Opinion ID: 727396
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: District Court's Application of Gingles

Text: 36 In posing the first Gingles' question, the district court misfocused its inquiry. It asked, Is the Hispanic population sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in the Plaintiffs' proposed H.D. 60? 861 F.Supp. at 1524 (italics added). The district court proceeded to answer its question, looking to facts about the geographical uniqueness of the Valley, its agri-industries, and cities. Against these facts and the various mathematical tests used to determine compactness, the court concluded, based on principles of contiguity, preservation of communities of interest, and minimizing the splitting of counties and municipalities, the proposed alternative H.D. 60 is not compact. Id. at 1525. It found plaintiffs' alternative split too many counties, was not contiguous, would erode the number of political offices held by Hispanics in the Valley and in the adjacent districts, and burden representatives attempting to visit such a large, geographically dispersed district. Id. We have no quarrel with any of these findings. However, they do not address whether plaintiffs have established the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district. 478 U.S. at 50, 106 S.Ct. at 2766. 37 As we have noted, satisfaction of the first precondition requires plaintiffs show a majority-Hispanic district is feasible; a remedy is possible. The evidence surely established the Hispanic population is sufficiently large, the current district including 48.82% Hispanic population. Under Justice Kennedy's definition, the Hispanic population is also compact; for example, representing as much as 76.8% of Costilla County and at least 40% of both Alamosa and Rio Grande Counties. Nonetheless, as stated, the Valley alone does not contain sufficient population to satisfy the federal requirement of one person, one vote. In judging plaintiffs' proposed alternative, which necessarily had to exceed the Valley's bounds, the district court focused only on the shape of the geographical boundaries rather than the size and concentration of the minority population. Houston v. Lafayette County, Miss., 56 F.3d at 611. 38 When plaintiffs proposed an alternative, Gingles required no more. While that proposal splits more counties and two cities, much of its irregularity results from its maintaining the integrity of precinct lines throughout and observing natural boundaries created by the region's geography. Even under the Colorado Constitution, compactness is not a fixed principle, but a measure of combining like regions and natural boundaries in the shortest aggregate linear distance. Colo. Const. art. V, § 47(1). 16 Indeed, the Commission crafted HD 7, which includes the city of Denver extended eastward to wrap around Denver International Airport with no aesthetic ideal in mind. Clark, 21 F.3d at 95. Nevertheless, plaintiffs, with minimal time on the State's computer used to draw districts, provided a feasible alternative. 17 Under Gingles, plaintiffs satisfied their burden by showing that feasibility. Drawing the necessary district is not their onus because the State must be given the first opportunity to fashion a remedy. Id. 18 39 We would also note by comparison to the districts the Court recently found bizarre in Shaw II and Bush, plaintiffs' proposed district is non-objectionable. Again, as Justice Kennedy distinguished, there is no benchmark here against which the proposed alternative district may be measured. Instead, the plaintiffs have demonstrated, as the evidence established, the Hispanic population is sufficiently large and compact to indicate the possibility of a remedy. Notwithstanding the conceptual burdens invested in the analysis, the district court's interpretation of this precondition unfortunately mischaracterized plaintiffs' burden and incorporated considerations and attributes to the requirement that are irrelevant to the inquiry. That is, while compact districting may facilitate the representation of political communities, Expressive Harms at 501, and we recognize the role of communities of interest in the districting process, at this stage, the district court overburdened plaintiffs' showing with concerns better left for its later analysis. This misdirected view of the law led the district court to erroneously find plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving the first Gingles' precondition. 40