Opinion ID: 770944
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Election contests between Indian and white candidates

Text: 36 Elections between white and minority candidates are the most probative in determining the existence of legally significant white bloc voting. See Ruiz, 160 F.3d at 553-54; Nipper v. Smith, 39 F.3d 1494, 1539 (11th Cir. 1994). In this case, the Indian (and Indian-preferred) candidate was usually defeated by the white majority voting as a bloc. 37 In 1994 and 1996, there were 10 election contests in the four challenged House Districts (HDs 73, 74, 85 and 86) in which an Indian candidate opposed a non-Indian candidate for a position in the state or federal government. See Table 2. 38 Table 2 Indian/White Election Contests in HDs 73, 74, 85 and 86 District or County/ Year General or White vote Indian vote Whether Percentage Indian Primary/ for white for Indian Indian voting age Position candidate candidate candidate population won or lost (VAP) HD 73 1996 General 65.8% 70.6% Lost 28% Indian VAP State Rep. HD 73 1996 General 61.4% 69.2% Lost 28% Indian VAP State Senate HD 73 1996 General 65.6% 69.3% Lost 28% Indian VAP U.S. Rep. HD 74 1996 General 71.4% 96.8% Lost 14% Indian VAP State Senate HD 74 1996 General 66.9% 70.4% Lost 14% Indian VAP U.S. Rep. HD 86 1996 General 69.2% 94.4% Lost 19% Indian VAP U.S. Rep Lake County 1996 Primary 54.5% 84.5% Won (lost general) 18% Indian VAP U.S. Rep. HD 85 1994 General 84.2% 79.0% Won 66% Indian VAP State Rep. HD 85 1996 General 74.2% 98.9% Won 66% Indian VAP State Rep. Glacier County 1996 Primary 56.0% 91.9% Won 51% Indian VAP U.S. Rep. 39 Of these 10 contests, there were 7 (6 in HDs 73, 74, and 86 and 1 in Lake County) in which American Indians constituted a minority of the voting age population. In each of these 7 contests, a majority of white and Indian voters preferred a different candidate (i.e., it was a split-preference election). In 6 of these 7 elections (86%), the Indian candidate (who was also the Indian-preferred candidate) lost. In each of those 6 losses, over 61% of white voters supported the white candidate. 40 In 3 of the 10 elections (two in HD 85 and one in Glacier County), American Indians constituted a majority of the voting age population. In each of those contests, whites and Indians preferred a different candidate. In each case, the American Indian (and Indian preferred) candidate won. 41 If all eight of the districts challenged at trial are considered, the statistics are similar. There were 17 contests between white and Indian candidates subject to BERA analysis, 6 primary and 11 general election contests. Of the 6 contests in majority-Indian jurisdictions, the Indian (and Indianpreferred) candidate won all 6. Of the 11 contests in majoritywhite jurisdictions, the Indian (and Indian-preferred) candidate was defeated in 7 contests (64%) by a white vote in excess of 60%. All 4 of the victories by an Indian candidate in a majority-white jurisdiction were represented by the victory of Democrat Bill Yellowtail in the 1996 Democratic primary for Montana's sole seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Thus, the contests between white and Indian candidates suggest white bloc voting was legally significant within the meaning of the third Gingles factor. 42