Opinion ID: 1151125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Objections of the State Board of Equalization (Board)

Text: (10) The Board's primary argument is that the Masters' plan does not adequately protect minority interests in the area of proposed Board District 4 by creating a minority influence district of sufficient strength. The Board suggests that an Asian incumbent Board member (Fong, a Republican) may be unable to prevail in this new district. Yet the Masters' proposed district has a majority of combined minorities, and indeed a higher percentage of minorities than the Board's proposal. Although the Board criticizes the Masters' plan for failing to construct the district so as to exclude the residence of another incumbent member (who is White), the Masters followed a consistent policy of not considering the residences of incumbents in drawing district lines, and we do not believe that policy violates the Voting Rights Act, particularly in these circumstances. Finally, the Masters noted that the Board's proposed plan would split three counties, whereas the Masters' plan splits only one. (Report, p. 794, infra. )