Document: 478 U.S. 30 106 S.Ct. 2752 92 L.Ed.2d 25 Lacy H. THORNBURG, et al., Appellantsv.Ralph GINGLES al. No. 83-1968. Argued Dec. 4, 1985. Decided June 30, 1986. Syllabus In 1982, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a legislative redistricting plan for State's Senate and House of Representatives. Appellees, black citizens who are registered to vote, brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging one single-member district six multimember districts on ground, inter alia, that impaired citizens' ability elect representatives their choice violation § 2 Voting Rights Act 1965. After appellees suit, but before trial, was amended, largely response Mobile v. Bolden, 446 55, 100 1490, 64 47, make clear could be proved by showing discriminatory effect alone, rather than having show purpose, establish as relevant legal standard "results test." Section 2(a), prohibits State or political subdivision from imposing any voting qualifications prerequisites voting, standards, practices, procedures result denial abridgment right citizen vote account race color. 2(b), provides 2(a) is violated where "totality circumstances" reveals "the processes leading nomination election . not equally open participation members [protected class] its have less opportunity other electorate participate process choice," extent which protected class been elected office circumstance may considered. The Court applied test set forth 2(b) held because it resulted dilution votes all >>disputed districts. Appellants, Attorney others, took direct appeal this with respect five Held: judgment affirmed part reversed part. 590 F.Supp. 345, Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, IV-A, V, concluding that: 1. Minority voters contend form districting violates must prove use electoral structure operates minimize cancel out preferred candidates. While many factors listed Report claim through submergence districts, unless there conjunction following circumstances, generally will impede minority choice. Stated succinctly, bloc majority usually able defeat candidates supported politically cohesive, geographically insular group. relevance existence racial twofold: ascertain whether group constitute cohesive unit determine whites sufficiently minority's candidate. Thus, question given experiences legally significant requires discrete inquiries into white practices. A number same way proving cohesiveness necessary claim, consequently establishes within meaning 2. And, general, normally combined strength support plus "crossover" rises level voting. Because loss power distinct mere inability win particular election, pattern extends over period time more probative polarization results single election. elections shown polarized, fact racially polarized present few does necessarily negate conclusion Furthermore, success candidate did experience Here, Court's approach, tested data derived three years each question, revealed blacks strongly candidates, while, candidates' usual detriment, rarely did, satisfactorily addresses facet proper Pp. 52-61. language history plainly demonstrate proof some foreclose claim. err, matter law, refusing treat succeeded dispositive appellees' claims. Where works dilute cannot defended ground sporadically serendipitously benefits voters. 74-76. 3. clearly-erroneous Rule Civil Procedure 52(a) appropriate appellate review ultimate findings dilution. As both amended clear, evaluating statutory districting, trial court consider determine, based upon practical evaluation past realities, case, carefully considered totality circumstances found voting; legacy official discrimination matters, education, housing, employment, health services; persistence campaign appeals prejudice acted concert scheme impair groups 77-79. BRENNAN, joined MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, concluded Part III-C purposes 2, concept relates claims dilution—that is, when used candidates—refers only correlation between selection certain Plaintiffs need causation intent order prima facie case defendants rebut evidence intent. 61-73. WHITE, IV-B, erred, ignoring significance sustained experienced 23. persistent proportional representation residents last inconsistent allegation voters' equal enjoyed majority. P. 77. O'CONNOR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, Insofar statistical divergent patterns admitted solely assess prospects success, such rebutted explained causes race. However, reasons can overall inquiry, no rule against consideration concerning preferences patterns. 100-101. Consistent presumptively violation. erred assessing 39 22, well Except 23, despite these errors clearly erroneous. But 23 failed 101-105. J., announced JJ., joined, an III-C, joined. filed concurring opinion, post, p. 82. judgment, BURGER, C.J., POWELL 83. dissenting part, MARSHALL 106. Thornburg, Raleigh, N.C., appellants. Sol. Gen. Charles Fried United States, amicus curiae, appellants, special leave Court. Julius L. Chambers, Charlotte, appellees. STEVENS join, WHITE joins. 1 This we construe first 1965, 29, 1982. 42 U.S.C. 1973. specific decided three-judge convened Eastern pursuant 28 2284(a) 1973c, correctly impairing "to choice." 96 Stat. 134. * BACKGROUND 3 April challenged seven single-member1 multimember2 alleging Fourteenth Fifteenth Amendments States Constitution Act.3 4 Congress amendment plurality 47 (1980), had declared that, either Amendments, contested mechanism intentionally adopted maintained state officials purpose. substantially revised alone test," White Regester, 412 755, 93 2332, 37 314 (1973), federal courts supra. S.Rep. 97-417, 97th Cong.2nd Sess. (1982), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 177, 205 (hereinafter S.Rep.). 5 134, reads follows: 6 "(a) No qualification prerequisite standard, practice, procedure shall imposed manner abridgement color, contravention guarantees section 4(f)(2), provided subsection (b). 7 "(b) (a) established if, considered: Provided, That nothing numbers proportion population." Codified at 8 Judiciary Committee accompanying bill elaborates might violation, noting "typical factors":4 9 "1. touched register, otherwise democratic process; 10 "2. polarized; 11 "3. has unusually large requirements, anti-single shot provisions, practices enhance group; 12 "4. if slating process, denied access 13 "5. bear effects areas employment health, hinder effectively 14 "6. campaigns characterized overt subtle appeals; 15 "7. public jurisdiction. 16 "Additional cases value plaintiffs' are: 17 "whether lack responsiveness particularized needs 18 policy underlying subdivision's qualification, practice tenuous." S.Rep., 28-29, 206-207. 19 and, relying principally outlined Report, disputed light conclusion, reach constitutional Gingles Edmisten, 345 (EDNC 1984). 20 Preliminarily, constituted population registered-voter district. noted were created, concentrations boundaries contiguous effective majorities lying wholly With district, also existed concentration those adjoining sufficient contiguity then proceeded find votes. 21 First, officially discriminated exercise franchise approximately 1900 1970 employing different times poll tax, literacy test, prohibition bullet (single-shot) voting5 designated seat plans6 observed even after removal barriers voter registration, tax registration remained relatively depressed; 1982 52.7% age-qualified statewide whereas 66.7% registered. depressed levels traceable, least historical discrimination. 22 Second, historic services lower socioeconomic status whites. gives rise interests hinders blacks' Third, operate lessen It requirement primary while acknowledging requirement, nonetheless presents continuing impediment minorities remarked subdistrict residency offset disadvantages often 24 Fourth, encouraged along color lines appealing prejudice. record replete examples appeals, ranging style blatant furtive, date 1890's 1984 Senate. determined persists day current degree Fifth, examined Carolina, found, among things, prior World War century. recognizing "it now become possible government Carolina," F.Supp., 367, comparison running office, disadvantage terms relative probability success. rate minimal relation percentage total population. For example, noted, 1971 two-to-four 120-member Representatives—that 1.6% 3.3% black. From 1975 1983 two 50-member Senate—that 2% 4% Senators By contrast, about 22.4% 26 century see Appendix B ---, 36—after lawsuit began. Similarly, served 1975-1980. Before twice (part Forsyth County); contest elected. Since 1973 2-year term (Durham County), Durham County. (Wake House, another ever area covered 8, person 27 acknowledge improved elections, Representatives, including issue here. pointed conducted commencement litigation. aberrational too recent long complete elective opportunities impaired. Finally, polarized. Based presented expert witnesses, supplemented testimony lay exhibit severe 29 findings, portions violative enjoined appellants conducting plan. 1253, districts—House Districts 21, 36, 39, 22. Appellants argue, first, utilized incorrect determining cognizable under they definition thus erroneously relied maintain assigned wrong weight argue counterparts We probable jurisdiction, 471 1064, 105 2137, 85 495 (1985), affirm except regard reversed. II SECTION AND VOTE DILUTION THROUGH USE OF MULTIMEMBER DISTRICTS 31 An understanding appellants' contentions. then, detail. explain theoretical basis ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 32 Subsection subdivisions member minorities. reveal explaining "[t]he considered" alleged cautions "nothing [§ 2] 33 accompanied amendments nature violations required violations.7 First foremost, dispositively rejects position discriminate voters.8 See, e.g., 15-16, 27. repudiated principal reasons—it "unnecessarily divisive involves charges racism individual entire communities," places "inordinately difficult" burden plaintiffs, "asks question." Id., 214. "right" emphasizes repeatedly, "as plaintiffs do choice."9 28, 206. See id., 27, n. 118, 36. 34 answer impact "on objective factors." 205. specifies typically claim: voting-related subdivision; tend group, prohibitions exclusion processes; campaigns; 28-29; supra, ----. notes demonstrating unresponsive tenuous value. 29. stresses, however, list typical neither comprehensive nor exclusive. enumerated pertinent types violations, particularly claims,10 29-30. "there proved, them point other." 207. Rather, 'equally open' depends searching 'past reality,' " 208 (footnote omitted), "functional" view process. 120, 208. 35 Although espouses flexible, fact-intensive limits ways. devices, at-large per se devices unequal 16. allegedly dilutive Ibid. assume it. 33. 36 Appellees decision employ multimember, single-member, jurisdictions dilutes submerging majority,11 choice.12 38 essence interacts social conditions cause inequality representatives. recognized schemes 'operate [minorities in] population.' "13 Burns Richardson, 384 73, 88, 86 1286, 1294, 376 (1966) (quoting Fortson Dorsey, 379 433, 439, 498, 501, 401 (1965)). Rogers Lodge, 458 613, 617, 102 3272, 3275, 73 1012 (1982); U.S., 765, S.Ct., 2339; Whitcomb Chavis, 403 124, 143, 91 1858, 1869, 363 (1971). type impairment consistently prefer majority, virtue numerical superiority, regularly choices voters.14 Grofman, Alternatives, Representation Redistricting Issues 113-114. Multimember schemes, rights. Cf. 3275; Whitcomb, 142, 1868. choice.15 Bonapfel 355; Blacksher Menefee 34; Butler 903; Carpeneti 696-699; Davidson, Vote Dilution: Overview Davidson), Dilution 4; Alternatives 117. 105, 3, 1520, (MARSHALL, dissenting) ("It obvious greater homogeneous occurs majority-minority lines, diluted districting"). These preconditions reasons. compact district.16 If not, would integrated multi-member responsible candidates.17 Rogers, 616, 3275. also, 51-56, 58; 696; Davidson Jewell 130. cohesive. said thwarts distinctive interests. 51-55, 58-60, 344; 696-697; 4. enable it—in absence unopposed, see, infra, 26—usually 51, 53, 56-57, 60. 616-617, 3274-3275; 158-159, 1877; McMillan Escambia County, Fla., 748 F.2d 1037, 1043 (CA5 establishing circumstance, demonstrates impedes chosen 40 observe predictability majority's distinguishes structural occasional Davis Bandemer, 109, 131-133, 139-140, 2797, ----, (1986) (opinion J.); 111, 7, 1523, dissenting); 153, 1874. 57, 333; Note, Geometry Geography: Racial Gerrymandering Act, 94 Yale L.J. 189, 200, 66 (1984) Geography). III RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING 41 Having stated general principles turn arguments curiae addressing voting.18 describe treatment Next, element contention employed DISTRICT COURT'S TREATMENT 43 investigation credited offered Dr. Bernard Grofman. Grofman collected evaluated 53 involving candidacies. originally districts.19 subjected complementary methods analysis extreme bivariate ecological regression analysis20—in differed behavior. analytic techniques yielded races, estimates percentages voted 44 court's initial three-part inquiry: candidates; statistically significant; difference "substantively significant"? basis, correlated.21 accepted Grofman's voter's significant.22 adopting terminology, Tr. 195, elections23 "so marked substantively significant, sense depending voters." 368. 45 reported tabulated written form, high most extremely reluctant won elections. instances, incumbency opposition, diminution accounted suggested reliance factor successful efforts it, "in degree." 367. 46 DEGREE BLOC THAT IS LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT UNDER Appellants' Arguments 48 lead congressional maintains occur whenever "less 50% cast ballot candidate." Brief always 39-40. 49 hand, isolates line identifies test. According deemed exist 'the election.' Amicus Curiae 368). read differently. 50 Standard Legally Significant Bloc 51 states "extent polarized," 206, Further, commentators agree key F.2d, 1043; Marengo County Comm'n, 731 1546, 1566 (CA11), dism'd cert. denied, 469 976, 375, 83 311 (1984); Nevett Sides, 571 209, 223 1978), 951, 2916, 807 (1980); Johnson Halifax 594 161, 170 1984); Menefee; Engstrom Wildgen, 465, 469; Parker 107; Geography 199. Because, below, varies according several factual constitutes threshold vary Nonetheless, proceed so. 52 purpose inquiring 59-60, 344, consequently, context amount "minimize cancel," 205; 2339, choice, factors, mechanism; presence potentially posts, size district; seats field.24 874-876; 5; Jones, Impact Local Election Systems Black Political Representation, Urb.Aff.Q. (1976); Commission Rights, Act: Unfulfilled Goals 38-41 (1981). 1874, election.25 61; ("Racial should seen attribute polity viewed time. concern temporal evil avoided subordination American politics, individuals contests"). Also reason, election; opponent, incumbency, utilization contest.26 54 apparent, variety circumstances. Consequently, simple doctrinal foregoing provide substantial guidance Utilized 55 simplistic identified Carolina—legally although utilize measure 'substantive significance" ascribes it—" voters,' 368)—the mechanical standard.27 phrase exactly do, fair reading conforms our standard. 56 here apparent reproduced overwhelming almost every ranged 71% 92%; Democratic 87% 96%. 57 sharp contrast strong rarely, ever, 8% 50%, 28% 49%. ibid. average, 81.7% ranked next multicandidate field, heavily Democrats, further two-thirds Republican one.28 58 expressly refused would, course events, rest analysis. exception sporadic electing ---. closely evidence, studied exists essentially unopposed conferred candidates,29 very preference candidates,30 reaching 59 conclude C EVIDENCE 60 Argument 61 finding They "racially voting" must, refer analyses merely demonstrated determinant choices. multiple analysis, take variables choices, "party affiliation, age, religion, income[,] expenditures," 42, "media measured cost, name, identification, distance lived precinct," behavior.31 62 Whether believe candidate's unclear; indeed, catalogs suggest both.32 Age, income, education seem voter; expenditures, name media candidate; party affiliation disagree: incorporates means simply correlates refers situation races (or groups) blocs Migalski, Noviello 203. theory thwart goals sought achieve prevent performing 119, 208, "searching mandated Report. Causation Irrelevant Inquiry 63 reason reject argument caused race, correlated voter, differently central inquiry crucial inquiry. Both itself critical explained, blacks. made whites—not difference—that test" correlation, matters. 65 irrelevance why supports, itself, rejection contains serious flaws merit attention. addition irrelevant distorts equation yields indisputably Race Voter Primary Determinant Behavior 67 primarily characteristics. 68 problem ignores ethnic frequently share characteristics, income level, status, housing living conditions, language, so forth. 902 (Minority "members' shared concerns, ones, function involuntary. concerned, police brutality, substandard unemployment, etc., problems fall disproportionately group"); S. Verba N. Nie, Participation America 151-152 (1972) ("Socioeconomic related Blacks society likely lower-status jobs whites, incomes"). characteristics shared, denotes place origin, functions shorthand notation common economic pernicious causally ethnicity. influenced holds low incomes menial jobs—when attributable discrimination—runs counter Report's instruction conduct reality, interferes eliminate negative 5, 40. 69 uncontrovertible defeated dismissed failure populations described 70 To illustrate, mixed, urban possess attributes annual mean $10,465, 47.8% community lives poverty. More half 51.5%—of adults age eighth-grade less. Just reside own homes; 48.9% live rental units. third households without car. 12.6% below poverty line. Whites enjoy $19,042. better educated blacks—only 25.6% 26.2% units, 10.2% vehicle available. App., Ex-44. hypothetical never representative 71 choose lose rejected chose candidate, best represented who, incomes, interested government-subsidized welfare poorly educated, interest job training programs; are, community, concerned rent control issues; favor major transportation expenditures. due levels, property ownership, gentrification, residential taxes, extensive expenditures street highway improvements. 72 intended leads admonition reality. 30. denies permits reality functional contrary Congress' proposed though engage "monolithic" 33, 211, generations unable interpretation creates irreconcilable tension statement health" logic anomalous leads—that intended, predominately poor, uneducated, unhealthy tending violation; greatly influence destroy important elements 74 Candidate 75 Carolina's States' suggestion select misplaced. 76 phenomenon mandate "have (Emphasis added.) representatives, blacks, Letter Editor Chandler New Perspectives (Fall 1985). Indeed, facts illustrate tendency—blacks convenience, "black candidate" "white directly Under important. 77 how conclusion. whom interaction law III, tends shows Clearly, 59-60; Should Representatives Typical?, 98; 78 hostile opposed spent campaigns, coverage, recognition fails another, independent reason. argument, like ballot, render meaningless group's participation. 79 eradicate inequalities vestigial purposeful 40; H.R.Rep. 97-227, suffer inferior poor opportunities, incomes. 768-769, 2340-2341; Kirksey Board Supervisors Hinds Miss., 554 139, 145-146 (CA5) (en banc), 434 968, 98 512, 454 (1977). 152 (1972). acknowledges tendency instructs process," 206 Courts spend money Graves Barnes, 343 704, 720-721 (WD Tex.1972), aff'd rev'd sub nom. Berry Dye 88; Fraga, Nonpartisan Slating Groups At-Large Setting, 122-123; Derfner 554, 126; 131; Karnig, City Councils, 223, 230 (1976). If, earn financial theirs. losses opponents outspent them. But, instance, afford hold holding hand deter Accord, (" '[T]he solicit discrimination' ") Dallas 739 1529, 1536 (CA11 1984)); 1567. 80 Animosity 81 hostility toward candidates.33 accept frustrate repudiating 82 amending local governments maintaining mechanism.34 fail governmental bodies. Engstrom, Reincarnation Intent Standard: Judges Cases, How. (1985). abandoned heard persuasive unnecessarily communities." Arthur Flemming, Chairman persuasive. He testified: 84 '[Under test] [l]itigators representing excluded explore motivations council members, mayors, citizens. decisions motivated invidious considerations. Such divisive, threatening existing progress community. brand racist obtain judicial relief.' omitted). grave threat harmony perceived requiring adoption maintenance much animosity old succeed limited racist; new relief. difficult imagine requirement. second placed burden" plaintiffs. equally, more, burdensome. hostility—determined ballots, causal correlate commentator explained: "Many the[se] impossible scientist operationalize interval-level equation, step-wise not. implies, moreover, prohibitively expensive. 87 "Compared sort effort, system inexpensive." McCrary, Discriminatory Intent: Continuing Relevance "Purpose" Evidence Vote-Dilution Lawsuits, 463, 492 (1985) 88 final Amended asks instead representatives." 89 Focusing voters, behavior question. All matters behavior, explanations. Moreover, detail, considerations actually result—contrary intent—in situations functionally totally remark test: "court separate intent, accepting involved [v. 314] [would] seriously clou[d] eradicating remaining instances elections." 37, 215. therefore decline adopt Summary 90 sum, dilution, IV LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE SOME BLACK CANDIDATES' SUCCESS A. accord out, achieved election.35 note since occasionally nearly representation.36 conclusively, 1973(b). Essentially, gains precludes, considered." factor. 'necessarily possibility vote,' evade manipulating 'safe' 115, 207, quoting Zimmer McKeithen, 485 1297, 1307 1973) East Carroll Parish School Marshall, 424 636, 1083, 296 (1976) (per curiam ). decided, instead, 'require record.' reality.' "independent record" appropriately surrounding deciding particular, makes properly notice increased markedly election—an occurred instant what pendency litigation [might have] worked one-time advantage unusual organized leaders forestall districting."37 95 Nothing statute prohibited viewing caution residents. 97 situations, accurately reflect representatives,38 done relating elections; utterly, though, offer explanation previous reverse District. V ULTIMATE DETERMINATION dispute deprived 99 matter, mixed subject de novo appeal. review, rely Bose Corp. Consumers Union Inc., 466 485, 104 1949, 502 (1984), reconfirmed "actual malice" defamation cases. application legal, factual, determination. Reply 7; 18-19. Neither cite precedents treated 52(a). 622-627, 3278-3281; Rome 156, 183, 1548, 1564, 119 765-770, 2339-2341. Anderson Bessemer City, 470 564, 573, 1504, 1511, 518 Texas 101 "we inclined overturn blend intensely appraisal design otherwise." 769-770, 2341. Quoting passage Regester approval, subsidiary issues, include diluting questions fact, reviewable 52(a)'s 622-623, 3278-3279. structures "discriminatory effect," review. 1565. 103 reaffirm "upon 'This determination peculiarly dependent case,' 621, 3277, 224 "an impact" mechanisms. 622, 3278. standards apply alter Bose, "does inhibit correct infect so-called predicated misunderstanding governing law." 1960, citing Pullman-Standard Swint, 456 273, 287, 1781, 1789, Inwood Laboratories, Inc. Ives 844, 855, 15, 2182, 2189, 606 (1982). preserves benefit familiarity indigenous endangering law. recent, limited, perhaps aberrational, disprove Excepting committed error, judgment. say composed judges acquainted realities State, Affirmed APPENDIX TO OPINION J. Percentages Votes Cast Voters 107 Candidates Five Contested 1978 (Alexander) 1980 n/a (Polk) (Blue) Barns (Repub.) Clement Spaulding (Maxwell) (Berry) (Richardson) Kennedy, Norman Ross Sumter Small Hauser 108 F. Supp., 369-371. 109 Elected Originally Prior 110 (No. Seats) 1972 1974 1976 (4) 0 (6) (3) (8) (5) (2) 111 table printed pages 9; App. 93-94. 112 concurring. 113 I join BRENNAN's IV-B. disagree opinion. 114 identifying irrelevant. regardless agree. Suppose eight-member 60% 40% black, being located safe drawn. Democrats Republicans. Republicans, elected, 80% predominantly Democratic. enough interest-group politics hedging doubt mind seems quite odds discussion 149-160, 1872-1878, draw voter/candidate distinction. reached except, my view, 115 REHNQUIST 116 called codify "results" (1971), "intent" propounded (1980). 27-28 (1982) Whereas Bolden created led results, "plaintiffs kind purpose." At time, unequivocally disclaims creation representation. disclaimer essential compromise amendment. 193-194 (additional views Sen. Dole). 117 construing legislation, effort faithful balance struck. easy task. know allow intend create There inherent wished avoid, reference large. addition, aspects received little attention Appeals relied. 32. Specifically, concepts "racial "minority strength" left unaddressed amended. 118 attempts resolve difficulties today. supplies definitions apparently applicable dictate adopts diminished expressly, combination concentrated doing, disregarded struck White. disagreement useful alternative plans likelihood prefers, emerge 120 Consider town 1,000 governed four 30% city bloc. assured submerged majorities. option give roughly 121 Alternatively, narrower 60%. 20% favored lose. sometimes representation, increase risk 122 minority. Unless backed unanimously him. support, support. 123 scheme, turned ran, receive 700 votes, 300 eight distributed evenly, fewer others 400 feasible 25% 475 ensure victory 70% variations show, submerge depend turnout, run, evenly spread, "bullet (which refrain casting avoid higher ante, 38-39, 5). 124 principle varying alternatives above single-district selected drawn powerful 125 speak "vote dilution," sense, impermissible groups." White, 2339. (1965). definition, conceals formidable difficulties. Is "voting assessed look avenues group? undiluted measured? How 2? What proved? actual face voting? 126 resolves summarily: prefers. Ante, ---- - unacceptably prefer. 127 evaluate construct "undiluted" strength. "[T]he [vote dilution] suggests norm ascertained." Mississippi Executive Brooks, 1002, 1012, 416, 422, (REHNQUIST, summary affirmance). Put simply, decide harder prefer, idea hard "should" acceptable system. 128 Several measures themselves. proportionality guide: area, potential area. posit "normal" "fair" attempt calculate probably scheme. seen, ways drawn, array risks benefits; might, therefore, range attempting estimate method. arrive maximize predicted alternative, truly "maximize" example scenario above, completely divided somewhat precarious 129 today variant wit, maximum district." 50. impaired.1 cohesive," supports "demonstrate .—usually requirements met, say, 130 invariable: assuming enough, possible, fails. meets serve Whatever indeed single, universal purposes, 131 posed above: satisfies permit. true Again, appears 132 taken measuring strength, amounts usual, sizable, compact, groups. plan, qualified favorable violated. approximates rough version 133 appreciate implications return illustration above. town's employs 40%, reasoning minority, entitled 80%. 134 sure, adds already contained acknowledges, 'crossover' voting." 56. define "legally follow. Otherwise, lost. 135 shaped today, basic contours require "Zimmer factors" developed Fifth Circuit implement highlighted Mc Keithen, 1297 curiam). routinely follow invalidated. subdivision," group," --- processes," health," ibid., campaigns," "elected group." Ibid.. Of course, supportive strengthen confidence overcome remains emerged, linchpin claims, entitlement framework 136 operating tandem, come closer absolute codified uniform 137 approach similar making preliminary assessment strength: 138 "At satisfy geographical configuration." 358-359 (EDNC1984). 139 goes beyond sustaining reasonable consistent invariably "undiluted "maximum strength." Even indication universally subdivision. raised issue, permissible broader approach. 140 propriety "[a]lthough considerable winning attain (i.e., population)," standing (emphasis original). holding, contravenes 2's proviso 141 characterization incorrect. compared 372.2 attached great action thereby 374. relies thorough indicates. 142 attained population, Surely other, strict comes close words Senator Dole, architect 2: 143 "The explicitly rejects, progeny, notion just factor, considered, dispositive." 194, 364 144 On reasoning, creating looking raw alone. actionable deviation Requiring possibly entitles follows 145 enacting employed, Amendment, Whitcomb. fill decisions, purport redefine instance 146 reflected processes. 766, 2339-40. potential," 765-766, 2339-40, flatly proposition "any halls numerous command represents 1875. contrary, "that question—that legislators "a disproportionate results" "strong indicia representation," met which, emphasized adverse unconstitutional dilution." 169-170, (plurality opinion). 147 When abandoning additional Bolden. bears resemblance emerged 2339-2340, "be constitute" 148 adhere followed, elaboration, bearing added). focus connection 132, employing, (POWELL, part). reviewing highly infrequent conclude, [the] grou[p]." 149 Only Justices validity offering divergence agree, affect answering attract future 150 explanations decisive willing account. bar indirect absent diverge. arbitrary whatever repeated emphasis "intensive politics," considerations," dominate process" aspect 33-34. conflicts disposition case. (concurring). 151 grudgingly aggregating study. 28. encompasses throughout Carolina. calls district," 2341, statistics ordinarily erroneous virtually accordingly undisturbed sole concludes "persistent representation" "sustained occasion 153 error. summarized shows, 82, B, widely offices came during successes, intermittent, dated back 1974, 154 drawing distinctions aggregate, since, states, district-specific." 59, asserts free suspicion elections," 76, technique consecutive 1978, Contrary thought, pre-1982 certainly lend 155 Despite frequent compel elect. presently degree, 372. together hence adequately supported. 156 finding, 36.3% 28.6% suspect, represent aberrant. 157 Zimmer's caveat foreclosing isolated 1307; pressed far. relied, scope caveat, contain remotely consistent, decade-long Turner 490 191 (no elected); Wallace 515 619 1975) (one elected), vacated grounds, 425 947, 1721, 158 propose always, rule, has, operated deny erroneous, giving preclusive effect. Accordingly, 159 challenge grounds impairs appraise reserve method assessment. once made, generally, chances Proof withhold minority-preferred ensures favor. towards "cancel minimize" 160 Compromise enforce compromises indispensable creation. strikes disclaimed 161 BLACKMUN 162 fairly summarizes, 37-41; 52-54, 23; 59-61, nn. 163 position. conclusive, presumption, 75-76 history.1 error failing emerges upheld normal "clearly erroneous" traditionally applies.2 164 1980, 23.3 1972, sufficient, years. summarizes findings: 165 conclusion." 80. 166 paraphrase choice.4 concur IV-B insofar explains reverses respecting consisted whole Northampton, Hertford, Gates, Bertie, Chowan Counties, parts Washington, Martin, Halifax, Edgecombe Counties. districts: (Mecklenburg Cabarrus Counties—four members), County—eight County—five County—six (Wilson, Nash, members). initiated September 1981, Assembly's July 1981 redistricting. recounted detail 350-358 suffices analytical refined courts, (1973) 113. Bullet 'Consider [a] 600 members. Each split him else. receives seat. single-shot Single-shot enables concentrates behind candidates.' 184, 19, 1565, Ten Years After, 206-207 (1975). Designated numbered) run seats, can, Rome, 185, 1566, 21. urges arguing conflicting "factions," somehow authoritative Reports. 12, 24, 49. persuaded anything us accorded weight. repeatedly source lies Reports bill. Garcia 70, 479, 483, 472 Zuber Allen, 396 168, 186, 314, 324, (1969). designed restore test"—the 15-16. pre-Bolden 1973), prevail denying chance 16, 193. perpetuate discrimination." 40, 218 notes, 'not active discrimination, Negroes register deal accumulation discrimination.' 182 Cong.Rec. 8295 (1965) (remarks Javits)). forms dispersal ineffective excessive Pruning Thorns Thicket: Empirical Test Existence Gerrymandering, Legis.Stud.Q. 465-466 (1977) Wildgen). Derfner, Discrimination Right Vote, Vand.L.Rev. 523, 553 Derfner); Parker, Legislative Reapportionment Parker), 86-100 (Davidson ed., 1984) Dilution). address attempted structure. permits, does, pertain to, respondents' groups, fully sorts splitting vote. Commentators widespread agreement Dye, Effects Elections, Fla.St.U.L.Rev. (1979) Dye); Menefee, Reynolds Sims Hastings Menefee); Bonapfel, Challenges Elections: Problem, Ga.L.Rev. 353 Bonapfel); Butler, Constitutional Statutory Structures: Value La.L.Rev. 851 Butler); Carpeneti, Apportionment: Fair U.Pa.L.Rev. 666 Carpeneti); Korbel, Elections Group 65; Derfner; B. Single-Member Plurality Districts: Legal Alternatives), (B. R. Lijphart, McKay, Scarrow eds., 1982) Issues); Hartman, Separation Powers, Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 689 Jewell, Consequences Single- Districting, Jewell); Resources Council J.Pol. (1979); 87-88. Not "[v]oting lines" deprive "allows ignore [minority] fear consequences," 623, 3279, leaving unrepresented. Typical Their Constituents?, 97; 108. challenges jurisdiction" polarized." present, lingering bias exists—for antibullet laws of, effectuates Congress. difficulty elect." 2(b). Wildgen 107. still seat, primacy awarded allege gerrymander this: injured practice. smallest spread small "To [that elections], putative whose residences blamed minority-supported [This standard] protect proximately plan; assure representation." 55-56 (footnotes omitted; interchangeably reapportionment original slightly modified. 8. literature 367-368, McDonald, Quantitative Litigation: Polarized Voting, Urb.Law. 369 (Summer 1985); Noviello, "Totality Circumstances Test" Extension Social Science Perspective, Law Policy 199 (Apr.1985) Noviello). polarization" correlation. definition—"racial relationship votes," 160, put differently, differently." We, too, bloc" polarized" positive relationships correlations happen chance. 368, D. Barnes Conley, Statistical Litigation 32-34 (1986); Fisher, Multiple Regression Proceedings, Colum.L.Rev. 702, 716-720 exceptions 31. illustrative, comprehensive. One sponsored sponsor begun recently, available examination significant." "substantive electorates. times, significant" stating aggregated ease reporting. specific. considering exhibits Exs. 2-10, aided gained ran uncontested 1980. interpreted unopposed. primary, succeed. condition, remarked, 63% incumbent—who 90% six-member delegation primaries did. additionally historically tantamount 55% declined field eight, seventh five-member eighth arguments. ambiguous. Lee Branch NAACP Opelika, 1473, 1482 Jones Lubbock, 730 233, 234 (Higginbotham, concurring). true, previously, fuel Jewish Organizations Carey, 430 144, 166, 996, 1010, 229 (1977); decision, motivation neutral; obviously remembered, observed, animus neutrality." race," "[I]t patently [clear] 'on color' 'with to' connote 27-28, follows. up 21.8% six-person delegation. three-person 26.5% 25.1% 24.3% points identical predecessor 1976, ("[W]e endorse polls forecloses occasion, work politicians, apprehending expedient, insure his Or considerations—namely grounds. situation, backwardness district"). express meet exists, note, artificiality distinction "ability [its] choice" "its elections" 46-47, 12. recognizes victories. forthcoming appear looked Nowhere correspond ("Section '[t]he considered.' "necessarily vote," ' "safe" candidate.' "require (internal citations ("[T]he law"). 60, 75-76. reverse—without remand—is mystifying. unfair. finds decisive. bother satisfied 77, ("We representatives"). couched "matter law," abrupt entry reflects unwillingness due, when, knowledge expertise directed consider.

Category: 1