Source: http://digitalcollections.uncc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p16033coll20/id/4873/
Timestamp: 2020-04-09 20:20:35
Document Index: 450140460

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

Home Kelly Alexander, Sr. Papers Concerning the NAACP, 1948-1998 naacp-ms508-0211034-107
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. 28, U.S.Code
Cong. & Admin.News 1982, p. 205; Regester, 412 U.S., at 765, 93 S.Ct, at 2339, 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.24 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); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
38-41 (1981).
[13,14] 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, 91 S.Ct., at
1874, 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.25   Blacksher &
24. This list of factors is illustrative, not comprehensive.
25. The number of elections that must be studied
in order to determine whether voting is polarized will vary according to pertinent circumstances. One important circumstance is the
number of elections in which the minority
group has sponsored candidates. Where a minority group has never been able to sponsor a
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
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.26
As must be apparent, the degree of racial bloc voting that is cognizable as an
element of a § 2 vote dilution claim will
vary according to a variety of factual circumstances. Consequently, there is no
simple doctrinal test for the existence of
legally significant racial bloc voting. However, the foregoing general principles
should provide courts with substantial
guidance in determining whether evidence
that black and white voters generally prefer different candidates rises to the level of
legal significance under § 2.
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
candidate, courts must rely on other factors that
tend to prove unequal access to the electoral
process. Similarly, where a minority group has
begun to sponsor candidates just recently, the
fact that statistics from only one or a few elec-
tions are available for examination does not
foreclose a vote dilution claim.
26.   This list of special circumstances is illustra-
tive, not exclusive.
Title naacp-ms508-0211034-107
OCR Transcript 2770 106 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 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. 28, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982, p. 205; Regester, 412 U.S., at 765, 93 S.Ct, at 2339, 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.24 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); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Voting Rights Act: Unfulfilled Goals 38-41 (1981). [13,14] 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, 91 S.Ct., at 1874, 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.25 Blacksher & 24. This list of factors is illustrative, not comprehensive. 25. The number of elections that must be studied in order to determine whether voting is polarized will vary according to pertinent circumstances. One important circumstance is the number of elections in which the minority group has sponsored candidates. Where a minority group has never been able to sponsor a 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.26 As must be apparent, the degree of racial bloc voting that is cognizable as an element of a § 2 vote dilution claim will vary according to a variety of factual circumstances. Consequently, there is no simple doctrinal test for the existence of legally significant racial bloc voting. However, the foregoing general principles should provide courts with substantial guidance in determining whether evidence that black and white voters generally prefer different candidates rises to the level of legal significance under § 2. Standard Utilized by the District Court 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 candidate, courts must rely on other factors that tend to prove unequal access to the electoral process. Similarly, where a minority group has begun to sponsor candidates just recently, the fact that statistics from only one or a few elec- tions are available for examination does not foreclose a vote dilution claim. 26. This list of special circumstances is illustra- tive, not exclusive.
Add tags for naacp-ms508-0211034-107
Post a Comment for naacp-ms508-0211034-107