The intervenors also challenge the district court's conclusion that “the Black plaintiffs' analysis of seven elections over the last three election years, which encompassed a four-year period, is sufficient on the circumstances of this case to determine that racially-polarized-voting impairs blacks in their ability to elect their preferred representatives.”
See Meek, 805 F.Supp. at 983–84. The intervenors argue that the analysis of only three election years is insufficient as a matter of law under
Gingles. The intervenors rely on that portion of the
Gingles ruling constituting the judgment, not the opinion, of the Court reversing the district court's finding of dilution in one district where evidence showed sustained minority success in six elections.
See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 77, 106 S.Ct. at 2780 (Brennan, J., with whom White, J., joined) (recognizing that evidence relating to only three elections is insufficient to rebut evidence of sustained success of black candidates in six elections which resulted in persistent proportional representation for blacks in one of the six challenged districts);
Gingles, 478 U.S. at 104–05, 106 S.Ct. at 2794–95 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment, with whom Burger, C.J., and Powell and Rehnquist, JJ., joined) (agreeing that the district court clearly erred in not giving weight to the evidence that black candidates achieved sustained success in one of the six challenged districts).