Before the district court, defendants did not dispute the minority VAP percentages shown in the five MMDs proposed in the AHEJ plan and plaintiffs' Illustrative Plan 3. Rather, defendants argued that the bare majority DOJ Non–Hispanic Black VAPs reflected in the two plans failed to satisfy the “sufficiently large” requirement of the first
Gingles factor. In support, they relied on the cross-examination testimony of plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Baodong Liu, a professor of political science at the University of Utah, who testified that in the “academic world,” a “dominant black district” is defined as one in which blacks constitute at least 55% of the VAP. Liu Test., Hr'g Tr. at 103.
[A 377] Defendants also pointed to the briefs of plaintiffs in the
Arbor Hill litigation (challenging Albany County's redistricting following the 2000 census), which questioned a remedial plan creating bare majority-minority districts in light of factors, such as lower voter turnout and registration rates in the minority communities at issue, which would render it impossible for minorities to elect candidates of their choice.
See Pls.' Objections to Report & Recommendation re: Remedial Redistricting Plan at 18,
Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cnty. of Albany, No. 03–cv–502 (NAM)(DRH) (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2003), ECF No. 49.