First, the minority group must be able to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district.... Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive.... Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it—in the absence of special circumstances, such as the minority candidate running unopposed—usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.
Suppose an eight-member multimember district that is 60% white and 40% black, the blacks being geographically located so that two safe black single-member districts could be drawn. Suppose further that there are six white and two black Democrats running against six white and two black Republicans. Under Justice Brennan's test, there would be polarized voting and a likely § 2 violation if all the Republicans, including the two blacks, are elected, and 80% of the blacks in the predominantly black areas vote Democratic. I take it that there would also be a violation in a single-member district that is 60% black, but enough of the blacks vote with the whites to elect a black candidate who is not the choice of the majority of black voters. This is interest-group politics rather than a rule hedging against racial discrimination.
Jenkins v. Red Clay Sch. Dist., 4 F.3d 1103, 1120 (3rd Cir.1993), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 114 S.Ct. 2779, 129 L.Ed.2d 891 (1994) | |
(100 − 1 = 99); | |
Hines v. Ahoskie, 998 F.2d 1266, 1269 (4th Cir.1993) | |
(93 − 7 = 86); | |
League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831 (1993) (en banc), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 114 S.Ct. 878, 127 L.Ed.2d 74 (1994) | |
(98 − 17 = 81); | |
Smith v. Brunswick County, Virginia, Bd. of Supervisors, 984 F.2d 1393, 1397 (4th Cir.1993) | |
(80 − 2 = 78); | |
Westwego Citizens for Better Gov't v. City of Westwego, 946 F.2d 1109, 1113 (5th Cir.1991) | |
(89 − 16 = 73); | |
Perkins v. City of West Helena, 675 F.2d 201, 675 F.2d 201, 213 (8th Cir.), aff'd, 459 U.S. 801, 103 S.Ct. 33, 74 L.Ed.2d 47 (1982) | |
(90 − 15 = 75; 90 − 24 = 66); | |
Solomon v. Liberty County, Florida, 899 F.2d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1023, 111 S.Ct. 670, 112 L.Ed.2d 663 (1991) | |
(six elections, with percentage differences ranging from 97 (100 − 3) to 24 (65 − 41), with an average percentage difference of 55); | |
Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer, 849 F.Supp. 1022, 1059 n. 62 (D.Md.1994) | |
(100 − 0 = 100; 100 − 12 = 88). |
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |