (1965). This definition, however, conceals some very formidable difficulties. Is the "voting strength" of a racial group to be assessed solely with reference to its prospects for electoral success, or should courts look at other avenues of political influence open to the racial group? Insofar as minority voting strength is assessed with reference to electoral success, how should undiluted minority voting strength be measured? How much of an impairment of minority voting strength is necessary to prove a violation of § 2? What constitutes racial bloc voting and how is it proved? What weight is to be given to evidence of actual electoral success by minority candidates in the face of evidence of racial bloc voting?
In order to evaluate a claim that a particular multimember district or single-member district has diluted the minority group's voting strength to a degree that violates § 2, however, it is also necessary to construct a measure of "undiluted" minority voting strength. "[T]he phrase [vote dilution] itself suggests a norm with respect to which the fact of dilution may be ascertained." Mississippi Republican Executive Committee v. Brooks, 469 U.S. 1002, 1012 (1984) (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting from summary affirmance). Put simply, in order to decide whether an electoral system has made it harder for minority voters to elect the candidates they prefer, a court must have an idea in mind of how hard it "should" be for minority voters to elect their preferred candidates under an acceptable system.
The Court today has adopted a variant of the third approach, to wit, undiluted minority voting strength means the maximum feasible minority voting strength. In explaining the elements of a vote dilution claim, the Court first states that "the minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district." Ante, at 50. If not, apparently the minority group has no cognizable claim that its ability to elect the representatives of its choice has been impaired. Second, "the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive," that is, that a significant proportion of the minority group supports the same candidates. Ante, at 51. Third, the Court requires the minority group to "demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it — in the absence of special circumstances . . . — usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." Ibid. If these three requirements are met, "the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect its chosen representatives." Ibid. That is to say, the minority group has proved vote dilution in violation of § 2.
As shaped by the Court today, then, the basic contours of a vote dilution claim require no reference to most of the " Zimmer factors" that were developed by the Fifth Circuit to implement White's results test and which were highlighted in the Senate Report. S. Rep., at 28-29; see Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (1973) (en banc), aff'd sub nom. East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 (1976) (per curiam). If a minority group is politically and geographically cohesive and large enough to constitute a voting majority in one or more single-member districts, then unless white voters usually support the minority's preferred candidates in sufficient numbers to enable the minority group to elect as many of those candidates as it could elect in such hypothetical districts, it will routinely follow that a vote dilution claim can be made out, and the multimember district will be invalidated. There is simply no need for plaintiffs to establish "the history of voting-related discrimination in the State or political subdivision," ante, at 44, or "the extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group," ante, at 45, or "the exclusion of members of the minority group from candidate slating processes," ibid., or "the extent to which minority group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health," ibid., or "the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns," ibid., or that "elected officials are unresponsive to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group." Ibid. Of course, these other factors may be supportive of such a claim, because they may strengthen a court's confidence that minority voters will be unable to overcome the relative disadvantage at which they are placed by a particular districting plan, or suggest a more general lack of opportunity to participate in the political process. But the fact remains that electoral success has now emerged, under the Court's standard, as the linchpin of vote dilution claims, and that the elements of a vote dilution claim create an entitlement to roughly proportional representation within the framework of single-member districts.
What appellants do contest is the propriety of the District Court's standard for vote dilution. Appellants claim that the District Court held that "[a]lthough blacks had achieved considerable success in winning state legislative seats in the challenged districts, their failure to consistently attain the number of seats that numbers alone would presumptively give them ( i. e., in proportion to their presence in the population)," standing alone, constituted a violation of § 2. Brief for Appellants 20 (emphasis in original). This holding, appellants argue, clearly contravenes § 2's proviso that "nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population." 42 U.S.C. § 1973.
I believe appellants' characterization of the District Court's holding is incorrect. In my view, the District Court concluded that there was a severe diminution in the prospects for black electoral success in each of the challenged districts, as compared to single-member districts in which blacks could constitute a majority, and that this severe diminution was in large part attributable to the interaction of the multimember form of the district with persistent racial bloc voting on the part of the white majorities in those districts. See 590 F. Supp., at 372. The District Court attached great weight to this circumstance as one part of its ultimate finding that "the creation of each of the multi-member districts challenged in this action results in the black registered voters of that district being submerged as a voting minority in the district and thereby having less opportunity than do other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." Id., at 374. But the District Court's extensive opinion clearly relies as well on a variety of the other Zimmer factors, as the Court's thorough summary of the District Court's findings indicates. See ante, at 38-41.
At times, the District Court seems to have looked to simple proportionality rather than to hypothetical single-member districts in which black voters would constitute a majority. See, e. g., 590 F. Supp., at 367. No-where in its opinion, however, did the District Court state that § 2 requires that minority groups consistently attain the level of electoral success that would correspond with their proportion of the total or voting population.
"The language of the subsection explicitly rejects, as did White and its progeny, the notion that members of a protected class have a right to be elected in numbers equal to their proportion of the population. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected under the challenged practice or structure is just one factor, among the totality of circumstances to be considered, and is not dispositive." S. Rep., at 194 (additional views of Sen. Dole).
The "results" test as reflected in Whitcomb and White requires an inquiry into the extent of the minority group's opportunities to participate in the political processes. See White, 412 U.S., at 766. While electoral success is a central part of the vote dilution inquiry, White held that to prove vote dilution, "it is not enough that the racial group allegedly discriminated against has not had legislative seats in proportion to its voting potential," id., at 765-766, and Whitcomb flatly rejected the proposition that "any group with distinctive interests must be represented in legislative halls if it is numerous enough to command at least one seat and represents a majority living in an area sufficiently compact to constitute a single member district." 403 U.S., at 156. To the contrary, the results test as described in White requires plaintiffs to establish "that the political processes leading to nomination and election were not equally open to participation by the group in question — that its members had less opportunity than did other residents in the district to participate in the political processes and to elect legislators of their choice." 412 U.S., at 766. BY showing both "a history of disproportionate results" and "strong indicia of lack of political power and the denial of fair representation," the plaintiffs in White met this standard, which, as emphasized just today, requires "a substantially greater showing of adverse effects than a mere lack of proportional representation to support a finding of unconstitutional vote dilution." Davis v. Bandemer, post, at 131 (plurality opinion).
When Congress amended § 2 it intended to adopt this "results" test, while abandoning the additional showing of discriminatory intent required by Bolden. The vote dilution analysis adopted by the Court today clearly bears little resemblance to the "results" test that emerged in Whitcomb and White. The Court's test for vote dilution, combined with its standard for evaluating "voting potential," White, supra, at 766, means that any racial minority with distinctive interests must usually "be represented in legislative halls if it is numerous enough to command at least one seat and represents a minority living in an area sufficiently compact to constitute" a voting majority in "a single member district." Whitcomb, 403 U.S., at 156. Nothing in Whitcomb, White, or the language and legislative history of § 2 supports the Court's creation of this right to usual, roughly proportional representation on the part of every geographically compact, politically cohesive minority group that is large enough to form a majority in one or more single-member districts.
I would adhere to the approach outlined in Whitcomb and White and followed, with some elaboration, in Zimmer and other cases in the Courts of Appeals prior to Bolden. Under that approach, a court should consider all relevant factors bearing on whether the minority group has "less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (emphasis added). The court should not focus solely on the minority group's ability to elect representatives of its choice. Whatever measure of undiluted minority voting strength the court employs in connection with evaluating the presence or absence of minority electoral success, it should also bear in mind that "the power to influence the political process is not limited to winning elections." Davis v. Bandemer, post, at 132. Of course, the relative lack of minority electoral success under a challenged plan, when compared with the success that would be predicted under the measure of undiluted minority voting strength the court is employing, can constitute powerful evidence of vote dilution. Moreover, the minority group may in fact lack access to or influence upon representatives it did not support as candidates. Cf. Davis v. Bandemer, post, at 169-170 (POWELL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Nonetheless, a reviewing court should be required to find more than simply that the minority group does not usually attain an undiluted measure of electoral success. The court must find that even substantial minority success will be highly infrequent under the challenged plan before it may conclude, on this basis alone, that the plan operates "to cancel out or minimize the voting strength of [the] racial grou[p]." White, supra, at 765.
I believe Congress also intended that explanations of the reasons why white voters rejected minority candidates would be probative of the likelihood that candidates elected without decisive minority support would be willing to take the minority's interests into account. In a community that is polarized along racial lines, racial hostility may bar these and other indirect avenues of political influence to a much greater extent than in a community where racial animosity is absent although the interests of racial groups diverge. Indeed, the Senate Report clearly stated that one factor that could have probative value in § 2 cases was "whether there is significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group." S. Rep., at 29. The overall vote dilution inquiry neither requires nor permits an arbitrary rule against consideration of all evidence concerning voting preferences other than statistical evidence of racial voting patterns. Such a rule would give no effect whatever to the Senate Report's repeated emphasis on "intensive racial politics," on "racial political considerations," and on whether "racial politics . . . dominate the electoral process" as one aspect of the "racial bloc voting" that Congress deemed relevant to showing a § 2 violation. Id., at 33-34. Similarly, I agree with JUSTICE WHITE that JUSTICE BRENNAN's conclusion that the race of the candidate is always irrelevant in identifying racially polarized voting conflicts with Whitcomb and is not necessary to the disposition of this case. Ante, at 83 (concurring).
In this case, as the Court grudgingly acknowledges, the District Court clearly erred in aggregating data from all of the challenged districts, and then relying on the fact that on average, 81.7% of white voters did not vote for any black candidate in the primary elections selected for study. Ante, at 59-60, n. 28. Although Senate District 22 encompasses House District 36, with that exception the districts at issue in this case are distributed throughout the State of North Carolina. White calls for "an intensely local appraisal of the design and impact of the . . . multimember district," 412 U.S., at 769-770, and racial voting statistics from one district are ordinarily irrelevant in assessing the totality of the circumstances in another district. In view of the specific evidence from each district that the District Court also considered, however, I cannot say that its conclusion that there was severe racial bloc voting was clearly erroneous with regard to any of the challenged districts. Except in House District 23, where racial bloc voting did not prevent sustained and virtually proportional minority electoral success, I would accordingly leave undisturbed the District Court's decision to give great weight to racial bloc voting in each of the challenged districts.
Zimmer's caveat against necessarily foreclosing a vote dilution claim on the basis of isolated black successes, 485 F.2d, at 1307; see S. Rep., at 29, n. 115, cannot be pressed this far. Indeed, the 23 Court of Appeals decisions on which the Senate Report relied, and which are the best evidence of the scope of this caveat, contain no example of minority electoral success that even remotely approximates the consistent, decade-long pattern in District 23. See, e. g., Turner v. McKeithen, 490 F.2d 191 (CA5 1973) (no black candidates elected); Wallace v. House, 515 F.2d 619 (CA5 1975) (one black candidate elected), vacated on other grounds, 425 U.S. 947 (1976).
I, of course, agree that the election of one black candidate in each election since 1972 provides significant support for the State's position. The notion that this evidence creates some sort of a conclusive, legal presumption, ante, at 75-76, is not, however, supported by the language of the statute or by its legislative history. I therefore cannot agree with the Court's view that the District Court committed error by failing to apply a rule of law that emerges today without statutory support. The evidence of candidate success in District 23 is merely one part of an extremely large record which the District Court carefully considered before making its ultimate findings of fact, all of which should be upheld under a normal application of the "clearly erroneous" standard that the Court traditionally applies.
See ante, at 75 ("Section 2(b) provides that `[t]he extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office . . . is one circumstance which may be considered.' 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b) . . . However, the Senate Report expressly states that `the election of a few minority candidates does not "necessarily foreclose the possibility of dilution of the black vote,"' noting that if it did, `the possibility exists that the majority citizens might evade [§ 2] by manipulating the election of a "safe" minority candidate.'. . . The Senate Committee decided, instead, to `"require an independent consideration of the record"'") (internal citations omitted).
The Court identifies the reason why the success of one black candidate in the elections in 1978, 1980, and 1982 is not inconsistent with the District Court's ultimate finding concerning House District 23. The fact that one black candidate was also elected in the 1972, 1974, and 1976 elections, ante, at 82, Appendix B, is not sufficient, in my opinion, to overcome the additional findings that apply to House District 23, as well as to other districts in the State for each of those years. The Court accurately summarizes those findings:
To paraphrase the Court's conclusion about the other districts, ibid., I cannot say that the District Court, composed of local judges who are well acquainted with the political realities of the State, clearly erred in concluding that use of a multimember electoral structure has caused black voters in House District 23 to have less opportunity than white voters to elect representatives of their choice. Accordingly, I concur in the Court's opinion except Part IV-B and except insofar as it explains why it reverses the judgment respecting House District 23.
Even under the Court's analysis, the decision simply to reverse — without a remand — is mystifying. It is also extremely unfair. First, the Court does not give appellees an opportunity to address the new legal standard that the Court finds decisive. Second, the Court does not even bother to explain the contours of that standard, and why it was not satisfied in this case. Cf. ante, at 77, n. 38 ("We have no occasion in this case to decide what types of special circumstances could satisfactorily demonstrate that sustained success does not accurately reflect the minority's ability to elect its preferred representatives"). Finally, though couched as a conclusion about a "matter of law," ante, at 77, the Court's abrupt entry of judgment for appellants on District 23 reflects an unwillingness to give the District Court the respect it is due, particularly when, as in this case, the District Court has a demonstrated knowledge and expertise of the entire context that Congress directed it to consider.