Bethune Hill

8/20/2019 Bethune Hill

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bethune-hill 1/176

IN

THE

U NIT ED ST ATES

D I S TR I CT

COURT

FOR THE EASTERN

DISTR ICT

OF

V IRG IN IA

R i c hm o n d

Division

J

T 2 2

2 15

CLERK

U S DISTRICT COURT

RICHMOND.

VA

GOLDEN

BETHUNE-HILL,

Plaintiffs

V

VIRGIN IA

STATE BOARD OF

ELECTIONS ^ a l . ,

Defendants

Civil

Action

No.

3 : 1 4 c v 8 5 2

MEMORANDUM

OP IN ION

ROBERT E. PAYNE

Sen i o r

Di s t r i c t Judge :

This case cha l lenges th e con s t i t u t i ona l i t y of twelve

Virginia

House

of Delegates

d i s t r i c t s

the

Challenged

Dis t r ic t s as

r a c i a l gerrymanders

in

vio la t ion of

the

Equal

P ro t e c t i o n

Clause

o f

th e

Four t e en th

Amendment to

th e

Con s t i t u t i o n o f th e Uni t ed S t a t e s .

The

ca s e

is r i p e

f o r

decis ion fo l lowing

a

four-day bench t r i a l

a t

which the pa r t i e s

presen ted ora l tes t imony and offered

numerous

exhib i t s . Our

f indings of

fac t

are based on our assessm ent of

the

record

and

are

grounded

in

our determinat ions re sp ec t in g th e

c red ib i l i t y

of

the witnesses

Our con c lu s ion s o f law add r e s s

th e s e v e r a l

l e g a l i s su e s

presen t ed

by

the pa r t i e s . In pa r t i cu la r ,

we have

determined

t h a t it is

th e

bu rd en

o f th e

Plaintiffs to p rove by a

Case 3:14-cv-00852-REP-GBL-BMK Document 108 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 176 PageID# 2957



p reponde r ance o f th e ev idence t h a t

r a ce was

th e predomina te

f a c t o r

mot iva t i ng

th e dec i s i on to

p l a c e

a s i g n i f i c a n t

number

o f

vo t e r s wi th in o r wi thou t

a

pa r t i c u l a r

district

in t h a t , a s to

each

o f tho se districts Vi r g i n i a s

Genera l

Assembly

subord ina ted r a ce -neu t r a l d i s t r i c t i ng p r i nc ip l e s to r a c i a l

cons ide ra t ions when forming th e d i s t r i c t . Based on t h i s

l ega l

s t anda rd

and th e

r e co rd , we have

conc luded

t h a t , excep t a s

to

House

Dis t r i c t

75

th e P l a i n t i f f s

have

not

c a r r ie d th at

burden

and

t h a t

r a ce

was

no t

shown

to

have been

th e

predominan t

f a c t o r

in th e c r ea t i on o f

e leven

o f the twelve Challenged Dis t r i c t s .

are

sa t i s f i ed t h a t

race

was

the predominant fac to r

in

th e

c r ea t i on

o f House

Di s t r i c t

75. However we have a l so

concluded tha t , in using race the General

Assembly

was

pursuing

a

compelling s tate in teres t

namely

actual compliance

with

fede ra l

ant id i sc r imina t ion

law and t ha t , in the process

the

General Assembly used race in a manner narrowly ta i lored to

achieve

that interest

In the Memorandum Opinion tha t fol lows the Court wil l

review the procedural background of the

case in Section I ;

provide

a

brief

overview

of the

law

relat ing

to

racia l

gerrymandering

claims in

Section I I ; and se t out i t s

f indings

on

the

fac tua l

background of the case in Sect ion I I I . In Section

IV the

Court

wi l l a r t i c u l a t e i t s unders tanding of the

r e levan t

legal framework for

evaluating rac ia l

gerrymandering

or r ac ia l




so r t ing )

c la ims , s e t ou t

a dd it io na l fa c tu al

f ind ings of genera l

app l i c ab i l i t y ,

and conduct

d i s t r i c t - b y - d i s t r i c t

ana lys i s with

d i s t r i c t - s p e c i f i c

f ac tua l

f ind ings

and

d i s t r i c t - s p e c i f i c

app l i c a t i on o f

the

re le va nt le ga l framework.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In th e wake o f th e 2010

census ,

th e V irg in ia Gene r a l

Assembly

sough t to

redraw th e l e g i s l a t i v e istri ts fo r th e

Vi rg in i a

House of D elega tes { House

and th e Senate ,

o f Virg in i a

Sena te ) .

The t a sk

o f

r e d i s t r i c t i ng

i s one

t h a t

c a r r i e s

g r e a t

po l i t i c a l and

l e g a l consequence.

In

r ep r e s en t a t i ve democracy,

such l eg is la t ion shapes

more

than the abs t rac t boundar ies of

e l e c t o r a l

d i s t r i c t s ;

it

shapes

th e cha r ac t e r , conduct , and

cul ture of the rep resen ta t ives themselves. n i t s face , the

le gis la tio n r ec ite s

singular ly tedious

l i s t of precinc ts

and

coun t ies . But in app l i ca t ion ,

few pieces o f l eg i s l a t i on

have

more

profound impact on th e function of government

and

whether

it a c t s

a s

th e

f a i t h f u l echo

o f

t h e

vo i c e s o f th e peop l e .

Ju s t i c e James Wilson, The Works o f th e

Honourable

James Wilson,

L.L.D. 433 Bi rd

Wilson ,

ed . . The Lorenzo Pre ss

1804) .

The

po l i t i c a l

s ign i f i cance

o f

r ed i s t r i c t i ng

i s matched

only

by its

l e g a l

complex i ty . Those shepherding r e d i s t r i c t i ng

l e g i s l a t i o n must t r a v e r s e p r e ca r i ou s pa th

be tween

con s t i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o r y demands t h a t a re o f ten in

t ens ion






On December 22,

2014,

P l a i n t i f f s

f i l e d a

Compla in t

aga i n s t

th e V irg in ia S t a t e Board o f E lec t io n s , th e V irg in ia Depar tment

o f

E l e c t i o n s , and

v a r i o u s

members

t h e r e o f

in their offi i l

c a pa c i t i e s De fendan t s ) ,

a l l e g i ng

t h a t

th e

Chal lenged

Di s t r i c t s were r a c i a l ger rymanders in v io la t io n o f th e Equal

Pro t ec t i on Clause

o f

th e

Four teen th

Amendment

and

s eek ing

dec la ra to ry

and i n junc t i ve r e l i e f p roh ib i t i ng

Defendants from

implementing o r

conduct ing fu r t he r

e l e c t ions

based

on the

Challenged

Districts.

Docket

o

1.)^

The

Plaintiffs

are

twe lv e

c i t i z e n s

o f th e Un i t ed S t a t e s and th e Commonwealth

o f

Virginia who are law fully registered voters in the Commonwealth

and each

o f whom

r e s ide s

in one o f th e twelve Chal lenged

Dist r ic t s .

Docket

No.

83.)

The Pla int i f fs requested that the

case

be heard by a three-judge dis t r ic t court

pursuant to

28

U.S.C.

§

2284 a)

on the grounds tha t the

action

challeng[es]

the const i tu t ional i ty

of

the

apportionment

of

. . . [a]

statewide l egis la t ive

body.

Docket No. 1 .)

That

request was

granted by the Chief Judge of the United States

Court

of Appeals

fo r th e

Fou r t h C i r c u i t . Docke t No 11 . )

The

Virginia

House

of

Delegates

and

the

Virginia

House

of

Delegates

Speaker William Howell

Intervenors )

moved to

^ P l a i n t i f f s

f i l ed

a Correc t ed Amended Complaint

on

June 16,

2015

af t e r one

of

the

or ig ina l

p la in t i f f s

changed residences.

Docke t Nos . 66

71 . )




i n t e r v e n e i n t h e

c a s e .

(Docke t

No.

12 . )

Tha t mot i on was

g r an t ed . (Docke t No. 26 . )

A

four -day

bench trial began on

Ju ly

7 , 2015. Docket Nos.

99 -102 . ) Because th e Defendan t s a re a dm in i s tr a t iv e agenc i e s

t h a t

implement e l e c t i ons

bu t

do no t draw th e

d i s t r i c t s , Tr i a l

T r .

12 : 14 -25 (De fendan t s ) ,

t h e

Defendan ts a l low ed

th e

In t e rvenors

to ca r ry th e burden o f l i t i g a t i on bu t jo ined the

In te rvenor s

arguments

a t th e c lose o f th e case ,

id .

a t 830:2-3 .

For

ease

o f r e f e r en ce , th e

Defendan t s

and

I n t e r veno r s

wi l l

be

re ferred to

as

the

ntervenors

BASIC

OVERVIEW

OP RACIAL GERRYMANDERING

CLAIMS

Before

proceeding

to

the facts of the case and the

substance of t h i s

l i t iga t ion ,

a br ie f overview of the

cons t i tu t iona l

and

s ta tu tory requirements per t inen t

to

r ac ia l

gerrymandering

claims is

appropriate.

As noted above,

these

commands o f t en cu t coun te r to each o t h e r and r e qu i r e l e g i s l a t o r s

to balance competing considerat ions .

Tracing the i r

evolution

i s

therefore usefu l

as

a

pred ica te for the decis ion

t ha t fol lows.

The

Supreme

Court

has

long observed t h a t

the

r igh t

to

vote

i s

fundamenta l

because

it

i s

p r e se rva t ive o f

a l l

r i gh t s .

Yick

Wo V Hopkins , 118

U.S.

356, 370

(1886) .

In Reynolds v.

Sims, the

Court recognized

t ha t

the

r igh t

of

suff rage

can

be

den ied by a

debasement

or

d i lu t i on

o f

th e weigh t of

a c i t iz e n s

vote

j u s t

as

e f f ec t i ve ly

as by wholly

prohib i t ing

the free




exe r c i s e o f th e

f r an ch i s e

and

he ld

t h a t

th e

malappor t ionmen t o f

s t a t e l e g i s l a t i v e

bod i e s

in d e ro g a t io n o f th e on e p e r s o n , one

vo t e

p r i n c i p l e

v i o l a t e s

th e

Equa l

Pro t e c t i on

Clause .

377 U.S.

533,

555 1964) . Because l e g i s l a t i on

a f f ec t i ng

th e r i gh t

to

vote s t r i k e [ s ] a t

th e

hea r t

of

r ep r e s en t a t i ve government , i d . ,

th e C on s t i t u ti o n

l e av e s

no

room

fo r c l a s s i f i c a t i on of people in

a way

tha t

unnecessar i ly abridges th is r ig ht , id .

a t 560,

and

grants every

ci t izen

an inal ienable r igh t to

fu l l

and effect ive

part icipat ion

in the

pol i t ical

processes of

his

State s

l eg i s l a t ive bod ies ,

id . a t

564.

The

decis ion

in Reynolds only

required

s ta te l eg i s l a t u re s

to comply with the equal populat ion s tandard, but

i ts language

would

come

to

stand for something more. The next

year,

in

Fortson v. Dorsey, the Court

suggested

tha t

a constituency

apportionment

scheme m y not comport with the dictates of the

Equal Protection

Clause

i f i t would operate to minimize or

cancel out the voting strength of racial or pol i t ical elements

of the voting

population. 379 U.S. 433 438-39

1965).

With

Fortson, the Supreme Court f i r s t recognized

tha t

redist r ic t ing

legislation m y

offend

Equal

Protection

Clause

principles

wh n

dist inguishes between

voters on a

rac ia l basis .

Over t ime,

the Supreme Court has come

to

recognize two

types

of

racial gerrymandering c la ims under the Fourteenth

Amendment: 1) claims of rac ia l vote di lu t ion ,

where

the




r ed i s tr i c t i n g l e g is la t i o n

i s conce ived

o r opera ted as [a]

purpose fu l

devic[e]

to fu r th e r r a c i a l d isc r imina t ion by

minimizing,

cance l ing ou t o r

d i l u t i ng

th e vo t ing s t r eng th

o f

r a c i a l e lements in th e vo t ing popu l a t i on , Rogers

v .

Lodge,

458

U.S.

613,

617

1982 ( i n t e r n a l quo ta t i on

marks omi t t e d ) ; and

2

c l a ims o f r a c i a l so r t i n g ,

where th e r e d i s t r i c t i n g l e g i s l a t i on ,

t hough

r ace

neu t r a l on its f ace , r a t i ona l l y canno t be

unders tood

as any th ing

o t h e r than an e f f o r t to s ep ara te v ote rs

i n t o d i f f e r e n t

istri ts

on

th e

ba s i s

o f r a c e ,

and

t h a t

th e

separat ion lacks suf f i c i en t j us t i f i ca t ion , Shaw v. Reno Shaw

I ) ,

509

U.S . 630,

649 1993 .

A.

Ra c i a l Vo t e Di l u t i o n

an d t h e

Fou r t e e n t h Amendment

The Supreme Court f i r s t

struck

down a d is t r i c t ing scheme

f o r uncon s t i t u t i o n a l r a c i a l vo t e d i l u t i o n

in

White v . Reges t e r ,

412

U.S.

755 (1973) . There , th e Cour t

s t a t e d :

The

p la in t i f f s burden

i s

to

produce

evidence to suppor t f ind ings t ha t the

pol i t i ca l

processes

leading

to nomination

and

e l e c t i o n

were no t equa l l y open t o

pa r t i c ipa t ion by

the

group in

quest ion

t h a t its members

had

l e s s oppo r t un i t y than

d id other

resi ents

i n t h e istri t to

pa r t i c ipa te

in

th e po l i t i c a l processes and

to

e l e c t

l e g i s l a t o r s

of

t h e i r

cho ice .

412 U.S. a t 765-66 .

At

th e t ime , it was unc l e a r

whethe r

such

a

claim

required

a showing of

discr iminatory in ten t

or could

be

main ta ined based so l e l y on

d i sc r imina to ry e f f e c t .

S ev eral years

l a t e r ,

in

City

of Mobile v.

Bolden,

the Court

8




sugges ted in a

p lu r a l i t y

op in ion t h a t both

d i sc r imina to ry

i n t e n t

and d i sc r imina to ry e f f e c t were r equ i r ed to

e s t a b l i s h

a

claim

o f

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r ci l vo t e dilution

446

U .S . 55 , 66 (1980 ) .

Tha t ho l d i ng was r e a f f i rmed by a m ajo r i ty o f th e Cou r t

i n

Rogers

V

Lodge,

458 U.S.

613

(1982) .

Wri t i ng

fo r

th e

major i ty ,

Ju s t i c e White conf i rmed t h a t

a showing

o f

d i s c r im ina t o ry

i n t e n t

has long been r equ i red

in

a l l

types

of equa l

p ro t ec t i on

cases

charging

r ac i a l

discr imina t ion . Rogers, 458

U.S. a t 617.

Therefore ,

in

a

con s t i t u t i ona l

r a c i a l

vote

d i lu t i on

case ,

the pla in t i f f

must

show

tha t

the State has placed a burden upon

the

r ight to vote

by

intent ional ly establishing or maintaining

devices or procedures tha t cause minority c i t i zens

to

have less

opportunity than

other citizens to participate

in

the poli t ical

processes

and

to elect legislators

of their choice.

This

dilutes

the

minority voter s abi l i ty to exercise the fu l l and

e f f e c t i v e r i g h t

to

vo t e .

B. Racia l

Sor t ing

and

th e

Four teenth Amendment

The

other s trand

of r ac i a l gerrymandering

a rac ia l

sor t ing claim such as

the one

presented

in th is

case i s

ana ly t ica l ly

dis t inc t from

a

vote

di lu t ion

claim.

Miller

v.

Johnson,

515 U.S. 900, 911 1995). Whereas a vote di lu t ion

claim

al leges tha t the State has enacted a

purposeful

dev ice

^ to m in im ize

o r

cance l ou t th e vot ing po t en t i a l o f r a c i a l

o r e th n ic mino r i t i e s , th e

essence o f

a r a c i a l

sor t ing




cla im] i s t ha t

the

Sta te has used race as a bas i s fo r sep ara tin g

vo t e r s i n t o districts

I d .

i n t e r n a l

c i t a t i o n s om i t t e d ) .

In Shaw

1 ,

th e

Supreme Cour t

f aced two p ate n t ly b iz ar r e

l e g i s l a t i v e

districts

509

U.S.

a t

635. One r e sembled a

Rorshach i nk -b lo t t e s t o r a bug s p l a t t e r e d

on

a windsh i e ld ,

whi l e

th e o th e r

was even

more unusua l l y s h aped :

[The d i s t r i c t ]

i s

approx imate ly 160 miles

long and, fo r much

of i t s l eng th ,

no wider

t h an th e

1 -85 c o r r i d o r . It

wind s

i n

s n ak el ik e fa sh io n th rou gh to bac co

coun t r y ,

f in an ci a l c en te rs ,

and

manufac tu r i ng

a r e a s

un t i l

it gobbles in

enough enclaves

of

black

neighborhoods. Northbound and southbound

d r i v e r s on

1 -85

some t ime s f i n d

t h emse l v e s i n

separate

d i s t r i c t s

in one

county, only

to

t r ade

districts

when

t hey en t e r

th e

nex t

county. Of the counties through which

Dis t r ic t 2

passes,

5 are cut into 3

d i f f e r e n t distri ts

even towns

a re d iv ided .

At one

poin t

the

d i s t r i c t

remains contiguous

only

because it in te rsec t s a t

a

single point

wi th

two

o t h e r

d i s t r i c t s

be fo r e

c r o s s i ng

over them. One s t a t e

l eg i s l a to r

has remarked

tha t i f you drove down the in te r s t a te with

both car doors

open,

you d

k i l l

most of the

people in the

d i s t r i c t .

Id. a t 635-36 c i ta t ions and

some

i n t e rna l quotat ion marks

omitted). Although

the

tex t of

the

legislat ion was

facial ly

neutra l , the Court found t ha t i t ra t ional ly can be viewed only

as

an

ef for t to segregate the races for purposes of voting,

without

regard

fo r

t ra d it i on a l d i st ri ct in g pr inc ip les .

Id.

a t

6 4 2 .

10




F o r

t h a t

r e a son , r a t h e r t han r equ i r i ng th e p l a i n t i f f s to

p r e s en t ev idence o f d i s c r imina to ry purpose a n d d i s c r imina to ry

e f f e c t , th e Suprem e C o u r t

t r e a t ed the l eg i s l a t i on

as

t a n t a m o u n t

to

s u sp ec t f a c i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i on

a n d

e m p l o y e d strict s c ru t i ny .

Id .

a t

6 4 2 - 4 3

( Express

r ac ia l c la s s if ic a ti o n s

a re

immed ia t e ly

s u sp ec t

because ,

ab sen t se a rch ing j u d i c i a l

in q u iry , th e re i s

s imply

no way

o f

de t e rmin ing

w h a t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s

a re ^ b e n i g n

o r ^ r emed i a l and

wha t

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s a re in f a c t mo t i v a t e d b y

i l l e g i t ima t e

no t i ons

o f

r a c i a l

i n f e r i o r i t y

or

s i m p l e

r a c i a l

po l i t i c s .

A c c o r d i n g l y ,

we have he ld

t ha t

the F o u r t e e n t h

Amendment requi res s ta te l eg i s l a t ion

t ha t

express ly

dis t inguishes

mong

c i t izens

because

o f

t he i r

r a c e to

be

narrowly

ta i lored

to

f u r t h e r compelling governmental in teres t .

These

p r i n c i p l e s apply

n o t o n ly

to

l egis la t ion tha t c o n t a i n s

expl ic i t rac ia l

d is t inc t ions ,

b u t a l s o

to t h o s e

r a re

s ta tu tes

t ha t ,

a l t h o u g h r a c e neut ra l , a r e , on t he i r

fa c e , u n e x p la in a b le

on

grounds o t h e r th an race . ) quoting Vil l . o f A rlin g to n

Height s v . M e t r o . H o u s . Dev.

Corp . ,

429

U . S . 252

(1977)) .

In o r d e r to p r o v e r ac i a l sor t ing

c l a i m ,

p l a i n t i f f

must

show

t h a t

th e

l e g i s l a t u r e

subordina ted

t r ad i t i ona l

race -

neu t r a l d i s t r i c t i ng p r i nc ip l e s in

c ra f t i ng the

d i s t r i c t s

boundaries

The p l a i n t i f f s b u r d e n i s to show ,

e i t h e r

t h r o u g h c i rcumstan t i a l e v i d e n c e o f

district s s h a p e and d e m o g r a p h i c s o r m o r e

1 1




d i r e c t ev idence

going to

l e g i s l a t i v e purpose ,

t h a t r a ce was

t h e

predominan t f a c t o r

m o t iv a t in g th e

legislature s d e c i s i o n t o

p l a c e s i g n i f i c a n t number

o f

vo t e r s wi t h i n

o r

wi t h ou t p a r t i c u l a r

district.

To make

t h i s

showing,

p l a i n t i f f must

prove

t h a t

th e

legislature

s ubo r d i n a t e d

traditional

r a c e -

neu t r a l

d i s t r i c t i n g p r i n c i p l e s , i n c l ud i ng bu t

no t l im i t ed

to compac tness ,

c on t i gu i t y , and

re sp e c t fo r po l i t i c a l

s ubd iv i s i on s

o r

communi t ies

def ined by

a c t u a l

sha red

i n t e r e s t s ,

to r a c i a l con s i d e r a t i o n s .

Mil l e r ,

515

U.S. a t 916 (emphasis added). Th is t h r e sho ld

s tandard

i s

a

demanding

one . Indeed, th e P l a i n t i f f s

must

overcome

presumption t ha t the l eg is la ture acted

correc t ly and

in good

fa i th .

Id . Thus, the pla in t i f f must

s ow

that the

S t a t e

has

r e l i e d on race

in

s ub s t an t i a l

d i s r eg a rd

o f

customary

and t r ad i t i ona l

d i s t r i c t i ng prac t i ces .

Id .

a t 928

(O Connor,

J.

concu r r i ng .

I f

the

p la in t i f f

makes

the

requis i te

showing,

the

Sta te

must

demonstra te

t h a t

the r ed i s t r i c t i ng l eg i s l a t i on i s

narrowly

t a i l o r ed

to

advance

compel l ing

s ta te in te re s t . In

red i s t r i c t ing cases

where

the

State claims

compell ing

in te re s t

in

compliance with the

VR

the

legis lature

must s ow tha t i t

had s t rong

bas i s in evidence

to

suppor t

its

use

o f

r ace -

based

d i s t r i c t i ng . Alabama Legis la t ive

Black

Caucus v. Alabama,

135

S. Ct.

1257,

1274 (2015) . In o the r words , th e l eg i s l a t u re

must

have good reasons to bel ieve t ha t

i t s use

of rac ia l

c lass i f ica t ions was

requi red

by

the VR even

i f

court does

1 2




not

f ind

t h a t th e ac t i on s were necessa ry fo r

s t a tu to ry

compl i ance a f t e r

th e

f a c t .

Id .

a t 1274 .

C. The Vo t i ng Righ t s Ac t

In

add i t i on

to

t h e s e con s t i t u t i ona l impe ra t i v e s ,

r e d is tr ic t i n g le g is la t io n must a l so comply

wi th

th e VRA The

Voting Righ t s

Act

was des igned by Congress to ban ish th e b l i gh t

o f

r a c i a l

d is c r im in at io n in

vo t i n g [ . ]

South

Caro l i na

v .

Katzenbach , 383 U .S . 301 , 308 (1966) ab roga t e d by She lby Cnty . ,

Ala . V. Holde r ,

133

S .

C t .

2612

(2013) . Ena c t e d

pu r s u an t

to

Congress

enforcement

powers

under the

Fi f teen th

Amendment, see

Shelby Cnty . , 133 S. C t.

a t 2619-21,

th e VRA

p roh ib i t s s t a t e s

from adopt ing plans t ha t would r e su l t in

vote di lu t ion

under

Sect ion 2

or

in covered j u r i sd ic t ions

re t rogress ion under

Sec t i on 5 .

Sec t ion

2

of

th e V

proh ib i t s the impos i t ion o f

any

e lec to ra l prac t ice or procedure tha t r e su l t s in a denia l

or

abr idgement o f the r i gh t o f any c i t i z en to vote on

account

o f ra c e o r

c o l o r

.

52

U.S .C . §

10301 ( a ) .

A § 2

v io l a t i on occu r s

when, based

on th e t o t a l i t y

o f

c i r cums t ances .

In Shelby County, th e Supreme Cour t

s t r u ck

down the

coverage formula

in

Sect ion 4,

thereby

drawing in to

quest ion

the

s t a tu s

o f

covered

j u r i s d i c t i on s Sect ion

5 compliance

ob l i g a t i on s un t i l such

t ime t h a t Congress

enac t s a

new

coverage

f o rmu l a . 133 S . C t . a t

2631 .

At th e t ime

th e r e d i s t r i c t i n g

plan

a t i s sue was developed and enacted, however, compliance

with Sec t ion 5 was

st

a necessa ry c on sid era tio n in

V i rg in i a s

d i s t r i c t i ng process . See Alabama, 135

S.

Ct.

a t

1263.

1 3




th e po l i t i c a l

p roces s r e s u l t s in m in or i ty members hav[ ing] l e s s

oppo r t un i t y

t han o t h e r members o f th e

e l e c t o r a t e

to pa r t i c i p a t e

in th e

po l i t i c a l

process and to e l e c t

r ep r e s en t a t i ve s o f t h e i r

cho ice .

52 U.S.C.

§

10301(b) .

By

adopt ing th e d is cr im i na to ry

e f f e c t l anguage

from

Reges t e r and omi t t i ng any r equ i r emen t to

prove d i s c r imina to ry

i n t e n t as r equ i r ed by Lodge, Congress

c rea t ed a s t a t u t o ry r e s u l t s t e s t t h a t cou ld be brought by

p la in t i f f s who

might

be otherwise unable to br ing a cla im

of

r a c i a l

vo t e

d i l u t i o n

under

th e

Equal

Pro t e c t i on

Clause .

See

Shaw

I ,

509 U.S. a t 641

( In

1982,

[Congress]

amended § o f

th e

Voting

Rights Act to p roh ib i t

le g is la t io n tha t re su l ts

in

the

di lu t ion of

a

m inority group s voting

st rength,

regard less

of

th e l e g i s l a tu r e s

i n t e n t . ) .

In

order to

prove a §

violat ion,

a

pla in t i f f

must sa t i s fy

three

prerequisi tes:

compactness,

pol i t ical

cohesiveness,

and

bloc voting. F i r s t ,

the

minority group must be able

to

demonstra te

t ha t

i s

su f f i c i en t ly l a rge and geographica l ly

compact to const i tu te a

majority

in a single-member

dis t r ic t .

Thornburg v.

Ginqles , 478

U.S. 30, 50 (1986). Second, th e

minori ty

group must be

able

to show

tha t

i s

pol i t i ca l ly

cohes ive .

Id .

a t

51. Th i rd ,

th e

mino r i t y

must be ab le to

demonstrate

t ha t the white major i ty

votes

su f f i c i en t ly as a bloc

to enab le in the absence o f

spec i a l

c i rcumstances , such as

the mino rit y c an did ate running unopposed

usua l ly

to defea t the

14




mino r i t y s

p re fe rr ed c an d id a te .

Id .

These

f i n a l two

f ac to r s

a re

o f t en

r e f e r r ed

to co l l e c t i v e l y as r a c i a l

po l a r i z a t i o n .

Once t h e s e

p r e r e qu i s i t e s

have

been

s a t i s f i e d , th e cou r t

ev alu ate s th e p l a i n t i f f s evidence based on the t o t a l i t y of th e

c i r cums tances . The t o t a l i t y

o f

c i r cums t ances must

be cons idered

wi th a

focus on whethe r

th e m ino r i ty

group

in ques t i on

was

den ied

e qua l

po l i t i c a l oppor tun i ty . Johnson

v . De

Grandy, 514

U.S . 997, 1014

(1994) .

With

re spec t

to


l eg i s l a t i on ,

§

es tab l i shes

a n a t u r a l

f l oo r

based on

th e

S t a t e s demograph ics fo r th e

number

o f

d i s t r i c t s

where in

members

o f

a

minor i ty

group must

maintain an equa l po l i t i c a l oppor tun i ty to

e l e c t

representat ives

of the i r choice . Where a minority group

i s

suf f i c i en t ly

large

and

geographical ly compact to const i tu te a

numerical majori ty in a hypothet ical

d i s t r i c t ,

§ requires

the

c rea t ion o f a d i s t r i c t

wherein

members o f

t h a t

group mainta in

the

equal

ab i l i ty to

e l ec t representat ives

of the i r choice. See

Ba r t l e t t v . S t r i ck l and , 556 U.S. 1, 13 2009) .

Proving

t h i s

hypothet ical

requires

the p la in t i f f s to present an

a l te rna t ive

r ed i s t r i c t ing

plan.

See

Reno

v.

Bossie r Par ish

Sch. Bd.,

520

U.S. 471,

480

1997) Because the very concep t

o f

vote

d i lu t i on

impl ies

and, indeed,

neces s i t a t e s — th e exis tence of an

und i lu ted prac t ice aga ins t

which

the

fac t

of

di lu t ion may be

measured, a §

p l a i n t i f f

must a lso pos tu l a t e a reasonable

1 5




a l t e rna t i ve vot ing p rac t i c e to

se rve

as th e benchmark

u nd i l u t ed

vot ing p rac t i c e . ) .

Sec t ion 5 o f th e VRA on th e o the r

hand,

f o r b id s vot ing

changes wi th any d i s c r im ina to ry purpose as w e l l a s

vo t i ng

changes

t ha t

diminish

the ab i l i t y of

c i t i z en s , on

accoun t of

r a c e , co lo r , o r l anguage minor i t y s t a t u s , t o e l e c t t h e i r

p re f e r r ed cand ida t e s

o f ch o ic e .

She lby

County ,

133

S. C t. a t

2621 . Sec t ions 2 and 5 d i f f e r in s t r u c t u r e ,

purpose , and

appl ica t ion .

Sect ion

5

app l i e s

only

in

ce r t a i n ju r i sd i c t i ons

spec i f ied

by Congress and ônly

to

proposed changes in vot ing

procedures .

Holder

v.

Hall , 512

U.S. 874, 883 1994) {quoting

Beer , 425 U.S. a t 138)

emphas i s

added ) .

Sect ion 5 was

enacted as a response

to a common

prac t i ce

in

some

jur i sdic t ions

of staying one step

ahead

of the

federal

courts by

passing new

discriminatory

voting laws

as

soon

as the

o ld

ones had been

s t ruck

down. Beer , 425 U.S. a t 140 . By

requi r ing

t ha t

proposed changes be approved in advance. Congress

sought ^to

s h i f t

the advantage of t ime

and

i n e r t i a from the

perpet ra tors

of

the

ev i l

to i t s vic t im,

by

fr ee zin g e le ct io n

procedures in

the

covered

areas

unless

the

changes

can be

shown

to be nond i sc r imina to ry . Id . quoting H.R. Rep. No.

94-196,

pp.

57-58

1970)) .

The

purpose

of t h i s

approach was to ensure

t ha t

no

vot ing-procedure

changes would be

made t ha t

would

lead

to a re tro gress ion in

the

posit ion

of

rac ia l

minori t ies

with

1 6




r e s p e c t

t o

their e f f e c t i v e

e x e r c i s e

o f th e e l e c t o r a l

f r a n c h i s e .

Ho lde r , 512

U.S .

at 883 .

Re t rog res s ion , by de f in i t i on ,

r equ i r es

a comparison of a

j u r i s d i c t i on s

new vot ing

plan with its ex i s t i ng

p lan .

I t a l so

neces s a r i l y

imp l i e s t h a t

th e j u r i s d i c t i o n s

ex i s t i n g p l an i s

th e

benchmark ag a i n s t which th e ê f f ec t o f

vo t ing

changes i s

measured . Reno, 520 U.S. a t

478.

Unl ike th e n a t u r a l f l oo r

of § 2

ensur ing equal ab i l i t y to e l ec t ,

the

re t rogress ion

s t and a rd

o f

§ 5

c r e a t e s

a

r e l a t i v e

f l oo r

based

upon

th e

exis t ing benchmark plan . Under § 5, the Sta te must ensure tha t

the

new

plan does

not

l ead to

a re t rogress ion in the pos i t ion

of r ac ia l

minori t ies with respect

to

t he i r

ef fec t ive

exercise

of

the e lec tora l franchise by diminishing the

ab i l i ty

of

minority

voters

to

e l ec t the i r

preferred

ca ndidates o f choice

as compared

to

th e S t a t e s

ex i s t i n g

p l an .

Therein l i e s

the

rub.^ To comply with f edera l s ta tu tory

command the VRA the Sta te

must

consider and account fo r race

in

drawing

leg is la t ive

dis t r ic ts in

order

to craf t a compliant

plan.

However

to avoid violat ing the federal const i tut ion,

the

Sta t e

must

no t

subord ina te

t r ad i t i ona l ,

neu t r a l p r i n c i p l e s to

r a c i a l c on sid era tio ns i n drawing d i s t r i c t bounda r i e s .

^

Apologies

to Shakespeare

for the

misquotation. See

Will iam

Shakespeare, Hamlet,

Act

3,

Scene

1, 3:66 [A]y,

there s

the

rub. ).

1 7




And a t

th e

same t ime,

th e

Sta te must a l so comply

with

th e

one person , one vote

con s t i t u t i o n a l

requ i rement as

spec i f i ed

in Reynolds

v .

Sims. Tha t , o f

cou r se ,

i s no t t r a d i t i o n a l

r ed i s t r i c t i ng pr inc ip l e

to

be

weighed

as

pa r t

o f the

predominance

i nqu i ry ,

a s Alabama makes c l e a r . But

it i s

f ed e r a l

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

requ i rement t h a t ,

o f

nece s s i t y , is

c e n t r a l to th e r e d i s t r i c t i n g

proce ss

and

t h a t

i s

high ly

i n s t r umen t a l

in th e drawing o f district boundar i e s .

t

is

wi th in

th e

con tex t o f

t h i s

l e g a l

f ramework

t h a t

th e

Virg in ia General

Assembly sought

to

design

and

enac t compliant

r ed i s t r i c t i ng plan .

And

these

p r i nc ip l e s

a re cen t r a l to th e

resolution of this case

Before proceeding

to

the facts

of

the

case

the

Court

feels

it

necessary

to pause

and

recognize

t ha t Delegate

Jones members

of

the r ed i s t r i c t ing committee and other

l eg i s la to r s

involved

in th e

c ra f t i ng and

amendment

of

5005

d id

not

have the

bene f i t

o f

e i t h e r th e Supreme

Cou r t s

guidance

in

th e

r ecen t

Alabama dec is ion or th e guid an ce p rovi de d in the

opinion entered

here today .

Based on

th e evidence and tes t imony provided

in

the

record ,

th e

Court

be l i eves

t h a t

a l l

o f th e


involved

proceeded

in

good f a i t h

a t t emp t to comply wi th all

r e l evan t

con s t i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u t o ry demands as t h ey unders tood

them

a t

the time

1 8




ll Fa c t u a l Background

A.

The

2011

Red i s t r i c t i n g Proce s s

The

first s t ep s in th e

r e d i s t r i c t i n g p roces s began wel l

befo re

th e Uni ted S t a t e s Census Bureau

r e l e a sed

its popu la t i on

and

demographic

da t a .

T r i a l

Tr .

273:11

Jones .

On

August 23,

2010,

Delega te

Mark Cole announced t h a t th e


subconunit tee o f th e House

o f

Delegates

Commit tee

on Pr iv i l eges

and E lec t i on s had scheduled a

s e r i e s

o f s ix

pub l i c

hea r i ngs

throughout

th e

Commonwealth

to

s o l i c i t

input

in to

the

House

redis t r ic t ing

process .

(Docket No 85.) These public hearings

were

held

between Sep tember

8, 2010 and

December

17,

2010.

Id . ;

Tr ia l Tr. 273:14-19

Jones .

Following th es e h ea rin gs . Governor

McDonnell

signed Executive

Order 31 on

January 10,

2011

creating

the

Independent Bipartisan Advisory Redistricting

Commission ( Governor s Commission ) to develop

plan

proposals ,

review public

input, and analyze recommendations

from other

s t akeho lde rs in the vo ting

pub l ic . (Docket No. 85.)

Redis t r ic t ing began in

earnest in

February

2011 when the

2010 census data was released via Public Law 94-171.® Trial Tr.

276:4-21

( Jones) . On

March

25, 2011,

th e

House

Committee

on

Privi leges

and

Elect ions adopted

a resolut ion

se t t ing out the

e

The i n i t i a l da ta

re l ea sed on

February 3,

2011 con ta ined

an

e r ro r . A

cor rec ted

da ta s e t

was prov ided

a

few

weeks

l a t e r .

Trial T r . 276 : 4 - 2 1 J o n e s .

1 9




c r i t e r i a

t ha t

the committee would

follow in

reviewing

r ed i s t r i c t i ng p l ans .

P i s . Ex. 48

a t

6. The House Committee

e s t a b l i s he d s ix

criteri w hich w ere

a s

f o l l ows :

I .

Popu l a t i on

Equa l i t y :

The

p op u la t io n o f


districts s h a l l

be de t e rm ined

s o l e l y acco rd ing to

th e enumera t ion

es t ab l i s hed

by th e

2010

f ede r a l census . The

popula t ion

of each d i s t r i c t

s h a l l be as

nea r ly equa l

to

th e popu la t ion

o f

every

o the r d i s t r i c t as p rac t i c ab l e . Popula t ion

dev i a t i on s

in

House

o f Delega tes d i s t r i c t s

shou ld be

wi th in

p lu s -o r -minus one pe r c en t .

I I .

Voting

Rights

Act:

Dis t r i c t s s h a l l

be

drawn

i n a c c o rd an c e w ith t h e l aws o f t h e Un i t e d

S t a t e s and

th e

Commonwealth o f V irg in ia

including compliance with protec t ions

agains t

the

unwarranted

re t rogression

or

d i l u t i o n

o f r a c i a l o r e t hn i c

mino r i t y

vo t ing

s t rength .

Nothing

in these guidelines

shal l

be cons t rued to requ ire o r permit any

dis t r ic t ing

policy

or

action

that

is

contrary

to

the United States Consti tut ion

o r

th e

Voting Rights Act of 1965.

I I I . Contigui ty

and Compac tne ss:

Dis t r i c t s sha l l

be

comprised

of

contiguous

t e r r i to ry

including adjoining insular t e r r i to ry .

Contigui ty by water i s su f f i c ien t .

D is tr i c ts s ha ll be

contiguous

and

compact in

accordance wi th th e C o n st i tu tio n o f Vi rg in i a

as

i n t e rp r e t ed by

th e V irg in ia Supreme Court

i n

th e c a s e s o f

J amer son v .

Womack,

244 Va.

506 1992 and

Wilkins

v. West, 264 Va.

447

2002)

IV. Single-Member

Dis t r i c t s : All

d i s t r i c t s

s ha l l

be

s ing le -member

d i s t r i c t s .

V.

Communi t i e s

o f I n te re s t : D i s t r i c ts s h a l l

be

based

on

l e g i s l a t i v e cons idera t ion of the

v a r i e d

f a c t o r s

t h a t can c r e a t e o r c o n t r i b u t e

to communi t i e s

o f

i n t e r e s t .

These

f a c t o r s

2 0




may i n c lude , among

o t h e r s ,

economic f a c t o r s ,

so cia l f a c to rs , cu l t u r a l f ac to r s , geographic

f a c t o r s , governmen ta l j u r i s d i c t i o n s

and

s e rv ic e d el iv ery

a rea s ,

po l i t i c a l

be l i e f s ,

vot ing

t r e nd s ,

and

incumbency

con s i d e r a t i o n s .

Loca l

gove rnmen t

j u r i s d i c t i o n

and p re c i nc t

l i n e s

may r e f l e c t

c ommun i t i e s

o f interest t o be

b a l an c ed ,

b u t

t hey a re e n t i t l e d

to

no g r e a t e r

weigh t

as

a

m a t te r o f

st te

po l i cy t h an o t h e r

identifi ble c ommun i t i e s of interest

VI.

P r i o r i t y :

A ll

o f

th e fo rego ing c r i t e r i a

s h a l l

be

con s i d e r e d in th e districting

process ,

bu t

popu la t ion

equa l i t y

among

d i s t r i c t s and

compliance with f ede r a l

and

s t a t e


requ i rements

and

th e

Voting

Rights

Act of 1965

s ha l l

be

given

p r i o r i t y in the event

of conf l i c t

among

the

c r i t e r i a . Where

th e

app l i c a t i on

o f

any

o f

the

foregoing

c r i t e r i a may

cause

a

vio la t ion

of appl icable

federa l

or

s ta te

law

there

may be

such deviation from

the c r i t e r i a as

i s necessary , but no

more

than i s necessary ,

to

a v o i d s u c h viol tion

P i s . Ex.

16. These

c r i t e r i a

were

subs t an t i a l l y

s im ila r to

th e

cr i te r ia adopted

by

the committee in the 2001 redis t r ic t ing

cycle with two exceptions. In ts . Ex 27. Firs t , the 2 1

cr i te r ia had

permitted

a population deviation of plus-or-minus

two

percent ,

ra ther than one

percent

which Delegate

Jones

s t a t e d was a l t e r ed

to

b e t t e r

approx imate

th e one -pe r son -one -

vote [s tandard]

in th e V irg in ia

cons t i t u t i on .

Tr ia l

Tr.

275:10-19 (Jones) .

Second

th e 2001

c r i t e r i a were

updated

to

i n c lude

a

c i t a t i on to th e d ec is ion o f th e Supreme Cour t o f

Virgin ia in Wilkins v.

West

as par t of the Contiguity and

Compactness

c r i t e r i on .

Id . a t 275:13-15.

2 1




B.

The

55 Black

Vo t i ng

Age Popu l a t i on F l o o r

At th e

t ime

th e r e d i s t r i c t i n g p roc e s s began th e twe lv e

Chal lenged Di s t r i c t s had b la ck vo t ing -age popu la t ion s ( BVAP )

rang ing from 4 6.3 to 62.7 . Three o f th e distri ts had BVAPs

below

55 .

A ll o t h e r s

were above

55 . Seve r a l l e g i s l a t o r s

bel i eved t h a t

th e twelve a b i l i t y - t o - e l e c t

d i s t r i c t s

found in

th e 2001 r ed i s t r i c t i ng

plan (or Benchmark

Plan )

needed

to

con t a i n a BVAP o f a t l e a s t 55 in

th e 2011

r e d i s t r i c t i n g p lan to

avo id

unwarranted

r e t r og r e s s ion

under

Sec t i on

5

o f the

VRA

and

to

comply

with Cri te r ion

I I of the i r own red i s t r i c t ing

rules .

The

ex i s t en ce o f a f i x ed r a c i a l t h r e s ho l d can

have

profound

consequences for the

Court ' s

predominance

and

narrow ta i lo r ing

inquiries in a racial sorting claim, so a substant ial amount of

t ime a t t r i a l was devoted to ques t ions

re la ted

to t h i s fac tua l

topic. However

the

most important

question

-

whether such

a

f igure was

used in

drawing the Challenged Dist r ic t s - was not

disputed .

Rather, the

par t ies

disputed whether the

BVAP

was

an aspirat ion or a ta rge t or a rule .

In

the end, i t

is

not

r e l ev an t whether th e 55 BVAP

was

a ru l e o r a t a r g e t

because

ll

the

par t ies

agree

-

and

the

Court

f inds

-

tha t

the

BVAP

f igure

was

used in s t ruc tu r ing the

d i s t r i c t s

and in assess ing

whether

the


plan s a t i s f i e d cons t i t u t i ona l

2 2




s t anda rd s and th e VRA and

whether th e

plan would be

prec leared

by th e Depar tment o f J u s t i c e ( DOJ )

At tri l

two

a dd i t i o n a l

que s t i on s re ga rd in g th e

55

f i gu r e

dominated th e d i s cu s s i on . F i r s t ,

whether

th e

BVAP

f i gu re

included

or

excluded

those who

identified

themselves

in the

census p roces s

as

e t hn i c a l l y

Hispan ic and

r a c i a l l y b lack .

And

second , what th e sou rce o f th e

55 BVAP

f i gu re was.

The par t i e s

hot ly

debated

whether

the

appropr ia te measure

of

BVAP used

in

the


process

did or did

not

include

i nd iv idua l s

who

i d en t i f i e d as

r a c i a l l y

black

and

e thn ica l ly

^

P l a i n t i f f s i n t roduced

a

f a i r

amount o f ev idence ,

such

as

e-mai l

communicatio ns and

f loo r debate , pe rta in ing to HB 5001

r a the r than

HB

5005.

For some

purposes , such

as whether

the

draf te rs employed a 55 rule during r ed i s t r i c t ing , the evidence

pertaining

to 5001

i s

equally

relevant to

5005.

See

I n t s . Ex.

7

a t 3-8 ( [MR.

ARMSTRONG:]

In orde r fo r

me

not

to

have

to

go

through

the extensive dialogue we did

here

the other

day on 5001, I would

ask

the

gentleman

would . . .

his

answers

to

my

questions

per

5001

essent ia l ly be ap plicab le to

HB 5005?

[MR

JONES]: Mr. Speaker, I would say to

the

gentleman

I

would be l i eve

t h a t

w i l l be c o r r e c t .

. . . [MR. ARMSTRONG]: I

thank

the gentleman for allowing

me

to streamline the

quest ions. ) . For other

purposes,

such

as

whether

the 55

threshold

impacted

a

par t icular boundary,

the evidence

pertaining

to

5001

cannot

necessari ly be applied

to

5005.

Compare

P i s .

Ex. 30

a t

1 (e-mail

from Delegate

McClellan to

Richmond Regis t rar Kirk Showalter

regarding

HB

5001,

s ta t ing

[T]he

changes

we

discussed

. . .

would have

pushed

the

[BVAP]

in

th e 71 s t

Di s t r i c t down to 54.8 . The

t a r g e t c r i t e r i a was

55

so

the change c an t

be

made. ) with I n t s .

Ex.

7 a t 2-3

( f loor test imony from Delegate

Jones regarding HB

5005, s ta t ing ,

There

was

a request

made

by

the

r eg i s t r a r of Richmond City

working

with

the gentlewoman from Richmond to make some

adjustments

to

those boundaries, and we did

sp l i t

a precinct in

ant ic ipat ion of moving a poll ing place th i s

fa l l

for the

upcoming e l e c t i o n s . ) .

23




Hispanic

in the

census

data . The supposed importance of

th i s

d ispu te

was t h a t , if b lack

Hispanics were excluded from

th e

b la ck p op ula tio n count , three

of

the Enacted Plan s major i ty-

minor i ty

d i s t r i c t s would ac tua l l y con ta in a BVAP percentage j u s t

shy o f 55 . T r i a l T r.

280:24-281 :10

( Jones ) ;

862:4-7

( I n t e rveno r s ) .

T ha t , a c co rd ing

to I n t e r veno r s , would

suppo r t

a

f i nd ing t h a t

t h e r e was no t a 55 BVAP

f l o o r

in dec id ing

on th e

tw e lv e C h all en ge d Di s t r i c t s .

The

record

shows t h a t

d e le g ate s a ttemptin g

to

comply

with

th e

55

V P f l oo r submit ted t h e i r proposed changes

using

da ta

t h a t

inc luded

b lack

Hispan ics in

the

V P count . See P i s . Ex.

33

a t

46;

T r i a l T r.

4 0:1 0-2 5 (M cCle lla n) ;

T r i a l Tr.

68:23-69 :2

(Dance);

I n t s . Pre -T r i a l

Br ie f

a t 8.

Although Delegate

Jones

claimed to p erso nally b elie ve tha t

the

DOJ

would

use a

V P

f igure excluding black

Hispanics , Tr ia l

Tr. 286:8-16 (Jones),

t h i s

was no t

a

d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t

he d i scussed

wi th

any

o t h e r

delegates ,

id .

a t 427:1-428:16 490:2-4,

and

he repeatedly

asse r t ed on th e

House

f l oo r t h a t

a l l

major i t y -minor i t y d i s t r i c t s

in the

proposed

l eg i s l a t i on

had a V P of 55 or higher . Pi s .

Ex.

35

a t 42, 66,

108.

Moreover,

Deleg ate Jones

assumed

t ha t

Vi rginia ,

in i t s

prec learance

submissions to

the DOJ, would

represen t t ha t a l l

12 major i ty-minor i ty d i s t r i c t s

contained a t

le st

55

BVAP.

ri l

T r . 447 :6 -8

( J on e s ) .

Th i s

t u r n ed ou t

t o

be th e

ca s e .

P i s . Ex. 48

a t

11

( Al l

12

b l a ck

major i ty

2 4




districts were ma in t a i n e d . . .

wi th

g r e a t e r t h an 55 b l a ck VAP

a range o f

55.2

to

60 .7 . ) .

At

trial I n t e r veno r s

r e l i e d on

a sp r e ad shee t

p repa r ed by

th e Div is ion o f Leg i s l a t i v e Serv i ce s ( DLS ) in an

a t t emp t

to

show t h a t

i nc lud ing

Hispan i c s

in

th e

BVAP coun t

would be

er roneous . The s pr ea ds he et c on ta in s rows

o f

data

by

d i s t r i c t

and , in each co lumn, c on ta in s m e tr ic s such a s

t o t a l

popu l a t i o n ,

popu la t ion

by

r ace , r a c i a l popu la t ion by p erc en ta ge , p op ula tio n

by

e thn i c i t y ,

and

e t hn i c

popu la t ion

by

percen tage .

P i s . '

Ex.

60

a t 13. Afte r adding the r ac i a l and

e thn ic popula t ion

t o t a l s

column by column,

th e In te rv en ors

dramat ica l ly revealed t ha t the

number exceeded t h a t o f th e district s t o t a l popu la t ion . Tr i a l

Tr.

282:10-286:7 ( Jones) .

But

t h i s

exerc i se

r e f l e c t s an e r r o r

on the

part

of the

Intervenors,

not

LS

Because ethnici ty

measures a d i f f e r en t var i ab le than race , th e r a c i a l

and e thn ic

da ta

a re

no t meant to be

added

in th e

first

p l a c e . I f one

removes

the

ethnic i ty column

from the

count

(on the

assumption

tha t Hispanic individuals of any race are a lready counted in

the i r

respect ive

r ac i a l columns), then

the

t o t a l

populat ion

f igure

i s

corrected.

That

does

not,

however, imply

tha t

Hispanics who a re r ac ia l ly black should be excluded

from

the

black

populat ion

count because to do so would

undercount the

number o f

b l a c k

i n d i v i d u a l s

in

th e BVAP

p e r c e n t a g e .

2 5




The

r e co rd shows t h a t

th e

e thn i c

da t a prov ided

by

th e

census only has r ed i s t r i c t i ng impl ica t ions in s t a t e s t ha t may

need to

c r a f t

major i ty-Hispanic d i s t r i c t s o r m ajo ri ty - b la ck -

plus-Hispanic (or coa l i t ion ) d i s t r i c t s .

In

s t a t e s such

as

Virg in ia , on the o the r hand, black

Hispanics

would co un t tow ards

the t o t a l black popu la t ion o f a d i s t r i c t

fo r

re t rogres s ion

purposes .

Id .

a t 747:14-749:12 752 :1 7- 75 4:1 7 (Ansola be he re ).

That appears to be cons i s t en t

with

th e DOJ s {admit tedly

confusing)

guidance

on t h i s

ques t ion :

I f

t h e r e a re

s i gn i f i c an t

numbers o f responses which r epo r t

Lat ino

and one o r

more

m ino ri ty races ( fo r example,

Lat inos who

list t h e i r race as

Black /Af r i c an Amer ican ) ,

t ho se

r e sponse s

w i l l

be a l l oc a t ed

a l t e r n a t i v e l y

to th e Lat ino

ca t ego ry

and th e

minor i t y

race

ca tegory .

P i s .

Ex.

9 a t 4-5 (76 Fed. Reg. Vol. 7 (Feb. 9,

2011)

a t

7472-7473) .

This a l t e r n a t i n g

approach

presumably

app l i e s

to

s i t u a t i o n s

where

th e distri t

would be majo r i t y -

b l a ck -p l u s -H i sp an i c , i n which

ca s e

co un t in g b la ck Hispan i c

i n d i v i du a l s a s e i t h e r b lack o r Hispan ic in a l t e r n a t i n g fa sh ion

would avoid

coun t ing

those ind iv idua l s

twice

in the same

distric t .® Tria l

Tr. 757:1-12 (Ansolabehere).

Thus,

the

Court

f i nd s t h a t th e p rope r count

inc ludes

b lack Hispan ics wi th in th e

BVAP pe rcen t age

o f each majo r i t y -m ino r i t y distri t This method

®The Court

recognizes

that Hispanic and

Latino

are

not

in te r changeab le des igna t ions bu t

has

been fo rced

in to

t h i s

un fo r tuna t e

con f l a t i on

by th e r eco rd .

2 6




o f

coun t i ng

r e s u l t s

in

a BVAP above 55 f o r

all

twe lve ma jo r i t y -

minor i ty d i s t r i c t s , rang ing from

55.2

to 60.7 .

Regard l e s s , t h i s deba t e

l i k e th e first

gene ra t ed

more

hea t t han l i g h t . The

a ctu al d if fe re nc es

in

BVAP

per cen t ages

were

minute , and both pa r t i e s even tua l ly agreed t ha t the

d i s t i n c t i on was not one

o f

g rea t leg al

s i gn i f i c ance . See

id . a t

816 :5 -9 ( P l a i n t i f f s ) ( The d i s t i n c t i o n be tween how [ t h ese a re ]

ca l cu l a t e [d ] i s s imply i r r e l e van t ,

and

it doe s n t mat t e r

what

we

ca l l

it.

They

used

a

r a cia l t a rg e t ,

and

whether

t ha t

was 53 o r 54 o r

55

o r 56,

whethe r

you

measure it t h i s way o r

t ha t way, it

j u s t

doesn t ma t ter . )

and id . a t 862:8-11

( I n t e rveno r s ) ( Do I b e l i e v e th e d i f f e r e n c e

be tween t h e s e

two

numbers i s in r e a l i t y

meaningful

in

ac t ua l

r e a l i t y ?

No,

it

isn t a

s i gn i f i c an t di f fe rence one way

or

th e o the r , let s

be

c a n d i d . ) .

Unlike

th e first

two ques t i ons ,

th e answer to

th e

t h i r d

que s t i o n

i.e. th e s ou r c e

o f

th e

55 r u l e

can c a r r y

g r e a t

l e ga l s ig n i f ic an ce .

Tes t imony

on t h i s

ques t i on

i s a muddle .

Delega te

Dance t e s t i f i e d

t h a t

he r unde rs tand ing

came

from

De le ga te Jo nes

and

t h a t

th e

55

f i gu r e

was

neces sa ry

in

o rd e r

to

a ch i e v e

DOJ

app rova l , i d .

a t 70 :18 -23 (Dance ) ,

bu t h e r speech

from

th e House f l oo r appea r s to re p re sen t it as

h e r

own

under s t and ing ,

see P i s . Ex.

33

a t 45 ( [W]e

need

55 pe r c en t a t

l e a s t

vo t i ng

A f r i c a n -Am e r i c a n s [. ] ) .

Del ega t e

McCle l l an

27




unders tood

th e comm i t tee s adop ted

c r i t e r i a

to r e qu i r e each o f

t he m a j or it y-m in o ri ty

d i s t r i c t s

to

have

a b la ck v otin g- ag e

popula t ion

o f a t le a s t 55 pe r cen t , T r i a l T r. 33 :1 4

(McCle l l an ) ,

and t e s t i f i e d

t h a t she came to t h i s

unders t and ing

[ t ]h rough conversa t ions with

Delegate

Jones and with

Legi sl at iv e S er vi ce s,

id . a t 33:6 8.

Delegate

Tyler

t e s t i f i ed

t h a t h er u nd ers ta nd in g

came

from Delegate Sp ru i l l ,

{Docket

No.

90 2 Ex. B a t

57 :5 -8 ) , and Delegate

Armstrong

t e s t i f i e d t ha t ,

a s

f a r

as

[he]

cou ld

tell

th e

number

was

a lmos t

pu l l e d

ou t

o f

t h i n air T r i a l

T r . 9 8 :1 -2 (Armst rong ) .

Delegate Jones

i n i t i a l l y

t e s t i f i ed t ha t

the

f igure was

drawn from

the

publ i c

hear ings

held with the community.

See id .

a t

424:1-4 ( Jones ) 55 BVAP i s what th e community had

ind ica ted

to us

t h a t they f e l t would al low them to e l e c t

th e

c an d id a te o f

t h e i r c h o i c e ) ; i d .

a t

429 : 8 - 9 ( Tha t was th e

tes t imony t ha t we heard during the

publ ic

hea r ings . ) .

Although

t h i s tes t imony

i s

cons i s t en t with h is pr io r s ta tements from the

House

f l oo r ,

see

P i s .

Ex.

35

a t 72 th e

trial

r eco rd does

not

suppor t

it.

At

trial

Delegate Jones admit ted t h a t

he

had not

r ead

th e

t r an s c r i p t s from

eve ry

hea r ing

and

cou ld no t

r e c a l l

a

s i ng l e

i n s t ance

o f a member o f

the pub l i c

r eques t ing a 55 BVAP

level. T r i a l T r. 4 42 :1 8-4 43 :9 ( J on e s ) .

Moreove r ,

mos t o f

t h e s e

hea r ings were t r ansc r i bed and

submit ted as

evidence .

A

review

of the

pub l i c hea r ing

t r a n s c r i p t s

from

th e

Fa l l

o f 2010

f a i l s

to

2 8




r e ve a l any ment ion

o f th e 55 f i gu r e . See P i s . Exs.

3-6 ,

I n t s . Ex.

1.®

Delegate Jones a l so cla imed t h a t th e 55 f i gu re came from

De lega te Dance, and Delegate Tyle r , Delegate Spru i l l ,

and

one

o r

two

o t h e [ r ] . . . Af r i c an -Amer i c an members o f th e House .

T r i a l T r .

431 :4 -7

( Jones ) . Th i s

was

t h en na r rowed t o Del ega t e s

Dance, Tyle r ,

and

Sp ru i l l . Id . a t 490:5-13. Afte r fu r t he r

q ue stio nin g, the

55 f igure

appears to

have come from

feedback

t h a t

Delegate

Sp ru i l l rece ived from var ious

groups

in Virg in ia

and from concerns

t h a t

Delegate

Tyler

would be unable to hold

he r s ea t in HD

75

with a

lower

V P

percen tage .

Id . a t 494 : 6-

495:1. In discuss ing Delegate McC lel lan s

sea t ,

by cont ras t .

Delegate Jones indicated

tha t ,

while

no

one

was

comfortable

leav ing

the

V P

percentage

in

HD 71

a t

46

they f e l t

t ha t we

needed to

have a per fo rming

major i t y -minor i t y d i s t r i c t , and from

th e

members t h a t I spoke to , they f e l t t h a t

it

needed to be

no r th of

50

pe rcen t minimum.

Id .

a t

293:6-16 {emphasis added) .

Based on th e

foregoing

t es t imony , and

th e

evidence

se t

f o r t h be low, th e Cou r t f i n d s - based on

th e

re co rd p re se nte d -

t h a t th e 55 V P f l oo r was based l a rge ly on concerns per ta in ing

®

There

i s , admittedly,

one

comment made regarding

the

maintenance o f 55 pe rcen t vo ting s t r eng th dur ing

a

pub l i c

h ea rin g he ld on Apr i l 4,

2011, P i s .

Ex.

31

a t

20,

bu t t h i s was

th e same

day

t h a t th e J o i n t

Committee

r epor t ed ou t a s ub s t i t u t e

fo r HE 5001,

(Docke t

No. 85 a t 3) .

In o t h e r

words , th e 55

floor

was

in

effect

well efore this

l o n e

com men t w as offered

29




t o

t h e r e - e l e c t i o n o f

D e l e g a t e

T y l e r i n HD 75

a n d

on

f e e d b a c k

r e c e i v e d f r o m D e l e g a t e S p r u i l l a n d

t o

a

l e s s e r

e x t e n t .

D e l e g a t e s

Dance

and T y l e r . T h a t f i g u r e was t h e n a p p l i e d

a c r o s s

t h e b o a r d t o a l l

t w e l v e

o f t h e

C h a l l e n g e d D i s t r i c t s .

C . T h e P a s s a g e

a n d

E n a c t m e n t

o f

HB 5 0 0 5

Dur ing th e r e d i s t r i c t i n g

p r o c e s s

th e

G e n e r a l

Assembly

i n i t i a l l y c o n s i d e r e d

t h r e e p l a n s :

5001

5002 and

5003.

HB

5001 was

t h e p l a n d e s i g n e d

a n d

p r o p o s e d

by D e l e g a t e

J o n e s .

5002

a n d

HB

5 0 0 3 on

t h e

o t h e r

h a n d

wer e

d e s i g n e d

by

u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s an d

p ro p o s e d

by o t h e r members o f t h e House

o f

D e l e g a t e s .

I d .

a t 376:24- 378:9.

According

to Delegate

J o n e s

5002

p a i r e d somewhere

between 4 and 48

i n c u m b e n t s

c o n t a i n e d

s i x

m a j o r i t y - m i n o r i t y

d i s t r i c t s

and had o v er

a

population d e v i a t i o n .

Id .

a t 378:10-379:4. HB 5003

on th e

o t h e r

hand

p a i r e d somewhere

between

32-34 incumbents

c o n t a i n e d

n i n e o r t e n

m a j o r i t y - m i n o r i t y

d i s t r i c t s an d a l s o d id n o t

m eet

th e p o p u l a t i o n d e v i a t i o n

c r i t e r i a .

Id .

a t

3 7 9 : 8 -1 7 . The

G o v e r n o r s Commission

a l s o

d e s i g n e d tw o p l a n s

t h a t

c o n t a i n e d 13

an d

4

m a j o r i t y - m i n o r i t y d i s t r i c t s r e s p e c t i v e l y ; however t h o s e

p l a n s

were

n e v e r

f o r m a l ly i n t r o du ce d

o r

p r o p o s e d .

I d .

a t

379:18 380:11

O n c e t h e H o u s e h a d c o a l e s c e d a r o u n d

HB

5 0 0 1 a n d t h e

p l a n

w as m a r r i e d

w i t h t h e S e n a t e s r e d i s t r i c t i n g

p l a n

t h e

bill w as

r e a d y

f o r

p a s s a g e

a n d

e n a c t m e n t . On A p r i l

1 2 2011

t h e

3 0




Vi rg in i a

Genera l Assembly

passed HB 5001 . Docket No.

83. )

Based l a r g e ly upon ob j ec t i on s to th e

Senate

p lan ,

t hen -Vi rg in ia

Governor Rober t

McDonnel l

ve toed HB

5001

t h r e e days l a t e r .

Ints Ex. 10 . Af t e r r e l a t i v e l y minor r e v i s i o n s to th e

House

plan

and more

subs tan t i a l

rev i s ions

to

the Senate

plan. Pi s .

Ex.

48

a t

10

th e l e g i s l a t u r e

passed

HB

5005 which was s igned

by the Governor and enacted

in to

law on Apr i l 29 2011 Docket

No. 8 3 ) .

To

comply

with

its

ob l i g a t i on s

under

th e

VR

the

Commonweal th t h en s u bm i t t e d th e

E nac ted P lan

(o r t h e

P l an )

t o

the DOJ

fo r

preclearance. Id . The DOJ precleared the Plan

on

June 17 2011 Docket No. 83) , and th e f i r s t e l e c t i on under th e

new districts was he ld

on

November

8 , 2011, (Docket No. 85 ) .

IV ANALYS IS

The quest ions

ra ised

in

a

r ac ia l

sor t ing claim

are

decept ive

in

the i r s impl ic i ty

but

profound

in the i r

impl icat ions . Rest ing a t the crossroads of race

pol i t i cs , and

th e

c on st i tu tio na l l im i ts of

fede ra l

power

the claim r a i ses

v i t a l quest ions about how we

iden t i fy

as c i t i z ens and how we

pro jec t

th a t id e n t i ty

in

the

ha l l s

of the

l eg i s l a tu r e . The

Supreme Court has c r a f t ed an

i n t e r p r e t i v e

s tandard

fo r

navigat ing

t h i s

f i e ld : the l eg i s l a tu r e must not allow r ac i a l

cons ide ra t ions to predominate over ( i . e . , to subordina te )

t r a di t io na l r e d i s tr i c tin g c r i t e r i a . I f t h i s r e su l t s

from

31




at tempted compliance with th e

VRA

th e

Sta te

must show

a

s t rong

b a s is in ev i d en c e t h a t ts u se o f r a ce

was

ne c e s s a r y to

comply

wi th a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e ad i ng

o f

th e s t a t u t e .

What

t h i s s tandard provides

in

conceptua l

grace, however,

t lacks in prac t i ca l guidance. For l eg i s la to r s , t

does

l i t t l e

to s igna l

when t may

be cons t i tu t iona l ly permiss ib le

to

cut

through

a

precinct

or move a boundary l ine to a l t e r the

demographic

composition

of a

d i s t r i c t

for purposes

of complying

with

s imi la r ly

mandatory

federal

law. For

l i t i ga tor s ,

t

provides an

ent ic ingly

vague standard and inv i tes l i t iga t ion

t ha t can drive

up

the

cos t

of conduct ing and defending

the

S ta t e s

red i s t r i c t ing endeavor. See

Abrams

v.

Johnson, 521

U.S.

74,

118

1997) {Stevens, J . , dissent ing) Any red is t r ic t ing

plan wil l generate potent ial ly

injured

plain t i f fs , . . .

[a]nd

judges

unable

to re fe r , say, to

in tent ,

di lu t ion ,

shape, or

some other l im itin g p rin cip le ) w ill f ind t d i f f i cu l t

to

dismiss

those c l a ims [ . ] ) .

And

fo r cou r ts , t prov ides

an

uncomfor table

amount

of d i s c r e t i o n in a f i e l d t h a t

th e Supreme

Court has

repeatedly

admonished r ep resen t s a ser ious in t rus ion on the

mos t

v t l

o f

lo c a l f u nc tio ns .

M i l le r ,

515

U.S .

a t 915.

By

asking

cour t s a t t empt ing to i d en t i fy predominance to engage in a

search ing

f a c t u a l

inqu i ry and

comprehens ive

balancing

before

applying s t r i c t

sc ru t iny and

to

ju s t i fy s t r i c t

sc ru t iny

the

t e s t

g ives the j ud i c i a l branch th e r e l a t i v e l y

broad

power to

3 2




s t r i k e down

o r

uphold

l e g i s l a t i v e distri ts

wi thou t

much

guidance

in how to do so no tw i th s t and ing exho r t a t i ons

to

e x e rc is e e x tr ao rd in a ry

c au t i on

to

th e

con t r a r y .

The re fo r e

to

sha rpen th e j u d i c i a l i nqu i ry

to

ensure t h a t

th e r equ i s i t e

burden

i s

s a t i s f i ed

and

to asse ss whether


l e g i s l a t i o n

has

s u cce s s f u l l y n av ig a ted th e

narrow

passage between cons t i t u t i ona l and uncons t i t u t i ona l

r e d i s t r i c t i n g

it

i s app rop r i a t e

to

a r t i c u l a t e

how

th e

Cour t

unders tands

th e

predominance

and

s t r i c t

s c ru t i ny

i nqu i r i e s

a re

to proceed

as

m atte r o f

law. The

s ta tewide and d i s t r i c t - by -

distri t e vid en ce th en will be a ss es se d w i th in th t

f r amework .

A.

The Rac i a l

So r t i n g Framework

The e s sence o f

th e

r a c i a l s or tin g a na ly sis i s qu i t e easy to

a r t i cu l a t e

and comprehend .

Fi r s t cour t s

examine whether r ac i a l

cons idera t ions predominated

over o r subordinated

t ra d it io n al r ed i st ri c t in g

c r i t e r i a . I f

cour t

so

f inds

then

th e

cour t

app l ies s t r i c t sc ru t iny .

Second

the

cour t examines

whether th e l e g i s l a t u r e had s t rong bas i s in evidence

fo r

be l iev ing

fede ra l law required i t s use

o f

race assuming th i s i s

th e

bas i s upon which

th e

S ta t e

seeks to

j u s t i f y its

dec i s ion .

But

a s

t h i s ca se

demons t r a t e s

th e d ev i l i s

in

th e

de t a i l s . The pa r t i e s a c t u a l l y have proposed c on fl ic tin g ru le s

regard ing

th e s ub o rd in atio n t e s t .

And

each

be l ieves

t ha t the

33




Supreme C ou rt s rec en t Alabama

dec i s ion

r e in fo r ce s

its

pos i t i on .

But bo th

canno t be

r i g h t ,

and

we t h ink t h a t n ei th er is.

The

P l a i n t i f f s

ca se and

our c ol le ag ue s d is s en t

revo lve

ch i e f l y

around

th e ev idence

t h a t


employed

a 55 V P

f l oo r when

c ra f t i ng th e Chal lenged Di s t r i c t s .

Accord ing to

P l a i n t i f f s

theory , race

predominates if it i s

the

most

impor t an t c r i t e r i o n . P i s . P os t -T ria l B rie f a t

4

Docket No.

105

In o t h e r

words ,

subo rd i n a t i on d o e s no t r equ i r e open

con f l i c t

with

^ t r ad i t i ona l

d i s t r i c t i ng

c r i t e r i a .

Id .

a t

5.

Thus , th e Plaintiffs,

l i k e th e d i s s e n t , p ropo se

a

p e r s e

r u l e :

th e

d r a f t e r s use

o f

th e

55 BVAP

f l o o r in d i s t r i c t i n g

i s

verboten and

au tomat ica l ly s a t i s f i e s

M i l le r s predominance

s t anda rd . This , th e P l a i n t i f f s argue , i s th e ce ntr a l th ru st o f

the A l a b am a

case:

This case

bo i l s

down to

a

very s imple

p ropos i t i on :

May Vi rg i n i a s

Genera l

Assembly u t i l i z e a f ixed numer ica l r a c i a l

t h re sho ld

in

es tab l i sh ing d i s t r i c t l i ne s

The answer to t h i s ques t ion

has

been

add re s sed and de f i n i t i v e l y s e t t l e d by th e

Uni ted

S t a t e s

Supreme

Cour t

in its r e c en t

Alabama dec i s i on

which

unambiguous ly

c o n d emn e d

the

use of racial

thresholds

in

redistricting[.]

T r i a l T r . 811 :1 -10 Plaintiffs .

Desp i t e its t empt ing s imp l i c i t y and v i s c e r a l appea l , th e

Cour t must r e j e c t t h i s proposa l .

Although

th e Alabama dec i s i on

condemned t h e

u se

o f u nw r i t t e n racial t h r e s h o l d s , it

d id

no t

34




e s t a b l i s h a

p e r

se p redominance

r u l e .

In Alabama, th e Cou r t

accep t ed

th e

lower cou r t s f ind ing t h a t l e g i s l a t o r s had employed

BV P

per cen t age

f l o o r s in

th e cha l l enged

districts. See

Alabama, 135 S . C t. at 1271 The l e g i s l a t o r s

i n

cha rge

o f

c r ea t i ng

th e r e d i s t r i c t i n g p lan b e l ie v ed ,

and

to ld t h e i r

t e c hn i c a l adv i s e r , t h a t a pr imary r e d i s t r i c t i n g goa l was to

mainta in ex i s t i ng r a c i a l percentages

in

each major i t y -minor i t y

district i n s o f a r a s

f e a s i b l e . ) .

If

t h e

use o f t h o s e

t h resho lds

cons t i t u t ed

predominance

per

se , then

the re

would

have been little reason

fo r th e Supreme

Cour t t o have

remanded

t h e c a s e to the district c o u r t to d e t e rm i n e

whe t h e r

r a c e

p redomina t ed . Id . a t 1272.

Rather ,

the

Court poin ted

out

t ha t [ t ] he re [was]

cons ide rab le

ev idence

t h a t

t h i s goa l had

a

d i r e c t

and

s i gn i f i c an t impact

on

th e drawing

of

a t l e a s t some o f

[ the

district s]

bounda r i e s . Id . a t 1271

emphas i s

added) . Tha t

[ the

Sta te ] expres s ly adopted

and

app l i ed

a

po licy o f

p r i o r i t i z i n g mechan i c a l

r a c i a l

t a r g e t s above

all

o the r

d i s t r i c t i n g c r i t e r i a

(save

one -p e rson , one -vo te ) p rov ides

ev idence

t h a t

r a c e mot i va t ed

th e d rawing

o f pa r t i c u l a r l i n e s in

mul t i p l e

d i s t r i c t s

in

t h e S t a t e . Id . a t 1267

emphas i s

added) .

The

A l a b am a case c o u l d

n o t

b e clearer that u s e o f racial

BV P f l oo r s

c o n s t i t u t e s

ev idence a l b e i t

s i g n i f i c a n t

ev idence

o f

p redom inance . B u t, we do no t r e ad

Alabama

t o ho ld t h a t use

3 5




o f a BV P

f l oo r

s a t i s f i e s th e

P l a i n t i f f s

predominance

burden

mere ly because

th e f l o o r was

p r i o r i t i z e d

above all

o t h e r

d i s t r i c t i n g c r i t e r i a in impo r t ance . Ra the r , th e s ig n if i c an ce

o f

th e r a c i a l f l o o r i s

its

impac t

on

th e c re a t i on o f th e

district.

Th i s demand s

actual

conflict b e t w e e n traditional

r ed i s t r i c t i ng c r i t e r i a and race t h a t lead s to the subord ina tion

o f th e former ,

r a t h e r than a

merely

hypo the t i c a l

co nf l ic t th at

pe r

f o r c e r e s u l t s

i n

th e conc lu s ion t h a t

th e

t r a d i t i o n a l

criteria have

been

s u b ord in ate d to

r a c e .

Page

v .

Vi rg i n i a

S t a t e Bd.

o f E l e c t i o n s , No. 3:13CV678, 2015 3604029, a t *27

E.D. Va.

2015)

Payne , J. d i s s e n t i n g ) .

To unders tand why th is i s so , one must remember the or ig in

o f

and

th e r a t i o n a l e fo r th e Shaw

c l a im . The district

bounda r i e s

in

Shaw

were so ou t l and i sh

t h a t

de sp i t e any

exp re s s

t ex tua l c l a s s i f i ca t ion by race in the s t a tu t e i t

ra t iona l ly

[could] be viewed only as an

e f f o r t

to segrega te th e

races

fo r

purposes

of

vot ing , w ithout regard fo r t r ad i t i ona l


pr inc ip l e s .

Shaw I , 509 U.S. a t

642. In

response, the Court

t rea ted

the l eg i s l a t i on as

though

it had

employed

a

f ac i a l

c l a s s i f i c a t i on

and

su bjec ted th e

l e g i s l a t i on

to

s t r i c t

sc ru t iny

r a t he r than

r equ i r ing the

p l a i n t i f f s to

prove

both

d i s c r im ina to ry

purpose

and d i s c r im ina to ry

e f f e c t .

In Shaw, th e Cour t

compared

th e

d i s t r i c t s

to

r a c i a l

ba lkan iza t ion and p o l i t i c a l apa r the id and caut ioned t h a t

3 6




such districts t h r e a t e n

exp r e s s i v e harm

i.e.

th e

s t i gma t i z a t i on

o f

i nd i v i dua l s

by

reason o f t h e i r membership in

a

r a c i a l

group

and

th e i n c i t emen t o f

r a c i a l

ho s t i l i t y a s

wel l a s

r ep re s en t a t i ve

harm

i.e.

th e

t h r e a t t h a t

e lec t ed

o f f i c i a l s

would beg in to b e l iev e t h a t t h e i r pr imary ob l i g a t i on

i s to

r ep re s en t only th e members

o f

t h a t

group, r a the r

than

t h e i r

cons t i tuency

as whole . Id . a t 657, 643, 648.

Unlike in

its

r a c i a l and

po l i t i c a l

vote

d i l u t i on cases ,

however ,

th e

Supreme

Court

d id no t

charge

p l a i n t i f f s

with

producing evidence

t h a t such

d isc r imina to ry e f f e c t s had, in

fac t , come to pass . See e .g . , Rogers,

458 U.S.

a t 625-27

{observing

in

r a c i a l vote d i lu t i on case t ha t

[e]x tensive

evidence was c i t ed

by

the Dis t r i c t

Court to suppor t i t s f ind ing

t h a t

e lec ted o f f i c i a l s o f

Burke County have

been unresponsive

and i n s en s i t i v e

to th e

needs o f th e b la ck community , which

i n c r e a s e s th e

l i k e l i hood

t h a t th e

po l i t i c a l

proce ss was no t

equal ly

open to

b lacks ; Davis

v.

Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 131-

3

1986) observing in

po l i t i c a l vote di lu t ion case t ha t ta ]n

ind iv idu a l o r a

group of

ind iv idua l s who

vote s

fo r a

los ing

cand ida t e

i s

usua l ly

deemed

to

be

adequate ly

rep re sen ted

by

th e

winning cand ida te and to have as much

oppor tun i ty

to

inf luence

that c a n d i d a t e a s

other

voters

in t h e

district

and

that t h e

Cour t cannot presume in such a s i t u a t i on , withou t ac tua l proof

to th e co n t ra ry , t h a t th e cand ida t e e l e c t e d

w i l l

e n t i r e l y i gno r e

37




th e i n t e r e s t s o f th o s e

vo t e r s )

emphas i s added) . Such ev idence

i s

no t

necessary in

r a c i a l

so r t i ng c la im

because [ e ]xpre ss

r a c i a l

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s

a re

immedia te ly su spec t

and a re

subjec ted

to

s t r i c t sc ru t i ny . Shaw I ,

509

U.S.

a t 642. This i s

s im i l a r ly

t rue fo r

th e

f un ct io n al e q ui va le n ts

of express

r a c i a l

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s :

s t a t u t e s

unex p la inab le on grounds o t h e r t han

r a c e o r

s t a t u t e s

t h a t

a re

an

obv ious

p r e t ex t fo r r a c i a l

discrimination. S e e

id.

at

6 4 3 - 4 4 .

o

sooner

had

th e

inlc

dr ied

on

th e

Supreme

Cour t s

opin ion

in Shaw than

it was

faced w ith

s l i gh t l y

d i f f e r e n t ques t ion .

What

if t h e

district s

b o u n d a r i e s are

n o t

bizarre

o r

i r r a t i ona l ,

bu t

still r e f l e c t

c l e a r mani fe s t a t ion

of r a c i a l

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ? In

Mi l l e r ,

th e

Cour t recogn ized

t h a t

Shaw

represented an ana ly t ica l ly d is t inc t claim 515

U.S.

a t 911

bu t

decided

t ha t the l i t i g a t i on before it r equ i re [d ] [the

Court] fu r t h e r

to

cons ide r th e requ irem ents o f th e p roof

necessary to sus ta in th i s equal

pro tec t ion

chal lenge , id . a t

915.

Rather

than

abandoning

the

c l a im s

animat ing pr inc ip le s ,

th e

Cour t

a l t e r e d

th e t h r e sho ld showing and c l a r i f i e d

t h a t

pa r t i e s br inging r a c i a l so r t ing claim a re n e i t h e r

conf ined

in

t h e i r p roo f to e vid enc e re ga rd in g th e district s geometry and

makeup nor requ i red

to

make t h re sho ld showing o f b i za r r ene s s .

Id.

38




The district cha l l enged

in

Mi l l e r was

no t a s b i z a r r e a s

those found

in

Shaw bu t , when

its

shape

[was] cons idered in

con junc t ion wi th its r a c i a l and popu la t ion dens i t i e s , it became

e x c e ed i ng l y obv iou s t h a t

t h e

district

employed n a r row

l and

b r idges in

a de l i b e r a t e a t t emp t

to

b r ing

b lack

popu la t ions

i n t o

th e district. I d . a t 917. The r e , t h e

district s va r i ou s

sp ind ly

appendages

c on ta in ed n ea rly 8 o f

th e

district s t o t a l

b l ack

popu la t ion . Id . These f a c i a l l y

e vid en t d ev ia tio ns

from

neu t r a l


conven tions cou ld on ly

be

exp la ined

on

the

bas i s of race . Id .

a t

918-19.^° Thus d i s t r i c t s such

as

the one

found in

Mi l l e r still

r a i s e th e

spec t e r

o f exp res s ive

o r

r ep re s en t a t i ve

harms and

still

man i fe s t , on th e face o f th e

law

th e l awmaker s c l e a r

i n t e n t

t o

u s [ e ]

r a ce

a s

a

b a s i s fo r

s ep ar at i ng v ote rs in to

d i s t r i c t s . Id .

a t

911.

Moreover these

d i s t r i c t s necessa r i ly r e f l e c t

the

kind of

very s te reo typica l

assumptions the

Equal Pro tec t ion Clause

forb ids ; namely the

demeaning

not ion

t h a t members

o f

the def ined r a c i a l groups

In Mil le r , th e

S ta t e

conceded t h a t po r t ions o f

Effingham

a n d Cha t h am

Co u n t i e s

wou l d n o t h a v e

b e e n ad d e d

b u t

for

t h e

need

to i n c lude a dd i t i o n a l

b l ack

popu l a t i on ;

t h a t

a

s ub s t an t i a l

r eason

fo r

[ the

district s

p r e c i n c t

s p l i t s ]

was

th e

ob je c t iv e o f in c re a s ing th e b lack popu la t io n o f

t h a t

d i s t r i c t ;

and

t h a t th e add i t i o n

o f th e district

itself was t h e p r o du c t o f

a de s i r e by the Gene r a l Assembly to c r e a t e a majo r i t y

b l ack

d i s t r i c t .

Fur the rmore ,

G eo rg i a s At to rney Gene r a l ob jec t ed

to

the Ju s t i c e Depar tment s demand

fo r

t h r ee

major i ty -b lack

d i s t r i c t s

on

th e ground

t h a t

to do so th e S ta t e would have to

v i o l a t e all

r e a s onab l e

s ta n d a rd s o f compac t ne s s and

c o n t i g u i t y . 515 U.S.

a t

918-19.

3 9




a s c r i b e

to

c e r t a i n

^m in ority v iew s

t h a t

must be

d i f f e r e n t

from

those

of

other

citizens Id at

9 1 4 .

However when racial c on s i d e r a t i o n s do no t e n t a i l

th e

compromise

o f

n e u t r a l

d i s t r i c t i n g

norms

th e

ba s i s

fo r

r a c i a l

so r t ing c la im evapora t e s .

T rad it io na l , n eu tra l


p r inc ip l e s r e f l e c t c e r t a i n judgments about vo te r s , bu t

th e se a re

the

same judgments

t h a t animate a l l

geograph ic

as opposed to

p ropo r t i ona l

r ep re s en t a t i on sys tems :

t h a t those who

l i v e

nea r

each o th e r in th e

same communi t i e s ,

coun t i e s , and cities

have

someth ing in common someth ing t h a t warran t s

t h e i r

r ep resen ta t ion as

reasonably def ined

geograph ica l

r a t he r

t han r a c i a l o r po l i t i c a l un i t .

More impor tan t ly , hold ing t h a t

otherwise

reasonab ly neu t r a l

d i s t r i c t s are sub jec t to s t r i c t sc ru t iny because of merely

theoretical

o r

latent conflict

b e tween

r a c e

an d

traditional

d i s t r i c t i ng c r i t e r i a would unlash th e Shaw c la im from th e

mooring o f f a c i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i on j u r i sp rudence . I f t h i s

l ega l

equ iva l ence

i s

f o r f e i t e d ,

it i s

unc l e a r why th e a n a l y t i c a l ly

d i s t i n c t

na t u r e

o f

th e

c la im sh ou ld no t un r ave l e n t i r e l y ,

fo rc ing p l a i n t i f f s to prove th e

exp r e s s i v e

o r re pre s en ta tiv e

harms

po s t u l a t ed i n Shaw

Admi t t ed ly , th e

i s sue

p re s en t ed in t h i s

ca se

i s d i f f i c u l t

one . The

Supreme

Cour t r e se rved from

th e

ve ry ou t s e t th e

4 0




ques t ion o f whether th e i n t en t i ona l use o f a 50 V P t h re sho ld

was s u f f i c i e n t

to

su s t a in

a

r a c i a l s o r t i n g c l a im :

t

i s

unnecessa ry fo r us t o dec ide whether

o r

how a

reappor t ionment

plan

t h a t , on

its

f a ce ,

can be exp la ined in n o n ra c ia l t e rms

succe s s fu l l y could be cha l l enged . Thus, we

express no view as

to

whether

th e

i n t en t i ona l c r ea t i on

o f

ma jor i ty -minor i ty

d i s t r i c t s ,

wi t hou t

more,

a lways

g ives

r i s e

to an equa l p ro t ec t i on

c la im.

Shaw

I , 509 U.S. a t 649. Although th e p r i n c i p a l opin ion in Bush

V

Vera

at tempted

to put

t h i s ques t ion

to r e s t ,

517 U.S. 952,

958

1996 ( S t r i c t

sc ru t iny does

not

apply

to

a l l

i n t en t i ona l c r ea t i on

o f m a jo r i ty -m ino r i ty

d i s t r i c t s . )

(pr inc ipa l

opinion ,

Jus t i ce

Kennedy

expressed some

doubts in

h is

concu r r i ng

op in ion :

I jo in the

p lu ra l i t y opinion,

bu t the

s t a t emen t s in

th e op in ion

t h a t

s t r i c t

s c ru t i ny

would

no t

app ly

to

a l l

cases

o f

i n t e n t i o n a l

c re a t i on

o f

majo r i t y -mino r i t y

d i s t r i c t s

r equ i r e comment. I do no t

c o n s id e r th es e

d i c t a t o

commit me t o

any

pos i t ion

on th e

ques t ion

whether

race

i s

predominant whenever a

S ta t e ,

in

r e d i s t r i c t i n g ,

fo reo rda in s t h a t

one

r ace

be

th e majo r ity in a ce r t a in number o f

districts o r in a c er ta in p ar t o f th e

S t a t e .

Id .

a t 996

Kennedy, J . ,

concurr ing)

( i n t e rna l

c i t a t i on

om i t t e d ) .

Based

on

th e Supreme C ou r t s r e c en t d ec is io n in Alabama,

th e Cour t now appea r s to

be

d iv id ed , o r a t

l e a s t

equ ivoca l , on

wh e t h e r

BVAP thresholds a l o n e re

sufficient to

constitute

4 1




predominance.

Compare

Alabama,

135 S. C t.

a t

1267 no t i ng t h a t

th e p r i o r i t i z a t i o n o f

mechanica l

r a c i a l

t a r g e t s

above

all

o t h e r


on ly p ro v id e s

ev idence

t h a t race

predominated)

with League o f

United Lat in American Ci t i zens

v.

Pe r r y (LULAC) , 548 U.S. 399 , 517

(2006)

S c a l ia , J concu r r ing

in the judgment in pa r t and d issen tin g in

par t ,

jo ined by

Chief

J u s t i c e

Rober t s , Ju s t i c e Thomas,

and J u s t i c e

Al i to ) a rgu ing

t h a t th e i n t e n t i o n a l u se o f a 50 BVAP th re sh o ld n e ce ss ar ily

means

r a ce predomina ted) .

Although the unwri t ten

use

of

a

r a c i a l

f loor

by l eg i s l a t o r s

may

seem repugnant

a t

f i r s t blush , th e

in te rpre ta t ion of

predominance

proposed

by the Pla in t i f f s and the d i ssen t has

quite seriou s repercussions. I f the use of a V P threshold -

any V P

threshold

- i s

suff ic ien t

to

t r igger

s t r i c t

scrut iny

in

t h e a b s e n c e

o f a facial man i f e s t a t i o n

i n

th e

l i n e s t h ems e l v e s

through

the subordinat ion

of t rad i t iona l red is tr ic t ing

pr inc ip l e s , then the cons t i t u t i ona l i t y of the Voting Rights Act

- as appl ied to


- would

be

drawn in to ques t ion.

More fundamental ly , th e compat ib i l i ty o f th e Four teen th

Amendment s Equal

Protect ion

Clause and th e Fif teenth

The

dissent

contends tha t we

need

not grapple with the

issues that

f o l l ow b e c a u s e

we

are f a c e d w ith a mo r e na r r ow

que s t i on . See pos t a t

163-64 .

But incrementa l i sm does not

demand

t h a t

th e Cour t igno re the c l e a r consequences

o f

two

d if f e re n t ju d ic ia l cons t ruc t ions

when

weighing

which

to adopt .

I f

one

s e t s us

on

a path to cons t i t u t i ona l con f l i c t and

one

avoids t h a t path , we th ink t h a t th e l a t t e r i s

to

be pre fe r red .

42




Amendment s Enfo rcemen t Clau se m igh t be drawn i n t o que s t i on .

T h e

C o u r t

d o e s not

believe that

the

Constitution or that

Supreme Cour t p receden t e i t h e r requ i re s o r perm its th e

P l a i n t i f f s view

o f predom inance and,

t h e r e fo r e , does no t

be l i eve t h a t th e r a c i a l

so r t i ng cla im

ex tends

any

f u r t he r

than

its

o r i g i n a l purpose:

to s t r i k e down

t hose

d i s t r i c t s

t h a t ,

on

t h e i r f a c e ,

reflect r a c ia l c l as s if ic a t i o n s .

Moreover , th e

P l a i n t i f f s do no t

t ake umbrage a t th e

use

o f

r a c i a l t a rge t s ,

so long

as those

t a rge t s

se rve the

ends

o f

p re se rv in g m i no rit y

vo t e r s ab i l i t y to

e l e c t . Quoting

from

th e

Alabama

decis ion

dur ing

t h e i r c los ing

s ta tem en t, the P l a i n t i f f s

observed t ha t , in o rde r

to

be narrowly t a i l o r e d , th e

l eg i s l a tu r e

must a sk to

what ex t en t must

we

prese rve

ex i s t i ng

minor i ty

[E ]ven if

§ o f th e [F i f te e n th ] Amendment p roh i b i t s

only purposeful

discr iminat ion,

the

pr ior

decis ions

of

th[e]

[Supreme]

Court

fo rec lose

any argument

t h a t

Congress may not ,

pursuan t to § 2,

outlaw

vot ing prac t ices t h a t

are

discr iminatory

in e f f e c t . C ity o f Rome v. United

S t a t e s , 446

U.S. 156, 173

(1980). The ab i l i t y - t o - e l e c t s tandard , which inherent ly

u t i l i z e s

r a c i a l

f l o o r s in its r e d i s t r i c t i n g app l i c a t i on s , would

seem to prov ide j u s t

such

a necessary and proper s t a t u t o ry

prophy lax i s .

See

id . a t 175, 177. No one doubts t h a t


l eg i s l a t i on

can th rea ten th e

r i g h t to

vote on

a c c o u n t of race

in

defiance of the Fifteenth

Amendme n t s

guarantee , see Gom illion v . Ligh t foo t , 364

U.S.

339,

346-48

(1960) ,

o r

t h a t

th e

VRA

p ro t e c t s aga i n s t

t h i s

t h r e a t

o f

depr iva t ion , see Allen v. S ta t e

Board

o f

Elec t ions , 393 U.S.

544 , 569 ( 1969) . And, o f cou r s e ,

no

one

doub t s

t h a t vo t i ng

d i s c r im i n a t i o n still exists

She l by Coun t y ,

133

S .

C t. a t

2619 .

The r e f o r e ,

un l e s s

th e

Enfo r c emen t

Cl au s e is t o

be

r e ad

with a r i g i d i t y a l i en

to

a l l o the r pos i t i v e gran t s o f


power ,

t h en

th e use

o f r a c i a l t a r g e t s

by s t a t e s

ac t i ng

under

cong re s s i on a l mandate would no t by itself seem

an app rop r i a t e pe r se t r i g g e r fo r strict s c r u t i n y .

4 3




pe rcen t age s

in

o r d e r

to

main t a i n

th e mino r i t i e s p r e s en t a b i l i t y

to

elect the candidate of its

choice.

Trial T r .

8 1 9 : 2 3 - 8 2 0 : 1

( P l a i n t i f f s )

( quo t ing Alabama, 135 S. C t. a t 1274) .

But ,

th e

i nqu i ry i n t o

whe the r

th e

t a r g e t s

a re adequa te ly j u s t i f i e d only

occu r s

a f t e r f in d ing race predominant .

I f

t a r g e t s themselves

c on s t i t u t e s ubo rd i n a t i on , t hen it is

hard

to see how th e

P l a i n t i f f s have not

smuggled one

i nqu i ry in to th e nex t .

This

would again th rea ten th e foundat ions o f

th e

V by making a l l

i t s

redistricting

applications

subject

to

s t r ic t

scrutiny^^

and

s e t up a po t en t i a l con f l i c t between th e Four teen th Amendment s

Equal Pro tec t ion Clause

and

th e

F i f t e en th

Amendment s

E n f o r c e m e n t

Clause.

Afte r t h i s journey,

we

thus a r r ive back where

we

s ta r ted :

M i ll e r s predominance

t e s t . In Mil le r , th e

Court descr ibed the

Plaintiffs burden as follows:

The

p l a i n t i f f s burden i s to show, e i t h e r

through c i r cums tan t i a l evidence o f a

district s

shape

and

demographics

o r more

d i r e c t ev idence going

to


purpose, t h a t

race

was

th e predominant

f a c t o r

mot iva t ing

th e

l e g i s l a tu r e s

dec is ion

to

p l a c e

a s i g n i f i c a n t

number o f

vo t e r s

w ith in o r withou t a pa r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t . To

make t h i s showing,

a

p l a i n t i f f must

prove

tha t the l eg is la ture subordinated

P l a i n t i f f s have

occas iona l l y

f l i r t e d

wi th

t h i s no t i on :

The Shaw cases

p r oh i b i t

all

un j u s t i f i e d

race-based

r ed i s t r i c t i ng , whatever

form

it may

t ake .

P i s . Pos t -T r i a l

Reply a t

6. That s a i d ,

counse l fo r

P l a i n t i f f s has cla im ed

t h a t

the re must be

a

f l oo r o f 50

pe rcen t p lu s one under

Sect ion

o f

t h e VRA.

Trial T r . 842 : 1 7 - 19

(Plaintiffs).

44




t rad i t iona l race-neutral

dis t r ic t ing

pr i nc i p l e s ,

i nc lud ing but

no t l im i ted to

compactness ,

con t igu i ty , and

r e sp ec t fo r

po l i t i c a l subdiv is ions o r

communities

de f ined by a c t u a l sha r ed i n t e r e s t s , to

racial

considerations.

515 U.S. a t 916

emphasis

added) . P l a i n t i f f s would

p r e f e r

we

s top reading Mil le r a t t h i s exac t

punctuat ion

mark.

And, under

t h a t

fo rmula t ion ,

they

cou ld p l au s ib ly argue

t h a t

they have

proved

r a c i a l

predominance merely upon p roo f th a t l e g i s l a to rs

used a 55 V P f l oo r .

But

th e very nex t sentence in

Mil l e r

leads

whe r e

this Co u r t

mu s t

f o l l ow : W h e re

these

or

other race-

n eu tr a l c o ns id e ra t io n s a re

th e

ba s i s fo r r e d i s t r i c t i ng

l e g i s l a t i o n , and a r e no t s ubo rd i n a t e d

t o

r a c e , a S t a t e can

d e f e a t

a

c l a im

that a district

ha s

been

ge r r ymande r ed on racial

lines. Id .

{quot ing Shaw I ,

509

U.S. a t

647) {emphasis

added ) .

The

Cou r t s

qu ota t io n o f

Shaw in

t h i s

i n s t ance

r a t h e r

c l e a r l y

r e f l e c t s its i n t e n t i o n :

[T ] r ad i t i ona l

d i s t r i c t i ng pr i nc i p l e s

such

as

compactness ,

con t i gu i t y , and

re spec t fo r

po l i t i c a l

subd iv i s ions

a re impor tan t

because

t hey a re ob j e c t i v e f a c to r s th a t

may s e r v e t o d e f e a t a

c l a im

that a district

has been ger rymandered on r a ci a l l i n e s .

Pu t

d i f f e r e n t l y , we

b e l i e v e

t h a t

r e a p p o r t i o nmen t

is on e

a r e a i n

which

a p p e a r a n c e s

do

ma t t e r .

Shaw

I ,

509 U.S. a t 647 emphasis added). Therefore , we re ly on

the pr incipal opinion in

Bush,

which s ta ted th at

the

neglect of

t r a d i t i ona l d is t r ic tin g c ri t e ri a i s

necessary ,

[but] not

4 5




suff icient for s t r i c t scrutiny to apply. Bush, 517 U.S.

at

962

(principal

opinion)

emphasis

added); accord Miller,

515 U.S. at

928 (O'Connor,

J . ,

concurring) To invoke

s t r i c t

scrutiny, a

pla int i ff

must show

that

the State has relied on

race

in

substant ia l

disregard of customary and t ra d it io n a l d is tr ic ti ng

p r a c t i c e s . ) .

Our

dissenting

colleague

advocates a dif fe ren t reading of

predominance.

The

dissent

views the

BVAP

f loor as a

f i l t e r

through

which a l l

l ine-drawing

decisions

had

to

pass

and

argues

t h a t t h i s r a c i a l f i l t e r necessar i ly . . . rendered a l l

t r a d i t i o n a l criteria

t h a t o t h e rw i s e

would have been r a c e -

neu t r a l , t a in t ed by

and

subord ina ted

to race .

Post

a t 164.

According to th e

d i s sen t ,

a l eg i s l a t i ve d i s t r i c t neces sa r i ly i s

c r a f t ed ^because o f r a c e when

such a filter

i s employed. Pos t

a t 167-68

(emphas i s

added ) .

The

d i s s en t

t a k e s

th e view t h a t th e

a pp l i c a ti on o f strict

s c ru t i ny

in t h i s s u i t

was

neve r a c lose

ques t i on

because

when

th e l e g i s l a t o r s i n t en t i ona l l y c r e a t ed

[55 BVAP] districts this was s u f f i c i e n t to show

t h a t

r a ce

was a predominant f a c t o r in its r ed i s t r i c t i ng .

Bush,

517 U.S.

a t

999-1000

{Thomas,

J . ,

concurr ing

in the

judgment).

We

r e spec t fu l l y dec l ine to adop t

t h i s

read ing o f predominance .

Fi r s t ,

the

d i s s en t s

i n t e rp re t a t i on

echoes the view t ha t

was r e j ec t ed by

th e

p r i nc i pa l opin ion in Bush

v.

Vera. See

id .

4 6




at 962

principal opinion). In his separate Bush concurrence.

usti e Thomas w r o t e :

In my view, [the intentional

creation

of

a

5

BVAP

d i s t r i c t ]

means t ha t

the

legis la ture affirmatively undertakes to

create

a majority-minority d i s t r i c t tha t

would

no t

have

ex i s t ed bu t fo r th e exp re s s

use o f r a c i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i on s - in o the r

words, tha t

a

majority-minority d i s t r i c t

i s

c rea t ed because of , and not merely in

spi te

of , racial demographics.

When that

occurs, t rad i t iona l

race-neutral d is t r ic t ing

principles are necessarily subordinated

and

race necessar i ly predominates) and the

l eg i s la ture

has

c lass i f ied

persons

on

the

bas i s o f r ace . The r e su l t i ng r ed i s t r i c t i ng

must

be viewed as

a r a c i a l ger rymander .

Id .

a t

1001 Thomas, J . , concurr ing in

the

judgment)

( in te rna l

c i ta t ions omitted) emphasis added).

Although Jus t ice

Thomas

recognized tha t

th is question

was expressly reserved

in

Shaw

1, he

be l i eved t h a t

th e

Cour t

had e f f e c t iv e l y reso lved

it

in

subsequen t ca se s .

Id . a t 999.

Ju s t i c e Thomas first po in t ed

to th e

Supreme

Cou r t s

dec i s i o n

i n

Adarand

Con s t r u c t o r s ,

I n c .

v .

Pena , 515 U.S. 200

(1995) , as ev idence t h a t a l l

governmenta l

r a c i a l

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s must be

s t r i c t l y

s c r u t i n i z e d .

Id . a t

999-1000.

But t h i s

presumes

what must

in fa c t

be

proven:

t h a t

th e V irg in ia

l e g i s l a t u r e s f a c i a l l y neu t r a l r ed i s t r i c t i ng l e g i s l a t i on was th e

l e g a l equ iva l en t o f a f a c i a l l y r a c i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .

Predominance

i s itself

the a rb i t e r

o f

t h i s l ega l

equiva lency .

47




In

Adarand the

question

was whether a contracting

clause

providing f inancia l

incentive[s]

to

hire subcontractors

control led by

soc ia l ly and

economically

disadvantaged

i nd i v i dua l s v i o l a t e s the equal pro tec t ion component of

t h e F i f t h Amendm en t s Due

P ro c e s s

Clau s e . 515 U.S .

at

204 . In

t ha t case

fede ra l

law

requi red

the

use o f

the

c lause

in

most

f ede ra l agency con t r a c t s ,

and

expres s ly r equ i r e [d ] th e

clause

to s t a t e

t h a t Mt ]h e

con t r a c t o r s h a l l presume t h a t

so c i a l l y

and

economica l ly

d isadvan taged

i nd i v i dua l s

i n c lude

Black

Amer icans

Hispan ic Amer icans Nat ive Amer icans

Asian Pac i f i c

Americans

and

o t h e r

minorities[.] Id . a t

205 .

The

d is sen t re t re a d s

t h i s pa th

by

c i t ing to

City

of

Richmond

v . J .A . Croson Co. ,

488 U.S.

469 (1989) . As in

Adarand the

Croson

Court

was

faced

with a

ci ty

ordinance

expre ss ly

r equ i r i ng

c on tra cto rs to subcon t r a c t

a t

l e a s t

30 o f

the i r work on ci ty contracts to Minority

Business

Enterprises

owned and

cont ro l l ed

by

[ c ] i t i z en s of

th e

United

Sta tes

who are

Blacks Spanish-speaking Orientals Indians Eskimos or

Al eu t s .

Croson , 488

U.S. a t

477 -78 .

have

no

doubt

that

s t r i c t

scrutiny

i s

applied

to

a l l

express

r a c i a l

c l a s s i f i c a t i on s ,

but ne i t he r

Adarand nor Croson

help

l igh t

our path to in terpret ing

predominance.

Adarand

i t se l f

expl ici t ly disclaimed

any application

to

facially neutral

legislation

stating that

this

case concerns only

48




c l a s s i f i c a t i on s

based

exp l i c i t l y on

race ,

and presen t s

none

o f

the addi t ional

d i f f i cu l t i e s posed

by

laws

tha t , although

f a c i a l l y

race

neu t r a l , r e s u l t in

r a c i a l l y

di sp ropor t iona te

impact and are motivated by a rac ia l ly

discr iminatory

purpose.

Adarand, 515 U.S. a t

213 emphas i s

added ) .

Jus t ice Thomas next

pointed

to M ille r and argued t h a t

the

S t a t e s

c once ss i on t h a t

it

i n t e n t i o n a l l y

c re a t ed

[50 BVAP]

districts

was

s u f f i c i e n t

to

show

t h a t r ace

was a

predominan t ,

mot iva t i ng

f a c t o r

in its

r e d i s t r i c t i n g . Bush,

517

U.S.

a t 1000

Thomas, J concu r r i ng

in th e judgment ) . The d i s s e n t a l so

r e l i e s

upon Mi l l e r

to a rgue t h a t

s t r i c t

sc ru t iny i s warranted

when a l e g i s l a t u r e i s mot iva ted by , r a t he r than merely

consc ious o f ,

race

in its

d i s t r i c t i ng .

See pos t a t 156. But

t h i s

demands

the

imposs ib le . We

cannot ask l eg i s l a t o r s to

acc iden ta l ly

wander

in to compliance with th e

VRA and

Mil l e r

cannot

be

read

to

invoke s t r i c t

scrut iny

whenever

l eg is la tors

i n t en t iona l ly c rea te

a d i s t r i c t

with

a predetermined

V P f loo r .

In Miller ,

there

was

considerable evidence showing t ha t

the General

Assembly

was

motivated

by a predominant, overr iding

des i r e

to

as s ign b lack

popula t ions to th e

Eleven th Di s t r i c t

and

thereby

permit the

creat ion

of a th i rd majority-black dis t r ic t .

515 U.S. a t

917.

I t was the

Sta te s

overriding assignment of

voters

on the

bas i s

of race, ra ther than other d is t r i c t ing

c r i t e r i a ,

tha t made the th i rd

majority-minority

d i s t r i c t

49




cons t i tu t iona l ly of fens ive . I f Mil ler s tood

fo r

the proposi t ion

that th e i n te n t i o n a l c r e a t i o n

o f

50 BVAP

district a l o n e

cons t i tu ted predominance, then a l l three majori ty-minori ty

d i s t r i c t s

would

have cons t i t u t ed

r a c i a l ger rymanders . Ins t ead ,

the op in ion

focused

on th e Eleventh

Dis t r i c t ,

which was

geographic m onst ros i ty

and

requ ired the

S ta te to

add

lengthy

appendages ,

s p l i t

prec i nc t s , and abandon a l l reasonab le

s t anda rd s

o f compac tness and

con t i gu i t y . Id . a t

909,

917-19.

The

M il le r d e c is io n

does ,

o f cou rse , r ecogn i ze

t h a t

s t a t u t e s a re

su b je c t to

strict

s c ru t i ny under th e Equal

P ro t e c t i on Clause no t j u s t when t hey

con t a i n

exp res s r a c i a l

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , bu t

a l so

when, though

r ace neu t r a l

on t h e i r

fac e , th ey a re mot iva ted by r a c i a l purpose o r ob j ec t . 515

U .S . at 9 13 . B u t is iller ssubordination test itself that

mans

th e f loo dg ate s to ensu r e t h a t th e predominance excep t i on

to

t r ad i t i ona l

f ac i a l

c l a s s i f i c a t i on ju r i sprudence

does

not sw mp

the s tanding

ru le t ha t

Equal Protec t ion Clause claim s aga ins t

f ac i a l ly

neut ra l

s t a tu t e s u su ally re qu ire p l a i n t i f f s to prove

discr imina tory purpose and discr imina tory ef fec t .

Subordinat ion in the enacted

plan

ra ther than

subo rd in atio n o f hypothetical plans) i s

required because m p

t h a t

r e f l e c t s

n e u t r a l

conven t i ons

on its f a c e e l im in a t e s th e

assumpt ion o f e xp re ss iv e

and

r ep r e sen t a t i v e

harm found in Shaw

without necessari ly imposing any other const i tut ional ly

5 0




cognizable harms in i ts

stead. he upreme

Court recognized as

much in

Regents

of

the

Univ of Cal. v Bakke 438 U S 265

(1978)

In Bakke the Supreme

Court

struck

down

a higher

education

admissions

program that

reserved

a specific number of seats for

minority applicants. See 438 U S at 275 The problem with

th i s scheme was tha t t prefer[red] the

d es ig na te d m inority

groups at the expense of other

individuals who

[were]

totally

foreclosed from

compet i t ion fo r

the 16 specia l

admissions

sea t s [ . ) a t 305 {opinion of Powell , J .) emphasis added).

As Jus t i ce Powel l

wrote ,

[w]hen

a c l a s s i f i c a t i on denies an

individual oppor tuni t ies or

benef i ts

enjoyed by others sole ly

because

of h is

race

o r

e thn ic background,

t

must be regarded as

s u s p e c t . Id .

J u s t i c e Powel l con t r a s t ed t h i s

ho ld ing

wi th th e

Supreme

Cou r t s

hold ing

th e p rev ious

year

in United

Jewish

Organ iza t i ons

v . C a rey

UJO)

430

U.S .

144

( 1977 ) .

In th e S t a t e

o f

New

York

had

r edrawn t vo t ing d i s t r i c t s t o

enhance

th e e l e c t o r a l

power o f

ce r t a i n

^nonwhi t e

vo t e r s

and mee t [ the ] ob j ec t i on s

of the [DOJ]

under

§ 5 of th e Voting Rights Act [ .

]

Bakke, 438

U.S. a t 304-05 (opin ion o f Powell , J . )

The

Supreme

Court

a ff irm ed the p l an . According to Jus t i c e Powell , UJO

was

d i s t ingu i shab le

a s a

case

in

which the remedy

fo r

an

admin i s t r a t i ve f ind ing o f discr imina t ion encompassed measures to

5 1




improve the previously

disadvantaged

group s abil i ty to

par t ic ipa te , without excluding individuals belonging to any

o the r

group

from

enjoyment

of

the

r e l evan t

oppor tuni ty

meaningful par t i c ipa t ion in the e lec to ra l

process .

Id . a t

305

(emphasis

added).

When a

l eg is la ture craf t s

a

plan

tha t

r e f l e c ts t r a d it i o n a l , neu t r a l ,

d i s t r i c t i n g conven t ions

and

does

no t i n t e n t i ona l l y d i l u t e any g r oup s meaningfu l pa r t i c i pa t i on in

th e

e l e c t o r a l

process , t h e r e i s no

con s t i t u t i ona l l y cogn izab le

o f f en s e

to

be

found.

The

use

o f

a

quo t a

does

no t

change

t h i s .

See

UJO,

430

U.S.

a t 162

( p r i n c i pa l op in ion) ( [^J

r e a pp or t io n men t cann ot v i o l a t e t h e

Fou r t e e n t h

o r F i f t e e n t h

Amendment

merely

because

a

Sta t e uses spec i f i c n umerical q uo ta s

in es tabl ishing

a

cer ta in number of

black

majori ty d i s t r i c t s .

Our cases under

[Sect ion] 5

s tand fo r a t le a s t th i s much . ) .

From

t h i s

vantage, the second problem with the d i s sen t s

reading comes

into view: an

in terpre ta t ion

of

predominance tha t

ignores

discriminatory effect

and

deploys

s t r ic t

scrutiny

when

a

neu t r a l

s t a t u t e

i s

adop ted because o f race-based motives

would allow

claims

to proceed on r ac ia l purpose alone.

Such

Justice

Powell also emphasized tha t Congress has special

competence to make

f indings

with

respect to the effec ts of

identified past discrim ination and

special discretionary

authori ty to

take appropriate

remedial

measures. Bakke,

4 8

U.S. a t 302 n.41 (opinion of Powell , J . ) .

This

too

d i s t i ngu i she s

th e

case

a t hand from t hose

cases

wherein

a

school

or municipality, acting

on i t s w impulse, employs a

racial

q u o t a .

5 2




an

in terpre ta t ion

raises

vexatious

jus t i c iab i l i ty

and balance

of

powers que s t i on s .

r ed i s t r i c t i ng plan s t ruck down

s o le ly

because

of the

m otiva t ion s o f th e men who vo ted fo r it r e ga r d l e s s o f its

f a c i a l con ten t o r e f f e c t would p re suma bly be

va l id

as soon

as the l eg is la ture or re levan t governing

body

repassed i t for

d i f f e r e n t r e a s o n s . See Palm er v .

Thompson,

403 U.S . 217 , 224-

25 (1971) .

Tha t

i s

because

th e

o f f en se i s

no t in th e


con ten t o f th e

enactment

bu t

on ly

in

th e

mental

con ten t

of the

l e g i s l a t o r s .

Although d iv in ing

the

amalgamated

m otiv a t io n s o f

an en t i r e


may

be t o l e r a b l e when

a

showing

o f d i s c r im ina to r y e f f e c t f u r t h e r g i r d s th e in qu i ry ,

a

purpose

only

equa l p ro t ec t i on claim would r equ i r e cour t s to

r e s t judgment upon

th e

thoughts o f a coequal branch a lone .

We dec l ine

to

t ake t h a t pa th . s

Chief

Jus t i c e Burger

once

wro t e ,

The seduc t ive p laus ib i l i t y

o f

s ing le s teps

in a

cha in

o f e vo lu tio na ry development of a

l eg a l ru le i s of ten no t perce ived

un t i l

a

t h i r d , fou r th ,

o r

f i f t h

l o g i c a l ex tens ion

occur s . Each s t ep , when

taken ,

appeared a

r e a s onab l e s t e p in r e l a t i o n to t h a t which

preceded

it a l though

the aggrega te o r

end

result is on e that wou l d n e v e r

h a v e

b e en

s e r i o u s l y cons ide red in th e

first

i n s t a nc e .

This kind o f ges t a t i ve propens i ty ca l l s

fo r

the l i n e

drawing

fam il ia r in the j ud ic i a l ,

as in

th e


p roces s :

t h u s f a r

bu t

n ot b ey on d.

53




United

States

v.

12

200-Foot Reels

of Super

mm Film,

413

U.S.

123, 127 1973). The dissent s

interpretation

might be a

logical

step in

the

evolution of the

equal

protection

predominance tes t . But we think

i t

would be one step too far.

Predominance

requires

tha t rac ia l considerations manifest in the

enacted plan i t se l f through the actual subordination of other

dis t r ic t ing c r i t e r i a . That

determination

cannot be

made

without

examining the

respective

roles of both race and the other


fac to rs in the ac tua l

plan

befo re the

Court .

For the foregoing reasons,

we

re jec t the invitat ion to

read

the

unwri t ten

use

of a 55 BVAP f loor as a per

se

s a t i s f ac t i on

of the predominance inquiry in a r ac ia l sor t ing claim. Of

course ,

evidence

o f such t h r e sho lds i s still s i gn i f i c an t when

examining

those d i s t r i c t s

tha t

exh ib i t devia t ions from

t r a d i t i ona l ,

neu t r a l

d i s t r i c t i ng p r i n c i p l e s . See

Eas ley v.

C rom art ie C rom ar t ie

II 532

U .S . 234 , 254

(2001)

no t i ng

t h a t

th e

use o f a 50

r a c i a l t h r e sho ld

was s ign i f i c an t ev idence in

Bush

and Mil l e r ) ; Page , 2015 WL 3604029 a t

*35

Payne , J.

d i s sen t i ng )

no t ing

th e

s ig n i f ic an ce in Shaw v . Hunt

(Shaw

I I ) ,

517 U.S. 899 1996) , o f

a

concess ion by th e

S t a t e

to c r e a te two

d i s t r i c t s wi th

50 BVAP

t h r e sho ld s )

.

Shaw I I , fo r

example ,

r ecogn ized t h a t r a c i a l dev i a t i ons from ne u t r a l p r i n c i p l e s canno t

be saved

by

l a t e r r e s o r t to n on -ra c ia l exp l ana t i on s . See 517

U.S.

at

907.

54




According to the

dissent

Shaw II compels a finding of

predominance whenever non-racial

factors

are only

considered

consistent with the racia l object ive. Post a t 158.

But

the

d i s t r i c t a t i s sue in Shaw I I was h igh ly i r r egu l a r and

geographically non-compact

by

any

objective

standard

that

can

be

conce ived . Shaw I I

517

U.S. a t

905-06.

Simply

pu t th e

Shaw

Cou r t w as

f a c e d

wi t h

a

situ tion whe re in some

ra c e - n e u t r a l

goa l s such as pa r t i s an balance could still be pa r t i a l l y

advanced

d e sp i t e th e

qu a l i t a t i v e

predominance

o f

r ace

bu t

it

was no t fa ced w ith a s i t u a t i o n wher e i n r a c i a l districting

goa l s

posed con f l i c t with

neu t r a l


c r i t e r i a what soever .

Moreover th e au th o r

o f

Shaw

I I

Ch i e f J u s t i c e Rehnqu i s t

jo ined the p r i n c i p a l

opin ion

is sued th e

same

day in

Bush

v.

Vera sugges t i ng t h a t

these

two opin ions can and should be

read

in harmony.

The Bush opinion

jo ined

by Chief

Jus t ice

Rehnquist

exp l i c i t l y r e j ec t ed the


tha t the

d i s sen t

now a t t r i bu t e s to h is opinion

in Shaw

I I .

We adopt a reading consis tent with Shaw I I as evidenced by

our

f ind ing o f r a c i a l

predominance in 75.

St a t e cannot

d i s t r i c t

predominant ly

on

the

bas i s

of

race

and

then

insu la te

such

rac ia l l ine

drawing

by

pointing

to

other

non-racial goals

advanced by

th e

r a c i a l

s o r t .

Alabama l ike i t s predecessors in

the Shaw-Miller l ine

holds

that racia l thresholds

const i tute

evidence

not

55




dispositive proof/ of racial predomin nce

If

the thresholds

employed by

the legislators crafting the bill do not manifest in

the formation of the

enacted

dist r ic t , then there

is no

facial

classification

equivalent

upon which

to rest

Shaw s

ana ly t ica l ly

di s t i nc t

framework.

I f

on e s t r ic t

predominance

rule

were

not

enough

In tervenors

advance a counter theory

t ha t they claim

i s

derived

from

Alabama. As the

In tervenors

s t a t ed during t he i r

clos ing

a r gumen t :

tT ]he que s t i on

you

must answer to ge t to

s t r i c t scru t iny

i s

whether the use of

race r e su l t ed in any d i s t r i c t which vio la t ed

Virg in ia

law o r t r a d i t i ona l


criteria

o f

th e state, o r ,

a s

th e s t a t e d id

here t h e i r spec i f i c a l l y adopted c r i t e r i a .

T r i a l

T r . 1 6 :8 -1 3 ( I n t e r v e n o r s ) . I n t e r v e n o r s

drew

th e C ou r t s

a t t en t i on

to

a

pas sage

in

th e

Alabama

dec i s i on

where

th e

Cour t

t a l k [ ed ] abou t

[ the S ta t e ]

t r an sg r e s s i ng its

own

s t a t e

gu i d e l i n e s ,

its

ow n

s t a t e criteria. Id . a t 853 :15 -854 :9 . And

s o

did:

The r e is co n s i d e r a b l e ev i d enc e

that

[ t h e

r a c i a l t h r e s ho l d s ] had a d i r e c t and

s i g n i f i c a n t

impac t

on th e drawing

o f

a t

least s ome

of

District

26 s

boundaries.

Tr an sg r e s s i n g their own

redistricting

gu ide l i n e s , th e d r a f t e r s split

seven

p r e c i n c t s between

th e ma jo r i t y - b l a ck

Di s t r i c t 26 and th e

major i t y -whi t e Di s t r i c t

25 with the popula t ion in those prec inc t s

c l e a r l y

d iv ided

on r a c i a l

l i n e s .

56




Alabama 135 S.

Ct.

at 1272 (emphasis

added). But, as

is

clear

from the

cited passage,

the

drafters transgression

of

their w

redis tr ict ing guidelines l ike

their informal use

of

a

racial

threshold

i s

evidence

of predominance, not disposi t ive proof.

Tha t

is because ^ subo rd ina t i on

is no t th e

same a s

a

v i o l a t i o n

or

t ransgress ion. Subordination

requires

a balancing of

degree

to

dete rmine

whether

non- rac ia l c r i t e r i a

o r r ac i a l

riteri p r edomina t ed .

For example,

it

i s

d i f f i c u l t

to

unders tand

what

a

t r an sg r e s s ion

o f compactness would

even

en t a i l .

Compactness , l i ke t empera tu re ,

f a l l s

a long

a

r ange , and t h e r e

i s

no

p ro f e s s i ona l

consensus

abou t what

degree

o f

depa r tu re (from

any o f

more t han

twen ty

measures)

i s enough

to say

a

d i s t r i c t i s

n o t

compac t .

T r i a l

T r. 716:15-18

(Ho fe l l e r ) .

More im po rtan t ly , th e

tr a d i t ion a l c r i t e r i a d i s cu s sed

in

the Shaw-Miller cases

a re

informed

by,

but no t defined

by,

s t a t e

law. Rendering the

predominance inquiry subject

to

s ta te

law

would

make

th e

e x i s t e n c e o f a f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

c l a im

15

One

of In t e rvenors

experts , fo r example, found

no

issues

with

every l a s t

one

of the Challenged Distr ic ts , Tria l

Tr.

708:15-709:21 (Hofeller) ,

despite t es t i fy ing tha t

there

i s

no

profess ional consensus

on what

i s and

i s not

compact. Id. a t

716:10-18.

Meanwhile, Pla in t i f f s exper t

found some

of

the

d i s t r i c t s no t

compact based upon a

.20

Reock ru le of

thumb,

Pis . Ex. 50 a t

18, tha t

other

experts

disputed as

having

any

meaningful

bas i s .

Tr i a l Tr. 716:5-25

(Hofe l l e r ) .

5 7




dependent upon an individual s tate s resolutions/

statutes, or

constitution

he determ inative question is not whether a State s

individualized distr ict ing

requirements

are violated,

but

whether t rad i t iona l , neut ra l d is t r i c t ing

c r i t e r i a

and other

distr ict ing

cr i ter ia

have been generally subordinated to

r ac i a l cons ide ra t ions on th e whole. See

Page, 2015

3604029

a t *11

( To

show

t h a t

race

predominated. Pla in t i f f s

need

not

es tab l i sh

t ha t

the

l eg i s l a tu re

disregarded

every

t r ad i t iona l

d is t r i c t ing

pr inc ip l e . ) .

Sta te s

viola t ion of,

or

departure

from,

i t s

own

s t a t ed

c r i t e r i a

can

cons t i tu t e

evidence in

the

predominance ana lys i s , bu t Alabama does not requi re

t ha t

the

S t a t e

do

so in o rde r to make ou t

a

r a c i a l so r t i ng

c l a im .

In t e rvenors proposed in te rp re ta t ion

i s ,

accord ingly , r e jec ted .

1 .

Predominance

Analy s i s

s common cour t esy holds , one should

no t shoo t

down a

sugges t ion without of fer ing an

approach

to

rep lace

it Although

p redominance, subord ina t ion ,

d i l u t i on , and

r e t r og r e s s i on

a r e

ll

s t a n d a r d s

n o t amenab l e

t o

ha r d r u l e s o r

s a f e h a r b o r s ,

t h e

Court does

have an

ob l i g a t i on to

th e

pa r t i e s

to

exp la in

its

r ea son ing

as

c l e a r l y and de f i n i t i v e l y

as

po s s i b l e . There fo re ,

th e Cour t

wi l l walk t h rough

each

o f th e

s t ep s o f

th e an a l y t i c a l

framework

t h a t

it has app l ie d to a r r i v e a t its conc lu s ion s with

r e sp ec t to th e Cha l l enged Di s t r i c t s .

5 8




r ac i a l

sor t ing

claim i s

one

area in

which appearances

do

ma t t e r . Shaw

I , 509

U.S. a t

647. Because a d i s t r i c t must

exh ib i t

s ubs t an t i a l

di s rega rd of customary and t r ad i t i ona l


p r a c t i c e s

in

o rd e r to an ima te th e r a c i a l so r t i ng

doctrine s

c e n t r a l co n c e rn w ith

facial

classification M i ll e r ,

515

U.S.

a t

928 (O Connor , J. concu r r in g ) , th e Cour t wi l l

eva lua t e

each

Cha l lenged

Di s t r i c t

fo r su bo rd in at io n in

t h r e e

steps.

First

t h e

Cou r t

w i l l

r ev i ew

th e

district

on

th e b a s i s

o f

its

compl i ance

with t r a d i t i o n a l , neu t r a l d is tr i c t in g c r i t e r i a ,

in c lu d ing , bu t

no t

l im i te d to ,

compactness ,

con t i gu i t y , ne s t i ng ,

and adherence to

boundar i e s

prov ided by p o l i t i c a l

subd iv i s i on s

and na t u r a l

geograph ic

f e a t u r e s .

Second,

th e

Cour t wi l l

examine

t hose

aspec t s

o f th e

Chal lenged

D is t r i c t th at

appear to cons t i t u t e d ev ia t ions

from

neut ra l

c r i t e r i a . These may be p a rt ic u la r, i so la te d areas along

the d i s t r i c t s boundary, o r

on

occas ion th e d i s t r i c t

i t s e l f

may

seem

f a c i a l l y que s t i onab l e .

Based

on th e ev idence submi t t ed

and t es t imony

provided ,

th e

Court wi l l

examine

the

record

to

asce r t a in

th e under ly ing

r a t i ona l e

fo r those dev ia t ions .

In

de t e rmin ing

th e r ea sons fo r d e v ia t io n s from th e


neu t r a l c r i t e r i a , it

wi l l

be necessary to determine whether

a

deviation was caused

in

part or ent i re ly by the need to comply

5 9




with the one-person,

one-vote

precepts ® or by

polit ical

c i rcumstances such as

p ro t e c t i on

o f i ncumben t s .

Third , th e Court wi l l weigh

th e t o t a l i t y

o f th e evidence

and de te rm ine whether r a c i a l cons ide r a t i on s

qua l i t a t i v e l y

subo rd ina t ed all

o th er n on -ra cia l d i s t r i c t i n g c r i t e r i a ,

a .

N e u t r a l i t y

A

r a c i a l

s o r t i ng

c la im

r equ i r e s th e Cour t

f i nd t h a t

th e

S t a t e

s ubo r d i n a t e d

t r a d i t i o n a l , n e u t r a l

criteria

and

o t h e r

non-

r a c i a l


c r i t e r i a

to

r a c i a l

cons ide r a t i on s .

Trad i t i ona l

d i s t r i c t i n g p r i n c i p l e s i n c l ud e ,

i n t e r a l i a ,

compac tness , c on t i g u i t y , re sp ec t fo r po l i t i c a l

s ubd i v i s i on s ,

and

communi t ies

d e f i n ed by a c t u a l sha red i n t e r e s t s . See

Mi l l e r ,

515

U.S.

a t 916; Shaw I , 509 U.S. a t

647. These

conven t i on s

neu t r a l l y

advance

th e va lues i nhe ren t

in

a geographic r a t he r

than p ropo r t i ona l

sys tem

o f

r ep r e s en t a t i on ,

such as

r e spons iveness , accoun tab i l i t y ,

f ami l i a r i t y ,

ease

o f

access ,

ease of admin is t r a t ion ,

and po l i t i c a l

engagement.

The s p e c i f i c t r a d i t i o n a l c r i t e r i a ou t l i n e d

in Mil l e r and

Shaw

are

not

cons t i t u t i ona l l y

required . See Shaw

I ,

509 U.S.

a t

647;

Gaffnev v.

Cumminqs,

412

U.S. 735,

752

n. l8

1973

[C]ompac tnes s

o r

a t t r a c t i v e n e s s has neve r been he ld to

Of course,

evidence

of compliance

with equal

population

goa l s i s not weighed aga ins t ev idence o f r a c i a l

cons ide ra t ion ,

but it

may

be important in determining

why a d i s t r i c t

appears to

deviate f r om

neutral criteria

60




const i tu te

an

independent federal const i tu t ional requirement for

sta te legis la t ive

dis t r ic t s . ) .

Rather these cr i t e r ia are

important

because they

re f lec t

the

neutra l i ty tha t i s central

to

a r ed is tr ic tin g s ta tu te t ha t complies

with

the Equal Protect ion

Clause.

Reynolds 377

U.S.

at 558.^

Tradi t ional neutral

conventions are important to eva luate in a r ac i a l gerrymandering

cla im

because

t hey a re o b je c t iv e

f a c t o r s

t h a t may se rve to

de fe a t a

claim t h a t

a d i s t r i c t has been

ger rymandered

on

r a c i a l

l i n e s .

Shaw I ,

509

U.S.

a t

647

emphas i s

added) .

Of course ,

s t a t e s

may con t inue to

develop

new neu t r a l


p r i nc i p l e s , and

a S t a t e s

cons i s t en t

adherence

t h e r e t o would a l so be

cons ide r ed

an ob j e c t i v e f a c t o r to he lp

de fe a t

a

claim o f gerrymander ing.

Exis t ing

t r a d i t i ona l

d i s t r i c t i n g conven t i ons

e vo lved over th e

yea r s

th rough

th e

po l i t i c a l

p ro c e s s itself

Bush 517

U.S .

a t

1073

(Sou te r , J

d i s s e n t i n g ) . What rende rs th e se gu id ing p r i n c i p l e s impor t an t

fo r

r e d i s t r i c t i ng purposes

i s

t h a t they obse rve and advance

neutral democratic values

[T]he

concep t

o f

equal

pro tec t ion

has been

t r a d i t i ona l l y

viewed

as req uir in g th e uniform t r ea tment

o f persons

s tanding

in

the

same

r e l a t i on

to

th e governmenta l

ac t ion ques t ioned o r

cha l lenged. With re spec t

to the

a l l o ca t i on of l eg i s l a t i ve

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , all vo t e r s ,

a s c i t i z e n s

o f a

S t a t e ,

s ta n d in th e

same r e l a t i on Any sugges ted

c r i t e r i a fo r

th e

d i f f e r e n t i a t i on

o f

c i t i z ens a re i n s u f f i c i e n t to j u s t i fy

any

d i sc r imina t ion ,

as to

th e weight o f t h e i r

vo t e s , un les s r e l evan t

to th e

pe rmiss ib l e

purposes o f l e g i s l a t i v e appor t ionment .

61




The f a c t t h a t district d ev i a t e s from n e u t r a l criteria on

its face does

no t ,

however, mean t h a t t hose dev ia t i ons were

rac ia l ly

motivated . Other, non-racial di s t r i c t i ng c r i t e r i a

m y

a l so be

used to de f e a t c la im o f r a c i a l

ger rymander ing

by

demons t ra t ing

t h a t th e d i s t r i c t s dev ia t ions from

neu t r a l

criteria a r e a t t r i b u t a b l e

t o

r a c e - n e u t r a l

mot i v e s .

Ch i e f

among

th e se a re

po l i t i c a l an d in cumben cy cons ide ra t ions . See

Alabama,

1 3 5

S .

t

at 1 2 7 0 .

During

th e

first

s t age

o f th e

predominance

i nqu i r y ,

th e

Cour t

examines

whethe r

th e r ed i s t r i c t i ng l e g i s l a t i on

on its

face r a i s e s que s t i on s abou t the

use

o f d isc r im in a to ry ,

i nd i v i dua l i z ed c r i t e r i a such

as

race , po l i t i c s , o r incumbency)

o r

whethe r it

appea r s

to

be predominan t ly

exp la inab le

on th e

ba s i s

o f

t r a d i t i o n a l , neu t r a l , geograph ic

c r i t e r i a such

as

compactness ,

con t i g u i t y , o r re sp ec t fo r p o l i t i c a l subd iv i s i on s} .

In

rev iewing

th e Chal lenged Di s t r i c t s , th e Cour t wi l l

con s i d e r

neu t r a l

c r i t e r i a in th e fo l lowing

manner :

i Compac tness

As

J u s t i c e

Stevens s t a t e d in Karcher

v .

Dagge t t ,

g eog raph i ca l

compac tness

s e rv e s

i ndependen t

va lues ;

it

f a c i l i t a t e s

po l i t i c a l

organ iza t i on , e l e c t o r a l campaigning,

and

con s t i t u en t

r e p r e s en t a t i o n .

462

U.S.

725,

756

1983) (S tevens ,

J . , concur r ing ) . Al though non- compact d i s t r i c t s may sometimes

be

necessa ry to

se rve

th ese va lues such as when major

62




t r a n spo r t

co r r i d o r migh t minimum[ize] t r a ve l t ime fo r a

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

to t r a v e l a round

th e district d r a s t i c

depa r t u r e s from

compactness

a re

a

s i g n a l t h a t someth ing may be

am i s s . Id . a t 758 , n . 2 0 .

Yet, compactness i s su rp r i s i ng l y

e t he re a l

given i t s

seemingly

un ive r sa l accep tance as

a guid ing

pr i nc i p l e

fo r

d i s t r i c t i ng .

A ll of the expert te stimony p ro vid ed r evea l s one

deep conceptual dilemma: no one can agree

what

it

i s

or, as

a

r e su l t ,

how

to

measure

it.

See,

e . g . .

Tr i a l

Tr.

535:19-536:8

Katz ) The re

a re a t

l e a s t 20 m easu re s , no t

one

o f which

can

claim any grea t e r

l eg i t imacy than i t s

peers . Id . a t

555:16-17.

The

Reock

t e s t

measures

geographica l

di spe rs ion

and therefore i s

s ens i t i ve

to

and its sco r ing

pun ishes

e longa ted

d i s t r i c t s .

Id .

a t 136:13-23 A nso l abehe re ).

The

Po l sby -Poppe r t e s t

measures

perimeter dispers ion and the re fore i s

sensi t ive to

and

i t s

scoring punishes

oddly shaped d i s t r i c t

boundarie s w ith

large numbers of inden ta t ions .

Id .

Meanwhile,

the

Schwartzberg

test l o o k s at a n o rm al iz ed s t a n d a r d d ev i a t i o n

o f

t h e d i s t a n c e

from

every

poin t

to the

cen te r of the d i s t r i c t , id . a t 558:4-7

Katz) ,

and

th e

Boyce-Clark

t e s t

measures

th e cen te r

of

inertia

or

h ow

far

is the

farthest voter

f r om

the center o f

th e

district

i d . a t 537 :12 -538 :6 . One no t ab l e p o l i t i c a l

s c i e n t i s t

has qu ipped t h a t a l l o f t hese

measures

are

j u s t

va r i an t s

o f th e i n t r a ocu l a r

t e s t : peop l e

look

a t

d i s t r i c [ t ]

6 3




maps, they f i gu re ou t which d i s t r i c t s they th ink look ugly , and

then they choose the compactness measure which comports with

t h e i r eyeba l l view

of

th e mapping. Id . a t 542:14-24 Katz) .

See a l so

id . a t

697 :20 -698 :9 (Hofe l le r )

(no t ing t h a t

th e main

measurement of compactness while you are drawing map

i s

to look a t

th e

shapes

o f

d i s t r i c t s , so -ca l l ed eyeba l l t e s t ) .

But compac tness

i s

n ot im po r ta nt

fo r its

own sake .

Rathe r ,

compactness i s impor tan t

because

it serves ce r t a in

values

of

geographic

r epresen ta t ion .

Therefore ,

the

major

t r anspor ta t ion

co r r i do r

district

d i scussed

by Ju s t i c e Stevens would f a r e

poor ly on the Reock met r i c , bu t

would

serve

i t s purposes

in

manner t h a t migh t

be

r e f l e c t e d

by ano the r

measure

such

as

dr iv ing

t ime ) . Meanwhile ,

d i s t r i c t

t h a t

adheres to h igh ly

i r r e gu l a r coun ty l i n e s , id . a t 559:18-21 (Ka tz ) ; 687:1-4

(H o fe l le r ) , o r e as ily id e n t i f ia b le geograph ic f e a t u r e s , id . a t

538:14-19

(K atz ) ; 687:1 -4 (Ho f e l l e r ) , might

s co re

poor ly

on

th e

Polsby-Popper t e s t ,

bu t

would

enhance

th e

va lues se rved by t ho se

neu t r a l c r i t e r i a , as

d i scussed

below. I f th e

p r i c e

o f

advancing

these

o the r

neu t r a l

c r i t e r i a i s

compactness ,

then th e cos t i s

no t

j u d i c i a l

conc e r n .

Nor does

district s a b so lu t e

compac tness sco re m at te r

s o much a s

its

relative score. The Court s e x am i n a t i o n o f

d i s t r i c t s compactness

measure

may be

informed by the average

in

th e S t a t e

which

is impo r t an t to

t ake accoun t

o f

S t a t e s

64




i n a l t e r a b l e

f e a t u r e s ) , se e Ints. Ex.

14 a t 12 ( d i s cu s s i ng

V i rg in i a s i r r egu l a r shape , coun ty l i n e s , and geographic

f e a t u r e s ) , may be in fo rmed by th e average

in

th e n a t io n which

is impo r t an t

to

t ake

accoun t where S t a t e s own averages

may

be

fa r

above

o r fa r

below

th e na t i ona l ave rage ) , see Page,

2015

3604029 a t *33

A

h igh ly

compact

d i s t r i c t

in

s t a t e

t ha t

adheres

c lo se ly to

compactness pr i nc i p l e s may

be

both

th e l e a s t

compact in th e s t a t e

and

among th e most compact in th e na t ion . )

Payne,

J.

d i s s en t i n g ) ,

and

may

be

in fo rmed

by

h i s t o r i c a l

averages which i s

impor tan t

to accoun t

fo r t rend s in

compactness

over seve r a l d i s t r i c t i ng

cyc les ) , see

Tr i a l Tr.

560:2-10

Katz)

(no t ing it i s

p e r f e c t l y

r ea sonab l e to use

compactness measures in

comparing

two maps fo r th e

same

s t a t e ) .

These

a re

all f a c t o r s t h a t cou r t s

must

cons ide r

when

eva lua t i ng

t h i s

c r i t e r i o n .

In s ho r t ,

th e

Cour t

would be r emi s s t o l ook a t

compac tne ss

s co r e s

in

vacuum, bu t t h a t

does

no t r end e r them

use l e s s a s

eva lua t ive t oo l s in

th e predominance

inqu i ry .

The

key i s no t

a b so lu t e

compac tnes s ,

r e l a t i v e

compac tnes s ,

o r even

S t a t e s

adherence

to

its

own


o r

s t a t u t o r y

compac tne ss d e f i n i t i o n s ( a l t hough t h e s e may be i l l um in a t i n g ) ;

r a t h e r ,

t h e

key is whe the r

compac tne ss dev i a t i o n s a r e

a t t r i bu t ab l e to someth ing m ean ing fu l , such as o t h e r neu t r a l

65




cr i ter ia or a legit imate use o f non-neu tra l criteria.^® s Dr

Hofe l l e r s t a t ed

a t

trial echo ing Ju s t i c e Stevens

sage

adv i ce ,

compactness i s more l i k e

a

f lag than

a

conc lus ion . Tr i a l Tr.

684 : 1 7 - 1 8 (Ho f e l l e r ) .

ii.

Con t i gu i t y

Cont igui ty , l i ke

compactness,

se rves impor tan t democrat ic

purposes ,

binding

geograph ic communi t ies toge the r and

he lp ing

to

enable e f f ec t i ve represen ta t ion . In uphold ing

a

d i s t r i c t under

th e V irg in ia

con s t i t u ti o n s

con t i gu i t y prov i s ion desp i t e

its

d iv i s i on by wate r , th e Supreme

Cour t o f

V i r g in i a r e f l e c t e d

upon

this

raison

d etre:

Although th e

record

shows

th a t t r a v e l

be tween

[some]

p r e c i n c t s and th e rema inde r

o f th e

district

r equ i r e s

t r a v e l

t h rough

ano the r

district

t h e r e i s

no th i ng

in

t h i s

r eco rd showing t h a t

such

acces s i s

un reasonab l e ,

unduly

burdensome,

o r

adve r se ly impact s th e ab i l i t y o f r e s i d en t s

to

s ecu re

mean ing fu l r ep r e s en t a t i on o f

t h e i r

interests

or effective c ommun i c a t i o n w i t h

t h e i r

e le c te d r ep r es en ta tiv e .

Wilk i n s

V.

West , 264 Va.

447 ,

465-66 Va. 2002 ) . As

th e

Page

cou r t

reminded, c on t i gu i t y and o t h e r



pr i nc i p l e s are împortant no t because they a re cons t i t u t i ona l l y

r equ i r ed , bu t

r a t h e r ^because they a re

ob j ec t i v e f a c t o r s

V i rg in ia s c on s t i tu tio n al compactness requ irem ent on ly

demands t h a t districts no t be c l e a r l y e r roneous , a r b i t r a r y ,

o r

whol ly unwa r r a n t e d . Wilk i n s v .

West ,

264 Va. 447, 465 -66 Va,

2002) . Tha t s t anda rd i n fo rms th e Cou r t s i nqu i r y , bu t does not

resolve t

6 6




cour t s may

cons ide r

in

asses s ing r a c i a l gerrymander ing c l a ims .

2 0 1 5 WL 3 6 0 4 0 2 9 t

* 1 1 .

A d i s t r i c t s p l i t

by

water

has no t v i o l a t ed con t igu i ty

fo r

the purposes of a

r a c i a l

sor t ing claim any more than a

d i s t r i c t

connec ted by

a

s i ng l e

po in t

on l and

has

r e s pec t ed con t i gu i t y .

See Shaw

I , 509

U.S.

a t 636

{no t ing

t h a t

one o f

th e d i s t r i c t s in

t h a t case r em a in [ed ] con t iguous on ly because it i n t e r s e c t [ e d ]

a t a

s i ng l e

po in t

with

two

o the r d i s t r i c t s

b efo re c ro ss in g

over

t hem . As with compactness , cont igu i ty admits

of

degrees .

Di s t r i c t s

t h a t a re

no t d iv ided

by

wate r

a re

more c on tig uo us th an

t ho se t h a t

a r e ,

and districts t h a t a re a t

l e a s t connec ted by a

water cross ing

such

as

a

br idge

a re

more

con tiguous than

d i s t r i c t s t h a t

a re no t . Land cont igu i ty

i s impor tan t no t

because it is de t e rm in a t i v e , bu t because it r e f l e c t s

th e

common

unders tand ing t h a t

bodies of

water may

mark th e

na tu ra l

div ide

b etw ee n c om m u n i t i e s of interest or constitute

rriers to

the

e f f e c t i v e func t ion o f democra t ic

ac t iv i t i e s . ^®

Of cou r se , dev i a t i on s from l and con t i gu i t y may a l so r e f l e c t

adherence to o th e r n e u t ra l d i s t r i c t i n g

c r i t e r i a .

Many c i t i e s

lie a c r o s s r i v e r s o r a round

ha rbo r s

and , i n d e ed , a re uilt

ou twa rd from th e c e n t r a l

f o c a l

po i n t

o f

th e

communi ty :

th e

As one Norfo lk r e s i d en t pu t it dur ing th e l e g i s l a t u r e s

pub l i c

hea r ing s :

P l e a s e

deep

s ix t h i s spec iou s concep t

o f

con t i gu i t y

by

wate r . To pu t

[ these communi t ies ]

in

th e same

district

i s

p a te n tl y r id ic u lo u s .

P i s .

Ex.

a t 36 :8 -11 .

67




wa te r f r on t . In such ca se s , body o f wate r t h a t d iv ide s

community may a c t u a l l y be th e pr imary f a c t o r t h a t

un i t e s

it. In

Other words dev i a t i on

from c on t i gu i ty s t anda rd s may

be

an

a t t emp t to r e spec t d i s t i n c t community

o f

i n t e r e s t o r po l i t i c a l

subd iv i s i on .

The

subo rd ina t ion o f

con t i gu i t y conven t ions

i s ,

l i k e compac tness , s imply f a c t o r t h a t th e Cour t

must

cons ide r

in conduc t i ng its predominance a na l y s i s .

Folitical Subdivisions

common and s i g n i f i c an t neu t r a l d i s t r i c t i n g c r i t e r i o n i s

r e spec t

fo r

po l i t i c a l subd iv i s i ons ,

such

as coun t i e s o r c i t i e s .

Subdivision

boundaries

tend to

r em a i n stable

over

time.

Res iden ts o f po l i t i c a l

un i t s such as

townsh ips , c i t i e s ,

and

coun t i e s of t en

deve lop

community o f i n t e r e s t ,

pa r t i c u l a r l y

when

th e subd iv is ion p lay s

an

impor tan t ro le in th e p rov is ion o f

governmen ta l

s e r v i c e s .

Karcher ,

462 U S a t 758 S tevens ,

J.

concur r ing) .

Moreover adherence

to

subd iv i s i on boundar i e s can

f a c i l i t a t e c i v i c engagement enhance

democra t ic accoun tab i l i ty ,

a n d

increase administrative

convenience. S e e id.

[L ]eg i s l a t i v e

districts t h a t

do

no t

c ro s s

subd iv i s ion

bounda r i e s

a re admin i s t r a t i v e l y

conven i en t and l e s s

l i k e l y to

con fuse th e

vo t e r s . ) ;

id .

a t 787

n .3 Powel l ,

J.

d i s s e n t i n g ) .

As Justice

P ow e l l o nc e wrote:

Most vo t e r s know

what c i ty

and coun ty t hey

l i v e in ,

bu t

f ewer a re

l i k e l y to know

what

[ l e g i s l a t i v e ]

district t hey l i v e in if th e

68




d i s t r i c t s split coun t i e s and c i t i e s .

I f a

vo t e r

knows h is

[ l e g i s l a t i v e ] district

he

i s

more l i k e l y

to

know who

h is

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e is

T his p re sum ab ly would

l e ad to more in fo rmed vo t i ng . It a l s o i s

l i k e l y t o le a d to a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e who knows

the n e e d s of his

district

a n d is mo r e

r e s pon s i v e

t o

t hem.

Id . a t 787 n .3 (Powel l , J d i s s en t i ng ) ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n s and

quo t a t i on

marks

om i t t e d ) .

When

a

l e g i s l a t i v e district is n o t h i ng more t han

an

artificial

un i t d i vo r c ed f rom,

and i n d eed o f te n in

c o n f l i c t

wi t h ,

t h e v a r io u s

communi t i e s

e s t a b l i s h e d i n th e S t a t e ,


canno t

r e p r e s e n t t h e i r

c on s t i t u e n t s

p rope r ly and

vo t e r s cannot exe rc i s e

th e

ba l l o t i n t e l l i g e n t l y . Id .

a t

787

Powell , J . , d i s sen t i ng ) .

r epo r t produced by th e Governor s

Commission

d i s t i l l e d th e

overa rch ing themes t h a t

were r epea ted ly

vo iced du ring its pub l ic forums from

around th e

Commonwealth.

As th e

Commission

no t ed , th e

s p l i t t i n g

o f munic ipa l and coun ty

j u r i s d i c t i o n s

drew th e

i r e

o f

c i t i z en s ,

who

po in t ed

ou t

th e difficulties t h a t c i t i z e n s

have

in knowing who

t o

con t a c t ,

who to hold accoun tab l e , and who among s e v e r a l l e g i s l a t o r s

shou ld coo rd i n a t e

o r le a d th e r ep re s en t a t i on

o f

l o c a l c i t y

and

county i n t e r e s t s

in

th e Genera l Assembly.

P i s . Ex. 23 a t 8.

In eva l u a t i ng whe the r n e u t r a l

criteria

were

s ubo r d i n a t e d , a


adhe r ence to c i t y and county

b ou nd ar ie s p ro vid es

an

impo r t a n t r e f e r e n c e p o in t

fo r co u r t s

unde r t ak ing

th e

69




predominance

a na l y s i s .

Of cou r se , th e l e g i s l a t u r e

may

and

o f t en

wi l l , need to

dev i a t e from po l i t i c a l subd iv i s i on

borde r s

to comply

wi th

f e d e r a l -

o r

s ta te -m and a ted popu la t ion

c o n s t r a i n t s . In such s i t u a t i o n s , th e Cou r t w i l l l ook

to whe the r

ano t h e r n eu t r a l c r i t e r i o n

such a s

c om pa ctn ess , g eo gra ph ic

bounda r i e s , p r e c i n c t bounda r i e s , o r communi t i e s o f i n t e r e s t

he lp s to exp l a i n

th e

method o f depa r t u r e . In t h i s manner

n eu t r a l

riteri c an

o f t e n

form

backs top

f o r

one

ano t h e r

when

one

c r i t e r i on canno t

be

f u l l y s a t i s f i e d ,

th us en su rin g

t h a t

neu t r a l

c r i t e r i a a re still pr edomina t ing in th e

ba l ance .

I v . Na t u r a l Geography

Geographic f ea tu r e s , such as

mountains

ranges o r

r i v e r s ,

may

a l so be used to prov ide

neu t r a l

boundary

dur ing th e


process .

Often t imes ,

t he se

geograph ic i nd i ca to r s

ma r k the b o u n d a r i e s of distin t c ommun i t i e s of interest or

c an

prov ide

po i n t o f re f e ren ce fo r

vo t e r s ,

cand id a t e s , and

r ep r e s en t a t i ve s .

In many

case s ,

these na tu ra l boundaries may

a l r eady

con s t i t u t e th e ba s i s fo r governmen ta l

subd iv i s i on

l i n e s .

See ,

e . g . , I n t s . Ex

14

a t

12

(no t ing t h a t , in

V i rg in i a ,

[m]any

coun ty l i n e s f o l l ow r i v e rb ed s , and th e S t a t e s wes t e rn

boundary

runs a long

400 mi l e s o f mounta in

r i dges

and r i v e r s ) .

Over t ime , rtifi i l geography may a l so come to

p l ay

s im il a r r o l e .

Major

t r a n s po r t a t i o n

t h o r ough f a r e s may

s lowly

g e n e r a t e distin t commun i t i e s o f interest on either

s i d e

o f th e

70




d iv id e , o r th e marker may

be

used

as

a u s e f u l

r e fe ren ce p oin t

fo r vo t e r s , cand ida t e s , and r ep re s en t a t i v e s seek ing to

unde r s t and t h e i r own district s bounda r i e s . These a re impor t an t

f ac to rs to

cons ide r , e spec i a l l y when adherence

to

t r a d i t i ona l

s ubd i v i s i on l i n e s

is

no t

pos s i b l e .

V. Nes t i ng

Nes t i ng

r e f e r s

to

th e

p ra c t i c e o f pu t t i n g

two o r

more

d i s t r i c t s o f

th e l owe r chamber

o f th e

s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e whol ly

wi th in

each

district

o f th e

upper

chamber .

By

pe rm i t t i n g

vo t e r s r e a d i ly to i d en t i f y

t h e i r

vo t ing d i s t r i c t s and

co r r e spond ing r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , a nes ted p lan can be expec t ed

to

f o s t e r

vo t e r

p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

Bandemer,

478 U.S. a t 179

n . l8

Powel l , J . ,

concur r ing

in

pa r t ,

d is sen t in g in

pa r t ) .

Nest ing

may

r e s u l t in a House d i s t r i c t

boundary

t h a t

appears

inexp l icab le by neu t r a l c r i t e r i a un t i l

the

cor responding Senate

district i s

l a i d a t o p .

v i

Precincts

Prec inc t s and Vot ing Tabu la t i on D i s t r i c t s VTDs ) a re

o f t en th e sma l l e s t ob j e c t i v e l y i d en t i f i a b l e geograph ic groupings

t h a t


use

to

o rgan i z e


districts

They

may occa s iona l l y

co r r e spond to towns ,

ne ighborhoods ,

o r o t h e r

i d en t i f i a b l e communi t ies

o f i n t e r e s t , bu t

t hey

a re

no t

governmenta l

j u r i s d i c t i o n s in t h e i r own r i g h t . Tr i a l Tr.

234:11-16

A nso l abehe r e ); 605:4 Hood) . In Vi rg in i a , V s

71




genera l ly correspond to vot ing prec inc t s . Id .

a t

253:14-17

A n s o l a b e h e r e ) .

Given t h e i r

s m a l l

s i z e , compl iance wi th p r e c i n c t o r

VT

b ou nd ar ie s a lo ne w il l r a r e ly be s u f f i c i e n t to show

adherence to

n e u t r a l criteria Th i s is becau s e

VTDs can

e a s i l y be s t r ung

t o g e t h e r i n t o g ro te sque fo rmat ions having little

rega rd

fo r

compac tness , c on t i gu i t y ,

p o l i t i c a l

subd iv i s i ons ,

o r

o the r

impor t an t

ne u t r a l

criteria advanc ing democra t i c

va lues .

In

sho r t ,

a

d i s t r i c t

cou ld avo id

sp l i t t i ng any

VT s

but

remain

h ig h ly s us p ic io u s on its f a c e .

For

t h e s e

same r e a s on s ,

however ,

VT splits

w i l l o f t en

prov ide

a

f l a g fo r f u r t h e r

i nqu i ry .

The unexpla ined

s p l i t t i n g

o f s ev e r a l VT s in a s i ng l e district

can c a l l

i n t o ques t ion th e

criteria gu id ing t h a t district s

con s t r u c t i on .

vii C o m m u n i t i e s of Interest

Among t r a d i t i o n a l ,

ne u t r a l

d i s t r i c t i n g p r i n c i p l e s , th e

concept of r e spec t i ng com muni t ies o f

i n t e r e s t

i s th e most

en igma t i c . n th e one hand re sp ec t fo r such communi t ies

i s

of t en cons idered th e

guid ing l i g h t o f th e o th e r neu t r a l

pr inc ip l e s .

n

the

o ther

hand

def in ing

some

communities

of

i n t e r e s t may invo lve s t radd l ing

th e

fence between

neu t r a l and

discr iminatory c r i t e r i a . For exam ple communit ies of i n t e r e s t

may be def ined by

r e l a t i v e l y

ob j e c t i v e

f a c t o r s ,

such a s s e rv i ce

de l iv e ry a rea s ,

media markets

o r

major

t r a n s i t

l i ne s .

72




S imi l a r l y ,

communi t ies

may be somewhat ob j e c t i v e l y cha r a c t e r i z ed

a s r u r a l , subu rban ,

o r

u rban .

These

can

be

va l i d

n e u t r a l

c r i t e r i a , assuming t h a t


a c t u a l l y have acce s s

to

t h i s

i n fo rma t i on and r e l y upon it. See Bush 517

U S

a t 953

( p r i n c i p a l opin ion)

(d i s coun t ing

argument

t h a t


r e l i e d upon u r b an c h a r a c t e r , s h a r ed

media

s ou r ce s ,

and

ma jo r t r a n s po r t a t i o n l i n e s

because

th e su ppo r t ing da ta

were

l a r g e l y unava i l ab l e to th e l e g i s l a t u r e b e fo re th e d i s t r i c t was

c r e a t ed

and

th e

f a c t o r s

d id

no t po s s e s s

th e same

degree

o f

correlation to district lines

that racial d a t a

exhibit ).

Th e

c omm u n i ti e s

of

interest

criterion be c ome s

less

n eu t r a l ,

however ,

when

one

con s i d e r s

c u l t u r a l ,

s o c i a l , o r

r e l i g i ou s communi t ies

o f i n t e r e s t . This tendency to

morph

in to

a

more ind iv idua l ized metr ic exp la ins th e M ille r C ou r t s

q ua li f i c at io n th at


d i s t r i c t i n g p r i n c i p l e s

i n c lude

r e spe c t fo r

communi t ies

de f i n ed by ac t ua l

sha red

i n t e r e s t s . 515 U S a t 916 To give e f f e c t to

t h i s

e lus ive

de l i n e a t i on , it

is

impor t an t to have

demons t r ab l e

ev id ence o f

sha red

i n t e r e s t

when

th e

boundar ie s

canno t be

exp l a i ned on an

ob j e c t i v e

o r

n eu t r a l

ba s i s .

v State Criteria

For th e r e a sons d i s cu s s ed above

a

p l a i n t i f f

does no t

need

to prove t h a t a S ta te v io la te d its own


c r i t e r i a in

o r d e r t o p ro ve p re dom in an ce . State s dev i a t i on from its own

73




con s t i t u t i o n a l ,

s t a t u t o ry ,

o r

adopted

criteria

does , however

c o n s t i t u t e ev id ence t h a t is p roba t i v e o f

subo rd i n a t i on .

b Deviations

I f th e Chal lenged Dis t r i c t s , o r

s i g n i f i c an t pa r t s

o f the

Chal lenged Dis t r i c t s ,

appear i n exp l i c ab l e by r e f e r ence to th e

c o ns is te n t a p pl i ca tio n

o f


neu t r a l p r i n c i p l e s , t hen

th e Cour t

w i l l

examine th e

ba s i s fo r

t h o s e

d ep a r t u r e s .

Dev i a t i ons

from

neu t r a l c r i t e r i a s i gn a l th e p re sence o f

po t en t i a l

subord ina t ion

and

lay

th e

foundat ion

fo r

th e

so r t ing

c la im; namely

t h a t

th e

d i s t r i c t s

r e f l e c t

r ac ia l c la s si f ic a tio n s

o f in d iv id ua l v o te rs and do no t c o ns ti tu te n eu tra l, geog r aph i c

r ep re s en t a t i v e

un i t s .

The Supreme Court has

c i t ed

s eve r a l sou rces of d i r e c t

and

c i r cums tan t i a l ev idence

t h a t

cour t s can re ly upon in id en ti fy in g

r a c i a l d e vi at i on s , in clu d in g :

[S ] t a t emen t s by l e g i s l a t o r s

i nd i c a t i ng

t h a t

r ace

was

predominan t f a c t o r in

r e d i s t r i c t i n g ; ev idence t h a t

r a c e o r

percentage

o f

race w ith in

d i s t r i c t was the

s ing l e

r ed is tr ic tin g c ri te rio n t h a t

could

not be

compromised; use of land

br idges

in

de l i b e ra t e a t t emp t to br ing

Afr ican-Amer ican popu la t i on

i n to

district;

a n d

creation

of

districts

that

exhibit

d i s r ega rd

fo r

c i t y

l im i t s ,

lo c a l e le c t io n

p r e c i n c t s ,

and vo t i ng

t a bu l a t i o n districts

Page ,

2015

3604029,

a t

7

i n t e r n a l

citations

om i t te d .

Because t r a d i t i o n a l , neu t r a l p r i n c i p l e s advance fundamental

d emoc r a t i c v a l u e s and n e u t r a l state interests districts that

74




subs t an t i a l l y

d is rega rd

t hese

pr i nc i p l e s

can c aus[e ] severe

d i s rup t i on

o f t r a d i t i o n a l

forms

o f

p o l i t ic a l a c ti v i ty .

Bush,

517

U.S.

974

( p r i n c i pa l

op in ion ) . In Bush v . Vera , Ju s t i c e

O Conno r desc r ibed

th e

impac t t h a t such districts

can have :

Campaigners seek ing

to

visit t h e i r

cons t i t u en t s had

to c a r ry

map to i d en t i f y

t h e district

lines, b e c a u s e

so

o f t e n

t h e

borders wou l d move f r om block

to

block ;

vo t e r s d id

no t

know th e c a n d id a te s r unn i ng

fo r o f f i c e because th ey d id no t know

which

d i s t r i c t t hey l ived

in .

In

l i g h t

o f [ the

S t a t e s ] r e qu i r emen t t h a t vo t ing

be

a r r anged

by

p r e c i n c t ,

wi th

each

p r e c i n c t

r ep r e s en t i n g

community

t h a t s h a r e s l o c a l , s t a t e ,

and

f e d e r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , it a l s o c r e a t e d

administrative headaches for local election

officials[.]

Id . a t 974. Such

compla in t s have been echoed by lo ca l e le ct io n

o f f i c i a l s

in

Virg in i a who end

up

tak in g th e b run t o f

compla in t s

from vo t e r s

who

c a n t

under s t and

why they c a n t

vo te

in t h e i r

o ld

p r e c i n c t , why t h ey c a n t f i nd any o f t h e i r c u r r e n t o f f i c e

ho lde r s

on th e b a l l o t , and why they

a re

in th e same

district

as

relative who

lives

nowhe re n e a r t h em [ . ] Pis. Ex. 26 at

17:6-18.

Of cou r se , th e p resence o f i d e n t i f i a b l e

dev i a t i on s

a l one

does

no t

s a t i s f y

th e

predominance

i nqu i r y

because

s u bo rd i n a t io n r e qu i r e s s u b s t a n t ia l

d i s r eg a rd fo r

t r a d i t i o n a l ,

neu t r a l


c r i t e r i a . The s ub s t a n t i a l i t y

o f

any i d e n t i f i e d

dev i a t i on s and whethe r

it

i s

s u f f i c i e n t to

7 5




suppo r t

f i nd ing

o f

predominance

i s examined when th e Cour t

weighs

th e

ev idence

as whole in th e f i n a l s t age .

In rev iew in g

th e

Cha l l enged D i s t r i c t s , th e Cou r t w i l l

c on s i de r

ev idence bea r ing

on

l e g i s l a t o r s bases

fo r

th e

dev i a t i on s .

Dev i a t i on s

may be

a t t r i bu t e d to any

number o f

cons i de r a t i on s , bu t l e g i s l a t o r s

t yp i c a l l y r e l y upon th e

f o l l owing : popu la t i on equa l i t y , r ace ,

p o l i t i c a l

a f f i l i a t i o n

o r

p re f e r ence , an d in cumb en cy

The

Cour t

wi l l

e va lu ate th ese

bases

fo r d ev ia tio n

in

th e

f o l l owing

manner:

i Popu l a t i on

[A]n

equa l po pu la t io n goa l is pa r t o f th e


background,

t aken a s

g iven ,

when

determin ing

whether r ace , o r o the r

f a c to r s ,

predominate in


de t e rm ina t i on as

to

how equa l popu la t i on

ob je c t iv e s w il l be

me t .

Alabama, 135

S . C t. t 1270 . Thus ,

a ch i e v emen t o f th e

popu la t i on goa l i s

no t t r a d i t i o n a l


f a c t o r t h a t

i s cons idered in

th e

ba lanc ing t h a t

de te rmines

predominance

However th e

requ i remen t to comply with

f ede r a l l y

imposed

popu la t i on

goa l s

is

r e le v an t to a s s e s s i ng why

d i s t r i c t

may

appear

to

dev ia t e

from

neu t r a l

c r i t e r i a .

This

i s

pa r t i cu l a r l y

t rue

where

the

census da ta

shows s ign i f i can t

l osses

or gains

o f

popula t ion

in ce r t a i n geograph ic a r ea s o f

St a t e .

The Cour t s

ana lys i s does no t

change

j u s t because the

Sta t e

has dec ided to

adopt

lower

percentage

dev ia t ion

t h resho ld than

7 6




c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y

r e q u i r e d .

In

Alabama t h e

l e g i s l a t u r e adop ted

a more r i go rous dev i a t i o n s t anda rd

than

ou r p re ceden ts

have

found

nece s sa ry

under

th e Cons t i t u t i o n . Id . a t 1263 . There ,

a s

he re , it

seems

t h a t

[ c ]ompl iance wi th t h ese

two

goa l s -

BVAP t a r g e t s

and

a ±1

popu l a t i on

d ev ia t io n ru le - po sed

pa r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s wi th r e spec t to . . . th e S t a t e s . . .

majo r i t y -m ino r i t y

districts[ ] Id .

But l e g is la t iv e e ff o r ts

to c r e a t e districts o f ap pro xim ate ly e qu al popu la t i on more

s t r i n g en t

t han

th e

5

dev i a t i on

he ld

gene r a l l y

permis s ib l e

in

Brown

V. Thomson462

U.S.

835 842

(1983) ,

canno t exp la in away

deviations

from

neutral principles.^ Id. a t

1270. The

predominance

i nqu i r y

examines

th e

ba s i s

upon

which vo t e r s

were

so r ted

in to

app rop r i a t e ly appor t ioned d i s t r i c t s . Id . a t

1271.

Where

appor t ionment by po l i t i c a l

s ubd i v i s i on must be

s a c r i f i c ed

to

equa l popu la t i on

goa ls , fo r

example o t h e r

n eu tr al p rin c ip le s

Nor can th e

f a c t

t h a t

a benchmark

district po s s e s s e s

a lmos t exac t l y

th e r i g h t

amount

o f

popu l a t i on , Tr i a l Tr,

1 47 :1 9-1 48 :1 9, (A n so la be he re ),

t aken a lone , p rov ide

ev idence

t h a t changes to

th e

d i s t r i c t were

based

on

race .

I f adequate ly

popula ted d i s t r i c t s were presumpt ive ly requ i red to s tay th e

same

th e

remaining

d i s t r i c t s

on

th e

map

would

need

to

wrap

around

them in

v i o l a t i o n

o f neu t r a l p r i n c i p l e s . Id . a t 688:20-

689:10

(Hof e l l e r )

.

Of

cou r s e ,

if

a

district

e xh i b i t s

unexplained dev i a t i on s

from neu t r a l p r i nc i p l e s and

the

popu la t i on changes fo r

t h a t district r e f l e c t

r emarkab le f e a t s

o f r a c i a l math then t h i s would cons t i t u t e

s t rong

evidence t h a t

race predominated

in th e

drawing

o f

th e d i s t r i c t

boundar ies .

See Alabama 135 S. C t. a t

1271

{not ing t h a t

( o ] f

th e

15 785

ind iv idua l s

t h a t

th e

new

r ed i s t r i c t i ng laws added to the

popu la t i on o f [ the d i s t r i c t ] j u s t

36

were whi t e — a r emarkab le

f e a t given th e l o c a l demogr aph i c s ) .

7 7




such as compac tness

and

p re c i nc t

bounda r i e s

can

o f t en pick up

th e s l a ck . s u b s t a n t i a l dev i a t i o n from n eu tra l p rin c ip le s ,

t h e r e fo r e ,

only

admi t s o f answer by o the r , non -neu t r a l c r i t e r i a ,

such as

r a ce

o r p o l i t ic a l a f f i l i a ti o n .

Racial

Deviations

One

exp l a na t i on

fo r

district s

d ev i a t i o n s

f rom

n eu t r a l


c r i t e r i a

may be vo te r s r ace . The mere awareness o r

co n s id e ra t io n o f r ace

by l e g i s l a t o r s in

t h e i r d i s t r i c t i n g

dec i s i ons

does

no t ,

on

its

own

prov ide

s u f f i c i e n t

evidence

to

suppo r t

cla im

o f

r a c i a l

s o r t i n g unde r th e

Equal

Pro t ec t i on

Clause .

Shaw

I ,

509

U S a t

646

( [T]he

l e g i s l a t u r e a lways

i s

aware o f

r a ce when it

draws district l i n e s , j u s t a s it

is

aware

o f

age , economic s t a t u s ,

r e l i g i ou s

and po l i t i c a l persuas ion , and

va r i e ty of

o the r

demographic f ac to r s . That s o r t o f r a ce

consc iousness does no t

l ead

in ev i ta b ly to

impermiss ib le race

d i s c r im i n a t i o n . ) . It

t a k e s

more

t h an

c on s i d e r a t i o n

o f

r a c e t o

prove t h a t r a ce

predomina ted

ove r

t r a d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s .

Of

cou r s e , if

legislators use o f

r a c e e n t a i l e d th e s ubo r d i n a t i on

o f

o the r d i s t r i c t i ng

c r i t e r i a ,

it m ust be adequa te ly

j u s t i f i ed

unde r

th e

strict

s c r u t i n y

r e g ime .

Political

Deviations

Anothe r

e x p la n a t io n fo r

district s d ev i a t i o n s

f rom

neu t r a l d i s t r i c t i n g

criteria

may be vo t e r s po l i t i c a l

op in ions ,

affiliations

and b e l i e f s . As

wi th

r a c e ,

th e

mere awarenes s o r

78




cons ide ra t ion o f

vo t e r s po l i t i c a l

a f f i l i a t i on by


i s

both

unavo idab le and con s t i t u t i ona l l y

pe rm i s s i b l e .

Gaf fney , 412

U.S.

a t 753-54 ( I t would be i d l e , we th in k , to contend t h a t any

po l i t i c a l

cons ide ra t ion

taken i n to

accoun t in

fashioning a

r eappo r t i onmen t p lan

is

s u f f i c i e n t t o i n v a l i d a t e it . . . The

very es sence o f

d i s t r i c t i n g is

t o

produce

a d i f f e r e n t — a more

^po l i t i c a l l y

f a i r

r e s u l t

Po l i t i c s

and po l i t i c a l

cons ide ra t ion s a re i n separab l e from d i s t r i c t i ng and

appor t ionmen t . ) .

Accord ing ly ,


on

th e

bas i s

o f

p o l i t i c a l

a f f i l i a t i o n

may be a l e g i t ima t e c r i t e r i on fo r th e


to cons ide r . Alabama, 135 S. C t.

a t 1270

( c i t i ng

Bush fo r th e

p ropos i t i on

t h a t l e g i s l a t o r s may r e l y on p o l i t i c a l

a f f i l i a t i o n in d i s t r i c t i n g ) ; Bush,

517

U.S.

a t

964-65

( p r i n c i pa l

op in ion) ( c i t i n g Gaffney)

However,

dev i a t i on s

from


p r in c ip l e s

on th e

bas i s o f

p o li t i c a l a f f il i a t i o n

o r p re fe ren ce

may no t

a lways

be

con s t i t u t i ona l l y

pe rm i s s i b l e . See Gaffney , 412 U.S.

a t 754

( What

is done in so

a r r ang i ng

fo r

e l e c t i o n s ,

o r to

ach i eve po l i t i c a l ends o r

a l l oca t e po l i t i c a l

power,

i s no t

whol ly exempt from j u d i c i a l s c ru t i ny under

th e Fou r t een t h

Amendment . ) ;

LULAC

548

U.S.

a t

413-14

(hold ing

t h a t

po l i t i c a l

ger rymander ing i s uncons t i t u t i ona l ) ; Arizona

S t a t e

Leg i s l a t u r e

V.

A rizona Indep . Red i s t r i c t i n g Comm n, 135 S.

C t. 2652,

2658

(2015) ( r e a f f i rm i ng t h a t

p a r t i s a n ge r r ymande r s

. . . a r e

incompat ib le

with

democra t ic pr i nc i p l e s and p re s en t j u s t i c i ab l e

c l a ims ) ( i n t e r n a l b r a c k e t s om i t t e d ) . As in Page , t h e

laintiffs

have no t r a i s ed

th e i s s ue o f po l i t i c a l ge r rymande r i ng , and

so

this Co u r t n e e d

not

consider

further

S e e 2015 WL

3604029

at

*20 n.33 (Payne, J . , d i s s en t i ng ) .

7 9




The I n t e rv eno r s have

r a i s ed

th e argument t h a t

some

of th e

Chal lenged

Di s t r i c t s have po l i t i c a l , r a t h e r t han r a c i a l ,

j u s t i f i c a t i o n s

i v .

Incxombency Dev i a t i o n s

Yet

ano the r exp lan a tion fo r a district s dev i a t i ons

from

neu t r a l


c r i t e r i a

may

be incumbency

cons ide ra t ions .

In Gaffney v .

Cummings,

th e Supreme C ourt o bse rv ed

t h a t ; It

would be i d l e , we t h i nk , to con tend t h a t any po l i t i c a l

cons ide ra t i on

t aken

i n to

accoun t

in

f a sh ion ing

a

r e appo r t i onmen t

p lan i s s u f f i c i e n t to i n v a l i d a t e it. Red i s t r i c t i n g may p i t

incumbents aga i n s t one ano th e r o r

make

very d i f f i c u l t th e

e l e c t i o n o f th e most expe r i enced l e g i s l a t o r . 412 U.S. a t

753-

54. Accord ing ly , a district s impac t

on

an

i ncumben t

may be a

l e g i t ima t e

c r i t e r i o n

fo r th e l e g i s l a t u r e to

con s i d e r .

Alabama,

135 S. C t.

a t

1270 ( c i t i ng Bush fo r th e p ro po s i t io n t h a t

l e g i s l a t o r s may con s i d e r i ncumbency

p ro t e c t i on

d i s t r i c t i n g ) .

S e e , e.g., Ints. Pre-Trial Brief at

18

( HD95 was

c ra fte d c are fu lly

to

avo id t ak ing HD94 s Republ ican prec inc t s

and in s tead t ake Democra t ic - lean ing popula t ion l e f t behind by

HD9

and reach i n to

p rec inc t s

surrounded by

HD9 to

d i lu t e

Democ r a t i c

vo t i n g s t r e n g t h i n

that

area. ); i d .

at

25 ( The

changes

on the

eas t e rn

border

to HD75 were drawn to load heav i ly

Republ ican p r e c i n c t s

i n t o

th e district

o f

Democrat Wil l iam

Barlow

(who subsequen t ly

l o s t

to

a Republ ican

in

th e 2011

e l e c t i o n by

10

percen tage po i n t s ) [ . ] ) .

80




However, a s

wi th

p o l i t i c a l d ev ia t io ns , d ev ia t io ns from


p r i n c i p l e s

fo r incumbency purposes

a re

no t

a lways pe rm i s s i b l e .

In

Bush, th e Cour t recogn ized incumbency

p ro t e c t i o n , a t l e a s t in th e l im i t ed

form

o f a vo id ing

con t e s t s

between i n cumben t [ s ] , as

a

l eg i t ima t e s t a t e goa l . 517 U.S. a t

964-65 ( p r i n c i pa l op in ion) emphasis added) . This s t a t e

i n t e r e s t a im[ s ] a t

main t a i n i ng

e x i s tin g r e la ti o n s hip s be tween

in cumb en t co ng ressm en and

t h e i r

con s t i t u en t s and p r e s e r v [ e s ] th e

s e n i o r i t y

th e

members

o f th e

S t a t e s

de l ega t i on

have

ach ieved

in

th e Uni ted S t a t e s

House

o f R e pre se nta tiv es , White v . Weise r ,

412 U.S. 783, 792 (1973) , bu t

does

no t nec e s s a r i l y invade th e

p rov i n c e

o f

th e vo t e r s . As th e

LUL

Cou r t

adv i s ed :

[ I ]ncumbency

p ro t e c t i o n

can be

a

l e g i t ima t e

f ac t o r

in

d i s t r i c t i n g , bu t

ex pe rie nce te ac he s t h a t

incumbency p ro t ec t i on

can t a k e v a r io us

fo rms , no t

all o f

t hem

in

th e i n t e r e s t s o f th e

constituents

5 4 8

U . S .

at

4 4 0 - 4 1 .

Here , th e In te rv en o r s

a l l e g e

t h a t

many

o f

th e Cha l lenged

Dis t r i c t s dev ia t ions

have

incumbency pro tec t ion

j u s t i f i c a t i o n s . See , e . g . ,

T r i a l

T r. 825:5-7 ( In t e rveno r s )

This

was

an

i ncumben t -p ro tec t ion

p lan .

Tha t s

th e

predominate

mot ive o f th is p la n [ . ] ) . Some o f th e se dev i a t i on s r e f l e c t an

i n t e r e s t

in

drawing

district

l i n e s be tween

incumbents

re s id ences to

avo id i ng

pa i r i n g

incumbents .

See ,

e . g . ,

id . a t

304 :6 -21

( Jones ) .

Othe r dev i a t i o n s , however , r e v e a l an e f f o r t

81




to

fence

in th e i n cumben t s p re fe rr e d v o te rs o r f ence ou t th e

i ncumben t s d e t r a c t o r s o r ch a l l e n g e r s .

See ,

e . g . , id . a t

325 :19 -326 :23 ( J on e s ) .

Whethe r this

latter

de f i n i t i o n

o f

incumbency p ro t e c t i o n s t a t e s a l eg i t ima t e government i n t e r e s t

need no t

be

dec i ded he re

because no one has

p resen t ed t h a t

i s s u e . See

Weise r ,

412 U.S .

a t 792 .

Tha t s a i d , we

s h a r e th e

d i s s e n t s conce rn ove r

I n t e r v eno r s

imp l i c i t

sugges t ion t h a t

approva l by incumbent l e g i s l a t o r s can

somehow

r e s cu e

a

p lan

from a

f i nd ing

o f

r a c i a l

predominance .

Pos t a t 168 . We fu l l y ag ree t h a t [ t ] h e [VR ] and th e Equal

P ro t e c t i on

Clause

a re in tended t o p r o t e c t

th e

r i g h t s o f th e

i nd i v i dua l

vo t e r , no t

to promote

th e s e l f - i n t e r e s t o f

incumbents

in

ma jo r i t y -m ino r i t y

districts Pos t

a t 168.

And

to

be

c l e a r ,

th e

framework we ado pt tod ay condones no such

t h ing .

For example

if

l e g i s l a t o r s a t t emp t to * pac [k ] mino r i t y

v o t e r s i n t o a p a r t i c u l a r

majo r i t y -m ino r i t y district fo r th e

purpose o f p ro t e c t i n g th e i ncumben t , po s t

a t 169

{emphasis

added) , t h i s would still

con s t i t u t e

r a c i a l so r t i ng re ga rd le ss o f

th e goa l o f incumbency

p ro t ec t i on ,

see pos t a t 85-86. This

i s

p r e c i s e l y

wha t

we

f i n d

oc cu r r e d

i n

H

75 , and

we

ho ld

t h a t

r a c e

predomina ted accord ing ly . See pos t a t

117-21 .

On th e

o the r

hand if l e g i s l a t o r s a t t empt to pack

suppor te r s

i n t o

t h e i r districts o r a t t emp t

to

remove de t r a c to r s

o r

cha l l e nge r s , then it cou ld ha rd ly be s a i d

t h a t

r ace drove

th e

8 2




d i s t r i c t i ng dev ia t i on .

This

does no t imply

t h a t such ac t ions

a re inunune from

con s t i t u t i o n a l cha l l enge . Although

th e Supreme

Court

has only

sanc t ioned s ta te in t e r e s t

in incumbency

p air in g p re ve nt io n the

P l a i n t i f f s s imply

d id not

ra i se

any

cha l l enge

to

the Commonwealth s a l leged i n t e r e s t in

wider

de f i n i t i on o f

i ncumbency

p r o t e c t i o n . Thus,

w

a re in no

pos i t i on to decide t h a t con s t i t u t i o n a l ques t i on .

Simply put if incumbency

i n t e r e s t s

cons t i t u t e th e

predomina te

c r i t e r i on

d r i v i ng

th e

cons t ruc t i on

o f the

d i s t r i c t

then

claim o f

r a c i a l

gerrymander ing

must

f a i l . That , however ,

does not

imply

t ha t

cla im of po l i t i c a l gerrymandering would

f a c e

simil r f te

c .

Weigh ing

The

f i na l

s tep

in th e

predominance

inqu i ry o f r a c i a l

so r t ing cla im

involves

th e

weighing o f the

evidence in to to to

d e t e rm i n e whe the r t h e d e v i a t io n s ttribut ble t o

r a c e

predominate over a l l

o ther


c r i t e r i a employed by

th e l e g i s l a t u r e i nc lud ing

both neu t r a l c r i t e r i a and

dev ia t ions

a t t r i b u t a b l e

t o

n o n - r a c i a l mo t i v e s .

To

demons t r a t e

predominance,

the

Pla in t i f f s

must

show

tha t

the

l eg is la ture

subordinated or

exhibi ted subs tan t i a l

disregard fo r these

other

criteri

In

making

its

predominance de t e rm ina t i on

th e

Cour t

mus t

be s ens i t i ve to th e complex i n t e rp l ay o f fo rce s t h a t

en t e r

83




l e g i s l a t u r e s


ca l cu l u s a n d

e x e r c i s e

ex t r ao r d ina r y c au t i o n . Mil l e r ,

515

U . S . a t

9 1 5 - 1 6 .

F ede ra l -

c ou r t

review

o f d i s t r i c t i n g

l e g i s l a t i on

r ep r e s en t s a s e r i ou s

i n t r u s i o n

on

t h e

mos t

vital o f l o c a l

f u n c t i o n s , i d .

at 915 ,

and

th e P l a i n t i f f s burden

i s unders tandab ly

a d e m a n d i n g

one , id .

a t 928

O C o n n o r , J .

concur r ing ) . Therefore ,

th e


enac tmen t s

o f a l e g i s l a t u r e a re

e n t i t l e d t o

a

p r e sump t i on

o f

c o r r e c t n e s s

and g o o d

f a i t h ,

and th e bu rden

is

u p o n th e plaintiff

to

d i s lodge

t h a t

presumpt ion .

Id .

a t

915

(ma jo r i t y

op in ion ) .

It shou ld b e no t ed ,

h o w e v e r ,

t h a t th e p r e d o m i n a n c e

ba lanc ing i nqu i ry i s

qua l i t a t i v e

r a t he r

than

quan t i t a t i ve .

I n

Mil le r , fo r e x a m p l e , th e cha l lenged d i s t r i c t

em pl oyed

g a n g l y

ar m s a t

var ious

po in t s to

c ap tu re b lack p opu la t ion

cen te r s ,

but

th e district s ove r a l l shape w as no t f a r f r o m r ou t i n e .

S ee

id .

a t 917; id . a t

Ap p en d ix B.

Looking a t

th e

c o m p l e t e

p i c t u r e ,

h o w e v e r ,

th e

district c ou r t f o u n d th a t [ r ] a c e

w as

. . . th e

p r e d o m i n a n t , over r id ing

f ac tor

e xp la in in g th e G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y s

decis ion

to

a t ta ch to the [d i s t r i c t ]

var ious

appendages

conta in ing d e n s e ma jor it y- b la c k popu la ti ons , Id . a t 920.

In c o n d u ctin g

the

predominance

b a l a n c i n g ,

tw o

par t i cu la r

i s s u e s

wa r r a n t

t h e Co u r t s

c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n .

Racial Political

orrelation

O c c a s i o n a l l y , a devia t ion may a p p e a r equal ly expla inable by

r ac ia l o r

po l i t i c a l

m o t i v a t i o n s . Because th e

Sta te i s presumed

8 4




to have ac t ed l awfu l l y and

in

good

f a i t h ,

th e p l a i n t i f f must

p ro vid e e vid en ce t h a t r ace r a t h e r

than p o l i t i c s

r ep re sen t ed

th e

pr imary

ba s i s fo r

th e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .

Evidence may inc lude

th e s ou r c e s

o f

da t a

r e l i e d upon

i n d rawing th e district, th e u se

o f

f i x ed

(o r

a s p i r a t i o n a l )

p o l i t i c a l o r

r a c i a l t a r g e t s

o r

f l oo r s , and

s t a t emen t s

from l e g i s l a t o r s

r ega rd ing

th e

r e l a t i v e

p r i o r i t y o f t h e i r r a c ia l and p o l i t i c a l goa l s .

A

p o l i t i c a l

ob j e c t i v e ,

however ,

does

no t immunize th e use

of race a s

a

basis for

classification

b e c a u s e race c a n n o t b e

used

a s a proxy fo r

p o l i t i c a l

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

Bush, 517

U.S. a t

968 ( p r i n c i pa l op in ion ) , even if t h e r e is

a

proven co r r e l a t i on

between r ace

and

p o l i t i c a l p r e f e r en ce

in

th e s t a t e . This i s

because to

th e ex t en t t h a t

r ace

i s used as a

proxy

fo r

po l i t i c a l cha r a c t e r i s t i c s , a r a c i a l

s te re oty pe r eq uir in g

s t r i c t

s c r u t i n y is i n o p era tio n . Id .

This i s cons i s t en t wi th th e Supreme Cou r t s ho ld ing in Hunt

V.

Cromar t i e

(C ro mar t ie I ) The l e s s o n o f

Cromar t i e

I was

t h a t

a

po l i t i c a l

c l a s s i f i c a t i on

would no t

be considered r ac i a l

simply

because th e Democrat ic vo te r s happened to be b lack . 526 U.S.

541,

542 1999)

[A]

j u r i sd ic t ion

may engage in

cons t i tu t iona l

po l i t i ca l

gerrymandering, even i f

it so happens t ha t

the

most

loya l Democrats happen to be black Democrats and even

if those

re spons ib le fo r drawing th e d i s t r i c t a re consc ious o f t ha t

fact. .

The

l e s s o n

was

n o t

that

a

racial classification wou ld

8 5




be cons ide red po l i t i c a l s im ply b ecau se

b l a ck vo t e r s

happened to

b e Demo c r a t s .

In

th e latter s c e n a r i o

th e

S t a t e still

makes

d e c i s i o n s

a bou t

i n d i v i d u a l s b a s e d

on t h e

c o l o r o f

their

s k i n . t

is t h e

a c t o f us ing r a c e a s proxy th a t c on st i t u te s an

o f f en s i v e

s t e r eo t ype .

The f a c t t h a t

s t e r eo type migh t have

some

b a s is in

f a c t

o r

i s

r e l i ed upon

to

ach ieve

non - r ac i a l

purposes does

no t

r e nde r it

any l e s s o f f e n s i v e .

Evidence

o f

r a c i a l

f l o o r wi l l a l so

lend suppo r t

to

th e

argument

t h a t

r a c e r a t h e r t han po l i t i c s can be a t t r i b u t e d fo r

pa r t i c u l a r dev i a t i on s from neu t r a l p r i n c i p l e s . A lthou gh such

f l o o r wi l l no t r e s u l t in p e r

se

predominance

where

district i s

formed pr edominan t l y

on

th e

ba s i s

o f neu t r a l c r i t e r i a its use

can bu t t r e s s

plaintiff s argument

t h a t r ace

was

th e

pr imary

reason

fo r

dev i a t i o n

where r ace and po l i t i c s would

o the rwi se

seem

equa l l y

p l a u s i b l e .

La s t l y

s t a t emen t s

abou t th e r e l a t i v e

p r i o r i t y o f

d i s t r i c t i ng goa ls m y

cons t i t u t e

evidence

to

suppor t f inding

of r ac i a l predominance. Taken alone the par ro t ing of

federa l

requirements

or

the

acknowledgment

th a t ce r ta in

compliance

o blig at io ns a re mandatory or nonneg ot iab le does not lend any

weight

in th e predominance ba lance . I f it d id th e

S ta t e

would

s t a r t th e predominance

ba lanc ing

a t

an immedia te disadvan tage .

However if ev idence

i s

provided t ha t demons t ra tes l e g i s l a t o r s

8 6




held

a

false

belief

that

certain

artificial

criteria

s u c h

a s

f ixed BVAP f l o o r were neces sa ry to

comply

wi th f e de r a l law

then s t a t emen t s by

t hose

pa r t i cu l a r

l e g i s l a t o r s regard ing

compliance

are

r e l evan t ev idence in

th e

predominance i nqu i ry .

C o r e Retention

Core r e t en t i on

o r

r e spec t ing ex i s t i ng

d i s t r i c t

boundar ies appears

to

be

f ac i a l ly

neu t r a l and

se rves

neu t r a l

po l i t i c a l

va lues ,

such as

i nc reased

admin i s t r a t ive ease ,

e l e c t o r a l

accoun t ab i l i t y ,

and

enhanced

vo t e r

awareness

and

engagement

Unlike

th e

o th er n eu tr a l

c r i t e r i a i d e n t i f i e d above

however core r e t e n t i o n ho lds a sp e c i a l p lace in th e

predominance ba l ance . Tha t

is because

c o re p r e s e r va t i on

is

no t d i r e c t l y r e le v a n t to

th e

o r ig in

o f

th e

new

d i s t r i c t

inhabitants

A labam a , 135 S . C t. at 1271 .

Moreove r ,

c o r e

r e t en t i on may be

used

t o i n su l a t e th e o r i g i n a l

bas i s

fo r

th e

district

boundaries

Thus

where district

l i n e s t r a ck

a

pa th s im i l a r

to

t h e i r

p r ed ece s so r districts

o r

where c o r e r e t e n t i o n seems to

p redomina t e , cou r t s

shou ld

a l so examine

th e under ly ing

j u s t i f i c a t i o n

fo r th e

o r ig in a l l in e s

o r

o r i g i n a l

district

Leg i s l a t o r s

use o f the core

r e t en t i on

pr i nc i p l e should

ce r t a in ly r ece ive

some degree

o f

de fe r ence .

But

th e

i nqu i ry

in

a

r a c i a l

so r t i ng c la im

examines

th e bas i s upon which vo t e r s

were

p la ced w ith in

o r wi thou t a

pa r t i c u l a r

district

Mil l e r , 515

87




U.S.

a t 916. Th a t s th e way we ve always

done

i t may be a

neu t r a l

re spo nse , b ut it i s

no t a

mean ing fu l

answer .

The Cour t app l i ed th e fo rego ing p r i n c i p l e s when

weighing

all

o f

th e

ev idence

in th e r e co rd and in a sc er ta in in g whe the r

vo t e r s were s o r t ed i n t o a district p redominan t l y on t h e b a s i s o f

their

race

2 .

trictSc r u t i n y

Ana ly s i s

Having app lied th e se p rec ep ts to th e

ev idence ,

we found

t h a t

th e

P l a i n t i f f s met t h e i r

burden

to

prove

t h a t

r a ce

was

predominan t in th e fo rmat ion

o f

HD 75, making it nece ssa ry to

app ly strict s c r u t i ny a s to th a t district To

su rv ive strict

sc ru t iny ,

th e r e d is tr ic t i n g s ta tu te

must be narrowly t a i l o red

to

a

compel l ing s ta te in te re st .

In

th e r ed i s t r i c t i ng con tex t , t h i s

f ami l i a r

t e s t t a k e s on

a

somewhat d i f f e r e n t

appearance ,

which

the Co u r t will now

e x am i n e .

a .

Compe l l ing

I n t e r e s t

In p r i o r c a s e s , th e Supreme Court has

assumed, wi thou t

dec id ing ,

t h a t compl i ance

with

f ed er al a n tid is cr im i na tio n laws

can cons t i t u t e a

compe l l ing

s ta te in te re st .

See Shaw

I I ,

517

U.S.

a t 915

We

assume,

arguendo,

for the

purpose

of

resolving

t h i s

su i t , t h a t compl iance with

§ 2

[o f th e

VRA] could

be

a

compelling

i n t e r e s t [ . ] ) ; Bush, 517

U.S.

a t 977

(p r inc ipa l

opinion) ( [W ]e assume w ith ou t d ec id in g

t h a t

compliance

with

the

resu l t s

t e s t

[of the V ]

. . , can be a compell ing s ta te

8 8




i n t e r e s t . ) . Var iou s members o f th e Cour t have a l s o

exp r e s s ed

t h e i r

s ep a r a t e

views

on th e m at te r .

See

Bush, 517

U.S. a t 990

{O Connor , J., concu r r i ng )

In

my view

th e S t a t e s have

a

compel l ing i n t e r e s t in

complying

with th e

r e s u l t s

t e s t [o f

th e

VRA] as

t h i s Cour t

has i n t e r p r e t e d it. ; LULAC 548 U.S. a t 517

Sca l ia ,

J . , concur r ing in th e judgment in pa r t

and

di s sen t ing

in pa r t , j o ined by

Ch i e f

J u s t i c e Rober t s , J u s t i c e

Thomas,

and

J u s t i c e Al i to ) I

would

ho ld t h a t compl i ance with

§ 5

o f the

Vot ing

Righ t s

Act

can

be [a

compel l ing

s t a t e ]

i n t e r e s t . ) .

This a l ready

complex pos tu re was rendered even l e ss c er ta in

by

th e

r e c en t dec i s i on

in

Shelby County .

There ,

th e Supreme

Cour t

s t ruck down

th e coverage

formula

under Sect ion

4 o f

the

VRA

bu t

i s sue [d ] no hold ing

on

§ 5 itself[.] 133 S. Ct. a t

2631. The Supreme Court d id no t he lp m atte rs in Alabama

when

it

s t a t e d , [W]e

do no t

h e re dec id e

w hether, g iv en Shelby County v .

Holder,

con t inued compliance with § 5 remains a compel l ing

interest[.] 135 S.

C t. a t

1274

i n t e r n a l

c i t a t i o n om i t t e d ) .

Here , th e

In t e rveno r s

c la im compel l ing i n t e r e s t s founded on

both Section

2

a n d Section

5

of

the

VRA. To

resolve wh e t h e r

compl iance

wi th

th e

VRA

was

a

compe l l i ng

i n t e r e s t

a t

th e

t ime

o f

enac tmen t , th e

Cour t

f i nd s th e

r a t i o n a l e

o f f e r ed by

J u s t i c e

Sca l i a

in

h is

LULAC o pin io n conv inc ing . As

to

Sec t i on

5,

J u s t i c e Sca l i a wrote , in

a

passage

j o i n ed

by Chie f J u s t i c e

Robe r t s , J u s t i c e Thomas ,

and

J u s t i c e Al i t o :

89




We long

a g o uphe ld

th e con s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of

§ 5

as

a

p rope r

exe r c i s e o f

Cong r e s s s

a u t h o r i t y

unde r § o f th e F i f t e e n t h

Amendmen t to enforce

that Am e n dm e n t s

p roh i b i t i o n

on

th e d en ia l

o r

abr idgment

o f

th e

r i g h t to

vo te .

I f

compl i ance

wi th

§ 5

w e r e

no t

a compe l l i ng s ta te i n te re s t ,

then

a

S t a t e cou ld

b e p l aced

in

th e impos s i b l e

pos i t i on

o f having

to choose b e t w e e n

compl i ance wi th § 5 a n d compl i ance with th e

Equa l P ro t e c t i o n

Clause .

5 8 U . S . a t 517 (Sca l i a ,

J

concu r r i ng in

th e

j u d g m e n t in pa r t

a n d d is s e nt in g in

pa r t ,

j o ined b y Chie f

J u s t i c e

Robe r t s , J u s t i c e

T h o m a s ,

and

J u s t i c e

Al i t o )

( i n t e r n a l

citations

om i t t e d ) .

We

f i nd t h i s

reason ing

pe r suas ive , wi th th e p rov iso t h a t th e

S t a t e s

i n t e r e s t m u s t b e in a c tu a l c omp lia nc e w ith th e

s t a nda r d s

a r t i c u l a t e d in

f e d e r a l

an t i d i s c r im ina t i on

la w

a s i n t e r p r e t e d

b y

the federal

courts

Thi s d i s t i n c t i o n

is

a n

impor tan t

one . In

M il le r , th e

S u p r e m e Cou r t s t ip u la t e d th a t

c omp l i a nc e

wi th

f e d e r a l

an t i d i s c r im ina t i on l a w s cannot j u s t i f y

r ace -based


w h e r e th e

cha l l enged district w as

no t

r ea so na bly n ec es sa ry

under

a con s t i t u t i o n a l r e ad ing a n d

app l i c a t i on

o f th o se law s. 515

T h i s reason ing

i s persuas ive with r e spec t

to

Sect ion

as

wel l .

See Bush,

517

U . S . a t 990- 92

O C o n no r ,

J . ,

concurr ing)

(no t ing t h a t

th e Suprem e C o u r t h a s repea ted ly enforced th e

ob l iga t i on s

o f

§

2 , l o w e r

cou r t s h a v e u n a n i m o u s l y a f f i rmed its

con s t i t u t i o n a l i t y , a n d s t a t e s

w o u ld b e

t r a pped b e t w e e n th e

c o m p e t i n g h a z a r d s

of

l i a b i l i t y if § w e r e n o t a c o m p e l l i n g

i n t e r e s t ) .

B e c a u s e

only a c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t in ac tua l

compl i ance with th e non - re t rog re s s i on

s ta nd a rd o f Sec t i on

5 i s

ne c e s s a r y

t o t h e r e s o l u t i o n

o f

this

c a s e ,

however ,

th e

Cou r t

n e e d

not add res s Sec t i on

a t

l eng th .

90




U.S . a t 921. T ha t fu nd am e nta l l im i t a t i o n r ema in s app l i c a b l e . In

d r a f t i n g


l e g i s l a t i o n th e S t a t e must pass

a

s t a t e

law

t h a t compl i es w ith bo th

f ed e r a l law and th e

f ed e r a l

con s t i t u t i o n . Thus ,

th e

goa l o f

a c t ua l compl iance

i s c l e a r l y

compe l l i ng . I f th e S t a t e ach ieves

a c t u a l

compl i ance

with

th e

demands

o f

a f e d e r a l s t a t u t e and

th e

f e d e r a l s t a t u t e

is

itself

c on s t i t u t i o n a l

t h en t h e r e can

be

little doub t t h a t th e s t a t e

law

i s s im i l a r l y

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

The S t a t e

a l so

has

an

i n t e r e s t

in

avoid ing

p rec l e a r an ce

den i a l

under Sect ion 5 o r

l i a b i l i t y under Sect ion

2) . This

goal

o f d e fens ive compl iance however, i s not a

compel l ing

i n t e r e s t . See

e g i d . a t

921-27 .

Th i s is

becau s e

de f en s i v e

compl iance

cou ld

o f t e n

e n t a i l a

v i o l a t i o n

o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law

i t s e l f : subordina t ing t r ad i t i ona l neu t ra l c r i t e r i a and o ther


c r i t e r i a

to r a c i a l cons i de r a t i on s . See

Harr i s

v.

Ariz on a Ind ep .

Redist r ic t ing Comm n,

993

F. Supp.

2d

1042,

1054-

55 D. Ariz.

2014)

{noting

tha t

[ s ] eve ra l aspects of the

preclearance process . , . may

work

together to . . . encourage

a

s ta te t ha t

wants

to

o b ta in p re cle ara nc e to overshoot th e mark,

par t icu la r ly i f

it

wants i t s f i r s t

submission

to be

approved )

.

But

Sect ion

5 does not

requ i re

- and cannot be

read to

require - s tates to subordinate t radi t iona l , neutral distr ic t ing

91




p rin c ip le s t o r a ce i n t h e r e d i s t r i c t i n g process he

DOJ s

own

r egu l a t i o n s s t a t e

t h i s

e x p l i c i t l y . P i s . Ex. 9 a t 4 (76 Fed.

Reg.

Vol . 27 (Feb. 9,

2011)

a t

7472)

( [P ] reven t ing

r e t rog re s s i on under Sec t ion 5

does

no t r equ i r e

j u r i s d i c t i o n s

to

v i o l a t e

Shaw v .

Reno

and r e l a t e d c a s e s . ) .

The r e f o r e ,

a s t a t e

t h a t

f inds

itself engaging in

predominant r a c i a l so r t ing

to

f u l f i l l an i n t e r e s t in

defens ive

compliance wi l l begin to

f o r f e i t

any

c r ed ib l e

i n t e r e s t

in preven t ing r e t rogres s ion and

may

be

sa id to

have

adopted

an


o f

Sect ion

5

t h a t

would i t s e l f

render Sec t ion 5

uncons t i tu t iona l as appl ied .

In sum, we hold t h a t Vi rg i n i a s i n t e r e s t in a c tu a l

compl iance wi th th e s t a nda r d s o f fe d era l a n t id is c rim i n a t io n

law

as th e

fed era l c ou rts

have in te rpre ted

them

was

a

compell ing

Nor

does Sec t ion

2

requi re s t a t e s

to engage

in such

behavior . That

i s

because Section

2 requires a p la in t i f f

to

f i r s t prove

t ha t the

minori ty

group

was

geographical ly compact

and could

have

cons t i tu ted

a numerical majori ty in a

hypothe t i ca l s ingle-member d i s t r i c t . See Shaw I I , 517 U.S.

a t

916;

LULAC 548 U.S. a t 433; Ba r t l e t t , 556 U.S.

a t

26.

The

conceptual

di f f i cu l ty with

the

compelling

in te re s t

ar i ses

when

the

State at tempts ac tua l

compliance but does not

achieve

actual

compliance.

But

th i s

i s

not

a

dispute

about

whether the

i n t e res t i s

compell ing;

it

i s a dispute

about

whether the S ta t e s attempt was

narrowly

t a i lo red . I f the

S ta t e s goal was

ac tua l

compliance

with

a proper

reading

of a

cons t i t u t i ona l

f edera l

s tandard , then th e i n t e r e s t

i s

compe l l i ng . Only th e fed e ra l c o u r ts can

a s c e r t a i n

whether th e

Sta te achieved actual

compliance

with

a const i tu t ional

reading

of those s ta tu tes ,

so

the

State can only

a t tempt actual

comp l i anc e .

92




i n t e r e s t

a t th e

t ime th e 2011 r e d i s t r i c t i n g

p l an

was

des i gned

a n d en cted

Apa r t f rom

t h a t

que s t i on , th e

Cou r t

b e l i e v e s t h a t an

i n te re s t th a t

i s

compe l l i ng

a t

a r e d i s t r i c t i n g

p l a n s

i n c ep t i on

i s capab le

o f

su s t a i n i ng th e p lan un t i l th e nex t d i s t r i c t i n g

c y c l e . As th e district c o u r t in Alabama

s t a t e d ,

We eva l u a t e

th e p lans in the l i g h t o f the

l ega l s t anda rd

t h a t governed th e

Leg i s l a t u r e when it

a c t e d ,

no t

ba s ed

on a l ter

de c i s i on

o f

th e

Supreme

Court

t h a t

exempted

[ the

Sta t e ]

from

fu tu re

coverage

unde r s e c t i o n o f

th e

[VRA]. See Alabama Leg i s l a t i v e

Black

Caucus V Alabama,

989 F.

Supp. 2d 1227 , 1307-08 M.D. Ala .

2013)

( th ree- judge

cou r t ) ,

vaca ted

and remanded,

135 S.

Ct. 1257

2015) . Because


possessed

a

compel l ing i n t e r e s t

in

a c t u a l compl i ance

wi th f ed e r a l an t i d i s c r im ina t i on

laws

as

i n t e rp re t ed

by

th e f edera l cour t s

a t

th e t ime the plan was

enac t ed , and

because r ed i s t r i c t i ng plans a re

inheren t ly

sub jec t

to p e r io d ic re v i s io n on a

r e a sonab l e ,

decenn i a l ba s i s , we

conc lude t h a t th e

compe l l ing

i n t e r e s t under ly ing

th e

s t a t u t e

a t

enac tment remains a compel l ing i n t e r e s t dur ing its e f f e c t i v e

dur tion

b .

Narrow

Ta i l o r i ng

The

nex t

ques t ion in th e ana ly t i c a l ca lcu lus

i s

whether

th e

S ta te s re d i s t r ic tin g s ta tu te

was

narrowly

t a i l o red to

t h i s

compell ing i n t e r e s t .

In par t i cu l a r ,

th e

ques t ion

i s whether

a

93




S t a t e s a t t emp t a t

a c t u a l

compl i ance could be viewed a s

re a sonab ly nece ssa ry under con s t i t u t i o n a l read ing and

app l i c a t i o n

o f [ f e d e r a l

an t i d i s c r im in a t i on ]

l aws . Shaw I I , 517

U.S. a t 911 { ci t in g M i lle r, 515 U.S. a t 921

In

Alabama, th e

Supreme Cour t exp la ined t h a t narrow t a i l o r i n g

i s

s a t i s f i e d if

t h e r e i s

s t rong ba s i s in ev idence fo r th e p re dom in an t u se

o f

r ace in drawing

cha l l enged

district 135 S. C t. a t 1274.

The

concep tua l d i f f i cu l t y

fo r th e

na r row- t a i l o r i ng

inqui ry

i s

t h i s :

if

f ind ing o f

predominance

means

t ha t

race

subordinated

o ther

cons idera t ions , and


reading

o f the an t id i s c r imina t i on s tandards does not

requ i re race to

subord ina te o the r cons ide ra t ions , then how can

an

uncons t i tu t iona l read ing o f

f edera l

s t a tu t e by the Sta te be

th e interest that s a v e s

th e

State s

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

racial

gerrymander? The answer i s t h i s :

if

the disregard fo r

non-

r a c i a l c r i t e r i a

could

have reasonably been viewed as not

subs tan t i a l ,

and

the

Sta te shows

s t rong

bas is

in evidence

tha t

i t s deviat ions appeared necessary to ensure

ac tua l

compliance

with

th e f ed e r a l s t anda rd , then th e

district could

still

have

been

conside red rea sonab ly necessa ry

under


r e ad ing

o f

th e s t a t u t e .

Therefore,

as

the f inder of fac t ,

we

employ

preponderance

standard

during the predominance inquiry, but

apply suff iciency

standard

during

the narrow

ta i lo r ing

94




inqu i ry . Jus t i c e Breye r s d i s s en t in

Abrams v.

Johnson makes

this

rationale

clear:

This

l e g a l d i s t i n c t i on

between

whethe r a

p l an

r e a l l y

v i o l a t e s

§ 2

o r

migh t

we l l

v i o l a t e § 2 may seem t e chn i ca l . But it is

no t .

A

l e g a l ru le t h a t pe rm i t s


to t ake

accoun t o f race on ly

when § 2

r e a l l y

r e q u i r e s t hem t o do so is

a

r u l e t h a t shifts

th e power to

r e d i s t r i c t

from l e g i s l a t u r e s to

f e de r a l

cou r t s ( fo r

on ly

th e latter can say

what

§ 2 r e a l l y

r equ i r e s )

A r u l e

t h a t

r e s t s upon a r easonab l e view o f th e

ev idence

i.e. t h a t pe rm its the


to use

r a c e if it

has

a s t r o ng b a s i s

f o r

be l i e v ing

it

neces sa ry

to

do

so

is

a

r u l e

that

leaves

at least a

mod i cum

of

d i s c r e t i ona ry

( r ace - r e la ted )


au t ho r i t y i n th e hands

o f

l e g i s l a t o r s .

521 U.S. a t

114 Breyer , J . , d i s s en t i ng ) . In Abrams, a f ede ra l

cou r t

was

a lready requ ired

to under take th e d i s t r i c t i ng

endeavor,

so Jus t i ce Breyer s dis sen t was

unavai l ing .

Because

t h e

l ow e r

court

d e c i d e d

that

c o u l d

n o t

create

a

s e c o nd

major i ty -b lack d i s t r i c t without subord ina t ing neut ra l

pr inc ip le s , it

decl ined

to do

so .

Id . a t

84-85

major i ty

opinion . This does

not

mean, however, tha t a court reviewing a

S t a t e s plan cannot accept the Sta t e s a l t e rna t e judgment, so

long

as

the l eg i s l a tu re had a strong bas is for believ ing i t s

plan

was compl ian t .

Therefore, fo r predominance, the inqui ry i s whether , as

a

mat te r of f ac t , th e Sta te

subs tan t i a l ly

disregarded non-rac ia l

c r i t e r i a . For

narrow t a i l o r ing , the i nqui ry i s

whether

the

95




s t a t e had good reason

to

be l i eve t h a t its ac t ions were requi red

fo r

ac tua l compliance

with th e non-d i lu t ion

o r

non- re t rogre s s ion

s t anda rd . Because s ub s t an t i a l

d i s r ega rd o f non - r a c i a l c r i t e r i a

i s

no t r equ i r ed under con s t i t u t i o n a l read ing o f e i t h e r

s t anda rd ,

t h i s

i nqu i r y nece s s a r i l y

e n t a i l s

a l so ask ing whether

th e S t a t e had good reason to be l i eve

t h a t

its

own

depa r tu re from

non racial criteria was not substantial

Because

th e

s t anda rd s o f th e r a c i a l s o r t i n g cla im

and

th e

s tanda rds o f n on -d ilu tio n

and

n o n- re tr og re ss io n o fte n s tand in

tens ion ,

the

Court

must recognize t ha t the

Sta te

i s a t tempt ing

to t o i l

with the [ se ] twin demands

and provide

fa i rway

fo r

th e

S t a t e s

ob jec t i v e ly

reasonable e f f o r t s . Bush,

517 U.S.

a t

990 (O Connor,

J . ,

concurring). There

m y

be

varie ty of plans

tha t reasonably

avoid

di lu t ion

and

re t rogress ion

and also

reasonably respect t r ad i t iona l , neutra l di s t r i c t ing

principles .

I f

the l eg i s l a t u re had s t rong bas i s

in

evidence fo r i t s

d i s t r i c t i ng dec i s ion and

reasonable

i nd i v i dua l s could have come

to

dif fe ren t

conclusion, then

the court

should accept

tha t

reasonable judgment during the narrow t a i lor ing s tage.

Thus, the qu estion

court

must ask at

the narrow- ta ilor ing

stage

is

whether the

legis la ture

has shown that i t had good

reasons to believe

i . e . , that i t had

strong basis in

evidence

for believing

that

i t s actions were reasonably

necessary to ach ieve ac tua l compliance with fede ra l

9 6




an t i d i s c r im ina t i on

s t anda rd s

based

on a con s t i t u t i o n a l read ing

o f

those

s t anda rd s .

Or, could a

r e a sonab l e l e g i s l a t o r

have

come

to th e conc lu s i on t h a t

th e

cha l l enged district

v io la te d n e i th er

f ed e r a l law nor any c o n st it u t io n a l l i m i t at io n s upon t h a t f ed e r a l

law

This fo rmula t ion a l so

exp la ins

why th e P l a i n t i f f s and

I n t e rv eno r s

proposed

seeming ly d i f f e r e n t narrow t a i l o r i n g

i nqu i r i e s .

P l a i n t i f f s argue

t h a t

th e S t a t e

mus t

show

t h a t

[ i t ]

had

a s t ro n g b a s is in

ev idence

fo r b el iev in g

t h a t a l l

o f

th e

Chal lenged Di s t r i c t s

needed to

meet o r exceed a prede te rmined

BV P

t a r g e t

to avo id r e t r og r e s s i on . P i s .

Pos t -T r i a l

B r i e f

a t

28. In t e rveno r s argued a t

trial

t h a t th e narrow t a i l o r ing

que s t i on

is

how

much

t h a t

district v i o l a t e s t h e state s

c r i t e r i a . Tr ia l Tr.

855:20-21

( In te rvenors)

(emphasis added) .

Both

o f th e se

i nqu i r i e s

a re

necessary , bu t

ne i the r

i s

sufficient

The

narrow t a i l o r ing inquiry asks whether the

l eg i s l a ture

ha[d]

a

s t rong bas is in ev idence in support o f

the

(race-

based) choice

t h a t

it

has made. Alabama, 135 S. Ct.

a t 1274.

Th i s

s t a n d a r d

d o e s n o t demand that a

S t a t e s a c t i o n s

a c t u a l l y be

nece ssa ry to

ach i eve a

compe l l i ng s ta te i n te re s t

i n

o rde r

t o be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y

v a l i d .

And

l eg i s l a t o r s may have a s t rong bas i s in

e v i d e n c e

to u se

racial

classifications

i n

orde r

to comply with

a

s t a tu t e when

they

have good

r e a s o n s

t o b e l i e v e

su ch u se is

r e qu i r e d , even if a c ou r t does no t f i nd t h a t

97




th e ac t i on s were

nece ssa ry

fo r

s t a t u t o r y

comp l i anc e .

Id . emphas i s added ) . With

r e s p ec t to

Sec t i on

5 , fo r example ,

t h i s

i n qu i r y

i n to

whether

th e ra ce -b ase d

cho i ce

had

s t r ong

ba s i s

in ev idence

reache s

both th e

s tan da rd o f


and

becau se c o n s t i tu t io n a l i n te rp r e ta t i o n

o f r e t r o g r e s s i o n

does no t r equ i r e s ubo rd i n a t i on

th e s ta nda rd o f su bo rd in a t ion .

With

r e spec t to

subo rd ina t i on , th e

Supreme Court

has noted

t h a t th e ex t en t o f S t a t e s

d is reg a rd o f neu t r a l c r i t e r i a i s

no t i r r e l e v an t to

th e

nar row t a i l o r i n g i nqu i ry

when

exh ib i t [ s ]

l e v e l

o f r a c i a l manipu la t ion t h a t exceeds what

[ the V ]

could j u s t i f y . Bush,

517

U.S.

a t

980-81 (p r inc ipa l

op in ion )

emphas i s

added ) . Accord Mi l l e r ,

515

U.S. a t 921

( [C]ompl iance wi th f e d e r a l an t i d i s c r im in a t i on

l aws c anno t

j u s t i fy

race-based


where

th e

cha l l enged

d i s t r i c t

was

no t rea sonab ly neces sa ry under

con s t i t u t i o n a l read ing

and

ap pl ic a tio n o f t ho se l aws . ) . In

o the r words,

pa r t o f showing

t h a t

d i s t r i c t i s narrowly t a i l o r ed to

an

i n t e r e s t in ac tu a l

compliance

with


reading o f

th e

r e t rogres s ion

s tandard en t a i l s

showing t h a t

th e

d i s t r i c t

i s

one t h a t

reasonable l e g i s l a t o r could be l ieve

enta i led only

reasonable and

minor dev ia t ions from

neu t r a l


conven t ions .

Nor

i s an

i nqu i ry i n to whether th e

S ta t e

possessed

s t rong

bas i s

in evidence

tha t

i t s act ions were necessary to

98




prevent re t rogress ion l imi ted to the

V P

percentages in the

Benchmark

P l an s ex i s t i ng

major i ty -minor i ty

d i s t r i c t s . When

Congress amended Sec t ion 5, t r e j e c t ed th e Supreme Cou r t s

d e c i s i o n

i n Georg ia v .

Ashc r o f t ,

539

U.S . 461 (2003) , and

a dop t ed th e views o f th e

d i s s en t .

Alabama, 135 S. C t. a t 1273

( c i t i ng H.R.

Rep.

No. 109-478, pp .

68-69 , and

n. 183

(2006)) .

The d i s s e n t made c l e a r t h a t

c o u r t s

sh ou ld n ot m ec ha nic al ly

r e l y

upon

numer ica l

percen tages bu t shou ld t ake

account

o f

ll

s i gn i f i c a n t

c i rcums tances .

Id .

a t

1273

(c i t i ng

Ashcrof t ,

539

U.S.

a t

493, 498 (Sou ter ,

J . ,

d i s s en t i ng )} .

Thus,

the re

can

be

no

argument t h a t

r e t rog re s s i on

l o cks

in

th e

BVAP

o f each

par t i cu l a r d i s t r i c t .

Ashcrof t ,

539

U.S.

a t

498 Souter ,

J . ,

dissent ing)

not ing t ha t the ent i re Court agrees

t ha t

the

s imple

f ac t

o f a decrease in [BVAP] in

some

d i s t r i c t s

i s

not

alone

disposi t ive about

whether

a

proposed

plan is

r e t r o g r e s s i v e )

The

r e t rog re s s i on

s t anda rd a l so

does no t

l o ck in a

specif ic number o f ma jo ri ty -m ino ri ty di s t r i c t s . See id .

a t

492

I agree with the Court that reducing

the

number of majority-

minority

dis t r ic ts within a State would not necessarily amount

to retro gression bar ring p reclear ance under

§ 5

of

the Voting

Rights Act of

1965. );

Texas v United States, 83 F Supp 2d

244, 260

D.D.C.

2011) [T]he Supreme

Court

has never

suggested tha t the inquiry

required by

Section

5

can be

99




s a t i s f i e d by examining only th e number

o f m ajo ri ty -m in ority

districts In f a c t , th e

Cour t

has acknowledged t h a t

th e

i nqu i ry

i s a complex

und e r t a k ing . ) .

Th is ho ld s t r u e not on ly as a

le ga l p rin c ip le , bu t as a m atte r o f l og i c . Based

on

demographic

changes

with in

th e S t a t e , it

s imply may

no t

be f e a s i b l e

to

c r ea t e

th e same number o f

ma jo r i t y -m ino r i t y d i s t r i c t s

because

per fo rming Sec t i on

5

d i s t r i c t s

must a l so

a vo id un reasonab le

dev i a t i on s from neu t r a l

d i s t r i c t i n g c r i t e r i a .

See Mil l e r ,

515

U . S .

at

9 1 0 .

A

r e t r o gr e s s io n a n a ly si s

mus t

t a k e

a c coun t o f

all

s i gn i f i c a n t c i r cums tances , Alabama, 135 S.

C t .

a t 1273, whi le

re t a in ing

Sec t ion 5 s anchor ing

re fe ren ce to e lec t ing

a

cand ida t e

o f

cho i c e , Ashcro f t ,

529

U.S. a t

493

{Souter ,

J

d i s s en t i ng ) . This mandate i s now pa r t

o f

the

s t a t u t e

i t s e l f .

See

52

U.S.C.

§

10304 b)

( p r oh ib i t i ng covered

j u r i s d i c t i on s

from

adop t ing changes t h a t ha[ve] th e purpose

of o r

wi l l

have

th e

e f f ec t o f d im in ish in g

th e

ab i l i t y of any [minori ty]

c i t izens

to

e l e c t

t h e i r

pre fe r red c an did ate s o f

cho i c e [ . ] ) .

C l ea r ly ,

a b i l it y

to

e l e c t i s th e

s t a tu to ry

watchword. Texas , 831 F.

Supp. 2d

a t 260 .

Therefore ,

once

a cour t

f inds

t ha t

race predominated, the

strong bas i s

in

evidence

standard

asks

not only whether

the

l eg i s l a tu re had good reasons fo r

bel ieving

the V P

percentage

employed

i n

th e district

a s

v/e l l

a s th e

district i tself

was

1 0 0




necessary

to

avoid re t rogress ion ,

but

also whether the d i s t r i c t

i s

one

t h a t

a

r e a sonab l e l e g i s l a t o r cou ld

b el ie ve g en era lly

respec ted neu t r a l d i s t r i c t i ng p r i nc ip l e s . As th e Alabama Cour t

reminded: The

s t anda rd s

o f § 5 are

complex;

they o fte n re qu ire

e v alu a t io n o f c o nt ro v e r t e d

c l a ims abou t

vo t i ng

b eh av io r ; th e

ev id ence

may be unc l e a r ; and , wi th

r e s p e c t to

any

p a r t i c u l a r

d i s t r i c t , judges may d i s ag r e e abou t th e

prope r

ou tcome. 135 S.

C t. a t 1273.

This

app l i e s to r e a sonab l e s t a t e judgments abou t

subo rd ina t ion as

wel l .

In

th e con tex t

o f

r e d i s t r i c t i ng ,

th e

nar row t a i l o r i n g i nqu i ry pe rmi t s th e S t a t e to ove r shoo t th e

bu l l s - e ye ,

so long as it h i t s the t a r ge t .

The fo rego ing

l e g a l

framework

fo r

analyz ing a r a c i a l

so r t i ng claim

prov ides

the guidepos t fo r

th e

s ta tewide and

d i s t r i c t - b y - d i s t r i c t f i nd ings

t h a t fo l low.

B.

Evidence Of Gene r a l App l i c a t i on To A ll

Di s t r i c t s

A r a c i a l gerrymander ing claim app l i e s

to

th e

boundar ies o f ind iv idual d i s t r i c t s and must be proven on a

d i s t r i c t - b y - d i s t r i c t ba s i s . Alabama, 135 S. C t. a t 1265.

However, the

P l a i n t i f f s provided

some

evidence t ha t

applied

ac ross

ll

districts

The re fo r e ,

th e

Cour t

wi l l

as ses s

t h a t

evidence before

proceeding

to

i t s

d i s t r i c t - by -d i s t r i c t

analys is .

Id . ( Voters , of course ,

can

present s ta tewide evidence

in

order

to prove

r a c i a l

gerrymander ing in

a pa r t i c u l a r

d i s t r i c t . ) . In

l i ke fash ion , th e Commonwealth s evidence may apply

across

1 0 1




districts. Our

f i nd ings

on th e

ev idence

a r e based on ou r

c r e d i b i l i t y de te rmina t ions and

how

pa r t i c u l a r ev idence squares

with the record as a whole.

F i r s t , th e In te rv en o rs f re q u en t ly d is c u s se d th e s ub s t a n t i a l

popu l a t i on changes

expe r i enced

on

bo th a s t a t ew id e l e v e l

and in

the

Chal lenged

Di s t r i c t s .

See ,

e . g . , Ints. Pos t -T r i a l Br i e f a t

19-20 (Docket

No. 104) .

That

ev id en ce h as a ro le

to

play

in

th e

predominance

ana ly s i s ,

bu t

it

is a

l im i t ed one .

As

th e

Supreme

Cour t he ld

in

Alabama,

a n eq ua l p op ula tio n

goal i s not one

f a c t o r

among

othe rs to

be weighed

aga in s t th e

use o f race to determine whether race

^predomina tes .

135 S.

Ct.

at

127 ^® Instead, i t is part of

the

redistricting

background, taken as a given,

when determin ing whether

race , o r

o the r

f ac to r s ,

predominate in a


dete rmina t ion as to

how equal popula t ion ob jec t i ve s wi l l be

met .

Id .

The predominance

ques t ion concerns which

vo te rs the

l e g i s l a t u r e dec ides to c ho ose [. ] Alabama, 135 S. C t. a t 1271.

That i s

because , l i ke

compliance

with

th e

VRA it i s a

demand tha t the

State

does

not

have

the option of ignoring .

See Page, 2015

3604029 a t

*26

(Payne,

J . ,

dissent ing) .

Indeed, in l ight of

the

Const i tu t ion s demands,

tha t

role may

of ten

prov e ^predom inan t

in

the

ordinary

sense

of

tha t

word.

But , ^predominance

in th e co n te x t o f

a

r a c i a l

ger rymander ing cla im

i s

s p e c i a l . It i s no t abou t w hether a

l eg i s l a t u re

be l ieves

t h a t [a goal] takes

u l t imate pr io r i ty .

Alabama, 135 S.

C t.

a t 1270-71;

accord

Page, 2015 WL 3604029 a t

*26 (Payne, J . ,

d is sen t ing) { [T]here

i s a d i f fe rence

between

a

S ta t e s paramount concern with

complying

with f edera l law and

a

S t a t e s

use

o f

[a fac to r ] as a ^predominant

c r i t e r i on fo r

a l l o c a t i n g

vo t e r s be tween districts. ).

1 0 2




Although

th e

equa l popu la t ion goa l is

no t

a t r a d i t i o n a l

f a c to r to

be

con s i d e r e d i n

t h e

ba l ance

i n de c i d i ng predominance ,

its background r o l e i s none the l e s s

impor t an t

in as ses s i ng

why

c e r t a i n

r e d i s t r i c t i ng ac t i on s

were t aken . For

example ,

ga in s

o r

lo s s e s in popu la t ion a f f e c t

where

in a S t a t e new d i s t r i c t s must

be c r e a t e d o r where o ld districts c anno t s t a n d . Tha t , i n

t u rn ,

i s p e r t in e n t to which neu t r a l r e d i s t r i c t i n g c r i t e r i a can o r

canno t

be f u l l y satisfied

Second,

fo r

th e

r e a sons prov ided

in th e

f a c t u a l

d i scus s ion

i n S e c t i o n a bov e ,

t h e

Cou r t

f i n d s

that a 55 BVAP f l o o r

was

employed

by Deleg ate Jo nes

and

the o the r l e g i s l a t o r s who

had

a

hand

in c ra f t i ng

th e

Chal lenged Dis t r i c t s . Those de l ega t e s

be l i eved t h i s necessary to avoid r e t rogres s ion under

fede ra l

law,

and we do

not

doubt the s incer i ty

of the i r belief.^®

Third , the

P l a i n t i f f s

expe r t . Dr. S te ph en Ansola be he re ,

t e s t i f i e d

about

h is

ana lys i s o f VTDs in the Commonwealth.

In

p a r t i c u l a r .

Dr. Anso l abehe r e

used statistical

mode l s

to

examine

th e

movement

of VTDs in to and out o f th e Challenged

Dis t r i c t s

The d i s s en t be l i e ve s t h a t Vi rg i n i a s

o ne - s i z e - f i t s - a ll

quo t a

raises

even

more

s e r i o u s

c on c e rn s th an th e

mechanica l

r a c i a l

t a rge t s in

Alabama because

the Alabama

l eg i s l a t u re

sought to maintain preex i s t ing r a c i a l percentages

spec i f i c

to each d i s t r i c t with th e

aim

o f

avoid ing

r e t r o g r e s s i on [ . ]

Pos t a t

162-63. But,

th e l eg i s l a to r s in

Alabama

mistakenly

be l ieved t ha t any decrease in ex is t in g V P

percen tages

would

cons t i t u t e

r e t r og r e s s ion . Any

pa t ina

of

d i s t r i c t - s p e c i f i c t r e a tmen t was

no

more t han th e re s idu e o f t h i s

misconcep t ion .

1 0 3




and

opined whe the r ,

i n h is v iew, t h o s e

movements

were

predominan t ly

r a c i a l

o r

p o l i t i c a l . See id . a t 14 9:19-152:6

(An s o l a b e h e r e ) .

With r e spec t to

Dr. Anso labehere s

ana ly s i s

regard ing

race

and po l i t i c s as p r ed i c t o r s

of th e

l i k e l i hood

o f

inc lus ion

of

VTDs in one o f the Chal lenged Di s t r i c t s , th e Court has both

initi l te hni l c o n c e r n s and more

f u n d amen t a l

s u b s t a n t i v e

concerns abou t th e method

employed

t h a t cause us no t

to

c r e d i t

h is

views

as

to

the

reasons

fo r

V

placement .

Fi rs t ,

even

though Dr. Anso labehe re s

ana ly s i s

provides

a

r eg iona l con t ro l

to avo id

examin ing VTDs t h a t

cou ld

no t

have

f e a s i b l y found t h e i r

way i n to th e Chal l enged Di s t r i c t s , id . a t 163:19-25

(Anso l ab ehe r e )

t h a t does no t

a c coun t f o r whe t h e r a VTD i n

t h a t

reg ion cou ld be cons ide red to hop

over

ano t h e r VTD

in

th e

reg ion en r ou t e t o th e t a r g e t distri t in v io l a t i on o f

con t i gu i t y

conven t i on s ,

se e

i d . a t

503 :9 -504 :3

(Katz) and

514:23-515 :13 (Katz) (no t ing

t h a t

th e an a l y s i s i n co r r e c t l y

assumes

t h a t

a VTD c an

be

i ndependen t l y as s ig n ed to a

given

d i s t r i c t and t h a t do ing [ the

same

ana lys i s ] by subreg ions

doesn t

solve

that

problem ).^®

Admi t t ed l y ,

Dr.

Ka t z s

app roach

which

i n c l ud e s a

va r i ab l e

fo r

d is tance from

th e

cen t e r

o f th e t a r g e t d i s t r i c t

i s ,

by

h is

own desc r i p t i on , n o t

a

pe r f e c t

f i x and a

s o r t

o f

c r ude

o r poor app rox ima t ion .

T r i a l

Tr. 504:18-24 (Ka tz ) .

Nonethe less , it

o f f e r s

a

more r e l i a b l e

approach to th e

i s s ue

t h an Dr. Anso l ab eh e r e s an a l y s i s .

1 0 4




More fundamen t a l l y , however .

Dr.

An so l a b ehe r e s r a c e

ve r su s po l i t i c s op in ion s miss th e mark because they do

no t

consider the extent to

wh i c h the boundaries themselves

are

j u s t i f i a b l e by neu t r a l

c r i t e r i a

o r any o t h e r mot iva t ion

bes ides

race o r p o l i t i c a l

d i spo s i t i o n . The

models

t h a t

he employed do

no t , fo r example , cons ide r economic f a c to r s ,

s o c i a l

f a c t o r s ,

cu l t u r a l f a c to r s ,

geograph ic

f a c to r s , governmental j u r i s d i c t i on s

and s e rv ic e d el iv e ry

a r e a s . Id . a t

2 30 :1 4-2 1 (An so la be he re ).

If a

d is t r i c t i s

i n t e n t i ona l l y

des igned as

a

pe r fo rming

district

fo r Sec t ion purposes , t h e r e

shou ld

be little

su rp r i s e

t h a t

th e

movemen t

o f VTDs

into or

out of the

district is

correlated

even

to a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i gn i f i c an t

degree

with

the r a c i a l

composi t ion of

the

popu la t i on . This

does

no t mean,

however ,

t ha t race

predominated fo r

the

purposes

o f a r a c i a l sor t ing

claim

The predominance ques t ion

r equ i r es

an

inq uiry in to whether

the movemen t of

VTDs into

a n d o u t of a district

subordinated

o the r c r i t e r i a in th e

process .

See

Backus v. South Caro l ina ,

857 F. Supp . 2d 553, 565 D.S.C .

2012) ,

sum, a f f d , 133 S. Ct.

156

(2012) . Dr. Anso labehe re s an a ly s i s , fo r th e

most pa r t ,

j u s t

does

no t prov ide any s pe c i f i c

in sig h ts in to t h i s

i nqu i r y .

Dr. Anso labehe re s p a r t i a l

co r r e l a t i o n

an a l y s i s ,

which ho lds

o t h e r

f a c t o r s i nc lud ing pa r t y s t eady

can

be

cons i de r ed

in

de t e rm in i ng

whe th e r a

district s

dev i a t i o n s

from

n eu t r a l

10 5




c r i t e r i a may be

more a t t r i bu t ab l e to

r ace o r

po l i t i c s , id .

a t

157 :24-158 :5 (A nso labehe re ) , b ut

it

can on ly be cons i de r ed

in

as ses s ing not

r e fu t i ng

t es t imony

t h a t provides non- rac ia l

r easons fo r

p a r t i c u l a r

dev i a t i on s from neu t r a l p r i n c i p l e s .

Moreover using Dr.

Kat z s

admit ted ly

crude ,

bu t

none the less

r e l i a b l e ,

approx imat ion fo r th e

l im i t a t i o n

t h a t VTDs a re no t

equa l l y su s c e p t ib le to

be ing

inc luded in eve ry

d i s t r i c t , th e

statistical s i g n i f i c an c e o f th e r a c i a l

j u s t i f i c a t i o n

d i s app ea r s ,

a t

l e a s t

with

re sp e c t to

th e

ques t i on

o f

whethe r

r ace

o r

po l i t i c s i s a more s i gn i f i c a n t p r ed i c a t o r

o f

VTD placement . See

Ints.

Ex. 16 at 21 , Tab l e 1 ;

T r i a l

T r .

505 : 2 2 - 5 1 0 : 2 5

(Ka tz )

( S t a t i s t i c a l l y th e s e a r e a tie. ). On

ba l a n c e . D r.

Anso labehe re s

ana l y s i s

on th e

VTD i s s ue i s

no t r e l i a b l e p roo f

on

th e

predominance

i s s u e .

Las t l y ,

th e

Cour t f i nd s t h a t some s t a t ew ide compactness

in format ion i s use fu l as

a

po in t

o f

compar ison fo r the d i s t r i c t -

by - d i s t r i c t

ana l y s i s

s e t ou t

in

Sec t i on IV.C. below.

In

th e

Chal lenged Di s t r i c t s ,

th e

average Reock sco re was .320 th e

average Polsby Popper Score

was

.192 and th e average

Schwartzberg

score

was

2.365.^°

Pis . Ex.

51

a t

12

Table

2 ̂ ^

Dr.

Katz u t i l i z e d a modi f i ed Boyce-Clark

measure

in

h is

an a l y s i s .

T r i a l

T r.

537 :2 -4

(Ka tz ) .

The Cour t dec l i n e s t o

ana lyze

th e

d i s t r i c t s sepa r a t e l y using t h i s measure . Dr. Katz

appeared to employ th e

Boyce Clark measure

s imply to

prove

th e

more academic

po i n t t h a t t h e r e

i s

no agreed-upon s t anda rd and

that

different me a s u r e s c a n lead to different o u t c om e s .

Id . at

1 0 6




In th e Non-Chal lenged

Di s t r i c t s , th e

ave r age Reock

sco r e

was

. 360 , th e

ave rage

Po l sby -Poppe r

Score

was . 243 , and th e ave r age

Schwar tzberg s co re was

2 .128 .

Id . Under

th e

Reock

and

Pol sby-

Popper measures

h igher

sc ore s r ep re se nt more

compact

d i s t r i c t s .

Id . Under th e Schwar t zbe rg m easu re , low er

s c o r e s

r e p r e s e n t more

compact

d i s t r i c t s .

Id . Of

th e 100 House d i s t r i c t s ,

seven

o f

the Chal lenged

Dis t r i c t s

a re in the bot tom 50 with th e

l owes t Reock s co r e s

and f i v e o f the Cha l lenged Di s t r i c t s

a re

in

th e

to p

50

wi th

th e

h ighe s t

Reock

s co r e s .

Tr i a l

Tr.

721 : 8 - 12 H o f e l l e r) .

With t hese

g e ne ra lly a pp lic ab le

f i nd ings

in mind th e

Cour t

now advances to th e r equ i s i t e d i s t r i c t - by - d i s t r i c t

ana ly s i s .

In

so do ing ,

th e

ana l y s i s

i s

guided by th e

l e g a l

pr i nc i p l e s and th e

f r am ewo r k

outlined in Section

IV .A . a b o v e .

C.

D i s t r i c t - b y -D i s t r i c t

Ana l y s i s

As

with

th e

gene r a l l y

app l i c ab l e

f a c t u a l

f i nd ing s above

ou r d i s t r i c t - b y - d i s t r i c t ana l y s i s itself i s f a c t u a l one

t h a t

we h a v e

based

o n our examination

of

the record as

wh o l e

a n d o n

ou r

as ses sment

o f th e c r e d i b i l i t y o f th e w itn e s s e s .

540:19-542 :9 Katz) . This po i n t i s no t d i spu t ed .

None

o f th e expe r t s

d i s pu t ed

th e compac tne ss c a l c u l a t i o n s

prov ided by th e

P l a i n t i f f s .

However th e Cour t r e i t e r a t e s t h a t

compactness i s more

o f

f l ag

t han

conc lus ion and r e j e c t s

th e

sugges t i on by Dr. Ansolabehere t h a t districts

under

.20

on

th e Reock

s ca l e

a re p resump t i ve l y non -compac t .

See

an te a t 57

n l

1 0 7




1.

District

6 3

HD 6 3

is

f o u n d in the Dinwiddie Greensville

area

a n d w a s

r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e n - D e l e g a t e

R o s a l y n

D a nc e d u r i n g t h e 2 0 1 1

r e d i s t r i c t i n g p r o c e s s .

U n d e r

t h e B e n c h m a r k P l a n t h e district

c o n t a i n e d

all

o f D i n w i d d i e a n d P e t e r s b u r g C i t y

a n d

p a r t o f

C h e s t e r f i e l d .

Pis.

E x

50 a t 6 9 T a b l e 1 .

U n d e r

t h e

E n a c t e d

P l a n t h e district no w c o n t a i n s all o f P e t e r s b u r g C it y a n d p a r t s

o f

C h e s t e r f i e l d

D i n w i d d i e H o p e w e l l a n d

P r i n c e

G e o r g e . I d .

T h i s

i n c r e a s e d

t h e

n u m b e r

o f

c o u n t y

a n d

c i t y

s p l i t s

f r o m

t o

4

a n d

i n c r e a s e d

t h e

n u m b e r o f s p l i t

VTDs from t o

8 . P i s . E x.

5

a t 69-70

T a ble s

1 2.^^

63

has

a c or e r e t e n t i o n

p e r c e n t a g e

o f

8 0 . 2

Ints. E x. 14

a t 8 3

a n d

i s

c o n t i g u o u s b y

land.

On

its

f a c e

t h e

district i s u n u s u a l l y s h a p e d . A f t e r

c h op pin g D in w id die

Co u n ty i n

h a l f

t h e

s o ut h er n b or d er

o f

th e

d i s t r i c t t e n d s t o f o l l o w

p r e c i n c t b o u n d a r i e s

from w e s t t o e a s t

u n t i l

it

c u t s t h r o u g h

D i n w i d d i e

p r e c i n c t

a l o n g

I n t e r s t a t e

8 5.

D r . A n s o l a b e h e r e

a n d D r .

H o o d

c o m e

to different statewide

c o n c l u s i o n s

r e g a r d i n g

t h e

number

o f VT

s p l i t s . See I n t s . Ex.

1 5 at

6

n . 5 . T h i s

is

b e c a u s e D r .

H o o d c o u n t s

t h e

n u m b e r o f

VTDs

t h a t

a r e

s p l i t

w h e r e a s

D r.

A n s o l a b e h e r e c o u n t s

t h e

num ber

o f

s p l i t s i n VTDs. T he

latter m e t h o d

a c c o u n t s

f o r VTDs

t h a t a r e

split m u l t i p l e t i m e s . We a r e n o t c o n v i n c e d

t h a t D r.

A n s o l a b e h e r e s

a p p r o a c h

i s

e n t i r e l y

s o u n d . S e e

P i s . Ex. 51 a t

15 n . 3 . But b ecau s e Dr. Hood o n l y p r o v i d e s s t a t e w i d e s p l i t s

d a t a

th e C o u r t w i l l r e l y upon

Dr.

A n s o l a b e h e r e s d i s t r i c t - b y -

d i s t r i c t s p l i t s d a t a t h e r e b y g i v i n g P l a i n t i f f s

t h e b e n e f i t

o f

th e

d o u b t .

Th e

Co u rt

e x p r e s s e s

no

o p in io n re g a rd in g th e

a p p r o p r i a t e c o u n t i n g

m e a s u r e .

1 0 8




Af t e r t h a t , th e

district

l i n e

con s t r i c t s , ca rv ing ou t

a

hook

a round New Hope. Af t e r a b r i e f

r e t u rn

to a r a t h e r normal

con f i gu r a t i on a round Pe te rsbu rg C i ty , th e

district

nar rows to

avo id th e

J e f f e r s o n

Pa rk

a r e a

and th e homes

o f

De l ega t e s Cox and

Ingram. It then con t inues i n a narrow form th rough Pr ince

George , i n t o va r iou s

pa r t s o f

Hopewell, and

t e rm in a t e s

a t th e

J ame s

R i v e r . S ee Pis Ex .

66

at

1 ; Ints

Ex . 94 at 1 .

The district had Reock

and Polsby-Popper

sco re s o f . 61

and

.48

under

th e

Benchmark

Plan

and

expe r i enced

a

s t e ep

drop

to

scores o f . 2 5 and

. 1 6

u n d e r the En a c t e d

P l a n .

Ints Ex . 15 at

15,

Table 9.

This marks th e

l a r g e s t

Reock compac tness reduc t ion

o f any district

in th e Enacted

Plan . T r i a l

T r. 140 :7 -9

A nsolabehere) . The d i s t r i c t s Schwartzberg score

i s 2.506.

Pis

Ex.

51 a t 11 , Tab l e

1 .

The d i s t r i c t s devia t ions from neu t r a l


c r i t e r i a

begin

with the sp l i t t i ng of

Dinwiddie

County. This

s p l i t

appears

to

be avowedly r ac i a l . Delegate

Dance t e s t i f i ed

tha t the southern ha l f of Dinw iddie went to

Delegate

Tyler to

t r y to get her number

. . .

[o] f African-American voters

up to

55 pe r cen t . Tr i a l Tr. 80:11-17 Dance). Within

t h i s dev ia t i on

a re two

sub -dev ia t ions :

1) the sp l i t t i ng of

Dinwiddie

prec inc t ;

and 2 the hook t ha t wraps around w Hope prec inc t .

The Dinwiddie prec inc t

i s s p l i t

along 1-85, but th i s

i s

not

l i s t ed among the r ed i s t r i c t i ng c r i t e r i a ,

which undermines

i t s

1 0 9




exp lana to ry va lue

a s a


c r i t e r i o n .

See Alabama, 135

S.

C t.

a t 1271-72 . A lthough e s t ab l i s hed t r a n s i t co r r i do r s

may

split

a r e a s

i n t o communi t ies

o f i n t e r e s t ove r

t ime t h e r e was

no

ev idence

t h a t t h i s p r e c i n c t

is

compr i sed o f d i s t i n c t

communi t ies on

e i t h e r s i de

o f

th e highway. On th e

o t h e r

hand ,

th e a r t i f i c i a l bo rde r prov ided

by

1-85

may

prov ide a c l e a r

bounda ry

to

vo t e r s and c and i d a t e s

a l i k e

t h a t r e s id e in Dinwiddie

p r e c i n c t and wish to know t h e i r House district.

In

th e absence

o f

any

f u r t he r

exp lana t ion

by

th e

In t e rvenors o r th e

P l a i n t i f f s

however ,

th e Cour t

dec l in e s to i d en t i fy any pa r t i c u l a r ra t iona le

fo r t h i s s ub -dev i a t i on

meaning t h a t

th e P l a i n t i f f s have not

ca r r i ed t h e i r burden o f a t t r i b u t i n g it to ra c e .

The

o the r sub-dev ia t ion the hook

around

New Hope i s

dec idedly not

r a c i a l . Afte r

reviewing the evidence,

th e Court

f inds t ha t the purpose fo r t h i s

dev ia t ion

was

chal lenger

p reven t ion and

incumbency p r o t e c t i o n .

This dev i a t i on

was

negot ia ted

between Delegates

Dance,

Tyler

and

Jones . Tr ia l

Tr.

325:24-25

(Jones) .

Delegate

Jones t e s t i f i ed t h a t the cutout

accounted fo r th e bulk of the sp l i t s in [ the 75th] d i s t r i c t

id . a t

326:18-19,

t ha t New

Hope was re ta ined in

6

because

a

tremendous

amount of [Delegate Dance s]

employees

or

cons t i tuen t s

had

family

t h e r e id .

a t

326:5-10,

and t ha t

Delegate Dance

had a

po t en t i a l primary

opponent she wanted to

draw ou t o f he r district id . a t 326:11-12 ; accord id . a t

1 1 0




858 :4 -7 { I n t e r v e n o r s ) ; Ints P r e - T r i a l

B r i e f

at

20 .

So, if it

l ooks l i ke

th e

hook

i s

r each ing fo r someth ing ,

t h a t s

because it

i s :

a

po t en t i a l

t h r e a t to

th e

i ncumbent .

Thus ,

a t t h i s

po in t

th e re co rd is t h a t

one

r eason fo r th e

con f i g u r a t i o n

o f

HD 63 was

r a c i a l and

one r e a son

was

pu re l y

political

The

o the r component

o f

HD 63 s unusua l shape

i s

its r each

no r t h and e a s t from U.S.

4 60 t o

th e

James River in a way

t h a t

ru ns th rough bo th Pr i nce

George County and

th e

Ci ty o f

Hopewel l .

In so do ing , t h i s component

o f

63

i n c r ea s e s

th e number

o f

localities

i n

th e district from t h r e e

t o f iv e ,

and it

a l s o

splits a number

o f

VTDs.

T r i a l T r .

140 :16

(Anso l abehe r e ) ;

i d .

a t 79 :23-80 :3 Dance . Accord ing

to

Delega te

Dance s

t es t imony ,

t h a t s what it took to ge t [Delega te Tyler ] to the

55

pe rcen t

s t r e ng t h

o f

Af r i c an -Amer i c an vo t e r s .

I d .

a t

81 :15 -18 (Dance) .

Not on ly

d id

t h i s he lp s a t i s f y th e 55 th re sho ld in Di s t r i c t 75,

it

a l so helped mainta in

a

subs t an t i a l Afr ican-Amer ican

popu la t ion in

Dis t r i c t

63.

Delegate Dance p icked up pa r t s

of

Pr ince

George

to

get more

African-Americans

[a]nd

t hen

p icked up

th e concen t ra t io n o f Afr ican-Amer icans in

Hopewel l [ . ]

a t

81 :21-83 :6 Dance .

Howeve r ,

t h e r e c o r d s hows that t h e

eastern

b o r d e r a dvanc e d

o the r

c r i t e r i a ,

bo th

neu t r a l and po l i t i c a l . In o rde r to unwind

th e water cross ing in th e

Benchmark

74, Delegate

Jones

1 1 1




d e c i d e d

t o

move

p r e c i n c t s

i n Hopewell C i t y o u t o f

74

and i n t o

63.

Thus

6 3 s e a s t e r n c o n f i g u r a t i o n improved 7 4 s

adherence t o c o n t i g u i t y

c o n v e n t i o n s .

See W i l k i n s ,

264

Va. a t

465

examining w h e t h e r 7 4 s w a t e r c o n t i n u i t y was p e r m i s s i b l e

u n d e r

t h e

C o n s t i t u t i o n

o f

V i r g i n ia .

M o r e o v e r , by

p l a c i n g

t h e s e

p r e c i n c t s i n 63

r a t h e r

t h a n

62 o r

64 t h e

D i s t r i c t s

e a s t e r n b o u n d a r y

a v o i d s s o l v i n g t h e

w a t e r c r o s s i n g

problem

t o

t h e d e t r i m e n t o f R e p u b l i c a n

d i s t r i c t s

on e i t h e r s i d e . See

Ints.

Ex.

92

a t

2 . Thus

it

a p p e a r s

t h a t t h i s

a s p e c t

o f

6 3 s u n u s u a l s h a p e

c a n be

e x p l a i n e d

on

a

n e u t r a l , r a c i a l , and

p o l i t i c a l

b a s i s .

It is the Plaintiffs b u r d e n to s h o w that

the

racial

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s u b o r d i n a t e d a l l o t h e r c r i t e r i a , i n c l u d i n g

neutral

criteria

a n d other non racial

criteria.

T h e e v i d e n c e

p r o v i d e d

t h u s f a r i s

i n

e q u i p o i s e , and t h e P l a i n t i f f s have n o t

y e t s a t i s f i e d t h e ir

b u r d e n

on t h e predominance i s s u e .

P l a i n t i f f s r e l y on t h e t e s t i m o n y

o f

Dr. Ansolabehere

t o

complete t h e i r

t a s k .

To

b e g i n .

Dr. Ansolabehere n o te s th e drop

i n compactness

s c o r e s b ut ,

a s d is c us s e d above

t h a t

i s more o f a

f l a g t h a n a c o n c l u s i o n . I f compactness has been s a c r i f i c e d

t o

enhance c o n t i g u i t y o r s e r v e p o l i t i c a l e n d s , t h e n r a c e

a l o n e

has

n o t

s u b o r d i n a t e d

t h i s

c r i t e r i o n .

Dr. Ansolabehere a l s o analyzed

VT movements

b u t ,

a s d i s c u s s e d above t h a t a n a l y s i s f a i l s

t o

account

f o r

o t h e r c r i t e r i a t h a t

may

be s h a p i n g th e d i s t r i c t ,

1 1 2




such

a s

incumbency c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

o r

s o l v i n g

c o n t i g u i t y

i s s u e s

i n

nearby

d i s t r i c t s .

F i n a l l y

Dr. Ansolabehere n o te s t h e number

o f

VT s p l i t s . But

t h e m a j o r i t y o f

s p l i t s a r e a t t r i b u t a b l e

t o

incumbency c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n r a c e . Moreover some

s p l i t s a p p e a r t o be

a t t r i b u t a b l e t o

D e l e g a t e J o n e s t w i n

aims

o f

s o l v in g t h e w a t e r c r o s s i n g and l i m i t i n g p o p u l a t i o n d e v i a t i o n s

t o

±1 . I n sum we f i n d Dr. A n s o la b e h e re s t e st i m o ny on each p o i n t

t o

be

u n c o n v i n c i n g .

Thus h i s

e v i d e n c e

d i d

n o t

h e l p t h e

P l a i n t i f f s

i n

t h e i r

o b l i g a t i o n t o

p r o v e

predominance and

t o

d i s l o d g e

t h e p r e s u m p t i o n

o f l a w f u l

a c t i o n t o which t h e G e n e r a l

A s s e m b l y s

r e d i s t r i c t i n g p l a n i s e n t i t l e d .

B a s e d on t h e r e c o r d t h e C o u r t

f i n d s

t h a t t h e

P l a i n t i f f s

have n o t s a t i s f i e d t h e i r b u r d e n t o p r o v e t h a t r a c i a l

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s u b o r d i n a t e d all other

neutral

a n d race neutral


c r i t e r i a

i n

t h e f o r m a t i o n o f

63. And

on t h e

b a s i s

o f t h e

r e c o r d t h e C o u r t

h o l d s

a s a m a t t e r o f f a c t t h a t

r a c e

d i d

not predominate i n t h e drawing o f 63.

2

District

7 5

75 is

f o u n d

i n t h e D i n w id d ie -G r e e n s v i l l e a r e a a n d

was

r e p r e s e n t e d

by

D e l e g a t e

Roslyn

T y l e r d u r in g t h e

2011

r e d i s t r i c t i n g p r o c e s s . Under

t h e Benchmark P l a n

t h e

d i s t r i c t

conta ined a l l o f Sussex

County

G r e e n s v i l l e and Emporia C i t y

and

p a r t s o f

Brunswick

F ra nk li n C it y I s l e o f

Wight

Lunenberg

and S o u t h a m p t o n . P i s .

Ex. 50 a t 69

T a b l e

1 .

Under t h e

1 1 3




Enac ted P l an ,

th e

district now

con t a i n s all o f

Emporia

Ci t y and

Green sv i l l e and p a r t s

o f Brunswick ,

Dinwidd ie , F r ank l i n

Ci t y ,

I s l e o f Wight ,

Lunenberg ,

Southampton, Sur ry , and

Sussex .

Id .

Th i s

i n c rea sed

th e

number

o f coun ty and c i t y

s p l i t s

from 5 to 8

and

i n c r e a s ed

th e number o f

split

VTDs from t o

13.

P i s .

Ex.

50 a t 69-70 , Tab l e s

1 ,

2 . HD 75 has a co r e r e t e n t i o n pe r c e n t a g e

o f 78 .64 ,

I n t s . Ex.

14

a t

83, and

is con t iguous

by l and .

On its fac e , th e

d i s t r i c t

appea r s r e l a t i v e l y compact ,

desp i t e

its

odd

t endency

to

le ak ac ro s s

coun ty

and

c i t y

l i n e s .

P i s . Ex. 66 a t 6. The district

had

Reock and

Polsby-Popper

s c o r e s o f .4 2 and .22

unde r

th e Benchmark P l an , which s h i f t e d t o

scores of . 4 1 a n d . 1 9 u n d e r the En a c t e d P l a n .

Ints

Ex . 1 5

at

15,

Table

9.

The district s Schwartzberg sco re

i s 2.282. P i s .

Ex.

51

a t

11,

Table 1. Although th e d i s t r i c t s t echn ica l

c ompa ctn es s rema in ed abou t

th e same between th e

two p l an s ,

Tr i a l

Tr. 141 :4-5 A nsolabehere , Delegate Tyle r t e s t i f i e d t h a t

her d i s t r i c t has [ v ]e ry i r r egu l a r borde r s

and i s

no t

an

easy

d i s t r i c t

to

fo l low, Docket No. 90-2 , Ex. B

23 :2 -7 ) .

A

review o f

H

75 s

boundar ies sugges t s t h a t

she

i s

r i gh t .

Although

the

d i s t r i c t has

a

c lea r

southern

border ,

t ha t

provides

no

s o l a c e

b e c a u s e

h e r

district b o r d e r s

No r t h

Ca r o l i n a .

Un l i k e

popu la t ion

equa l i t y and

VR

compl iance ,

s t a t e

borders are

not

j u s t mandatory; they admit no

va r i a t i on . As

such, s t a t e borders

a re a nu l l i t y in th e

predominance

ba lance . The

only

o the r

1 1 4




coun ty bounda rie s seeming ly r e spec ted

a re

t ho se

segments

bo rde r ing Mecklenburg ,

Nottoway,

Pr i nce George , and Suf fo lk

coun t i e s . P i s . Ex. 66 a t 6 . Notable in

t h i s

r ega rd , i s th e

ad d i t i o n

o f th e district s l owe r left c o r n e r , which makes

B ru nswic k County whole .

T r i a l

T r.

323 :8 -10

( Jones ) ;

I n t s . Ex.

94

t

7 .

Delega te

Dance t e s t i f i e d t h a t

th e c r e a t i o n

o f HD 75 gave

us a

little t r oub l e to t r y to ge t to th e

55

pe r c en t . T r i a l T r.

741:1-15

Dance) .

To g e t to

th e

55 BVAP

th e

d i s t r i c t

r equ i r ed some d r a s t i c

maneuver i ng [ . ]

Id . Delega te

Ty l e r

herself testified

th t sh e w a s c onc er ne d b ou t the decre se in

number o f b lack peop le

in

my d i s t r i c t . Docket

No.

90-2 , Ex.

B, 88 : 15 - 16 . )

Although

the i r r egu l a r i t y of the d i s t r i c t boundaries

can

be

seen to bu t t r e s s Delega te

Dance s

t es t imony

t h a t

HD 75 r equ i r ed

d r a s t i c maneuver ing in orde r to comply with th e 55 V P

f loo r ,

th e In te rv en ors

have of fe red

t h e i r

own exp lana t ions

fo r

the

d i s t r i c t s very

i r r egu la r

borde rs . Delegate Jones

t e s t i f i e d t h a t

Dinwiddie County was

s p l i t because th e

d i s t r i c t

was

in

need

of

popu la t ion . Tr i a l

Tr. 323:2-4 (Jones) .

That

appears to be

th e

case because

HD 75 was underpopu la t ed .

The

choice

to go nor th ,

however, was

to

t ry

to ge t [Delegate

Tyler s ] number

. . .

[o] f

African-Americans voters up

to

55

pe r c en t .

Id . a t 80:11-17 Dance) . There fo r e , whi le

1 1 5




underpopula t ion

may

he lp ex pla in th e

changes

to

th e d i s t r i c t , it

canno t be weighed ag a i n s t r ace in th e predominance ana l y s i s .

The

district s i r r egu l a r

ea s t e r n and weste rn b or de rs can be

a l s o a t t r i b u t e d t o r a c e be c au s e ,

acco rd ing

t o Del ega t e Dance

moving cohe ren t ly to th e e a s t

[or]

wes t would have been Euro-

Amer icans and she needed some

Afr i can

Amer icans

to

ge t

to

t h a t

55 pe r c e n t . Id .

a t 80 :21 -24 (Dance ) .

Del ega t e Jone s

t e s t imony d id no t c on tr a d ic t th a t as ses smen t .

Delegate Jones

t e s t i f i e d

t h a t

many

o f

th e

changes

such

as

swapping ou t th e Wakef ie ld and

Dendron

p r e c i n c t s , s p l i t t i n g

Frank l in Ci ty , and exc lud ing th e Be r l i n and

I v o r

p r e c i n c t s

were

done

on th e ba s i s o f a

member

r e que s t o r because D eleg ate

Ty le r d id no t r e ce i ve many

vo te s

in t hose

removed

p r ec inc t s .

See id .

a t

3 23 :11 -1 6; 3 24 :1 2-1 6; 325:1-5 ( Jones) .

Delegate

Jones accep t ed t h e s e changes even though adherence to p o l i t i c a l

subd iv i s ions and compactness would be subord ina ted in the

p roces s . See id . a t 323:11-16 { [W]e had two o t h e r coun t i e s

whole un t i l she

r eques t ed

t h a t we swap [Wakef ie ld and

Dendron]

out. );

325 : 1 4 - 1 6

{ I would have

n e v e r

done

that

had

it

no t

been

r eques ted

because

wanted

to

s p l i t

as

few

j u r i s d i c t i ona l

boundar ies as

cou ld ( . ] ) . But a t t r i bu t i ng th e

changes

to member r eques t s

o r performance

concerns begs

r a t he r than answers th e r e l evan t ques t i on :

was

th e r eques t

r a c i a l

o r

po l i t i c a l ?

1 1 6




Like

in HD 63, the evidence admits of both

a

r ac i a l purpose

and a

poli t ical purpose.

For

instance, Delegate Jones

himself

t e s t i f i ed

tha t Delegate

Tyler s

request

to

swap Wakefield

and

Dendron

was

based on

r e a l

concerns stemming from th e f ac t

t h a t

she

d i dn t break 51 percent in a genera l

e lec t ion

race

wi th

a

Caucasian and t ha t she won by l e s s than 300 votes in

a f i ve -

way

race in

a primary with two

Caucasians .

Id . a t 323:19-324:3

(Jones) .

That bespeaks an e f f o r t

to both protec t

the

incumbent

and

prevent

re t rogress ion . Simi lar ly ,

Delegate

Jones

t e s t i f i e d :

[ S ] h e was wor r i ed

abou t

too low o f

a

b lack

vo t i ng -age

popu l a t i on

fo r

h e r t o

be

ab l e

to be s u cce s s f u l

i n an e l e c t i o n .

Id . a t 322:10-12.

Thi s to o

r e f l e c t s an e f f o r t

to

p ro t e c t th e

incumbent whi le a l so p re se rv in g m in or i ty vo t e r s

ab i l i t y

to

elect

their c ndid te of choice

Unlike

in

HD 63,

however,

here

t he re i s

no ambiguity

about

th e

ba s i s upon

which vo t e r s

were s o r t e d .

I n t e r v eno r s Pos t -

Tria l Brief r e l i e s upon the overlapping rac ia l and pol i t i ca l

purposes

to

argue t h a t race d id

n ot p re dom in ate . According to

the

Intervenors ,

Delegate Tyler s depos i t ion testimony made

c ry sta l c lea r

her view t ha t

Mw]hat

I m saying i s most

of the

t ime

blacks

vote D emocra tic ,

and

t ha t i n [her] mind, the

purpose of ensur ing 55 percent

V P

was to help

Democrats

be

e l e c t ed .

I n t s . Pos t -Tr ia l

Brie f a t 30-31 (c i t ing Docket No.

90-2, Ex.

B,

62:17-25

63:19-23) . But, a t t r i bu t ing

a

po l i t i c a l

1 1 7




purpose to

o r

j u s t i f i c a t i on fo r

th e

55

V P

f l oo r does

no t

somehow

r e n d e r

it a n o n - r a c i a l classification

Whe t h e r

t h e

changes were

made

to comply with Sect ion

5

enhance Democ ra tic

performance

or pro tec t the

incumbent

the changes

were s t i l l

made

b a s e d on voters skin

color

Weighing a l l th e evidence

and

tes t imony provided

on

the

record the

Court

f inds th a t ra c ia l cons ide ra t i ons

subordina ted

t r a d i t i ona l d i s t r i c t i ng pr i nc i p l e s and o the r non - r ac i a l


c r i t e r i a

in

the

crea t ion

of

HD

75.

The

tes t imony

from th e th re e de lega te s p rim ari ly r e sp on sib le fo r

shaping

th e

d i s t r i c t D elega tes Jones Tyle r and Dance shows t h a t th e

ove r r i d i n g ob j e c t i v e

was t o ach i eve a 55 BVAP i n HD 75 .

Achiev ing a 55 BVAP f l o o r r equ i r ed

d r a s t i c maneuver ing t h a t

i s

r e f l ec t ed

on th e

face of

th e d i s t r i c t

and

according

to

D eleg ate Jo ne s would no t o th erw is e have been unde r t aken due to

th e impact on t r a d i t i o n a l county boundar ies . Delegate Tyle r

he r se l f

found the b ou nd arie s v ery

i r r egu l a r

worried

about

her

ab i l i t y to cover

her

d i s t r i c t with

ease

and

was

concern[ed]

about the decrease

in

number

of black people in [her]

d i s t r i c t .

In te rv en ors attemp t

to

expla in th e

boundary

devia t ions

by

asc r ib ing

a

po l i t i c a l purpose

to

them. But

t h a t a t tempt

i s no t

success fu l . As in Bush the record shows tha t

in

bui ld ing HD

75 race was used by Delegate Tyler he r se l f as a proxy

fo r

Democrat ic

vo te rs in an e f f o r t to p ro te c t

her own

pos i t i on as an

1 1 8




incumbent a t th e

expense o f t r a d i t i ona l

d i s t r i c t i ng pr i nc i p l e s .

517 U.S. a t 972 73 (p r inc ipa l op in ion) . When a l e g i s l a t o r so r t s

vo te r s

by po l i t i c a l

a f f i l i a t i on

o r

performance then

the

dev ia t ion from n eu tr al p rin c ip le s i s a po l i t i c a l one . But when

a

l e g i s l a t o r s o r t s vo t e r s by r ace , fo r w hateve r pu rpose , then

th e dev i a t i on

i s

a r a c i a l one . As exp l a ined above ,

th e

l es son

o f

Cromart ie was t h a t a po l i t i c a l dev ia t ion would no t be

cons ide red r a c i a l s imply because th e Democrat ic vo t e r s happened

t o

be

b l a c k .

Croma r t i e

I ,

526

U.S.

t

542 .

The

l e s s on was

no t

t h a t a

r a c i a l

dev i a t i on would be cons ide red p o l i t i c a l s imply

because

th e b lack vo t e r s

happened to be

Democrats .

Tha t i s

us ing

race

as a proxy

fo r

p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n , an approach

t h a t

i s

p roh i b i t ed .

As

to 75 th e

P l a i n t i f f s

have

proved

(wi thou t

r e fe rence

to

Dr. Anso labehe re s t es t imony) t h a t r ace was th e predomina te

c r i t e r i o n l e ad ing to th e

d i s r ega rd

o f neu t r a l conven t ions in

forming 75. M oreover to

th e ex ten t

t h a t po l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s

See

Bush

517 U.S.

a t

968 73 (p r inc ipa l

opinion) ( I f

d i s t r i c t l ines

merely

co r re l a t e

with race

because

they are drawn

on th e b a s i s o f p o l i t i c a l a f f il i a t io n , which

co r r e l a t e s

with

r ace ,

t h e r e

i s

no

r ac ia l c la s si fi c a tio n

But ,

to

th e

ex t en t

t h a t

race i s

used

as a proxy

fo r

po l i t i c a l cha r a c t e r i s t i c s , a

r ac i a l

s te reotype

requi r ing s t r i c t sc ru t iny i s in opera t ion .

th e

f ac t t ha t

r a c i a l data

were used in complex

ways and fo r

mult iple object ives ,

does not mean tha t race did n ot p re do min ate

o v e r

other

consider tions The

record discloses intensive an d

pe rvas ive

use of race

bo th as a

proxy to

p ro t e c t th e po l i t i c a l

fo r tu n es o f ad ja c en t incumbents , and fo r

its own

sake in

maximizing th e

mino r i t y

popu la t i on o f [ the D i s t r ic t ] . ) .

1 1 9




were

cons idered and ach ieved , it

appears

t h a t those c r i t e r i a

were

secondary

to , and

only s a t i s f i ed

by,

adherence

to

th e

BVAP f l o o r . Shaw I I ,

517 U.S. a t

907

( Tha t th e l e g i s l a t u r e

add re s sed

t h ese i n t e r e s t s

does

no t in

any

way r e fu t e

th e f a c t

that

race

was the

l egis la ture s predominant consideration. ).^

Based on

th e

fo rego ing ana l y s i s , the

Cour t f i nds t h a t

r a ce

was th e

predomina te

c r i t e r i o n d r iv in g th e fo rmat ion

and

co n f igu ra t ion o f HD

75; and,

t h e r e fo r e , th e l e g i s l a t u r e s

dec i s i on

i s

s ub j e c t

to

strict

s c ru t i ny . To

su rv ive

strict

s c ru t i ny ,

th e In te rven ors

must show t h a t

th e l eg i s l a tu r e

had

a

s t rong

bas i s in ev idence

fo r its

r a c i a l d i s t r i c t i ng

dec i s ions .

The

Cou r t

f i n d s th t

this b u rd en h a s

b e en s tisfied

and

t ha t , accord ing ly ,

75

survives the P la in t i f f s

chal lenge.

F i r s t ,

Delegate

Jones de te rmina t ion t h a t

75 (o r

i t s

environs)

re f l ec ted an

a b i l i ty - to -e lec t d i s t r i c t requi r ing

p ro te ctio n a ga in st re tro g re ss io n

was

a

r ea so n ab le d e te rm i na ti on .

As Pla in t i f f s themselves poin t

out ,

75 appeared

to

be

a

The d i s s en t argues

t ha t

our

i n t e rp r e t a t i on of

predominance will

allow

l egis la tors

to

mask rac ia l

sort ing and

only permit p l a i n t i f f s to

cha l lenge

d i s t r i c t s

tha t

manifes t

extreme

l in e -d r aw ing unexp la inabl e

on

race -neut ra l

grounds,

l ike

the

d i s t r i c t

a t i ssue

in

Shaw I . Post a t 158, 166. Our

holding

with r espec t

to 75

should put th ese fea rs to r e s t .

The

boundar ies

o f 75

not

only

s imul taneously

advance r ac i a l

and non-racial goals , but

they are

hardly

egregious

or

extreme. That has

not

prevented us

from

careful ly examining

the ac tua l bas is upon which voters were sor ted and

f inding

predominance s tisfied

where

n o n - r a c i a l criteri were

subordin ted in

f ct

1 2 0




performing

ab i l i ty - to -e lec t

dis t r i c t

before the Sta te s

r ed i s t r i c t ing

e f fo r ts . P is . Post -Tr ia l

Br ie f

a t 33 34

{ci t ing

P i s . Ex. 50 a t 85

Table

14) . There fo re ,

r e t a in ing

t h i s

ab i l i t y to

e l e c t reasonably can

be

viewed

as

necessa ry to ensure

ac t ua l

compliance with

th e

f ed e ra l n o n- re tr og re s si on s t anda rd .

Next as to

HD

75 th e

55 BVAP

f l oo r i s grounded

in a

s t r ong ba s i s

in

ev idence because th e p rim a ry s ou rc e o f th e 55

V P t h resho ld

appears

to have

been

an

ana ly s i s

of

HD 75 i t s e l f .

For example

Dele ga te Jo ne s

t e s t i f i e d

t h a t

he

d id

no t

f e e l

a 52

BVAP

t h r e sho ld

a c r o s s

all d i s t r i c t s

would be

accep t ab l e

ba sed

on th e fu nc t io na l ana l y s i s t h a t I had done

us ing

th e

Ty l e r

p r ima ry ,

fo r

exam ple , and

th e

Ty l e r gene r a l e l e c t i o n in 2005 .

T r i a l Tr .

430:2-9

( Jones ) . These were c lo s e

r ace s ,

prompt ing

r e a l

conce rns .

Id .

a t 323:19 324:3 ( Jones) . Delegate

Jones

met

w ith Delega te

Tyle r p robably ha l f a

dozen t imes

to

conf igu re her d i s t r i c t as

she

f e l t it needed to

be

conf igured

fo r

[minor i ty

vo te r s ]

to e l e c t

a

cand i d a t e

o f t h e i r

cho ice

fo r

he r district.

Id . a t

322:6-12

( Jones)

The Court does

no t

sugges t t h a t those design ing


plans

can always

j u s t

add more V P

every

t ime

a

meaningful cha l l enge r appea r s . Like Sec t ion

2

Sect ion 5 does

no t

guarantee m inor ity vo te r s

an e l e c t o r a l

advantage ,

Bar t l e t t ,

556

U.S.

a t

20 it only r equ i r es t h a t

the system

not

e f f e c t

a


in minor i ty vo t e r s e f f e c t i ve e l e c t o r a l

f r anch i se . In t e rp re t i ng

th e

VR to al low

more

than t h i s would

render it an i n s t rumen t in se rv ice o f the same d i sc r imina to ry

prac t i c e s

it

was

des igned

to e l imina te . This would

be

con t ra ry

to th e p l a i n

l anguage o f

th e

F i f t e en t h Amendment

itself l e t

1 2 1




Delegate

Jones

examined t u rnou t

r a t e s

in

HD

75, id .

a t

467 :7 -11

( J one s ) ,

an i s s u e

abou t which

Del ega t e

Ty l e r

was

pa r t i cu l a r l y concerned, id . a t 463:12-16 ( Jones ) . In add i t i on .

Delega te Jones cons ide red th e district s

pr i son

popu la t ion and

r e l i ed upon h is

knowledge

o f th e

district s e l e c t o r a l h i s t o ry .

Id .

a t 464 :7 -465 :5 ;

458:18-459 :18

( Jones ) . These a re

p rec i s e l y

th e kinds

o f

ev idence t h a t


a re

encouraged

to use

[ i ] n

dete rmin ing

whether th e

ab i l i t y

to e l e c t ex i s t s in th e

benchmark

plan

and

whether

it

con t inues

in th e

proposed

p l an [ . ]

P i s . Ex. 9 a t 3 76 Fed. Reg.

Vol.

27 Feb. 9, 2011) a t 7471)

( [E] lec t ion his to ry and

vot ing

pa t t e rns within the

j u r i s d i c t i on , vo te r r eg i s t r a t i on and t u rnou t in format ion ,

and

o the r s im i l a r in format ion a re very

impor tan t

to

an

assessment o f

the

actual

effect

of a

red is t r ic t ing

plan. ).^®

alone the

precepts

o f equal

pro tec t ion .

Where an appl ica t ion of

the

VRA

cannot

reasonably be

said to have gone

beyond

the

r eme dia l ,

however, it

i s t h i s

Cour t s duty to

uphold it

Delegate

Jones

pr imar i ly t e s t i f i e d

about

th e 2005

e l e c t i on . See, e . g . .

Tr i a l

Tr.

458:15-459:18 ( Jones) .

There

were more r ecen t e lec tio ns in

2007

and 2009, but Delegate Tyler

ran

unopposed

in

t hose

e l e c t i ons .

See P i s .

Ex.

50

a t

85,

Table

14.

The dis sen t suggests

t ha t

these

unopposed

races

cas[ t ]

s i gn i f i c a n t doubt on th e

con t en t i on t h a t

a 55 BVAP l e v e l

remained necessa ry to preven t

r e t r og r e s s i on .

Pos t a t 173. But

shor t

of

hir ing a

s t a t i s t i c a l

analys t , it s hard to see how much

usefu l in format ion can be g leaned from th e uncontes ted r aces .

Should l eg i s l a to r s have lowered the t a rge t

by

1 2 or ?

Any

preference fo r

a 53 t a rge t

i ns t ead of

a 55 t a rge t

would

seem to

r e s t

upon

specu la t ion ,

no t

a s t r onge r bas i s

in

evidence.

1 2 2




P la i n t i f f s

d ispu te

th e

need fo r r a i s i ng

th e BVAP

percen tage

in HD 75, argu ing t h a t th e d i s t r i c t

was

a l ready a performing

Sec t i on 5 district f o r mino r i t y - p r e f e r r ed cand i d a t e s going i n to

th e 2011

r e d i s t r i c t i n g . P i s . P o st- Tr ia l B r ie f a t 33-34 c i t i ng

Pis Ex. 50 a t 85 , Tab l e 14 ) . Here , t h a t a rgumen t on ly

s t r e ng then s

th e

I n t e r veno r s hand. Under th e Benchmark Plan ,

BVAP in HD 75

was

55.3 , Under

th e

Enac ted

P l an ,

BVAP in HD 75

was 55.4 . Id .

a t

34. Cons ider ing th e i n t r i c a c i e s o f

r ed i s t r i c t i ng ,

the new

HD

75

cou ld

e f f e c t i v e l y

be

cons idered

to

have the same BVAP

l eve l as

the old

HD

75. And, considering

the evidence

re l i ed upon

by

Delegate Jones , it appears

abundantly

c lea r

t ha t he had good reasons

for

holding

the BVAP

in HD

75

j u s t

above

55 to ensure

t h a t th e d i s t r i c t remained

a

performing Section

5

d i s t r i c t for minor i ty-prefer red candidates ,

as Pla in t i f f s themselves suggest . Alabama, 135 S. Ct. a t 1274.

Nor

does

the

f loor appear unreasonable

when

subjected

to exper t review. Pl a i n t i f f s

own

exper t noted t ha t HD

63 and

75

exhibit

high rates of [racial]

polarization

because

large

majorities of Whites vote in the opposite way

as large

majorit ies of African

Americans. Pis . Ex 50 a t 51,

84, Table

14.

Intervenors '

expert agreed, observing

tha t

the 2011

and

2013 elect ions

held

in 75 were racial ly polarized. Ints .

Ex 16

a t

24 ,

Table

4. Dr

Ansolabehere ultimately opined

that

a BVAP

threshold was not n ec essa ry in HD 75,

Pis . Ex 50

a t

1 2 3




55,

bu t ex pos t s t a t i s t i c a l ana lyses cannot upse t th e S t a t e s ex

ante

judgment so long as t h a t

decis ion

was r easonably

necessa ry based

on

s t rong

evidence n t h i s case ,

it

was so

ba s ed .

Alabama, 135 S . C t. a t 1273 . Simp ly pu t , t h e r e were

good

r easons

to be l i e ve t h a t a 55 BVAP t h r e sho ld was

neces sa ry to ensu re t h a t mino r i t y

vo t i ng

i n f l u ence d id no t

r e t r o g r e s s in HD 75, and th e Cour t wi l l no t up s e t t h a t

r ea sonab l e j udgment . Id . a t 1274.

The

Cou r t

f i n d s t h a t


had good r e a son to be l i ev e

t h a t

main t a in ing a 55 BVAP l e v e l in HD

75 was

neces sa ry to

p reven t a c tu a l r e t r o g re s s io n

{and no t

j u s t to a t t a i n

p r e c l e a r anc e ) , and t h a t t h i s was

ach i eved

by

r easonab l e

devia t ions from

t ra d it i on a l r ed is tr ic ti ng c r i t e r i a

( judged

by

a

The

Court

does

no t

c r ed i t

th e

r a c i a l

po l a r i z a t i on

ana lys i s conducted

by

Dr.

Ansolabehere.

His ana lys i s drew

from

on-year s ta tewide

e l e c t i ons da ta

( ra the r

than

of f -yea r

House

of

Delega tes e l e c t i o n s

d a ta ) . T r ia l

T r. 516 :7 -25 (Katz) . We

f i nd

t h a t

the

use of the wrong e lec t ions led to u nre l iab le r e su l t s .

Dr. Ansolabehere a lso

r e l i ed

on

an

eco log ica l regress ion

an aly sis ( ra th er

than an ecologica l

in fe rence

ana lys i s ) , which

d o e s n t make u se o f all . . .

a v a i l a b l e i n f o rma t i on and

r e s u l t s in

b l a t an t l y

i nco r r e c t

answers . Id .

a t

521:10-14. As

Dr. Katz t e s t i f i ed , ecologica l regress ion was

grea t

technology

in

1950 when

it was developed, but

[ t ]he

world has

come a

long

way in

t hose

in t e rven ing

s ix

decades . Id .

a t

519:11-22 . Th is

too makes

Dr. Anso labehere s

tes t imony unre l i ab l e .

The Pla in t i f f s of fe red

Dr. Ansolabehere s tes t imony

on

r ac ia l

polar iza t ion as per t inent to

the

predominance analys is

even though it

would

(were th e Court to accep t it as r e l i ab l e

which

it

does not) be

more

probative of the

narrow

t a i lor ing

ana lys i s . But,

e i t he r

way, h is tes t imony

on

r ac i a l polar iza t ion

is f l awed a nd c a n n o t

b e

credited

1 2 4




su f f i c i ency

s tandard ) .

Because

th e Sta t e has provided a s t rong

bas i s in ev idence fo r its use o f r ace -based d i s t r i c t i n g in its

co nf ig ura t io n o f

75 th e Cour t

ho ld s t h a t 75 pas ses

con s t i t u t i o n a l mus t e r

under th e

Equal P ro t e c t i on

Clause o f the

Fourteenth Amendme n t .

3.

District

6 9

^® i s found in the Richmond

area

and was

represented

by

D elega te Betsy

Car r

dur ing th e

2011


p roces s .

Under

bo th

th e

Benchmark

P l an and

th e

Ena c t e d

P l a n ,

t h e

district

con t a i n s

pa r t s

o f Che s t e r f i e l d and Richmond Ci ty . P i s .

Ex

50

a t 69

Table 1 . Al though th e number o f coun ty

and c i t y

s p l i t s

remained

th e same r e d i s t r i c t i n g

i nc r ea sed

th e number

o f

s p l i t

In Wilk ins , th e

Supreme

Cour t

o f

V i r g in i a

found

t h a t r ace

d id

no t p redom inate

over o t h e r


c r i t e r i a unde r

V i r g i n ia s s t a t e

con s t i t u t i o n

in

Di s t r i c t s 69 70 71 77 80

89, and

90 .

264 Va

a t

477 -79 . Th i s

Cou r t

f i n d s

th e

r a t i o n a l e

and outcome

s ta t e d in

W ilk in s , w ith r e spe c t

to

t he se d i s t r i c t s ,

i n fo rma t ive

bu t no t de t e rm ina t i v e . F i r s t , pe rhaps th e s im ple s t

exp l an a t i o n

is

t h a t th e

2011 map is no t th e 2001 map

s e v e r a l

s im i l a r i t i e s no twi th s t and ing . Second th e Wilk ins

cou r t

obse rved

t h a t th e trial c ou r t d id no t r e f e r ence any sp e c i f i c

evidence o r make any spec i f i c f ind ings

fo r any

o f the se

d i s t r i c t s

to

suppo r t

a

conc lu s ion

t h a t

r ace

was

th e

predominan t

f a c t o r

in

c r ea t i ng each

district.

Id . a t 477 That i s

p r e c i s e l y th e

ana l y s i s t h i s Cour t

under tak e s tod ay . Th ird , th e

Wilk i n s

co u r t

i n c l uded

popu l a t i o n

and co r e r e t e n t i o n among th e

b a l a n c i ng criteria which a re

e i t h e r

ve rbo t e n

o r

c a l l e d in to

ques t i on by th e Alabama de c i s i o n . Compare id . a t 478

with

A labam a 135 S C t. a t 1270 1271 . F in a l ly , th e r e

was

no

ev idence be fo re th e Wilk in s c ou r t sugges t i ng th e use o f a r a c i a l

f lo o r in th e s ub j e c t districts.

1 2 5




VTDs

from

t o

4 . Pis. Ex. 50 a t 69 -70 , Tab l e s 1 , 2 . HD 69

has

a

core r e t en t i on pe rcen t age o f 74 .7 . Ints. Ex. 14 a t 83.

On

its

fa c e , th e

district

appea r s

to

r e f l e c t

a

l a r ge ,

compac t swa th

o f

Richmond

below

th e Fan

Di s t r i c t and t o th e

south o f the James River .

The d i s t r i c t had

Reock and

Polsby-

Poppe r

s c o re s o f

.37 and .20 unde r th e Benchmark P l an , which

increased to scores of . 5 2 a n d .3 4 under the E n a c t e d

Plan.

I n t s . Ex. 15 a t 15,

Table 9.

The district s

Schwar tzbe rg

sco r e

i s

1 .712 .

P i s .

Ex.

51

a t 11,

Table 1. As Delegate

Jones

t e s t i f i e d ,

th e

changes from th e

Benchmark

Plan

made th e d i s t r i c t

more

Richmond

c en t r i c ,

T r i a l

Tr.

309:1 {Jones) , which appea r s

on its face to

have

enhanced th e district s

a lignm en t w ith

a

d i s t i n c t

po l i t i c a l

subd iv i s ion and community

o f

i n t e r e s t ,

I n t s .

E x .

94

at

2 .

The

P l a i n t i f f s r ecogn i ze t h a t

HD

69 has become more compact

and r e t a i n ed its

c o r e ,

bu t argue t h a t th e

district has become

more

compact on ly

by in co rp ora tin g h ea vily

Afr ican-Amer ican

c ommu n i t i e s at the outskirts

of

the b e n c hma r k

district.

Pis.

Pos t -T r i a l Reply a t 15. Delega te McClel lan a l so t e s t i f i e d a t

t r i a l

t ha t

HD

9

had

to

sa t i s fy

the

BVAP

f loor ,

according

to

Delega te

Jone s . T r i a l

T r. 29 :5 -13

( Jones ) . But all o f

t h i s i s

l a rge l y i r r e l evan t .

The ques t ion

i s

whether th e

Commonwealth s

consideration of race or a racial

floor

s u b o r d i n a t e d

traditional, n e u t r a l

criteria.

Plaintiffs

have

o f f e r e d no

1 2 6




ev idence to show s ubo rd i n a t i on , r e l y ing

i n s t e ad

on th e er roneous

view

t h a t p roo f

o f

a 55 BVAP f l oo r

would

be

s u f f i c i e n t to ca rry

t h e i r burden . As

e x pl ai ne d p r ev io u s ly ,

it

is no t .

With r e spec t to po t en t i a l

dev ia t ions

from neu t r a l c r i t e r i a ,

it shou ld be no t ed t h a t HD

69

is no t c on tig uo us by l a nd . Ints.

Ex.

94

a t 2 .

However,

th e district

co nta in s m u l t ip le

r i v e r

c r o s s i ng s ,

i d . ,

and no ev idence has

been

prov ided by th e

P l a i n t i f f s to

show

t h a t

th e district

improper ly combines

two

d i s t i n c t

communi t ies

o f

i n t e r e s t

r a t h e r

t han

un i t i ng

one

community o f i n t e r e s t . Moreover ,

th e

P l a i n t i f f s have no t

p rov ided any ev idence t h a t t h i s split

has

d im in i shed

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

f o r commun i t i e s

on e i t h e r s i d e o f th e

James .

As

such ,

t h e r e i s no ev idence

t h a t

con t i gu i t y

was subo rd ina t ed

to

non-neutral criteria.

In s ho r t ,

th e

P l a i n t i f f s have

f a i l e d to

ca r ry

t h e i r burden

of

proof

with

respect

to

69 ̂®

and the Court

holds, as a

m atte r o f

f a c t , t h a t ra ce d id

no t

predomina te in th e

drawing o f

HD

6 9 .

If

any t h i ng ,

HD

69

seems

to

reflect

t h e

k ind

o f

district

t h a t

migh t

wel l be

amenable t o re so lu t io n on a

mot ion

fo r

summary

judgment based on a more

s t r uc tu r ed unders tand ing

of th e

predominance

i n q u i r y , a s

prov ided above . See

Abrams,

521

U.S.

a t

118

Stevens, J . , d i s s en t i ng )

{ Any

r ed i s t r i c t i ng plan wi l l

gene ra te po t en t i a l l y

in ju red p l a i n t i f f s , . . .

[a]nd judges

unab le

to r e f e r , say , to in te n t , d i lu tio n ,

shape ,

o r some o t h e r

l im i t i n g

p r i nc i p l e )

wi l l f ind it d i f f i c u l t

to

d ism is s tho se

claims[.] ).

1 2 7




4

D i s t r i c t 7 0

H 70

is

found i n th e

Richmond

a r e a

and was

r ep r e s en t ed by

Delega te

Delores

McQuinn dur ing th e 2011 r e d i s t r i c t i n g p roces s .

Unde r

bo th t h e

Benchmark P l an

and th e Enac t e d

P l a n , t h e

district

con ta ins

pa r t s o f

Che s t e r f i e l d , Henr ico ,

and Richmond

Ci ty .

P i s . Ex 50

a t

69 Table 1 . Although

th e

number o f county and

c i t y s p l i t s r emained th e same r e d i s t r i c t i n g i n c rea sed th e

number o f split VT s

from

to

3 .

P i s . Ex 50 a t 69-70 , Tables

1

2.

H

70

has

a

co r e

r e t en t i on

pe rcen t age

o f

67 .31 .

I n t s .

E x . 14 at 8 3 .

On its

f a c e ,

th e district appea rs c o he re nt and gene r a l l y

compac t , pe r h ap s

wi t h

th e

exc ep t i o n

o f t h e

t u r r e t

on to p o f

the

district HD 70 straddles

the

intersection of R i c hmond

Ci ty , Ches t e r f i e l d

County and

Henr ico

County P i s . Ex

66

a t

3 , wi t h mos t o f th e bounda r i e s t h e r e i n

drawn

on

th e

b a s i s o f

p r e c i n c t and VT

l i n e s ,

Ints Ex 94

a t

3 .

The

district had

Reock and

Polsby-Popper

s co r e s o f

.47

and 14 under th e

Benchmark P l an , which s h i f t e d to s co r e s

o f

.4 0 and .19 unde r th e

Enac ted

P l an . Ints

Ex 15

at

15 ,

Tab l e

9 .

In

o t h e r words ,

th e

d i s t r i c t

became s l i gh t l y more

e longa ted ,

bu t a l so

removed

some

o f its more convo lu ted

and i r r e gu l a r

boundar ies

in

th e

p roces s . The

district s Schwar tzbe rg

s co re

i s

2 .290 .

P i s .

Ex

51

at 11 ,

Tab le 1 .

1 2 8




As th e P l a i n t i f f s con tend , th e r e d i s t r i c t i n g

p u l l [ ed ]

th e

district s ub s t an t i a l l y ou t o f th e c i t y o f Richmond and

pu l l [ ed ]

it

i n to th e

Ches t e r f i e l d

a r e a and deeper i n to Henr ico

County .

T r i a l T r. 1 42 :7 -10

(Anso l abehe r e ) .

laintiffs b e l i e v e t h a t

t h i s

shows

a

d i s r eg a rd

fo r

co re

r e t e n t i o n ,

P i s .

Pos t -T r i a l Reply

a t

16, bu t t h i s i s p r e c i s e l y th e r eason th e Cour t

cau t i oned

about

co re r e t en t i on

argumen t s above. Red i s t r i c t i n g , by

its

very

na t u r e ,

i nvo lves

th e chang ing o f districts

I f a s t a t e

comp l e t e l y

abandoned

its

p r i o r

map

and

s t a r t e d f rom

s c r a t c h ,

a

hypo the t i ca l new HD 70 migh t

bea r no

r esemblance what soever to

t h e benchmark

HD 70 , bu t t h a t would no t

t aken

a l o n e

be

susp ic ious . Moreover, such

a

hypothe t i ca l would en t a i l

removing th e en t i r e p op ula tio n o f 70 and

t hen

add ing

t h a t

en t i r e number

back.

Again ,

noth ing about t h a t would

be

i nh e re n tly s us pic io u s.

The

ques t ion i s

whe the r th e bo un darie s o r

th e changes

to

the boundar ies

a re j u s t i f i ab l e by re fe rence

to


neu t r a l

c r i t e r i a . Here , they a r e .

D elega te Jones t e s t i f i e d

t h a t 70 s

ove ra l l conf igura t ion

was

a l t e r ed

to be t t e r

rep re sen t

suburban

i n t e r e s t s

where

popula t ion

had expanded

and

to

cede more Richmond-centered popula t ion to 69 and

71 .

T r i a l

Tr. 310 :18 -311 :21 ( Jones ) .

The

P l a i n t i f f s case

suppo r t s

t h a t

po i n t . a t 142 :11 -20

(Anso labehe re )

[HD

70

has] s u bs ta n ti al ly s h if te d

from being

[a]

p lu ra l i t y urban

1 2 9




district

to be ing a p l u r a l i t y subu rban district. . These

r e p r e s e n t ob j e c t i v e l y

i d e n t i f i a b l e conunun i t i e s o f

i n t e r e s t .

P l a i n t i f f s

a l so

a rgue t h a t 70 was n ot u nd er-p op ula te d

be fo re th e


p ro ce s s , bu t

t h e Genera l Assembly

added abou t 26 ,000 people

and

removed abou t 26 ,000 peop le in

r edrawing

th e district. P i s .

Pos t -T r i a l

Reply a t 16. As

d i scus sed above,

if

prope r ly

popu l a t ed d i s t r i c t s

were

p re sumpt i ve l y r equ i r ed to remain un touched , t h en all th e o the r

d i s t r i c t s

would

need

to

wrap

around

them

( in

s ub s t an t i a l

d i s r ega rd

o f

n eu tra l p r in c ip le s) in o rd e r

to ach ieve

popu la t i on

e qua l i t y . See an te a t

77

n .20 ; acco rd T r i a l T r . 310 :7 -311 :2

( Jones ) .

Nor

is th e

s ub s t i t u t i o n

in popu la t i on numbers

pa r t i c u l a r l y

shock ing . I f

a prope r ly

popu la t ed

d i s t r i c t must

s h i f t l o ca t i on s , then

it

wi l l neces s a r i l y remove a

l a rge

amount o f peop l e

f rom

its

o ld

l o c a t i o n and a dd th e same amount

f r om

its new location. T h a t result s e e m s rather o b v i o u s .

With r e spec t to

dev i a t i on s ,

70

l i k e HD

69

i s d iv ided

by the

James

but con ta ins

a

r i ve r cros s ing . I n t s .

Ex. 9

a t

3 .

And

like

HD

69

Plaintiffs

h a v e offered no

e v i d e n c e

to

sugges t

t h a t

t h i s

has

had any

e f f e c t

on

rep resen ta t ion

o r loca l

communi t ies

o f i n t e r e s t . As

such ,

t h e r e is no ev idence

t h a t

c on t i gu i t y was s u bo r d i n a t e d to non -n e u t r a l criteria.

The only fac ia l ly odd devia t ion

s i t s

atop

the

nor thern edge

of the

d i s t r i c t .

This t u r r e t

appears to

dev ia te

from

1 3 0





norms

e spec i a l l y i n so f a r as it

pokes

ac ross

Richmond Ci ty

l i n e s . However I n t e r v eno r s

o f f e r e d a

s imp l e ,

non - r ac i a l exp l ana t i on f o r t h i s dev i a t i on : Delega te McQuinn th e

i ncumbent ,

l i v e s

t h e r e . As D eleg ate Jo nes t e s t i f i e d : [H]ad she

not

l i v ed

t he r e ,

I

cou ld

have

ac t ua l l y

had a l l of the 71s t

Di s t r i c t

in th e c i t y o f

Richmond

because I

cou ld

have

t aken

t h e se coup le o f p r e c i n c t s and

t h e r e

wou ldn t have

been

any

going

in to th e R adc l if fe prec i nc t in Henr ico

County

fo r

71.

Tr i a l

T r . 311 : 3 -17

( Jones ) .

In

weigh ing th e ev idence , th e

Cour t

r ecogn i zes

t h a t

Delegate McClellan t e s t i f i e d t h a t 70 was

drawn

to comply with

th e 55 BVAP

f l oo r , id . a t 29:5-13

(McCle l l an ) ,

bu t th e

l eg i s l a t u r e s pur su i t of t h i s goa l i s not the predominate

c r i t e r i o n employed un le ss it

subo rd ina t e s

all o t h e r s .

The

Cour t

f inds t h a t 70 i s l a rge ly expla ined by r e fe rence to

t r ad i t i ona l ,

neut ra l

d i s t r i c t i ng c r i t e r i a ,

and t ha t the only

dev ia t i on therefrom

i s

exp la inab le on th e

b as is o f incumbent

pa i r i ng

p r even t i on .

As a r e s u l t ,

t h i s

Cour t ho ld s , as a

mat t e r

of f ac t , t ha t race

d id

not predominate in

the

drawing

of

70.

District

71

7 i s found in

the

Richmond

area

and was represented

by

Delegate

Jennifer

McClellan

during

the 2011 r ed i s t r i c t ing

p ro ce s s .

Under

bo th

th e

Benchmark

Plan and th e Enac ted P lan ,

the

d i s t r i c t contains

par t s of

Henrico and Richmond

City .

Pi s .

1 3 1




Ex. 50 a t 69, Tab l e 1 . Al though

th e

number o f coun ty and c i t y

s p l i t s remained th e same, r e d i s t r i c t i n g

i nc r ea sed

th e number

o f

s p l i t VTDs from to 3.

P i s .

Ex.

50

a t 69-70 , Tables 1 , 2 . HD

71 has a

core r e t en t i on

pe rcen t age

o f 78 .31 , Ints

Ex.

14 a t

83, and i s con t iguous by l and .

On

its f ace ,

th e d i s t r i c t appears

qu i t e

compact and

gene r a l l y fo l lows normal


conven t ion s . The d i s t r i c t

had

Reock and Polsby-Popper sco re s o f .24 and .19 under th e

Benchmark

P l an ,

which

i n c r e a s ed

t o

s c o re s o f

.3 3 and .24

unde r

th e

Enac ted Plan . Ints

Ex.

15 a t 15, Table 9 . The

district s

Schwar tzbe rg s co re i s

2 .045 .

P i s .

Ex. 51

a t 11 , Table 1 .

The

d i s t r i c t remains bounded to th e south by th e

James

River

a

na tu ra l geograph ic boundary

and

became

more

Richmond

cent r i c

with th e 2011 r ed i s t r i c t i ng thanks to th e removal

o f

Summit

Cour t ,

Hi l l i a r d ,

and

S t r a t f o r d Hal l p r e c i n c t s

from

its wes te rn

edge . T r i a l

T r . 3 05 :2 -7 ( Jones ) .

The d i s t r i c t i t s e l f

inc ludes the

Fan,

moves eas t through

Richmond s

downtown,

and cont inues

up

to Church

Hi l l .

The

d i s t r i c t

con ta in s th e

majo r i ty of the North

Side ,

and

conta ins

one

prec inc t

in eas te rn Henrico

County.

Id .

a t

24:22-25:1

(M cC l e l la n ) .

The only

f ac i a l l y

evident dev ia t ions are along 71 s

eas te rn borde r . Here, th e d i s t r i c t s one

Henrico

prec inc t and

th e 701 , 702 , and 706

VTDs

seem t o form a set o f h o r n s on

th e

1 3 2




eastern

side o f

t h e

district. See

Pis. Ex .

66

at 4 ; Ints.

Ex.

94

at

4 .

In

examining

th es e d ev ia tio ns , it

shou ld

first be noted

that the northern most horn adheres

to the

boundaries of

R a t c l if fe p re c in c t, whereas th e two

o t h e r

ho rns appea r to

adhere

t o th e bounda r i e s o f VTDs 701 , 702, and 706 . P l a i n t i f f s

have

a rgued t h a t VTDs 701 and 702

were

i n c luded because t h ey

were

h e av i l y Afr i can

Amer ican and ve ry

dense ly popu l a t ed . Id .

43 : 15 - 18

(McC le l l a n ) .

The

Plaintiffs

have

no t

d i s c u s s e d

whe th e r

Ra t c l i f f e was

added

to

cap tu re

black vo t e r s .

Although Delegate

M cC l e l l a n testified that the

55

BVAP rule affected

the

districting

dec i s i o n s

a s

t o HD 71,

i d . 29 :5 -13 (McCle l l an) ,

th e

P l a i n t i f f s

bear th e burden of

showing t h a t

the dec is ion

subordina ted neu t r a l c r i t e r i a in th e p rocess .

P l a i n t i f f s have no t

s a t i s f i e d

t h a t burden . Delega te

Jones

o f f e r ed

a

f a r

more

conv inc i ng

reason

fo r

HD 7 1 s ea s t e rn horns .

As

d i scussed

above. Delegate

McQuinn

l i v e s

r i gh t on the border

of VTDs 703

and

705. I n t s . Ex. a t 4.

[H]ad

[Delegate

McQuinn] not l i ved [ in Richmond],

I

could have ac tua l l y

had

a l l

of

th e

71s t

Di s t r i c t

in

th e

c i t y

o f

Richmond

because

I

cou ld

have

taken these couple of prec inc t s and t he re wouldn ' t have

been any

going in to the R adcliffe precinct in Henrico County for

71 .

T r i a l T r. 311 :3 -17

( J on e s ) .

1 3 3




P l a i n t i f f s

a l so no ted

th e

s p l i t o f

VT

505 , which was

p rev i ou s l y whol ly wi th in

H

71 . Id . a t

42:20-43:4

M cClel lan)

That

was

s p l i t

so

t h a t I go t th e V po t ion which i s very

d ense ly p op ula ted , and

[D elega te Carr]

go t th e Oregon Hi l l

ne ighbo rhood . ) .

Although a VT s p l i t

con s t i t u t e s

a dev i a t i on

from

neu t r a l

p r i n c i p l e s ,

th e d e c is ion to

sp t 505

advanced

o t h e r

neu t r a l

p r i n c i p l e s , such

a s

compac tness . P l a i n t i f f s

have

no t dem ons tra ted t h a t t h i s s p l i t s ubo rd ina t ed such neu t r a l

p r i n c i p l e s .

Delega te

McCle l l an

a l so

spoke ex t en s i v e l y abou t th e removal

of p rec inc t 207

from

her d i s t r i c t ,

which

s p l i t th e

Fan

neighborhood. Id . a t 39:14-20 207

and

208 a re a m ajo ri ty o f

th e

Fan ne ighborhood

where

I l i v e ,

and

207

was

t ak en

o u t [ .] ) .

Prec inc t 207

had

h igh ly

democrat ic vo t e r

t u rnou t ,

and Delegate

McClel lan

had

q u i t e a base

t h e r e [ . ] Id .

a t 39 :21 -24 .

But

t h i s

sp t does no t appea r

to

s u b s t a n t i a l l y

d i s r ega rd

neu t r a l

p r i n c i p l e s on

ts

f a c e .

l o c a l

r e s i d e n t

might wonder

why

th e

Fan s t r add led two House d i s t r i c t s , bu t

any

observer o f

the map would see t ha t

prec inc t 207

was removed

and rep laced

with prec inc t

204,

making the d i s t r i c t more

compact.

Nor does t ha t swap

appear

obviously r a c i a l . s Delegate

McClel lan t e s t i f i e d ,

prec inc t

204 i s demographical ly s imi la r to

207 r a c i a l l y . Id . a t 42:17-20. Delegate McClellan t e s t i f i e d

t h a t

she c o u l d n t keep any po r t i on o f 207 because t would

1 34




push th e

[BVAP]

below

55

pe r c en t , id . a t 40 :1 -9 , bu t if th e

55 BVAP

goa l cou ld be ach iev ed w ith ou t s ubo rd i n a t i n g neu t r a l

p r i n c i p l e s on

th e

whole , it does no t

ma t t e r what Delega te

McCle l l an s pe r s on a l

p r e f e r enc e s

were .

And

he re ,

h e r

p erso na l p re fe ren ce s

appeared

in con f l i c t

with

those of

ano the r

l e g i s l a t o r :

Dele ga te L o up as si.

According

t o D elega te Jones , D elega te Loupass i used t o be on th e

Richmond

City Counci l

and h is former ward

abu t t ed prec i nc t

207 where he

had

s t rong

suppor t ,

so

he

wanted

t h a t

p re c in c t in h is

d i s t r i c t . Id .

a t 305:15-307:12 Jones) . Delegate McClellan

argued t h a t adding prec i nc t 207 to

Delegate

Loupass i s d i s t r i c t

d i dn t

help

him because he i s a Republican, id . a t 42:2-11

M cCle l lan),

bu t

Delegate Jones t e s t i f i e d t h a t D e le ga te L ou pa ss i

has a broad

base o f

suppor t from th e

democra t ic s ide of th e

a i s l e

and had a

persona l

community

o f

i n t e r e s t r a t he r than

pa r t i s a n

connec t i on to th e a r e a , id .

a t

485:7-14 ( Jones ) .

There i s

a

d i f f e r ence between pruning

th e

edges o f th e

po l i t i c a l

th icke t and

s t r i d ing headlong in to

it

By ver i fying a

d i s t r i c t s ove ra l l

compl iance

with neu t r a l c r i t e r i a t h a t do not

d i s c r im in a t e

be tween

c i t i z e n s

based

on

th ir

r ace

o r o th e r

i nd i v i dua l i z ed ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,

th e

Cour t

fulfills

its

cons t i tu t iona l duty to

ascer ta in

whether s t a t e l eg i s la t ion

v io la t e s

the

Equal Protec t ion

Clause . The

Court should not ,

however,

become

embroi led in a c r ed ib i l i t y

dispute

between two

1 3 5




l e g i s l a t o r s , e s p e c i a l l y

when

r e s o l v i ng t h a t

f a c t u a l i s sue

i s

unn ec e s s a r y to

f i nd

t h a t

n e u t r a l

criteria p r edomina t ed i n th e

drawing

o f

th e district bounda r i e s . HD

71 doe s

no t

s ub s t an t i a l l y

d i s r ega rd

t r a d i t i o n a l , neu t r a l d i s t r i c t i ng

p r i n c i p l e s , and

t h a t

is s u f f i c i e n t fo r th e

Cour t

to f ind

t h a t

t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s were no t subo rd ina t ed to r a c e .

The

ex i s t ence

of

a

BVAP

f loor

does not d is tu rb th at

fact . ' '

Therefore , the

Cou r t ho ld s ,

a s a

m at te r o f f a c t , t h a t ra c e d id

no t

predomina te

in

th e

drawing

o f

HD

71.

6 . District 7 4

HD 74

i s

found

in

th e

Richmond a r e a and was r ep r e s en t ed by

Delegate

Joseph

Morr i s sey

during the 2011 r ed i s t r i c t i ng

process .

Under

th e

Benchmark

P l an , th e district

con t a i n ed all o f Cha r l e s

Ci ty and

pa r t s o f

Henr ico , Hopewell

Ci t y ,

and Richmond Ci ty

(as

wel l

as pa r t o f Pr ince

George

con ta in ing no popu la t ion) . P i s .

Ex.

50 at

69, Tab l e 1 . Under th e Enac t ed P l an , th e district now

con ta ins a l l o f Charles C ity

and

pa r t s o f Henrico

and

Richmond

Ci ty . Id .

This

decreased th e number o f

county

and c i t y

sp l i t s

The Plaintiffs also

observe

that a request from the

Richmond

Regis t ra r

was

denied

in

HB

5001, and

it

i s

al leged

tha t

t h i s

change was r e j e c t ed because th e

BVAP

in HD 71 would

have

dropped

to

54.8 . P i s . Ex. 30. This provides s t rong evidence

t h a t a

firm

55 BVAP

ru le

was

employed,

as t h i s

Court has

a l ready he ld . See an te

a t 23

n .7 .

But

t ha t

f inding

does

no t

imply

t h a t race predominated over neu t r a l c r i t e r i a in

the

drawing of HB 5005, espec ia l ly because t ha t

par t i cu l a r

d ev i a t i on appea r s

to

have been add re s sed in

HB

5005

itself.

S e e Ints. E x .

7

at

2 3.

1 3 6




from to 2 with

th e

number o f s p l i t VTDs remaining th e same.

P i s . Ex.

50

a t 69 -70 ,

Tab l e s

1 ,

2 . HD

74

has a

co r e r e t e n t i o n

pe rcen t age

o f

80 .08 , I n t s . Ex. 14 a t 83 and i s con t iguous

by

land

On

its face ,

th e ax shaped d i s t r i c t arouses

some

suspic ion .

The b l ade

o f

th e ax encom passes all

o f

Char l e s

Ci ty ,

bu t

th e

e a s t e r n

h a nd l e

is cu r i o u s .

The

district had Reock and Po l sby -

Poppe r s c o re s o f

.1 6 and

.10 unde r th e Benchmark

P l an ,

which

r em a i n e d

a l m o s t

identical

w i t h

scores of 16

a n d .1 2

u n d e r

t h e

Enac t ed

P l a n .

Ints Ex.

15 at 15 , Tab l e 9 .

Th e

district s

Schwar t zbe rg

s co r e is

2 . 839 , P i s .

Ex. 51

a t 11 , Table 1.

These low

s co r e s r e f l e c t th e district s

s ub s t a n t i a l l y e l onga t ed

s h ape .

Desp i t e its e longa t i on , however th e district i s no t as

unreasonab le as

it first

appea r s .

The

nor th edge o f th e hand le

t r acks th e Henr ico county l i n e , while

th e lower

edge i s a lmost

en t i r e l y

r e t a ined

with in Henrico

County. In f a c t . Delegate

Jones re vis io n pe rm it t in g th e upper edge to t r ack Henr ico

coun ty l i n e s p u t some more

good Republ ican

p r e c i n c t s

in

t h e r e

t h a t th e gentleman

in

th e 97th d id no t

want to

l o s e [ . ] Tr i a l

Tr.

317:13 17 (Jones) . The

d i s t r i c t

has

a l so improved

on

neut ra l

metr ics over the l a s t three d i s t r i c t i ng cyc les . See

I n t s . Ex. 14 a t

60.

In pa r t i cu l a r , th e 2011 p lan removed the

1 3 7




water

c ro ss in g d is cu ss ed in

Wilkins v.

West.

See

64 Va. a t

4 6 5 - 6 6 ; Trial T r . 3 1 6 : 1 5 - 2 5 J o n e s ) .

The In t e rvenors a l so noted t h a t th e BVAP percentage in th e

d i s t r i c t

had been lowered

s ub s t a n t i a l l y

from th e

Benchmark

Plan .

See

Trial

T r .

3 1 3 : 3 - 3 1 5 : 6 ;

Pis

Ex.

50 at 7 2 .

Bu t

t h e fact

t h a t th e BVAP pe rcen t age dropped does no t ,

taken a lone , i nd i ca t e

t h a t race was no t th e

predominate

c r i t e r i on i n f luenc ing

the

district s

cons t r uc t i on . As th e P l a i n t i f f s

obse rve ,

much o f th e

black populat ion

ceded

from

HD

74

went

to

other

Challenged

Distr ic ts ,

such as HD

63

and 71.

See

Pis .

Post Tria l

Reply

a t

17.

Unlike in a r ac i a l

vote

d i lu t ion cla im a r ac i a l

predominance inqui ry does not necessar i ly concern i t s e l f with

whether the V P went up or down A dist r ic t formed primarily

to e jec t

black

voters would employ the same racial

classif icat ion as

a

dis t r i c t formed prim arily to include black

voters

In the end

however

the primary object ion to this dis t r i c t

amounts to

a

cr i t ic ism

that

the

dis t r i c t

is too long.

But

predominance

i s

not

merely

a beauty

contest centered

on

Reock

style compactness. Although

this

dis tr ic t

certainly

does not

earn high marks in a qualitative predominance analysis the

Plain t i f f s have

fa i led

to demonstrate

that

neutral

cr i te r ia

were

subs tant ia l ly

disregarded in

the formation of

74. The

dis t r i c t contains a l l of Charles

City and

for most of

i t s

1 3 8




l e ng t h ,

has r e ad i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e bounda r i e s . Moreover th e

s h i f t i ng

o f

b lack

popu la t ion

i n t o

63

and 71

l a r ge l y

improved

HD

74 s

compl i ance wi th

neu t r a l

c r i t e r i a , such

as

con t i gu i t y and compac tnes s .

Moreover th e

district

has

r e t a i n ed

rough ly th e same

long

shape

s i n ce

1991 . T r i a l T r .

315 : 19 -318 : 25 ( J one s ) .

Core

retention a l o n e c a n n o t

b e

u s e d to s a v e

an otherwise offensive

d i s t r i c t ,

bu t

it i s

worth

holding in th e balance

if th e

f ami l i a r i t y

of

th e

boundar ies has

a l low[ed fo r

the] development

o f r e l a t i on sh ip s and communi t ies

o f

i n t e r e s t r e l a t i v e to

e l e c t i o n o f de l e g a t e s . Wilk ins ,

264

Va. a t 466 476 .

On t h e

who l e , th e

Cou r t

f i n d s

that

th e

Plaintiffs

have

fa i led to meet the

predominance i nqu i ry s

demanding

burden to

show t h a t

racial co n s i d e r a t i o n s

s ubo rd i n a t e d

bo th n e u t r a l

c r i t e r i a and othe r r ace-neu t ra l explanat ions in the formation of

74.

Therefore , th e Cour t holds , as

a

m atte r o f fac t ,

t h a t

race

did

not p redominate

in

the

drawing of

74.

District 77

77 i s found

in

the

Portsmouth area

and was

represented

by Delegate

Lionel Sprui l l

during the 2

redis tr ict ing

process . Under both th e Benchmark Plan and th e Enacted Plan

the

d i s t r i c t

contains par ts

of

Chesapeake and

Suffolk.

Pi s .

Ex. 5 a t 69 Table

1.

The number of

county and

ci ty

sp l i t s

remained the same

and

the

number of s p l i t

VTDs decreased from 4

1 3 9




t o 3 . P i s . Ex. 50

a t 6 9 - 7 0 ,

T a b l e s 1 , 2 . HD

77 h a s

a c o r e

r e t e n t i o n p er c en ta ge o f 7 4 . 4 . I n t s . Ex. 14 a t

83.

At first g l a n c e ,

t h i s j a g g e d and

e l o n g a t e d

d i s t r i c t

i s

s u s p e c t .

However upon c l o s e r i n s p e c t i o n , t h e t o p - r i g h t c o r n e r

o f

t h e

district hews t o

s t r a n g e c o u n t y

l i n e s , w h i l e many

c u r i o u s

features o n

the

l o w e r

side of the district

track natural w a t e r

b o u n d a r i e s and p r e c i n c t s

t h a t

a r e t h e m s e l v e s

r a t h e r

j a g g e d and

e l o n g a t e d . The d i s t r i c t had Reock and

Polsby Popper

s c o r e s

o f

.1 8 a n d . 1 7

u n d e r

t h e

Benchmark

P l a n ,

w h i c h

s h i f t e d

t o

s c o r e s o f

.1 9 and . 1 5

u n d e r

t h e

E n a c t e d

P l a n . Ints Ex.

15

a t

15 T a b l e

9. The

d i s t r i c t s Schwartzberg s c o r e

i s 2 . 5 4 2 .

P i s . Ex.

51 a t

11 Table 1.

With

re spect to n e u t r a l c r i t e r i a , it

appears

t h a t

compliance

therewith could

s t i l l r e s u l t

i n an

i n h e r e n t l y

oddly

shaped

d i s t r i c t ,

but the record

lacks

guidance i n

t h i s regard.

The record i s similar ly unclear and incomplete respecting

deviations

from t r a d i t i o n a l c r i t e r i a . The

d i s t r i c t s

large

western chunk

i s admit tedly

a t t r i b u t a b l e t o a s i n g l e

p r e c i n c t ,

but

t h a t

does not

answer

why

t h a t whole h a l f of the d i s t r i c t

i s

t h r u s t so f a r i n t o

76 as

to nearly

sever

it in h a l f . I n t s .

Ex.

9

a t 152.

As Delegate Jones observed

t h e

76th and 77th

d i s t r i c t s

share the

most

geographical boundary area on the map

T r i a l

T r .

3 3 4 : 2 - 4

J o n e s ) .

Based

on the a l t e r n a t i v e d i s t r i c t i n g

plans referenced

by

the

P l a i n t i f f s , see e . g . , P i s . Ex 23 a t

40

it

appears

that

1 4 0




it

was po s s i b l e to c r e a t e th e same

number

o f

per forming

d i s t r i c t s

in t h i s

reg ion w ithou t

r e s o r t in g to t h i s westward

l e ap . So was t h i s dev i a t i o n nece ssa ry

t o

reach th e

55 BVAP

f l oo r ( in which case , race might predominate) , see I n t s .

Ex. 9

a t 15,

o r was

t h i s dev i a t i on mot iva ted by a d e s i r e to

remove

Democrat per forming p r e c i n c t s

from

Delega t e Jones

d i s t r i c t ( in

which

ca se

po l i t i c s migh t

p re dom in ate ), s ee Ints Ex. 92 a t 14?

O r,

is this o ve r a ll s t r u c t u re

attributable t o

th e

k n o ck - on

e f fec t s of avoiding

pa i r ing

incumbents

in t h i s

region? I f so,

incumbency cons idera t ions might predominate , po l i t i c a l

per formance

migh t

predomina te , o r r a c i a l cons ide ra t i ons might

predominate . These

a re a l l ques t ions t h a t P l a i n t i f f s bore th e

burden o f answer ing .

The

Cour t

i s

not

in a

pos i t i on

to guess

based

on th e

skimpy

e vid en ce s ubm itte d.

But , th e reco rd does show t h a t

th e district s

a l r eady -

s t range 2001 des ign was

somewhat

amel io ra ted in H 5005 by

moving th e A irpo rt Dis t r i c t p rec inc t from

H

77 to

H

7

6, id .

a t

336:7-12

(Jones) , and r eun i t i ng

th e o ld c i t y

of South

Norfolk a t Delegate Sp r u i l l s reques t , id . a t 334:8-10 (Jones) ,

which

al lowed segments of the new d i s t r i c t

to more

close ly

t rack

coun ty bounda r i e s

and

w a te r b ou nd ar ie s.

Pis Ex. a t 7 .

These

changes also served

po l i t i c a l

ends. The Airpor t Dis t r i c t i s

primari ly

Republican, so t h i s

t r ans fe r helped

Delegate Jones,

Tr ia l

Tr. 336:7-12

Jones) , whereas the o ld c i ty of South

1 4 1




Norfolk s urro un ds Dele gate

S p r u i l l s

r e s i d e n c e which

was

seen

as p o l i t i c a l l y advantageous f o r

him as

w e l l

i d .

a t 336:1-4.

Although t h e neighborhoods

added around

Delegate S p r u i l l a l s o

c o n t a i n e d

m e a n i n g f u l

b la ck p o p u l a ti o n s

Tanglewood,

O a k l e t t e

N or fo lk H ig h la n d s I n d i a n R i v e r

and

Johnson

Park

were

a l l

m a j o r i t y - w h i t e p r e c i n c t s . I n t s . Ex. 92

a t

1 5 .

The

C o u r t a l s o

o b s e r v e s

t h a t t h e

district is

n ot c o n t i g uo u s

by l a n d a n d d o e s n o t

a p p e a r

t o p o s s e s s

a

w a t e r c r o s s i n g w i t h i n

its

b o u n d s

s e e

P i s .

Ex.

66

a t

7;

Ints

Ex.

9

a t

9,

b u t

Plaintiffs

h a v e

offered n o

substantive

e v i d e n c e

o n w h e t h e r this

d e v i a t i o n r e l a t e s i n any way t o t h e a t t a i n m e n t o f t h e district s

BVAP

l e v e l which i s

58.8

i n t h e E x e c u t e d P l a n

s e e

P i s .

Ex.

5 0

at

7 2 .

Based

on t h e t e s t i m o n y

e v i d e n c e and

arguments ,

t h e Cour t

cannot a s c e r t a i n from t h e r e c o r d whether r a c e p o l i t i c s o r

other c r i t e r i a predominated in

the

formation

of HD 77. Frankly,

i f

the presumption of

correctness

and

good

fai th

has any

meaning,

it

i s a p p l i c a b l e

i n t h i s

i n s t a n c e .

The P l a i n t i f f s

s imply

p o i n t

t o

t h e t h r e s h o l d s

a t t a i n m e n t

o f t h e 55 V P

f loor , evidence of r a c i a l c o r r e l a t i o n

and

a low compactness

s c o r e t o

prove

t h a t r a c e predominated .

There i s

no

e v i d e n c e -

based

e x p l a n a t i o n

t o show how,

if a t

a l l

t h e r a c i a l

f l o o r

impacted the

boundaries

of HD 77 or why voters were placed there

1 4 2




in the r ed i s t r i c t i ng process .

The

P l a i n t i f f s cannot hand the

Cou r t a s t one

and

expe c t back a

s c u l p t u r e .

It

i s

a t l e a s t

as

l ik e ly th a t po l i t i c s

and

t r ad i t i ona l


f a c t o r s accoun t fo r

th e

con f i gu r a t i on

and

compos i t ion o f

HD

77 as it

is t h a t r a c e was

r e s pon s i b l e .

Because th e P la i n t i f f s have

f a i l ed

to p rov ide ev idence as to

th e

ways i n which r a c i a l cons ide r a t i on s might have had

a

d i r e c t and

s i gn i f i c a n t

impac t on

th e D i s t r ic t s fo rmat ion , th e Cour t f i nd s

t h a t th e P l a i n t i f f s have f a i l e d to meet

th e

burden o f proof

requi red

to show t h a t race

predominated

in

th e c on stru ctio n

o f

HD 7 7 .

8 District 8 0

80 i s found

in

th e Portsmouth area and was r ep re sen ted

by Delegate

Matthew

James during the 2011 r ed i s t r i c t i ng process .

Under

the

Benchmark

Plan

th e d i s t r i c t conta ined pa r t s

o f

Chesapeake

Norfo lk and Por tsmouth. P i s . Ex.

50

a t 69 Table

1.

Under

the Enacted

Plan

the d i s t r i c t

now

conta ins

par t s of

Chesapeake

Norfo lk , Por t smouth , and

Su f fo l k . Id . Thi s

increased

the number of

county and

ci ty

sp l i t s

from

3 to 4

but

decreased

th e number

o f

s p l i t VTDs from

to 1 .

P i s .

Ex. 50

a t

69 70

Tables 1 2. 8 has a core re ten t ion percentage

of

5 9 . 9 4 .

Ints

Ex .

14 at

83 .

At

t r i a l , In tervenors s t a t ed ,

I

th ink

it s

f a i r

to say

honest ly t ha t

t h i s

d i s t r i c t

looks

a

little i r r egu l a r . Tr ia l

1 4 3




T r .

349 : 3 -5

( I n t e r v eno r s ) But

a little i r r e gu l a r

is a

little bit

o f

an

unde r s t a t emen t . The d i s t r i c t

i s qu i t e

unus ua ll y c on fi gu re d . The d i s t r i c t had Reock

and

Polsby-Popper

s c o r e s o f

.3 9 an d

.2 6

unde r t h e Benchmark P lan , which

exper ienced

a

s ub s t a n t i a l

drop

to sco re s

o f

.26 and .11 under

th e

Enac ted Plan .

Ints

Ex. 15

a t

15 , Tab l e

9 .

The

district s

Schwar tzberg sco re i s 3.054

th e h igh e s t o f a l l th e Chal lenged

D i s t r i c t s .

Pis

Ex. 51 a t 11 , Tab le 1 .

B e c a u s e the district

mak e s

l ttl rational sense as

a

geog raph i ca l un i t , th e

Cour t wi l l

move d i r e c t l y

to a sc er ta in in g

th e

predominant purpose o f th e dev ia t ions . To beg in ,

it

i s

hard

t o i d en t i f y what i s

now

a d ev i a t i o n because

it

i s hard to

i d en t i f y

what is now t h e co r e o f th e district The district is

s p l i t

by water tw ice

without

any apparen t cross ing

enabl ing

r e s id e n ts to

s t ay

wi th in th e district on e i t h e r occas i on . See

Pis

Ex.

66

at 8 ; Ints Ex. 94 at 10 .

The P l a i n t i f f s co r r e c t l y no te t h a t

HD

80 s w estern b orde r

winds i t s way around

low

V P prec inc t s l i ke

Silverwood

(14.9 ),

Churchland (8.3 ), and Fellowship

(14.2 )

to capture

high V P prec inc t s such as Yeates (56.3 )

and

Taylor Road

(48.8 ).

Pi s . Post-Tria l

Brief

a t

19.

Considering the

district s a t t a inmen t

o f th e

BVAP

f loo r ,

t h i s

i s th e kind o f

de t a i l ed exp lana t ion t ha t might

lead the

Cour t to f ind

t h a t

r a c i a l cons ide r a t i on s subo rd ina t ed all o t h e r s . In t h i s

case ,

1 4 4




however , th e P l a i n t i f f s r a c i a l exp l ana t i on

must

con tend wi th

o t h e r dominant and con t r o l l i n g cons ide r a t i on s : incumbency

p ro t ec t i on

as

wel l

as g eo gra ph ic f e a t u r e s

and

a nava l base .

In

a d d i t io n to

th e con s t r a i n t s imposed by

th e

James

River ,

th e

A t l a n t i c Ocean , and th e Nor fo l k n av a l b a s e ,

th e district

needed to

r e t a in

th e re s iden ce

o f

Delega te James while a vo id in g

th e

r e s idences

o f Delegate

Johnny

Joannou HD

79

and

t hen -

Del ega t e Kenne th Alexande r

HD

89 ) .

Ints

Po s t - T r i a l

Br i e f

a t

34.

The

genera l

and

r e l a t i ve ly

s imple

problem

was

a

l oss

o f

popu l a t i o n

i n

th e

a r e a and th e need to

move district

bound a r i e s f r om

t h e o ce an fro nt back

. . . we s t e r n

t o Su f f o l k

to

c ap tu re p op u la tio n .

T r i a l T r . 349 :6 -11 ( J one s ) .

Th i s

problem became fa r

more complex, however, because D elegates

Alexander, Joannou, and Jones

a l l

l ive in relat ively close

proximity . I n t s . Ex.

94

a t 10.

To

avoid

pa i r ing

incumbents,

T r i a l

T r. 350:23-24 (Jone s ) , th e wes tward s h i f t

o f th e

d i s t r i c t s

had to

wrap around the

residences

of

the incumbents, resul t ing

in the dis tor t ion found here.

Thus,

the map

needed

to r o l l the

populat ion around

to

make sure Delegate Joannou

had

a

s u f f i c i e n t number

o f r e s id e n ts in h is

d i s t r i c t

and narrow th e

neck

of

the d i s t r i c t before leap ing

fu r ther

out

westward to

avoid

Delegate Joannou

while

captur ing Delegate James. Id . a t

3 5 0 : 1 0 - 2 0 .

1 4 5




That exp lana t ion

add re s se s why neu t r a l c r i t e r i a

were

subo rd ina t ed ,

bu t

it does no t

p rov ide

th e bas i s

upon

which

vo t e r s

were

so r t e d i n t o th e cor respond ing districts.

Incumbent

pa i r i ng

p reven t i on

may have

r e su l t ed in popu l a t i on r o l l s , bu t

an equa l

p op ula tio n g oa l

itself

is

no t

p a r t o f th e predominance

b a l a n c e . A labama , 135 S . C t . at 1271 [ P r edominance a sk s ]

whether

th e

l e g i s l a t u r e p l aced r ace above t r a d i t i o n a l

d i s t r i c t i ng cons i de r a t i on s

in determining which

persons were

p l a c ed

in a p p ro p r i a te ly

appo r t i o n ed

districts.

i n t e r n a l

quo t a t i o n marks om i t t e d ) .

Incumbency p ro t e c t i on ,

on th e o the r hand, does provide an

exp lana t ion fo r th e amalgamation o f

p re cin c ts s ele cte d

fo r

HD

80. As th e In te rvenor s exp l a ined :

Although

HD80

cou ld have been drawn

to t ake

t e r r i t o ry from

HD

6 -

represen ted

by

Delegate Jones - th e

p re c in cts th e re were

Republ ican

s t rongho ld s , and ne i t h e r

Jones

no r

HDBO s

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , Democrat

Matthew

James,

wanted

t h a t

t r ade .

Drawing

HD80 i n to

th e former

t e r r i t o r y

of HD79 gave those

Democra t ic - lean ing

p rec i nc t s to

James, and

no t

Jones . Th i s

a r rangement

made

HD80

l e s s

compact t h an it would have been had it t aken

t e r r i t o ry from Jones, but

it

was po l i t i c a l l y

pre fe rab le .

HD80 was

a lso drawn to

pro t ec t

o the r

incumbents ,

Johnny Joannou

HD79

and

Kenneth Alexande r {HD89),

who r e s i d ed nea r

the borders

they

shared

with

HD80,

making

it

imposs ib le fo r HD O

to

t ake t e r r i t o r y to th e

nor th and nor theas t without pai r ing

i n c umb e n t s .

1 4 6




Ints

P re -T ria l B r i e f

at

16 -17 . Based

on this r e co r d , it

appears j u s t as l ik e ly th a t prec inc t s

were se lec ted

fo r

being

high ly Democratic and avoided fo r being high ly

Republican

see

I n t s . Ex. 9

a t

16

as

it i s t h a t p rec inc t s were se lec ted

fo r

being high ly Afr ican-Amer ican and avo ided fo r being high ly

Caucas ian , see i d . a t 17. And j u s t because th e most l oya l

D em ocrats happen

to

be

b lack Democra ts does no t mean t h a t

a

po l i t i c a l ger rymander is th ereb y transfo rm ed

i n to

a r a c i a l

ger rymander . Cromar t i e I ,

526 U.S. a t 551 .

On t h e whole , th e Cou r t f i nd s that t h e Plaintiffs have no t

c a r r i e d

th e burden

o f demons t ra t ing t h a t r a c i a l

cons ide r a t i on s

subo rd ina t ed

neu t r a l


and

o t h e r

non - r a c i a l

d i s t r i c t i ng c r i t e r i a , inc lud ing

incumbent pa i r i ng

prevent ion

and

incumbency p ro t ec t i on .

Although th e ex i s t ence of th e V P f l oo r

i t s e l f

weighs in f avo r o f a r a c i a l predominance f ind ing , th e

Court f inds , as a mat te r

o f fac t ,

t ha t qua l i t a t i v e l y the

dominant and c on t r o l l i n g

f a c t o r d i c t a t i n g th e

cons t r uc t i on

o f

HD 80

was incumbency

p ro t e c t i on ,

and

t h a t ra ce d id

no t

predominate in th e drawing o f HD 80.

9 .

District 8 9

HD 89 i s found

in

the

Norfolk

area and was represented by

then-Delegate Kenneth

Alexander dur ing

the 2011 r ed i s t r i c t i ng

p roces s . Under bo th

th e

Benchmark Plan and th e Enacted P lan ,

th e

d i s t r i c t

i s con ta ined wholly with in Norfolk . P i s .

Ex. 50

1 4 7




a t 69,

Table 1.

There

were

no

coun ty

o r

c i t y s p l i t s and

th e

number

o f

s p l i t VTDs

remained

th e same

under bo th

p l an s .

P i s .

Ex.

50 at

69-70 ,

Tab l e s

1 , 2 .

HD 89 h as a

co r e

r e t e n t i o n

pe r cen t age o f 76 . 86 . Ints

Ex.

14

a t

84 .

On its face , the

d i s t r i c t appears reasonably compact and

gene r a l l y fo l lows p r e c i n c t l i n e s wi th in Norfo lk . The d i s t r i c t

had Reock and Polsby-Popper scores

o f

.58

and

.31 under th e

Benchmark Plan,

which

dropped

to scores

o f

.40 and .20 under th e

Enac ted Plan . Ints

Ex. 15 a t 15 , Tab l e

9.

The

district s

Schwar tzbe rg

s co re i s

2 .263 . P i s . Ex. 51 a t 11 , Table 1 .

Although th e d is t r i c t i s

no t con t iguous

by

l and ,

it

does

conta in

water

c ross ings

w ith in the d i s t r i c t .

See

P i s . Ex. 66

a t 9;

I n t s . Ex.

94 a t

11.

One

of these

cross ings

i s

largely

to

blame

fo r the

d i s t r i c t s r e l a t i ve drop

in

compactness.

Tr i a l

T r. 1 44 :9 -14 5:1 (Ansolabe here). The added

prec inc t Berkley

conta ins

a

high

V P percentage , see

In t s .

Ex. 9 a t 19, but

i s

also

re la t ive ly c lose to Delegate A lex an de r s re sid en ce , see

Ints Ex . 94 at 1 1 .

In addi t ion, the d i s t r i c t added a small p ipe to i t s

northernmost border,

which

includes a

funeral

home owned by

Delega te A lexander. Tr ia l Tr.

345:1-5. As

Delegate

Jones

expla ined,

Virg in ia s t a t e l eg i s l a to r s a re

par t - t ime c i t i z en

l eg i s l a to r s , many of whom

regular ly

i n t e rac t with

t he i r

c on st i tu en ts in

t h e i r profess iona l

capac i t i e s . Id . a t

346:2-18.

14 8




As s u c h h a v i n g a b u s i n e s s

w i t h i n t h e d i s t r i c t e n a b l e s

i n c u m b e n t s t o

more r e a d i l y engage

w i t h

t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s .

Weighing

all e v i d e n c e

it

a p p e a r s t h a t a c o u p l e o f s m a l l

d e v ia ti o n s p o ss ib ly

c o u l d

be a t t r i b u t a b l e e i t h e r

t o

r a c i a l o r t o

incumbency c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

b u t

t h e

district s

c o m p o s i t i o n i s

p r e d o m i n a n t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e

t o


n e u t r a l

p r i n c i p l e s .

T h e r e f o r e

t h e C o u r t

h o l d s

t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t c a r r y

t h e

burden o f p r o v i n g t h a t r a c e

predominated

i n

t h e drawing

o f

89

10 District

9 0

90 i s found i n t h e Norfolk a r e a and was r e p r e s e n t e d

by

Delegate A l g i e Howell J r . d u r i n g t h e 2011 r e d i s t r i c t i n g

p r o c e s s . Under

t h e

Benchmark

P l a n

t h e

district

c o n t a i n e d p a r t s

o f Chesapeake N o r f o l k and

V i r g i n i a Beach. P i s .

Ex.

50

a t 69

T a b l e 1 .

Under t h e

E n a c t e d P l a n t h e district

now c o n t a i n s

p a r t s o f N o r f o l k and V i r g i n i a Beach.

I d .

T h i s d e c r e a s e d t h e

number o f

county

and

c i t y s p l i t s

from 3 t o

and

t h e

number o f

s p l i t VTDs remained t h e same. P i s .

Ex. 50

a t 69 70 Tables 1

2.

9 has a core r e t e n t i o n percentage of 63.21. I n t s .

Ex.

1 4

at

8 4 .

On i t s

face the d i s t r i c t

appears

to

represent a reasonably

compact

geographic

u n i t . The d i s t r i c t

had

Reock and Polsby

Popper

s c o r e s o f .35

and .24

under t h e

Benchmark

P l a n which

s h i f t e d t o

s c o r e s o f

. 4 6 a n d . 2 0 u n d e r

t h e E n a c t e d P l a n . Ints

1 4 9




Ex. 15 a t

15 Table 9.

The district s

Schwar tzbe rg s co re i s

2 . 2 2 1 .

Pis Ex. 51 at 11 ,

T ab le 1 .

Apa r t

from

th e

district s two

ex t en s i on s i n t o Vi r g i n i a

Beach

and l a ck o f

l and c on t i g u i t y , HD

90

seems

to la rg e ly

comply

with

t r a d i t i ona l , neu t r a l


convent ions .

See

P i s .

Ex.

66

at

10 ;

Ints

Ex.

94

at

12 .

Even

t h e s e d e v i a t i o n s ,

however

must

be

viewed

in con t ex t .

Spec i f i c a l l y ,

th e 2011

r ed i s t r i c t i ng p lan improved th e d i s t r i c t s compliance with th e

p o l i ti c a l

subd iv i s ions

c r i t e r i on by

removing

a

segment from

Chesapeake.

And

th e southern appendage

t h a t

reaches in to

Virg in i a Beach

t r a ck s

th e county l i ne

on

its wes te rn border .

Id .

Moreover one

o f

the d i s t r i c t s jumps

across water

connects

par t s

of

Norfolk. Id . As

such t h i s

l and-cont igu i ty f a i lu re

s imul taneously serves to uni t e a po l i t i c a l

subdiv is ion

and

communi ty o f i n t e r e s t .

On

th e

record

submit ted neut ra l c r i t e r i a appear to

predominate . Even if

the

southern appendage reaching

in to

Virg in ia Beach were enough fo r th e

d i s t r i c t

as a whole to

exhib i t a subs tan t ia l

disregard for

n eutra l p rin cip les , it

hardly

appears

t h a t t h i s

offending

piece o f

land

could

be viewed

as

rac ia l ly

dr iven.

In

fa c t , th a t segment

of V irg in ia

Beach

conta ins

some

of

the lowest V P percentages in the en t i re

d i s t r i c t .

See

I n t s . Ex.

a t

21. Therefore ,

th e

Cour t holds

tha t

the

Pla in t i f f s

did not

carry

the

burden to prove

tha t

race

1 5 0




p r e d o m i n a t e d

i n

t h e d r a w i n g o f HD 90, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t it

satisfies

the 55 BVAP floor

11 istr i t 9 2

HD 92

is

f o u n d

i n t h e

Hampton a r e a a n d was r e p r e s e n t e d by

D e l e g a t e J e i o n Ward d u r i n g t h e 2011 r e d i s t r i c t i n g p r o c e s s .

U n d e r

b o t h t h e Benchmark P l a n

a n d t h e

E n a c t e d

P l a n

t h e district

i s c o n t a i n e d

w h o l l y

w i t h i n Hampton.

P i s .

Ex.

50

a t 69,

T a b l e

1.

The d i s t r i c t c o n t a i n s no county

o r

c i t y s p l i t s and


l o w e r e d

t h e

number

o f

split

VTDs

i n

t h e

d i s t r i c t

from t o

0 .

P i s .

Ex. 50

a t

69-70,

T a b l e s 1

2 .

92 h a s a

c o r e

r e t e n t i o n p e r c e n t a g e

o f

7 7 . 2 7 . Ints Ex.

14

a t

84.

On t h e

whole, t h e

Court f i n d s it

h a r d

t o imagine a

b e t t e r

example o f

a d i s t r i c t

t h a t complies with t r a d i t i o n a l

n e u t r a l


p r i n c i p l e s . The d i s t r i c t

had

Reock and Polsby-

Popper s c o r e s

o f

.28

and .1 5

u n d e r t h e

Benchmark

P l a n

which

i n c r e a s e d

t o

s c o r e s o f . 3 4 a n d

. 2 6 u n d e r t h e E n a c t e d P l a n

I n t s .

Ex.

15 a t

15,

Table 9. The d i s t r i c t s

Schwartzberg

score

is 1 . 9 7 0 .

Pis

Ex.

51

a t 1 1

T a b l e

1 .

s a r e s u l t

o f t h e 2011 r e d i s t r i c t i n g p r o c e s s t h e d i s t r i c t

became more

compact,

r e u n i f i e d

downtown Hampton, T r i a l

Tr.

356:13-20 Jones) ,

and

e l i m i n a t e d a l l

p r e c i n c t

s p l i t s .

Moreover,

most

o f t h e district s s o uth er n b or d e r

i s marked

by

t h e w a t e r f r o n t a n d much o f

t h e

district s

w e s t e r n

b o r d e r now

fol lows

t h e

Hampton

boundary, making it

e a s i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e t o

1 5 1




v o t e r s . S e e Pis Ex

66

a t

1 1 ; Ints Ex 94

a t 1 3 .

A l t h o u g h

t h e

d i s t r i c t

i s n o t c o n t i g u o u s by l a n d it c o n t a i n s w a t e r

c r o s s i n g s t o a l l o w

v o t e r s t o

t r a v e l be tween

p a r t s o f t h e

district w i t h o u t

t r a v e r s i n g o t h e r

districts

I d .

The

C o u r t

h o l d s a s

a

m a t t e r

o f

f a c t

t h a t


n e u t r a l criteria

n o t

r a c e


i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f HD 92

12 District 9 5

HD

95 i s

found i n

t h e

Hampton a r e a

and

was r e p r e s e n t e d by

Delegate Mamye

BaCote

d u r i n g t h e

2011 r e d i s t r i c t i n g

p r o c e s s .

Under

b o t h

t h e Benchmark P l a n

and

t h e E n a c t e d

P l a n

t h e

d i s t r i c t

c o n t a i n s p a r t s o f

Hampton and

Newport News P i s .

Ex

50

a t 69

T able 1 Although t h e number o f county

and c i t y s p l i t s remained

t h e same r e d i s t r i c t i n g i n cr e a se d t h e number o f s p l i t

VTDs

from

1 t o

6 .

Pis

Ex 50 at 6 9 - 7 0 T a b l e s

1

2 .

HD 95

h a s

a

c o r e

r e t e n t i o n p e r c e n t a g e o f 6 2 . 1 5 Ints Ex 14 a t 84 and is

c o n t i g u o u s by l a n d .

T he ir p r o x im ity n ot w it h st a n di n g 92 and

95 s h a r e

little i n common From

bottom

t o top th e d i s t r i c t

begins

by

encompassing t h e

f u l l

width o f Newport News b u t soon d e p a r t s

from any

o b s e r v a b l e

n e u t r a l

criteria

As

t h e

district

moves

northwest

a

s l i v e r a t t r i b u t a b l e t o th e River p r e c i n c t extends

i n t o 94

b e f o r e th e

d i s t r i c t

works

i t s way

e n t i r e l y over

i n t o

Hampton

C i t y .

There it

remains

f o r a p e r i o d

b e f o r e

e x t e n d i n g

b r i e f l y

back i n t o

Newport

News v i a th e South

Morrison p r e c i n c t .

1 5 2




Af t e r r e t r e a t i n g back i n t o Hampton

C ity th e

district t h en h i t s

wate r and York County ,

which

it weaves a round be fo re

runn ing

up

t h rough th e middle o f Newport News i n

a

nar row sp ike . See

P i s .

Ex.

66

a t

12;

Ints Ex.

9

a t

14.

If

t h e r e

i s any r easonab ly

neu t r a l

exp l ana t i on

fo r th e

rou t e

fo l lowed , t h i s Cour t

was

no t

informed.

The d i s t r i c t had

Reock

and

Polsby-Popper

scores

o f

.43

and

.28

under th e

Benchmark Plan ,

which dropped to scores o f

.14

and .14 under

th e

Enacted

Plan .

Ints

Ex. 15

a t 15, Table

9.

This rendered

95

the

l e a s t

compact

d i s t r i c t

on

the

map

under

th e

Reock met r i c .

See

I n t s . Ex. 14 a t

76-78 ,

Table 9.

The d i s t r i c t s Schwartzberg sco re

i s

2.657.

P i s . Ex.

51 a t

11,

Table 1

Rather

than at tempt ing

to exp la in

the d i s t r i c t through

neut ra l c r i t e r i a ,

the

Intervenors themselves acknowledge

tha t

th e c on stru ctio n of the d i s t r i c t was s ign i f i can t ly po l i t i c a l .

Tr ia l Tr. 359:6-8

Jones) .

According to Delegate Jones,

the

d i s t r i c t s

movement

north

follows heavily

Democratic

precincts

and

then

narrowly

jumps

through

two

Republican

precincts in

order

to capture

another

s t rongly Democratic

voting area

a t

i t s

northernmost t i p . Id^

a t 369:1-4;

In t s . Ex. 9 a t 24.

Moreover, the d i s t r i c t s

eastward

zig followed by i t s westward

zag

managed

to

avoid including the resid en ce o f Delegate Robin

Abbott in 95.

See

In t s . Ex. 9

a t

14. This avoided pair ing

female Democratic incumbents and, in conjunc t ion with the

1 5 3




pa r t i s a n maneuver ing above , p laced Delega te Abbot t in a more

heav i l y Republ i can

swing

s e a t . T r ia l T r. 3 69 :6 -3 72 :1 2

( Jones ) .

As I nte rv e no rs e xp la in ed : HD95

was

c ra fte d c ar e fu lly

to avo id

t ak ing

HD94 s

Republ ican

p r ec inc t s and i n s t e ad

take Democrat ic-

l ea ni ng p op ula tio n left beh ind by HD and r each i n t o

p r e c i n c t s

sur rounded by HD

to

d i l u t e

Democrat ic

vo t ing

s t r eng t h in

t h a t

area.

Ints.

Pre-Trial Brief at 1 8 .

The

Cour t f i nd s

t h a t exp l ana t i on

pe r sua s i ve . Where t he r e

i s

a

co r r e l a t i on

between

race

and

par ty , th e

burden

i s

upon

th e

P l a i n t i f f s to

dis lodge

the evidence

showing

t h a t vo te r s were

so r t ed

predominan t ly

on th e bas i s p o l i t i c a l pre f e r ence

r a t h e r

t han r ace . Delega te

Jones

had

acces s

to p o l i t i c a l per fo rmance

da ta as w ell as

r a c i a l da ta . As

th e

In t e rvenors

asked dur ing

c los ing

argument: [ I ] f race

was

the pr inc ipa l

fac tor ,

why [did

the l eg i s l a t u r e ] pass

by a l l

these a rea s

which have more black

vo te rs [ in th e southern pa r t of th e p en in su la

and]

go up the re

[ to

the northern t ip

of

the d i s t r i c t ] ?

We

don t

hear any

analys is

from

the other s ide on

t ha t

poin t .

There s no

con t r ad ic to ry

t es t imony. Tr i a l

Tr.

827:6-19

( In te rvenor s ) .

On

the

evidence

submit ted,

po l i t i c a l

advantage (based

on

par t i san

pe r fo rmance da t a ) has been shown to have been

t h e

dominan t and

con t ro l l i ng cons ide ra t ion guid ing th e district s unor thodox

boundar ies .

As a

r e su l t ,

the Court

holds , as

a m atte r o f

fac t ,

t h a t ra c e d id no t

p redomina t e in

th e

cons t r uc t i on

o f

95.

1 54




V C O N C L U S I O N

F o r

t h e f o r e g o i n g

r e a s o n s

t h e

C o u r t h o l d s

t h a t

e a c h

o f t h e

t w e l v e C h a l l e n ge d

D i s t r i c t s

w i t h s t a n d s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

s c r u t i n y

u n d e r

t h e

E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e and ju d g m en t w i l l b e

e n t e r e d

for the D e f e n d a n t s a n d the Intervenor Defendants

is

s o O R D E R E D .

/s/ /s/

R o b e r t

E.

P a y n e

G e r a l d

B r u c e

L e e

S e n i o r U . S . D i s t r i c t

J u d g e

U . S . D i s t r i c t

J u d g e

Richmond V i r g i n i a

D a t e :

O c t o b e r

2 2 2 0 1 5

B RB R MIL NO KEEN N

C i r c u i t

J u d g e d i s s e n t i n g :

T o d a y d e s p i t e t h e

S u p r e m e

C o u r t s c l e a r

w a r n i n g a g a i n s t

t h e

m e c h a n i c a l

u s e o f

r a c i a l t a r g e t s

i n

r e d i s t r i c t i n g t h i s

c o u r t u p h o l d s t h e V i r g i n i a

G e n e r a l

A s s e m b l y s a p p l i c a t i o n

o f

a

o n e - s i z e - f i t s - a l l

r a c i a l q u o t a

t o t w e l v e h i g h l y d i s s i m i l a r


d i s t r i c t s . T h is q u o ta

was

u s ed

t o

a s s i g n v ot e r s

t o

districts b a s e d o n t h e color o f their s k i n w i t h o u t t h e


p r o t e c t i o n

a f f o r d e d b y

s t r i c t

s c r u t i n y .

I

r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t h i s

c a s e

d i d n o t

h a v e

t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t s d e c i s i o n i n

A l a b a m a a n d

I d o

1 5 5




no t doub t

t h a t

i nd i v i dua l


a c ted in good f a i t h in

th e


p ro cess . N eve r the le ss , th e r e su l t i ng l e g i s l a t i v e

enac tment has a f f e c t e d Vi rg in i a c i t i z e n s

fundamenta l r i g h t

to

vo te , i n v io l a t i on

o f

th e Equa l P ro t e c t i on Clause . Accord ing ly ,

I

would

i n v a l i d a t e

V i r g in i a s 2011 r e d i s t r i c t i n g p l an .

I.

Red i s t r i c t i ng d ec is io n s a re a lmos t a lways made with a

c o n s c i ou s n e ss o f

r a c e ,

Bush

v .

Vera ,

517

U.S .

952,

958

1996

( p r i n c i p a l

op i n i on

o f O C onno r, J. and su ch aw aren ess does no t

neces s a r i l y

r e s u l t in

a v i o l a t i o n

o f

th e Equa l Pro tec t ion

C lau se , s e e

M i ll e r

v .

J ohn son ,

515

U.S.

900 , 916

(1995 ) .

However,

when a


i s

m o t i va ted

by

r a c i a l

cons ide r a t i on s , t h i s i nhe r en t l y

su spec t

sys tem

o f r a c i a l

c l a s s i f i c a t i on must s a t i s f y th e r ig o rou s

r equ i r emen t s

o f strict

s c r u t i n y .

Mil l e r , 515 U.S. a t 916.

plaintiff a s s e r t i n g

a

r a c e - b a s ed

equa l p r o t e c t i o n c la im

in

a r e d i s t r i c t i n g

ca s e has

th e burden

o f prov ing t h a t r ace was

th e

predominant f a c t o r mot iva t ing th e l e g i s l a t u r e s

dec i s ion

to

p lace

a

s i gn i f i c a n t number

o f

vo t e r s wi th in

o r

wi thou t

a

pa r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t . Id .

emphasis

added) . Under t h i s

predominance t e s t , a p l a i n t i f f

must

show t h a t th e l e g i s l a t u r e

subord ina ted

t r a d i t i ona l

r a ce -neu t r a l d i s t r i c t i ng pr i nc i p l e s

to racial

c on s i d e r a t i o n s .

Id.; s e e a l s o

Al a .

Leg i s l a t i v e

1 5 6




Bla ck Caucus v . Alabama, 135 S. C t . 1257 , 1271 (2015) ( [T ]he

p redominance que s t i on concerns which vo t e r s


dec i d e s to

choose ,

and s pe c i f i c a l l y whe the r th e


predominan t ly

u ses

r ace

a s opposed

to

o t h e r ,

t r a d i t io n a l

f a c to r s when

doing

so . (emphas i s

in

o r i g i n a l ) ) . When

l e g i s l a t u r e has r e l i e d on

r ace

i n s u b s t a n t i a l d i s r eg a rd o f

cus tomary and



p r i n c i p l e s , such


p r i n c i p l e s have

been subo rd ina t ed to rac e . M il le r ,

515

U.S.

a t

928

(O Connor ,

J,,

concur r ing ) .

S t r i c t s c ru t i ny

is

r equ i r ed when

r ace was

th e predominan t

f a c t o r

t h a t

c a t e g o r i c a l l y

was acco rded priority ove r r a c e -


f a c t o r s . As

th e Supreme

Cour t

has

exp l a i n ed , t r a d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s

have been

s ubo r d i n a t ed

t o

r a c e

when

[ r ] a c e was

th e c r i t e r i o n t h a t , i n

t h e

State s view, cou l d

no t be

compromised , and

when t r a d i t i o n a l , r a ce -neu t r a l c r i t e r i a

were

cons id e red on ly a f t e r th e r ace -based

dec i s i on had

been

made .

Shaw

v . Hunt , 517 U.S. 899, 907

(1996) (Shaw

II ; see

a l so Page v . Va. Bd.

o f

E l e c t i o n s ,

No.

3 :13cv678 , 2015

3604029,

a t

*7

(E .D.

Va. June

5 ,

2015 ) . Thus , whi l e


plan

may

r e f l e c t

cer ta in

t r ad it io n al d is tr ic tin g

c r i t e r i a ,

t h a t plan

never the less remains sub je c t to s t r i c t

sc ru t iny when t hose c r i t e r i a have been

subord inated

to

process

t h a t has so r t ed

vo t e r s

p r ima r i l y by r ace .

1 5 7




Con t r a ry to th e m a j o r it y s view

t h i s

predominance i nqu i ry

does no t r equ i r e

t h a t

th e use of

race

in drawing d i s t r i c t

boundar i e s

be i n c on f l ic t with t r a d i t io na l d is t r i c ti n g

c r i t e r i a .

Maj Op

a t 36

In f a c t , th e

r ace

o f

vo t e r

of ten

co r r e l a t e s wi th o t h e r d i s t r i c t i n g c on s i d e r a t i o n s ,

i n c l ud ing

pa r t i s an pre f e r ence , incumbency p ro t ec t i on ,

and com munities

o f

i n t e r e s t . See

Bush

517

U S

a t 964

( p r i n c i pa l op in ion ) .

The

conc lu s ion l og i c a l l y f o l l ows , t h e r e f o r e , th a t r a c i a l

so r t i ng

f r equ en t l y

wi l l

no t

be

in

c o n f l i c t

wi th

t h e s e

and

o t h e r


c r i t e r i a .

Because such


c r i t e r i a

can be used

to mask

r a c i a l so r t i ng ,

cou r t s must

c a r e f u l l y

examine th e

ev idence unde r

th e test fo r p redominance a r t i c u l a t e d in M il le r

and Shaw

Under t h a t t e s t ,

race

nece s sa r i l y predominates when th e

l e g i s l a t u r e has subord ina ted t r a d i t i ona l d i s t r i c t i ng c r i t e r i a to

r a c i a l goa l s ,

such

as when

r ace

i s th e s i ng l e immutable

c r i t e r i on

and

o t h e r

f a c to r s

a re

cons ide red

on ly

when

cons i s t en t

wi th

th e r a c i a l

ob j ec t i v e .

Shaw I I ,

517

U S a t

907

This

case

presen t s

tex tbook

example

o f

r a c i a l

predominance

in which

uniform r a c i a l quota

was

th e

only

c r i t e r i on employed in th e r e d i s t r i c t i n g process t h a t cou ld not

be

compromised Th i s on e - s i z e - f i t s - a l l quo t a au toma t i c a l l y made

1 5 8




r a c i a l so r t i ng

a

p r i o r i t y

over

any o t h e r d i s t r i c t i n g f a c t o r .

Although a

l e g i s l a t u r e is

en t i t l e d to a presumpt ion o f good

f a i t h ,

t h i s presumpt ion must y i e l d when th e ev idence shows

t h a t

c i t i z e n s have been as s igned

to l e g i s l a t i v e

d i s t r i c t s p r ima r i l y

ba sed

on

their r a c e .

See

M i ll e r , 515 U.S . t 915 -16 ; Page ,

2015

WL 3604029, a t *8 ( [T]he good f a i t h o f th e

l e g i s l a t u r e does

not

excuse

o r cu re

th e


v io l a t i on o f s ep ara t in g vo te rs

acco rd ing t o r a c e . { c i t a ti o n

om i t t e d ) ) .

For

t h i s

r e a son , I

d i s ag r e e

with

th e

m a j o r it y s

conc lu s i on

t h a t

a

uni fo rm

r a c i a l

quota merely i s ev idence of predominance, and i n s t e ad would

ho ld

t h a t

th e ex i s t e nc e o f such

a

widely app l i ed quo t a

e s t a b l i s h e s

predominance

a s a

ma t t e r

o f

l aw.

A .

I

f i r s t observe

t h a t

while

th e pa r t i e s have engaged in a

s em a n t i c a l d e b a te whe t h e r t h e 55

BVAP

threshol was

an

a sp i r a t i ona l

t a r g e t

o r a r u l e , th e ev idence pre sen ted a t

t r i a l c l ea r l y

es t ab l i shed

t h a t th e l e g i s l a t u r e employed the

55

V P f igure as

a

f i xed , non-nego t i ab le quo ta . Three i nd iv idua l

de l ega t es

t e s t i f i e d r ega rd ing t h e i r

unders tanding o f

th e

mandatory

nature of

the

quota .

PI.

Ex 33

a t

45 {Sen

Dance);

T r i a l T r. a t 70 Sen . Dance) ; T r i a l T r . a t 29-30 {Del .

McClel lan) ; Tr ia l Tr.

a t 92

Del,

Armstrong).

And, despi te

Delega tes

Dance and

Armst rong

no l onge r

s e rve

in th e

House o f Delega tes , though Dance cu r r en t l y se rves as a s ena to r

in th e Vi rg in i a Sena t e . T r i a l T r . a t 65, 90.

1 5 9




Delega te

Jones trial t e s t imony

t h a t

th e 55 BVAP

f igu re was

mere ly an

a s p i r a ti o n a l

ru l e o f

t humb,

he

promoted th e

p lan

dur ing

th e

House o f De lega t e s

f l o o r deba t e s as

hav ing

ach ieved

a 55

minimum

BVAP fo r a l l

ma jo r i t y -m ino r i t y d i s t r i c t s .

T r i a l

T r .

at 491 ;

P I . Ex.

35 at 42 ,

66 ,

70 , 72 , 108 , 113 .

The

l e g i s l a t o r s sub j ec t i v e

under s t and ing t h a t

th e

55 f i gu r e

ope r a t ed a s a manda to ry f lo o r f u rt h e r was co r r obo r a t ed by th e

f a c t

t h a t ,

in th e

2011 p l an ,

th e

BVAP in most

o f

th e

twe lve

cha l l enged

districts

converged

toward

55

whi le

each

district

satisfied t h e 55

BVAP

floor P i .

Ex .

50 at 72 T a b l e 4 ; DI Ex.

1 5 at 4

B .

The

d i s r ega rd

o f

i nd i v i dua l

r i g h t s i s th e f a t a l f l aw

in

s u ch

r a c e - b a s e d classifications

Regen t s o f th e

Univ . o f Ca l .

V Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 320

(1978)

(opin ion o f Powel l ,

J .)

; see

a l so C ity o f Richmond v .

J .A .

Croson Co. ,

488

U.S. 469,

493

(1989)

(opin ion

o f

O'Connor,

J . )

( exp la in ing t h a t th e

r i gh t s

c r ea t ed by th e first sec t i on o f the Four teen th Amendment a r e , by

i t s terms,

guaranteed

to the individual . The r igh t s es tabl ished

a re

pe r sona l

r i g h t s .

(quo t ing

She l l ey

v .

Kraemer,

334

U.S.

1 ,

22

(1948)) ) .

By

a s s i gn ing vo te r s to

c e r t a i n d i s t r i c t s

based

on

the

color of t h e i r

sk in , s ta te s r i sk

engag[ ing] in the

offensive and demeaning assumption tha t voters of a par t i cu la r

r ace , because o f t h e i r ra ce , th in k a l i k e , sha re

th e same

1 6 0




p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s , and wi l l p r e f e r th e same cand ida t e s a t th e

polls. M i ll e r ,

515 U.S .

a t

911-12 (quo t i ng

Shaw v .

Reno,

509

U.S .

630, 647 (1993) (Shaw

I )

( i n t e r n a l

quo t a t i o n marks

omi t t ed ) .

Quotas

a re

e spec i a l l y

pern i c ious embodiments o f

r a c i a l

s t e r eo t ypes ,

because t hey t h r ea t en c i t i z e n s

pe r s on a l

r ights to

be t rea ted with equal dignity and respect. ' '^ Croson,

488

U.S.

a t 493 (op in ion o f O'Connor , J. .

Here, the

p lan con t ravened

the r i gh t s of ind iv idua l vo te r s

by

app ly ing

a

one - s i z e - f i t s - a l l

r a c i a l

quota

fo r

black

vo te r s in

twelve h igh ly d i s s imi l a r d i s t r i c t s , withou t regard

to

th e

characteristics

o f th e voters

o r o f

their

c ommun i t i e s .

The 55

quota thus i s

a

c l a s s i c example of

race-based

s tereo typing and

unequal t r e a tmen t proh ib i t ed by

th e

Equal Pro tec t i on Clause .

The Supreme Cour t s skepticism

of

r ac ia l quotas i s long

s tanding . See genera l ly

Croson,

488 U.S.

469 (minori ty

se t -

as ide program fo r cons t ruc t ion con t r a c t s ) ; Bakke, 438 U.S. 265

(higher

educa ti on admis sions ).

However,

the

Court

has yet

to

decide whether

use

of a

one - s i z e - f i t s - a l l r ac i a l quota in

a

l eg i s l a t ive redis t r i c t ing plan or,

in

par t i cu la r , use of

such

a

Because i nd iv idua l

voters su f fe r the

harm

a lleged in

a

r ac i a l sor t ing

claim,

I disagree with the majo r i ty s content ion

tha t in ten tiona l[ ] d i lu t[ ion ] [of

a]

group's meaningful

pa r t i c ipa t ion

in the e l e c t o r a l process

i s

requi red

to sus ta in

an equa l pro tec t ion

chal lenge l ike th e

one

th e

p l a i n t i f f s

have

ra i sed

in

t h i s case .

Maj.

Op. a t 5

(emphasis

omit ted) .

See

Miller, 515

U.S .

at 911 - 1 3 .

16 1




quo ta

wel l

exceed ing

50 ,

e s t a b l i s h e s predominance as mat t e r

of

l aw

under

Miller

The

Cour t r e c en t l y has

cau t i oned

a ga i n s t

p r i o r i t i z i n g

mechanica l r a c ia l ta rg et s above

all o t h e r d i s tr ic t i n g c r i t e r ia

in r e d i s t r i c t i n g . Alabama, 135 S. C t. a t 1267, 1272-73 .

Although th e Cour t

in Alabama d id

no t

dec ide

whether

th e

use o f

r a c i a l quo ta we l l exceed ing 50 , o f itself can e s t a b l i s h

predominance , th e Cou r t

made c le a r th a t

su ch m echan ica l r a c i a l

t a rge t s

a re h igh ly

su sp i c i ou s .

Id .

a t

1267;

see

id . a t

1272-73

(d i scuss ing r ac i a l

t a rge t s

as pa r t of narrow t a i l o r i ng

ana ly s i s ) .

Af t e r

i s su ing t h i s adm onishm ent and iden t i fy ing

severa l

e r ro r s

in

the d i s t r i c t cou r t s ana lys i s , th e Court

u l t ima t e ly remanded th e case to th e d i s t r i c t cou r t

to r econs ide r

the question of predominance. ^ Id . a t 1270-74.

The

uniform

r a c i a l quota employed in

th e p re sen t

case i s

more s u sp i c i ou s

on

its fa ce th an

th e

r a c i a l

t h r e sho ld s a t i s sue

in

Alabama.

The leg is la tu re in Alabama sought

to

maintain

p reex i s t i ng r a c i a l pe rcen tages spec i f i c to

each

d i s t r i c t with

th e

aim

o f

avo id ing r e t r og r e s s ion under

Sec t ion 5. Id . a t

1263.

In

cont ras t ,

th e

r a c i a l

quota

used

in

the

presen t

case

was

disagree with th e m ajo r i ty s conc lus ion t h a t

the

Supreme

Cou r t i n

Alabama

wou ld n o t have

r emanded t h e

c a s e

if

t h e

use

o f

r a c i a l

th resho lds

in t ha t case cons t i tu ted predominance

as

mat t e r o f

l aw.

See Maj.

Op.

a t 35. Appe l la te c ou rt s

f r equen t l y remand

i s sue s

to trial c o u r ts fo r re co n s id e ra t io n

when t r i a l cour t

i n i t i a l l y has employed an

incorrec t leg al

a n a l y s i s .

1 6 2




app l i ed in d is cr im i n ate ly to

all

twe lve

districts i r r e s p e c t i v e o f

th e p a r ti cu la r c h a r ac te r is t i c s

o f t h o s e districts The

Vi rg i n i a

p l a n s


quo ta

t hu s r a i s e s even more

s e r i ous

conce rns t h a t th e l e g i s la tu r e s d i s tr i c t i n g dec i s i on s were

d r iven p r ima r i l y by r a c e .

In view

o f

th e V irg in ia

l e g i s l a t u r e s app l i c a t i on

o f

a

s i ng l e

r a c i a l

quo t a to

numerous

districts in th e ca se b efo re

u s ,

t h i s

c o u r t is no t p r e s en t e d wi th

th e

que s t i on whe the r a

pa r t i c u l a r

f ixed

BV P

percentage

would

t r i gge r

s t r i c t

sc ru t iny

if

app l i ed to a s ing l e d i s t r i c t . Nor i s

t h i s

cour t asked

to

dec ide

whether

strict

s c ru t i ny i s r equ i r ed every t ime a

l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n t i o n a l l y

c r e a t e s

a majo r i t y -m ino r i t y

d i s t r i c t .

See Bush,

517

U.S. a t 998

Kennedy, J

concu r r i ng ) ( r e se rv ing

the

ques t ion ) ; Alabama, 135 S.

Ct.

a t

1272 {dec l in ing to dec ide

whether th e i n t en t i ona l use o f race in r ed i s t r i c t i ng ,

even

in

th e absence o f p roo f

t h a t

t r a d i t i o n a l d i s t r i c t i n g p r inc ip l e s

were

subord ina ted

to

race , t r i gge r s s t r i c t

sc ru t i ny ) ; League o f

Uni ted

Lat in m Ci t i z ens v. Per ry , 548 U.S.

399,

517 2006)

(Scal ia ,

J . ,

concurr ing in

the judgment in pa r t

and

dissent ing

in par t )

[W]hen

a

l e g i s la tu re in te nt io na lly

c r ea t e s

a

majori ty-minori ty d i s t r i c t , race i s

necessar i ly

i t s predominant

motivat ion

and s t r i c t sc ru t iny i s t he re fo re

t r i gge red . ) .

I n s t e ad ,

th e

more

narrow que s t io n b e fo re

t h i s

cou r t

i s

whether

s t r i c t sc ru t iny i s required when

a

uniform r ac i a l

quota

1 6 3




o f

has

been app l i e d

by

a

l e g i s l a t u r e i n drawing twe lve

l e g i s l a t i v e districts t h a t

a re h igh ly

d i s s im i l a r

in c h ara c te r .

Here ,

because t r a d i t i o n a l

districting criteria were

con s i d e r e d

s o l e l y

i n s o f a r

a s t h ey d id

no t

i n t e r f e r e wi th t h i s

minimum

f l o o r , se e Shaw I I , 517 U.S. a t 907,

th e

quo t a ope ra t ed as a

f i l t e r through which

a l l l ine-drawing decisions

had to

pass. ^

Such

a

r a c i a l filter

nece s sa r i l y had a

d i s c r im ina t o ry

e f f e c t on

th e c o nf ig ur a t io n

o f

th e districts

because it r ende red all

traditional

criteria

that

otherwise

wo u l d h a v e b e e n

race-

neu t r a l

t a i n t e d by

and

subo rd ina t ed

to r ace .

See

Mil l e r ,

515

U.S. a t 916 (holding t h a t

when

r a c e - n eu t r a l cons ide r a t i on s a re

th e

bas i s

fo r r e d i s t r i c t i n g l e g i s l a t i on , and a re no t

s ubo rd i n a t e d

t o

r a c e , a S t a t e can d e f e a t a c l a im that a district

has been ger rymandered on r a c i a l l i n e s ( c i t a t i on

and

i n t e r n a l

quo ta t i on

marks omi t t ed ) ) .

Under t hese c i rcumstances ,

a l though

I

th ere fo re d is ag re e with

th e m ajo r it y s content ion

t h a t

t h i s

ques t ion was

answered by the pr i nc i pa l opin ion in

Bush and

by

th e major i t y

in Shaw I I .

Maj. Op. a t 46, 55. Nei the r Bush

nor Shaw I I p re se nted th e unique

f ac tua l

c i rcumstances

a t

i s sue

in t h i s

case ,

namely, th e


an across - the -board

r a c i a l

quota

to twelve

va r i ab l e

d i s t r i c t s .

Although

th e m ajo r i ty

i s

co r r e c t

t h a t

th e

d i s t r i c t

a t

i s sue

in

Shaw

I I

exhib i t ed more

f ac i a l

i r r egu l a r i t i e s

than the

d i s t r i c t s here , such d i s t i nc t i ons do not prec lude appl ica t ion

of

r e l e v a n t p r i n c i p l e s

from

th e c a s e .

Shaw

I I , 517 U.S. a t 905-06 .

Maj.

Op.

a t 55.

As

th e

Court no ted

in Shaw

I I ,

th e

f a c t t h a t a

l eg i s l a tu re i s able to achieve

cer ta in

t r ad it io n a l d i st ri ct in g

goa l s

in

a r ac e-b as ed p la n

does not

in

any way r e fu t e th e

fac t

t h a t

race was th e


predominan t

cons ide r a t i on .

Shaw

II 517

U .S .

at 907 .

164




a


may t a k e

i n t o

account t r a d i t i o n a l


c r i t e r i a r a c e - n e u t r a l

a p p l i c a t i o n o f

t h o s e c r i t e r i a becomes

i m p o s s i b l e and

ll

d e c i s i o n s

n e c e s s a ri l y a re

a f f e c t e d

by r a c e .

T h e r e f o r e I would

h o l d

t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s have

e s t a b l i s h e d

as

a m a t t e r o f l a w u n d e r M i ll e r t h a t r a c e


i n t h e


drawing

o f e a c h

o f

t h e

c h a l l e n g e d d i s t r i c t s and

I

would

a p p l y strict s c r u t i n y

i n

e x a m i n i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y

of

those districts

I n s t a r k c o n t r a s t

t h e

m a j o r i ty s p r e d o m i n a n c e a n a l y s i s

a c c e p t s

t h e

u s e o f t h i s

f a c i a l l y s u s p i c i o u s

r a c i a l q u o t a . I n

d o i n g s o t h e m a j o r i t y

p l a c e s an

u n w a r r a n t e d b u r d e n on t h e

p l a i n t i f f s t o show t h a t t h e quota had

i d e n t i f i a b l e

e f f e c t s

on

t h e

drawing o f p a r t i c u l a r

d i s t r i c t

l i n e s . The m a j o r i t y

t h u s

e f f e c t i v e l y would r e q u i r e

t h e

p l a i n t i f f s t o

p r e s e n t

an

a l t e r n a t i v e l e g i s l a t i v e map showing how l i n e s c o u l d have been

drawn

d i f f e r e n t l y

w i t h o u t

impos ing t h e

q u o t a . Such an

on ero us b urden however f a r exceeds t h e

r e q u i r e d

showing f o r

establ ishing predominance ^®

I

f u r t h e r o b s e r v e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y

from Delegate McClellan t h a t she d id not

propose

c e r t a i n

d e s i r e d

changes

t o

t h e

p l a n because

t h e

r e s u l t i n g

l i n e s

would not comply

w i t h

t h e

q u o t a . T r i a l T r . a t

41

1 6 5




Add i t i ona l l y , unde r

th e m a j o r it y s t e s t ,

v i sua l

i n spec t i on

o f district would

be f a t a l

to

an

equa l

p ro t e c t i on

cla im

if th e

district s bounda r i e s

appea r to

be

c on s i s t e n t wi th


c r i t e r i a , i r r e s p e c t i v e o f d i r e c t ev idence t h a t th e

l i n e -d r awing

was

r a c i a l l y mot iva t ed

a t th e ou t s e t . Thus

a s

r e s u l t

o f th e

m a jo r i ty s

ana l y s i s ,

and

its

r equ i r emen t t h a t th e

use

o f r a ce be

in

ac t ua l

c o n f l ic t

wi th

t r a d i t i o n a l d i s t r i c t i n g

c r i t e r i a ,

fu tu re p l a i n t i f f s a s se r t i ng r a c i a l so r t ing claim wi l l

be

r e s t r i c t e d

to

cha l l eng ing

d i s t r i c t s

t h a t

man i f e s t

ex t reme

l i n e -

drawing unexp la inab le on r a c e - n e u t r a l grounds , l i k e th e d i s t r i c t

at

issue in Sh aw I

As th e Supreme

Cour t has

emphas ized

however

d i s t r i c t

t h a t

i s b iz a r r e in

shape

is no t

th e con s t i t u t i o n a l harm

p r oh i b i t e d by

th e

Equa l

Pro tec t ion

Clause .

Ra the r , a s

s t a t e d

above ,

th e

constitutional harm

results

f rom i n d i v i d u a l

vo t e r s

be ing so r t ed i n to districts based on

th e

co lo r o f t h e i r sk in .

Mil le r , 515 U.S.

a t

911 15

(expla in ing t ha t

it

i s th e presumed

r a c i a l purpose

o f s t a t e ac t ion ,

not its

s t a rk

manifes ta t ion ,

t h a t [ i s ] the cons t i t u t i ona l

v io l a t i on ) . y

requi r ing tha t use

of

race

actual ly

con f l ic t

with

t r ad it io n al re dis tr ic tin g

c r i t e r i a , th e m a jo r it y s predominance t e s t of ten wi l l f a i l

to

i d en t if y c o n s ti tu t io n a ll y suspec t

r a c i a l

so r t i ng .

1 6 6




IV .

In rev iew ing r e d i s t r i c t i ng p l an , cou r t s t y p i c a l l y

examine

whether

plan com plies w ith


d i s t r i c t i n g f a c t o r s ,

such

as compac tness and

con t i gu i t y ,

when eva lua t i ng whether

t h e r e is ev idence o f

r a c i a l l y

mot iva ted

dec i s i on making. See

Shaw I ,

509

U.S. a t 647

( t r a d i t i o n a l

d i s t r i c t i n g f a c t o r s a re no t

con s t i t u t i o n a l l y

r equ i r ed ,

bu t

t h ey a re o bje c t iv e

f a c t o r s

t h a t

may

s e r v e

to

d e f e a t c l a im

t h a t

district ha s

been

ger rymandered

on

r ac ia l l i n e s ) .

When


d i s t r i c t i s

b i z a r r e

in shape ,

t h a t

f a c t may

be

pe r s u a s i v e c i r c ums t a n t i a l

ev id ence

t h a t r a ce f o r its

own

s ak e , and

no t

o t h e r districting

p r i n c i p l e s , was

th e l e g i s l a t u r e s dominant and con t ro l l i ng

r a t i o n a l e in drawing its

district l i n e s .

M i l le r ,

515

U.S. a t

913. Here,

however ,

th e

major i ty

r e l i e s

on

shape

and

o the r

t r a d i t i o n a l d i s t r i c t i n g

f a c t o r s

to uphold

th e

2011 p lan , even in

th e face o f th e

overwhelming,

d i r e c t ev idence o f r a c i a l

mot iva t ion ev idenced

by th e use o f


r a c i a l

q u o t a .

The m a j o r it y s a na l y s i s

i s no t

a ided by

Cromar t ie I I and

Bush.

In

Cromar t ie

I I ,

th e

Court

desc r ibed

th e

predominance

i nqu i r y as

requ i r ing

p l a i n t i f f s to

show t h a t

district s

b o u n d a r i e s

we r e

d r awn

b e c a u s e o f

r a c e rather t h a n b e c a u s e

o f

o t h e r d i s t r i c t i n g

criteria

Eas ley v .

Cromar t i e ,

532 U.S. 234,

257

2001)

emphasis

omi t t ed ) .

However,


d i s t r i c t

1 6 7




nece s s a r i l y i s

c r a f t e d b e cause o f r ace when a r a c i a l quo ta is

the

s ing le

filter through

which

a l l l ine -d rawing dec i s ions

a re

mad e .

S im ila r ly , th e p r i n c i p a l opin ion

in

Bush exp l a i ned t h a t

[ s ] i g n i f i c an t

dev i a t i on s from t r a d i t io n a l d i s t r i c t in g

p r i nc i p l e s . . . cause cons t i t u t i ona l harm i n so f a r as they

convey th e message t h a t po l i t i c a l i d en t i t y i s , o r

shou ld

be

predominan t ly r a c i a l . Bush 517 U S a t 980 (p r inc ipa l

op in ion ) .

The

impor t

o f

t h i s

l anguage

i s

obvious .

The

harm

caused by

r a c i a l

s t e reo typ ing i s appa ren t when r a c i a l so r t ing

manifests

itself in o d d district b o u n d a r i e s that are

visible

to

any

obse rve r . But

th e

i n c i dence o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l harm

i s no t

l im i t e d

to th e

p re sence

o f a

district

t h a t i s

odd

in shape . In

th e p r e s e n t ca s e , th e l e g i s l a tu r e s use o f a r a c i a l quo ta

r e s u l t e d in c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

harm

becau se t h a t methodology

convey [ed ]

th e

message t h a t po l i t i c a l i d en t i t y i s , o r

should

be ,

p r edominan t l y

racial

Id .

I a l so

d i s ag r e e

wi th th e

i n t e rveno r s

imp l i c i t sugge s t i on

t h a t

app rova l by

incumbent l e g i s l a t o r s

in

th e cha l l enged

d i s t r i c t s somehow r e scues th e plan

from

a f i nd ing

o f

r a c i a l

predominance. The Vot ing Righ t s A ct VRA) and th e Equa l

Pro t e c t i on Clause

a re

in tended to

p r o t e c t

th e

r i gh t s

o f th e

in d iv id u al v ote r, no t to promote

th e

s e l f - i n t e r e s t o f incumbents

in

ma jo r i t y -m ino r i t y

districts

See League

o f

Uni ted

Lat in Am.

1 6 8




C i t i z e n s , 548 U.S. at

440-41

( I f

. . . i ncumbency p r o t e c t i o n

means exc lud ing some

vo t e r s from th e district s im ply because

t hey

a re l i k e l y

to vo t e a ga i n s t

th e o f f i c eho lde r ,

th e change

i s

t o

b e n e f i t t h e o f f i c e h o l d e r ,

no t t h e voters. . To

t h e

con t r a r y ,

immuniz ing incumbents from cha l l enge

could

en t rench

them

in overwhelmingly s a f e

d i s t r i c t s and underm ine

th e

r e p re s en t a t iv e s a c co u n ta b il it y t o t h e i r c on s t i t u e n t s . One can

e a s i l y

imagine how such

en t r enchment

cou ld

harm

minor i t y vo t e r s

by

d i scou rag ing

cha l l enge r s

from

runn ing

and

by

p reven t i ng

vo t e r s from e l e c t i n g

a

new cand ida t e

who b e t t e r

r ep r e sen t s t h e i r

i n t e r e s t s .

Pack ing

minor i t y vo t e r s i n to

a p a r t i c u l a r

majo r i t y -m ino r i t y

district fo r

th e

purpose

o f

p ro t e c t i ng

th e

incumbent

a l so can r educe minor i t y vo t e r s ab i l i t y t o i n f luence

elect ions in nearby dist r icts . ^

A

t r u e

predominance a n a ly s is a ls o i s no t a f f e c t ed by th e

f a c t

t h a t , at th e

t ime o f th e

2010

c en su s , n in e o f

th e

twe lv e

cha l l enged

d i s t r i c t s a l r e ady had

a BVAP

o f

55

o r h ighe r .

DI

Ex.

15

a t 13-14 Tab l e 8 ; P I . Ex. 50 at 9 5 17 , 72 Tab l e 4 .

Even assuming t h a t such f igu res could p ro t ec t

th e c on fig ur at io n

I r e cogn i ze t h a t

th e p l a i n t i f f s in t h i s case do no t

r a i s e

a vote d i l u t i o n c la im under

Sec t ion

2 o f th e

VE^

bu t

ins tead

b r ing an

a n a l y t i c a l l y

d i s t i n c t r a c i a l so r t i ng cla im under th e

Equal Pro tec t ion Clause .

See

Mil le r , 515 U.S.

a t

911

(c i t ing

Shaw

I ,

509 U.S. a t 652 . I note

th e po t en t i a l de t r imen ta l

e f f e c t s

of the

plan only to

h igh l i gh t

t ha t a so -ca l l ed benign

r a c i a l quota , os t en s ib ly in tended

to

bene f i t minor i ty

vo te r s ,

may in f a c t have

th e

oppos i t e e f f e c t .

1 6 9




o f t hose

nine

districts in th e 2011 p lan ,

th e

th ree r emain ing

districts still would be su b je c t to

strict

s c r u t i n y . Moreover

g iven

th e s i g n i f i c an t popu la t ion

de f i c i t s in

most

o f

th e

cha l l enged

districts our i nqu i ry must

focus

on which vo t e r s

th e l e g i s l a t u r e dec ide [d ]

to

choose when moving vo t e r s between

districts

in

o r d e r

to

a ch ie ve p o pu la tio n

e qua l i t y . Alabama 135

S. C t . a t 1271 {emphas is i n o r i g i n a l ) . Here , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s

decision to move cert in voters in order to

m int in

a

p re ex i s t i ng

BVAP

f l o o r

in

th e

new

plan

i s

still

a

m e c h an ic a ll y n um e ri ca l method

o f r e d i s t r i c t i n g

t h a t i s

s ub j e c t

to strict

s c ru t i ny .

See id . a t 1273.

I

the re fo re conclude t h a t the m ajo r i t y s approach

e f f e c t i v e l y and imprope r ly p l a ce s on

p l a i n t i f f s

a s s e r t i ng r a c i a l

predominance in r ed i s t r i c t i ng

a

burden never ass igned by th e

Supreme

Cour t .

Under

th e m a jo ri ty s a na ly sis ,

p l a i n t i f f s now

w i l l be r equ i r ed to

show

c i r cums t an t i a l ev idence o f r a c i a l

mot iva t ion t h rough a c tua l con f l i c t wi th

t r a d i t i ona l

d i s t r i c t i ng c r i t e r i a , when

such p l a i n t i f f s

a l ready

have

presented

d i spos i t i v e d i r e c t evidence t h a t

th e

l eg i s l a tu r e

a ss ig ne d ra ce

a

p r i o r i t y

over

a l l

o the r

d i s t r i c t i ng f ac to r s .

V .

Even upon apply ing its

he igh tened predominance s t anda rd ,

the major i ty concludes t h a t

r ace was

th e predominant f ac to r in

1 7 0




th e drawing o f

Di s t r i c t 75 . I would ho ld t h a t , under th e

m a j o r it y s

t e s t ,

th e same conc lu s i on o f

predominance ho ld s t r u e

fo r

neighbor ing

Di s t r i c t

63

as

we l l .

As

a

r e s u l t o f t h e d r a s t i c maneuve r ing r equ i r ed t o r each

a

V P in

Dis t r i c t

75 por t ions

of a

county

previous ly

in

D i s t r i c t

63 were s h i f t e d i n t o

Di s t r i c t

75 , a move t h a t th e

major i ty

ag r ees was avowedly

r a c i a l .

T r i a l T r . a t 74

80;

Maj. Op. a t 109. The p lan

compensa ted

fo r t h i s l o s s

o f

BVAP in

Di s t r i c t

63

by

add ing

to

th e

district

new a r e a s

wi th high

BVAP

concen t r a t i on s .

T r i a l

T r. a t

81-83 .

Due to th e changes in th e

2011

p lan .

Di s t r i c t 63 expe r i enced

a s t a r t l i n g r educ t i on in

compac tness and an

in c r e a s e in th e number

o f

s p li t c i t i e s ,

coun t i e s ,

and

VTDs. DI

Ex.

15

a t 15 Table 9; P I .

Ex.

50

a t

7

70 Tab l e 2 , 71

Tab l e

3 .

Th i s and

o t h e r ev i d enc e

showed t h a t

implementat ion o f the r a c i a l quota had a

marked

impact on

th e con f i gu r a t i on o f

bo th

Di s t r i c t s 63 and 75.

V

I

fu r t he r conclude t h a t none

of

th e cha l lenged d i s t r i c t s

can

surv ive the

t e s t

of

s t r i c t

scru t iny ,

because

the

l eg i s l a t u r e s use

of

the

quota

was

not narrow ly

t a i lo red to

achieve a compell ing s t a t e

i n t e r e s t

in any of the chal lenged

districts See M i l le r , 515 U.S. a t

920.

Ev idence o f narrow

t a i l o r ing

in t h i s

case

i s

prac t i c a l l y non-ex i s t en t .

1 7 1




Assuming

t h a t

c omp lia nc e w ith

th e VE^

i s

a

compe l l ing

s t a t e

i n t e r e s t , a t t emp t s

a t

su ch com plian ce c anno t

j u s t i f y r ace -based

d i s t r i c t i n g where th e cha l l enged distri t was

no t

r easonab ly

neces sa ry

under a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r ead i ng

and


f e d e r a l l aw . I d .

t

921 ;

s e e

a l s o

Bush ,

517 U.S .

t

977

( p r i n c i pa l op in ion ) .

Thus , narrow

t a i l o r i ng

r e qu i r e s t h a t

th e

l e g i s l a t u r e have a

s t rong

bas is in ev idence

fo r its race-based

dec i s i on , t h a t i s , good r easons to be l i e ve t h a t th e

chosen

r a cia l c la ss if ic a t io n

was

r equ i red to

comply

with

th e

VRA

Alabama,

135

S,

Ct. a t

1274

emphasis

omi t t ed ) .

In th e p re s en t ca s e , th e in te rv en ors p re sen ted v i r t u a l l y no

ev idence suppor t ing th e

need

fo r

app l i c a t i on

o f a 55 V P in

any o f

the

cha l l enged d i s t r i c t s .

In f a c t ,

Delega te Jones

even

had d i f f i c u l t y

a r t i c u l a t i ng the

o r i g i n a l

source o f

th e 55

f i gu r e .

T r i a l

T r. a t 429, 431, 443, 490-95.

The only ev idence

sugges t ive

o f any

t a i l o r i ng

involved

Di s t r i c t 75. Delegate Jones t e s t i f i e d t h a t he conducted a

fu nc tio na l a na ly sis o f Delegate Tyle r s pr imary and genera l

e lec t ion

r e su l t s

in 2005, and considered

the

s ign i f ican t

pr ison

populat ion

in

t ha t d i s t r i c t , which t oge the r suppor ted the

imposi t ion

of

a 55

r ac i a l

f loor . Tr ia l Tr.

a t

323-24, 430,

458-59, 462-67, 494;

PI.

Ex. 40

a t

39 Del. Tyler) . However,

Jones

s ta tements

were

mere ly

genera l

and conc luso ry in

nature

and, therefore , f e l l

fa r

sho r t of demonstrat ing

a

s t rong bas is

1 7 2




in ev idence fo r th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a

r a c i a l

quo t a . Not

on ly

d id

th e

2005

e l e c t i o n s occu r s ix yea r s p r i o r to th e

2011

r ed i s t r i c t i ng ,

bu t

Ty le r ran unopposed in th e

two

e l ec t i on s

s i n c e ,

c a s t i n g

s i g n i f i c an t doubt on

Jone s

con ten t ion

t h a t

Di s t r i c t 75

was

so

compe t i t i ve t h a t

a

mino r i t y - p r e f e r r ed

cand ida t e r equ i r ed a t l e a s t a 55 BVAP to

be

r e - e l e c t ed from

2011

onward.

See PI. Ex.

50

a t 85 Table 14. And

c r i t i c a l l y ,

Jones

f a i l e d

to

prov ide

any

e xp la na tio n o f how

h is f u n c t ion a l

review

led

him

to

conc lude

t h a t

a 55 BVAP

was

r equ i r ed

in

Dis t r i c t 75 to

ensure compliance

with

th e VRA

The

ev idence

su pp ort in g th e use o f the

55

r a c i a l quota in

th e r emain ing

cha l l enged d i s t r i c t s was even w eaker.

The

House

of

Delegates

d id not

conduct

an ana lys i s regarding

th e ex ten t

o f

r ac i a l l y po l a r i z ed vot ing in

any o f

t he se

d i s t r i c t s .

Tr i a l

Tr.

a t 4

69.

Although

Delega te

Jones

s ta te d th at

he

was aware

o f low

r e g i s t r a t i on r a t e s among

black

vo te r s , he a l so admi t ted

t h a t

he

did not review voter

reg is t ra t ion

f igures

when

drawing the

plan.

Tr i a l Tr.

a t

462-64.

Nor d id

he examine

mino ri ty t urn ou t

ra tes

in most of the cha l lenged d i s t r i c t s , or cons ider

s t a t e

Senate

d i s t r i c t s , congressional maps or other maps tha t

had

been pre-

c lea red or

re jec ted

by the Department of Ju s t ic e . T r ia l Tr.

a t

462-69.

And

in

at tempt ing

to jus t i fy

imposit ion

of

the

BVAP

quota in

Di s t r i c t

63

Jones

s t a t ed

t h a t

he

t t hough t ] the re

was

a pr imary in which Delegate Dance ran as an

independent

1 7 3




which

r e s u l t s

he rev iewed ,

bu t

he d id

no t

spe c i f y

how t hose

results led h im to select a 55 BVAP threshold in istrict 6 3 .

T r i a l T r. a t

4

66-68 . Such unsubs t an t i a t e d and gene r a l comments

p l a i n l y

do

not

con s t i t u t e th e st rong

ba s is in

evidence

r equ i r ed

to

s a t i s f y strict

sc ru t i ny .

F ina l l y , I

do

no t t h i nk t h a t

th e outcome o f

t h i s

case ,

in

favor

o f e i t h e r

par ty , i s dependent on any

o f

th e

exper t

testimony/®

However I pause to

note that

I find

the testimony

of fe red

by Dr.

Katz

to

be

s ingula r ly

unpersuas ive

on

the issue

of narrow t a i l o r i ng . Dr. Katz admit ted t h a t

he prov ided

only a

crude

ana lys i s

o f

the l i ke l ihood t ha t

a

candidate pre fe r red by

minor i ty

voters

would be e lec ted .

Tr ia l

Tr. a t

531. According

t o

Dr. Ka t z , this c r u d e

method

d emon s t r a t e d that

a

55

BVAP

co r r e l a t e s with an 80 chance o f e l e c t i ng a b lack

cand ida te .

DI

Ex.

16

at 18 -19 ; rial T r . at 532 .

Dr.

Katz crude

ana l y s i s

exh ib i t s two

g l a r i ng

f l aws .

F i r s t , it unde r r ep re sen t s th e l i k e l i hood

t h a t

th e p re f e r r ed

candidate of minor i ty voters would be e lec ted by

evaluat ing

only

th e

l i ke ly success o f b la ck c an di da te s, when minor i ty voters had

I agree w ith th e m a jo r it y s

c r i t i c i sm

t h a t

Dr.

Ansolabehere

d id

no t

cons ide r any

f a c to r s

o the r than

race

and

po l i t i c s

as

pred ic tor s

of

VTD

inc lus ion

in

th e

chal lenged

d i s t r i c t s .

Maj. Op.

a t

105. Never theless , my

conclusion,

t ha t

the

l eg i s l a tu re s

use of the

r ac i a l quota per

se

es tab l i shes

predominance as

a

ma t t e r o f law, r ende r s

Dr.

Anso l abehe r e s

opin ions rega rd ing

VTD

movement super f luous to

a

proper

predominance

an a l y s i s .

1 7 4




e l e c t e d

non -mino r i t y

d e le g a te s in c e r t a i n

o f

the

cha l l enged

districts T r i a l T r .

t

532 -34 , 549 -51 , 769 -71 .

Second , and

m o r e fundamenta l ly . D r. Katz ana l y s i s i s f l awed because th e

VRA

does

no t g u ara n te e

t h e

s u c c e s s o f

a c an d id a te o f a

p a r t i c u l a r

r a c e in a g iven e l e c t i o n . Ra t h e r , th e VRA en su r e s

t h a t

mino r i t y

vo t e r s

d o

no t have

l e s s

oppo r tun i t y

t h an

o t h e r m e m be r s o f

th e

e l e c t o r a t e to

pa r t i c i p a t e i n th e

p o l i t i c a l p roces s a n d

to

e l e c t

r e p r e s en t a t i v e s o f

t h e i r

cho i c e , a n d

t h a t

mino r i t y vo t e r s

r e t a i n

t h e i r

ex i s t i ng

ab i l i t y

to

e le c t th e i r

p re f e r r ed

candidates. ®

52

U.S.C.

§

10301 b); League

o f

United

Latin

m

C i t i z e n s , 54 8 U.S . a t

4 2 8

VRA Sec t i o n 2 ) ; 52 U.S .C . § 10304 (b ) ;

A l a b a m a , 1 3 5 S . C t. a t 1 2 7 2 VRA Sec t i o n 5 ) .

F o r these

r ea sons , I

w ould f ind t h a t th e

record

u t t e r l y

f a i l s

to

show t h a t

the l e g i s l a t u r e

h a d a

s t rong

bas i s in

ev idence fo r using the 55

r a c i a l

q u o t a in a n y of th e

cha l l enged d i s t r i c t s . A c c o r d i n g l y , I woul d hold t h a t

a l l

th e

d i s t r i c t s

f a i l

the

t e s t

o f s t r i c t sc ru t iny .

A l t h o u g h my

conclus ions do

n o t

d e p e n d on th e

t e s t i m o n y

o f

D r. A n s o l a b e h e r e ,

I am

no t

p e r s u a d e d by

th e

m a jo r it y s

d i smis sa l

of Dr. A n s o l a b e h e r e s r a c i a l po la r i za t i on

ana lys i s .

See Maj.

Op . a t 124

n.37 .

In pa r t i cu l a r , I c r ed i t

D r. Ansolabehere s

c o n c l u s i o n

t ha t

none

of the c h a l l e n g e d d i s t r i c t s required a 55

BV P in order to e n s u r e minor i ty vo te r s oppor tun i ty

to e l e c t

t h e i r p r e f e r r ed cand i d a t e . T r i a l

T r.

a t 203 .

1 7 5




VII

The

p r o m i s e o f

t h e Equal P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e

is

t h e g u a r a n t e e

o f t r u e e q u a l i t y

u n d e r

t h e

law e n f o r c e d by

o u r c o u r t s f o r t h e

p r o t e c t i o n

o f

o u r

c i t i z e n s

i r r e s p e c t i v e

o f

t h e power

o f any

g o v e r n m e n t a l

e n t i t y . The V i r g i n i a


u s e

o f

t h e

r a c i a l q u o t a i n

t h i s c a s e v i o l a t e d t h i s

c o r e


p r i n c i p l e

i n

t h e

a b s e n c e

o f

s t r o n g

b a s i s

i n

e v i d e n c e

s u p p o r t i n g

its

r a c e - b a s e d

d e c i s i o n .

T h u s

would i n v a l i d a t e

V i r g i n i a s 2011


p l a n .

r e s p e c t f u l l y

d i s s e n t .


Documents

Bethune Hill