Opinion ID: 1151125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hispanic Assembly Districts in San Joaquin Valley

Text: MALDEF also contends the Masters should have adopted proposed plans for forming an assembly district in southern San Joaquin Valley that would have been 60 percent Hispanic by population. According to MALDEF, the Masters' two proposed districts (Assem. Dists. 30 and 31) contain an insufficient number of Hispanics. As the Masters' Report explains (Report, pp. 774-775, infra ), the challenged districts were in fact constructed to maximize the [Hispanic] presence in the San Joaquin Valley, and thereby assure preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. (Report, p. 774, infra. ) Thus, Assembly District 30 (which contains Kings County, a section 5 preclearance county) is comprised of 49.5 percent Hispanic population (and a 60 percent combined minority population), while Assembly District 31 is comprised of 52.2 percent Hispanic population (and a combined minority population of nearly 69 percent). ( Id., p. 775.) By nesting the two districts, the Masters were able to produce a senate district (Sen. Dist. 16) of nearly 51 percent Hispanic population. ( Id., p. 775.) The changes proposed by MALDEF would unnecessarily divide Kern County, would risk possible challenge under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973c) by reducing the minority percentage of the new district that includes Kings County, and would conflict with the position of the Kern County Latino Coalition, which endorses the Masters' plans in this area.