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

Heading: Bloc voting

Text: 27 The final Gingles precondition is that 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--usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 51, 106 S.Ct. 2752 (internal citation omitted). The Court explained that by satisfying this third precondition, the minority group establishes that its submergence in a Caucasian multimember district impedes its ability to elect its chosen representatives. See id. 28 In explaining the differences between this precondition and the previous one, this court has stated that 29 [b]oth the second and third Gingles pre-conditions thus require a court to consider the voting behavior of different races. However, the inquiry in the second pre-condition differs from that involved in the third: the former asks merely whether voters of the same race tend to vote alike, and the latter evaluates whether a bloc-voting majority can routinely outvote the minority, thereby impair[ing] the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice. 30 Cousin v. Sundquist, 145 F.3d 818, 823 (6th Cir.1998) (second bracket in original) (quoting Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994)). 31 At trial, the class presented no evidence that Caucasians tend to vote as a bloc, other than the unsubstantiated testimony of various African-American voters. Such testimony was contradicted by Dr. King, who found no evidence of legally significant racially polarized bloc voting. On appeal, the class was unable to point to any evidence that the district court overlooked on this issue. We therefore conclude that the district court committed no error in finding that the class failed to sustain its burden of proving bloc voting by the Caucasian majority.