Opinion ID: 200707
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: R.-C.L. L. Rev. 173, 202 (1989).

Text: Georgia v. Ashcroft, supra, confirms that influence 13 But see Brewer, 876 F.2d at 454 (requiring a majority even for plurality elections, reasoning that a plurality feature is of course more responsive to minority voter groups); McNeil v. Springfield Park Dist., 851 F.2d 937, 943-44 (7th Cir. 1988) (rejecting any showing of less than an absolute majority as unduly speculative). -21- districts, including crossover districts, are important to any practical assessment of minority voting power. In Georgia, the Court emphasized the fact-bound nature of VRA claims, holding that the retrogression inquiry under § 5, like the dilution inquiry under § 2, see 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b), requires an assessment of the totality of the circumstances. 123 S.Ct. at 2511. One reason for this broad factual inquiry, the Court indicated, is that [t]he ability of minority voters to elect a candidate of their choice is important but often complex in practice to determine. Id. Accordingly, the Court held, influence and crossover districts must be considered as part of that determination in the retrogression context. Id. at 2512. The Court also cited empirical studies indicating that such districts may maximize minority voting strength. Id. at 2512-13. We also consider relevant both modern and historical political realities. During the 1970s and 1980s, African-American populations usually could not elect representatives of their choice unless they constituted a majority in an electoral district. See generally Quiet Revolution in the South (C. Davidson & B. Grofman eds., 1994). Indeed, usually a mere majority was not sufficient; many believed that to overcome racial bloc voting patterns, the total minority population needed to be sixty-five percent. See Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1415-16 (7th Cir. 1984) (collecting sources). But the percentage of minority population -22- necessary to elect a candidate has been steadily declining. By 1990, fifty-five percent was generally considered sufficient. And thereafter, due to increased white crossover voting, the number has slipped below majority level. One study reported that during the 1990s, an African-American candidate could be elected from a congressional district that was between thirty-three and thirtynine percent African-American. B. Grofman, L. Handley & D. Lublin, Drawing Effective Minority Districts: A Conceptual Framework and Some Empirical Evidence, 79 N.C. L. Rev. 1383, 1407-09 (2001). The percentage of minority voters necessary to elect a candidate depends heavily on the political makeup of the district as a whole, see Pildes, supra, at 1535-36, a matter difficult to determine on a motion to dismiss a complaint. In sum, it is not an absolute bar to a claim under § 2 of the VRA that some amount of crossover voting is needed for a minority group to elect a candidate of its choice.14 See Armour v. 14 Our dissenting colleague engages in the sort of factual predictions that courts are forbidden to indulge on a motion to dismiss. See Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 2001) (refusing to engage in speculation on appeal from a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and instead assuming the truth of the averments in the complaint). The dissent assumes that a minimum level of crossover voting of 32% will be required for the AfricanAmerican minority to elect a candidate of its choice, and it assumes that only two-candidate contests are relevant. It assumes that the African-American voters' inability to elect their preferred candidate can much more readily be attributed to candidate-specific issues than to the reduction in the representation of the African-American community in the political process. It assumes that plaintiffs will establish no history of discrimination against black citizens in the political process. It -23- Ohio, 775 F. Supp. 1044, 1059-61 (N.D. Ohio 1991) (three-judge court); see also McNeil, 828 A.2d at 852-53; Powers, 263 F. Supp.