Opinion ID: 763120
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Political cohesion

Text: 23 The second Gingles precondition is that the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 51, 106 S.Ct. 2752. The Court reasoned that if a minority group does not tend to vote together, the challenged electoral system cannot be responsible for the group's alleged inability to elect candidates of its choice. See id. As explained by the Court, it is the plaintiff's burden to show that voters in the minority group have a candidate, regardless of that candidate's race, that the group would prefer to elect. See id. at 67-70, 106 S.Ct. 2752. Although the Court did not set out a precise mathematical formula to determine when a minority group is cohesive, it indicated that a showing that a significant number of minority voters usually vote for the same candidate would satisfy the plaintiff's burden. Id. at 56, 106 S.Ct. 2752. 24 At trial, witnesses for the class repeatedly testified as to their belief that blacks tend to vote for blacks and whites tend to vote for whites. The class, however, presented no statistical evidence to support these claims. Only the Adrine Report, an analysis of judicial elections involving the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas authored by Judge Ronald B. Adrine of the Cleveland Municipal Court, purports to supply such evidence. Judge Adrine testified, however, that his report was not a statistical analysis of racial bloc voting, or, more importantly, a study of all of the challenged districts. 25 The state, on the other hand, offered the testimony of Dr. Gary King, a Harvard professor and Director of the Harvard/MIT Data Center. According to the district court, he is the world's foremost authority on the statistical analysis of racial bloc voting. Dr. King's techniques have been widely recognized in the academic community and utilized in other voting rights cases. Dr. King concluded that the evidence did not show a consensus candidate of choice among African-Americans in the challenged districts. He further found that the degree of racial bloc voting varied widely from election to election, and that candidates supported by African-Americans were routinely supported by significant numbers of Caucasian voters. Finally, Dr. King concluded that there was no legally significant racially polarized voting in any of the challenged districts. He found numerous instances in which African-American candidates were elected with the significant support, sometimes even by a majority, of Caucasian voters. 26 On appeal, the class makes no claim that the district court erred in concluding that the minorities did not vote as a bloc in the challenged judicial districts, nor does it point to any evidence that the district court overlooked. The district court's decision was based on the only testimony presented by either party regarding the actual electoral results in the challenged districts. It was required to make a finding of fact, and it chose to rely on the valid, comprehensive scientific study by Dr. King instead of an unscientific report on a single judicial district and the subjective experience of several voters. We find no error in the decision of the district court to accept the state's version of the facts.