Opinion ID: 763120
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Anti-single shot devices

Text: 44 Finally, the class contends that the use of anti-single shot devices in the challenged courts dilutes minority voting opportunities. Anti-single-shot devices are electoral elements that prevent voters from concentrating all of a voter's available votes for a single candidate. Examples include numbered posts, by which, say, four open seats are filled in four separate contests instead of one, or staggered terms, such that only one seat is filled in any given election. It is undisputed that Ohio in fact utilizes numbered posts. 45 This claim is essentially an alternate theory of liability under the Voting Rights Act. Because it was apparently not raised in the district court below, the class has waived its right to argue the point on appeal. See White v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 899 F.2d 555, 559 (6th Cir.1990) (This court will not decide issues or claims not litigated before the district court.) Furthermore, the claim is unavailing in any event because the class is still required to prove the same Gingles preconditions to make out a dilution claim, regardless of the precise mechanism alleged to be its cause. Because these preconditions were not established, this claim is without merit.