Opinion ID: 111736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the legal significance of some black candidates' success

Text: North Carolina and the United States maintain that the District Court failed to accord the proper weight to the success of some black candidates in the challenged districts. Black residents of these districts, they point out, achieved improved representation in the 1982 General Assembly election. [35] They also note that blacks in House District 23 have enjoyed proportional representation consistently since 1973 and that blacks in the other districts have occasionally enjoyed nearly proportional representation. [36] This electoral success demonstrates conclusively, appellants and the United States argue, that blacks in those districts do not have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. 42 U. S. C.  1973(b). Essentially, appellants and the United States contend that if a racial minority gains proportional or nearly proportional representation in a single election, that fact alone precludes, as a matter of law, finding a  2 violation. Section 2(b) provides that [t]he extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office . . . is one circumstance which may be considered. 42 U. S. C.  1973(b). The Senate Committee Report also identifies the extent to which minority candidates have succeeded as a pertinent factor. S. Rep., at 29. However, the Senate Report expressly states that the election of a few minority candidates does not `necessarily foreclose the possibility of dilution of the black vote,'  noting that if it did, the possibility exists that the majority citizens might evade [ 2] by manipulating the election of a `safe' minority candidate. Id., at 29, n. 115, quoting Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F. 2d 1297, 1307 (CA5 1973) (en banc), aff'd sub nom. East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U. S. 636 (1976) (per curiam) . The Senate Committee decided, instead, to  `require an independent consideration of the record.'  S. Rep., at 29, n. 115. The Senate Report also emphasizes that the question whether the political processes are `equally open' depends upon a searching practical evaluation of the `past and present reality.'  Id., at 30 (footnote omitted). Thus, the language of  2 and its legislative history plainly demonstrate that proof that some minority candidates have been elected does not foreclose a  2 claim. Moreover, in conducting its independent consideration of the record and its searching practical evaluation of the `past and present reality,'  the District Court could appropriately take account of the circumstances surrounding recent black electoral success in deciding its significance to appellees' claim. In particular, as the Senate Report makes clear, id., at 29, n. 115, the court could properly notice the fact that black electoral success increased markedly in the 1982 election ÔÇö an election that occurred after the instant lawsuit had been filed ÔÇö and could properly consider to what extent the pendency of this very litigation [might have] worked a one-time advantage for black candidates in the form of unusual organized political support by white leaders concerned to forestall single-member districting. [37] 590 F. Supp., at 367, n. 27. Nothing in the statute or its legislative history prohibited the court from viewing with some caution black candidates' success in the 1982 election, and from deciding on the basis of all the relevant circumstances to accord greater weight to blacks' relative lack of success over the course of several recent elections. Consequently, we hold that the District Court did not err, as a matter of law, in refusing to treat the fact that some black candidates have succeeded as dispositive of appellees'  2 claim. Where multimember districting generally works to dilute the minority vote, it cannot be defended on the ground that it sporadically and serendipitously benefits minority voters.
The District Court did err, however, in ignoring the significance of the sustained success black voters have experienced in House District 23. In that district, the last six elections have resulted in proportional representation for black residents. This persistent proportional representation is inconsistent with appellees' allegation that the ability of black voters in District 23 to elect representatives of their choice is not equal to that enjoyed by the white majority. In some situations, it may be possible for  2 plaintiffs to demonstrate that such sustained success does not accurately reflect the minority group's ability to elect its preferred representatives, [38] but appellees have not done so here. Appellees presented evidence relating to black electoral success in the last three elections; they failed utterly, though, to offer any explanation for the success of black candidates in the previous three elections. Consequently, we believe that the District Court erred, as a matter of law, in ignoring the sustained success black voters have enjoyed in House District 23, and would reverse with respect to that District.