Rybicki, DelValle, and Crosby v. Illinois State Board of Elections

    .'{.t -'
I

.-4

a\

I
IN 33g UNMD STATES DISTRICT COOkt

PO8, TsE HOR,IEEEN DISTF,IEs OP ILTINOIS
Jl-n--i & i ..{, . \,'. i5.t* .ffIT^:q DrYrsroN

cE3ST3t, Ji.-)RYB!CX:, et EI.r (_

Plaint, if f s,

v. Bio. 81 C 6030

?EE SIATE BOAs,D OP SLECTICNS
OS :Eg STAIE OF ILI..INCIST €E al.2

Def endanE s .

!{f GEEL DelVA.LLEr e: 81.1

Vr

TEE S!A?E BOT3.D O? ELEE?ICNS
03 ?E3 STffE OF ILLINCIST eE 81.1

No. 81 C 6052

Defendants.

tsRUCg G,OSBYT EE E1.1
i

Pla:inriffs,
V. ,

a

TEE S3AT3 tsC}3D CF EL9CTICNSI
A? lEE STi\3I C3 iLLINC:S, et, &1.1

No. 81 C 5093

De! endan!8.

Bef cre CEDAEY, @, G3.\DY, DistrieE iudqer aDd
BEl,, Di st,:i cr- Ju Cee

CEDIS:, Ci reui-. .$]53. In our lnlttal cpinion of iansa:y

12r 1982 fcllovl'ng lbe t11al cf Lhese consolida!'eC

rea?Por'-!o::.nen: ca,Ees, P.vbicki v. Sts:e 3c:ri cf Elect,ions, )ic.

81 C 5030 (5.D. il1. ian. 1,2, :,982) thereinafEer ci!,ed as

.3:@.],Ueru1edon.the3e3j,:Eofchaj1engesEo:11rnoisi



:r

,'pters ( the Rybicki Plaintlf f E ).L/ Our decision ulth reEpect,

t,o lhe Crosby clains at, the tine of Rvbickt f utsr ye bellever

cortect,iy baaed on Ehe Su?reae Courtr.g aos'. recent analysis of
yoLlng diluilon cla$as as 8e! forth 1n CiEv of Hobile v.

E&.8,, 1{6 U.S. 55 (1980). tfter our January 12 oPlnlon vas

lssuedr bovever, and vhl1e re vere revier!ng the Crosby

plalntif fsr ruoElon for reconslderation of the Crosbv dec!sionr

Ccng!ess extended and a.rrended tbe Vot:ng Right,s \cz.U
Consequenilyl in reE?onse to the Crosby Plaintifia' request r tt€

have decided to reevaluat,e those of, t_hgjro-sby Plaintif f s-'

clains thae He found ranL!ng under tbe BoLden criieria to

deter,nlne rhether the evidence Bay be sufficient to shov a

pos6ible violaEion of t,he anended Yoting X,ights lct. ls e

resul.i, of this reevalua!,ionr ve are tenlativel]' of t,he view

lfe also approved a Set, ElenenE, Agreenent, reaehed beEreen
fendants and plaintiffs su!ng on behalf of Eispanic voLers
he DeiYaile plainr-if !s). See i,vbicki i, alip. cP. at, 100-02.

On June 29r 1982, the ?resideni signed tbe ertension of
e Yoting Rights lct, as anended. lhe legislative history
a:es Bhat one of the object,ives in anending Section 2 uas 'Eo
early establtsh the st,andards intended by CongreEE for
oving a viclaLion of t,haB seciion.' s. Rep. lio. {1,7r 97ih
ffi.1 2d SeBs. 2 (1982).

Ibe aaenCed Section 2 reads as follovs:
S€c . 2. ( a ) Ho vot,lng quallf ication or

prerequisiBe to votlng or sBandardr
Practlce, or Procedure ghail bc ilposed or
aPplleC by any St,r,t,e or Polttlcal
subdivLsionn 1n a lanner vhicb resul:,s ln a
denj,al or ablidgeneni of the r!ght of any
clr-izee of ihe Un:BeC Siates to YoCe on
accounB of race or colorr or tn

(f ooEnoE e con|. inled on next Pag e )

v
de
lL

z/
}L
gt
el
Pl
Co

\
I



' .'t' page 3

that ln certain s?ecific areas on chicago'e south side tbe
location of t,he distr!et 11nes, in eonnecElon vith bishly
concentraEed black disLricts, and tn ligbt o! all the relevant
factossr Eay be susPeet under the ttesultE't,eEt of the anendec

}ct. ftere!oE?t ye regues: the connission :o recrau ee:tai.n
dlstrict lines ln the specific areas ye ldenLlfy belor 80 as t,o
correcE these apparen! dist,ri,ctlng de!iciences.

I.

-rhe-legislative history of the a:nended voting Right s AcE

clearly lniieates that clains of vot,e dilution do eone vi:hln
Ehe Ecope of the Act, S. Rep. No. il7, 97t,h Cong.z Zd Sess. 30

n.120 (1982). ?urther, in order to prcve vote dilutionr
p1al::tlffs need not, denonst.raEe that,'t,he disputed

,/
Cc nE inued

contravent ion of t,he guaranEees set f orth in
Eeciion 1(f ) l2) t as provj.ded in subsect j.on
(b).

(b) A violaIicn of subsection (a) 1sesiablisned Lf, based on the totaliCy of
circurnstancesr iE 1s shorn that thepolitical processes leading to nonination orelectlon ln the Siate or golitlcal
eubdivision ate not cguaLly open to
par'-icipar-ion by :neabers of a cl,ass of
clt j.zens protecteC by subsection ( a ) ln that
ite menbers have less opportunlty ihan o[her
neabers of tbe eLec-.orale t,o palticipate 1n
lhe pol:ticai process and Eo elcct
representatlves of the:r cholce. !l:e e:ient,
Bo uhich nenbera of a prot,ected elass bave
been elecied to office ln lbe SiaBe or
Polit!ca1 subC:.vrsion ls one clrcunst,ance
vhicb trty be consiCered: lrp:idSg, lbat
ncthi,ng 1n this seci,ton est,eolishes a right

(f ootnot, e ccnr-:.nueC on ne:t page )



I ! ' ':l'

, plan tlas tconceived or operaBed EE Ia]
further racial r . . diBcrininaLion.t. &1,99.9, 4{5 u.s. at,

65. Instead, plaint,lffs can prove a violat,ion of the t,ct,

lerely by shoving'thaE the challenged systen or placilcer -l!
text of e11 the clre tances ln t urisdiction in

quest,lonr !esult s Ln alnorities being dealed equal ecceEE t,o

the politlcal process.' S, Rep. No. 117, gTth Cong.l 2d Sess.

27 (enrphasis suppliea),3/ Ender tbis 'results' test,r v€ trust

'assess Bhe lapact of the challenged st,ructure o! pracElce on

t,he basis of objective factotsr ralher tban =akIeJ a

2/ continued

to have nenbers of a protected cLass elected
tn numbers equal to iheir proporLion in tbe
populat,ion.

Voting Rights AcE lnendraent,s of 1982r Pub. L. No. 95-205, S 3,
1982 U.S. CODE CCtiG. & AD. NtrrlS (95 SEat,.) 131r 13{ (to be
codif ied at, 42 U.S.C. S 1973).
y the Eouse iudiciary Connitt,ee Report, on the Vor,ing Rights
Act extension and anendnenE E?eciflcally identifies Cistrict,ingplans as vit,hin the sccpe cf Sect,ion 2. E.R. Rep. No. 227,
37:h Cong.r 1s: Sess. 30-31 (1981). This t,epor'. yas based upon3.R. 3112, 9?Eh cong.r lsc sess. (1981)r a bill vhose rording
HEs slightly different fron t,he language ult,iaately enac-"ed
lnEo 1ar. The SenaEe Judiciary Ccnaitt,ee 3,e-oort,r howeve!r
characlerlzed t,he Eouse and Senate bl1ls as'virtually
ldentical.' S. Rep. Ho. 417, 97th Cong. r 2d Sess. 3 (1982).
DefendanEs do noi dispute 'aE thlE juncture' Ehe applicabiliEy
of the anended Sect,lon 2 to tbis caae. D€fenCant,s' Henorandum
1n F,esccnse to Aueus'. 5, L982 Ccurt Orde
thlnk thaE applylng Sect,lon 2 to tbe present diEtrlctLng glan
Preseni,s !ssues of reCroaci,ive e?pllcaEton because our anaJ.ysis
iocsses on l,he fut,ure effects cf t,biE pian in i,he i98{, J.996,
198Er Elrd 1990 electicns. See Eereford indeoenlent Sch
Dlsirlc: v. tse11, {5.1 ?. Su;il
@caiion oi sliElon 5 to elecelon plccedures

(foocnoEr eoni!nued on next page)

sEl tt r

purpoee!ul devicIe] to



., ! page s

detelalnatlon about, t,he noElvatlons vhlch 1ay beblnd lEs

adoption or aalntrnlnce.' E. congreeE bas provided us viEh a

nonexcluslve 11s'. of obJeeilve factors to guide us ln
deterninlng vhether 1n a partieular case the chaLlenged

Practice or ettucture vj.olates Sectlon 2. See S. Rep. No. 4!7,

97tb Cong.r 2d Sess. 28-29 t Do. 1]4-LB (1982). fhese factors
are applied to thlE case ln tbe folloyj,ng SeeLion.

t

Ir.
lhe focus of continuing concern ln this caee is on the

Sou:h Side districts. Bhe Soutb Side najorlty black houee

dislric:s contain high concent,rations of blacksr =uch greater

than 551 of the dist,rlct, populat,ion -- t-he percenLage generally

Presined necessary !or a ninorit,y popula',ion to elect a

representat,ive of t,helr choi "",!/ Purtherr Lbe Crosby

Co nt inued

aCopteC p:ior Eor but adroinisEered in elecEions subseE:ent, Eor
t,he effeciive dat,e of Lhe Voting R.igbts Act).
y 3he 55t fiEure ls a general guldeline rhich has been used
by t,he Departaent of iust ice r respporiior:renE, e:pert s and the
courts as a Deesure of tbe ainoriEy populat,lon ln a distriet
aeeded for nlnorlty voters to bave a aeanlngful opportuniLy Eo
elect a candida:e of t,helr choice. See Hississlpoi v. United
!Eg, 190 P. Supp. 559 (D.D.C. I979) t a!!'d1 {i{ g.s. 1050
TT9='0"I. ?he 55r iuiaellne, vhich t,he suffiE courr
cha:ac:erl:ed as':eesonabLe' Ln Eni:eC .lesish 0rcan:za!,iens,
Inc. v. Catey, {30 E.S. 1{4, 16{ le
younger nedi.n po-o'.lLatlon rge and Bhe lover vot,er regiatraLlon
a::d turnour of ninori ty ci Eizen6.

(fooLnote ecniinueC on ne:t page)



i' page E

,p'laintif fs contenCeC aE trial i,hat .It]he boundary l:ncs for
Comoiseion house dist,rlcts L7 , 19, 23, 21, ZS, 31r 33 and 34

trace in greaL part the boundarles of tbe bqary black
eoncenLrai,ion 1n chicagc.' crosbv plalntlffsf prooosed

P:Lndincs of Paet !io. 97. Ihey conlend noy.Ehat .lbe trap

adopEed by t,he cou;t lnposes the 8ar!e raclar vaLl as the
Ccralssionr s orlginal nap, only nor lnvolving aenate distrlcts
12, 16 and 17 (as revieed) and bouse dist,ri,cts 23, 24, 31r 33

(as revised) and 35 (as reviEed) .' Henorandu:n Ln Suecort of
crosbv_gl_arlnEiffsr post_Tria1 Hct ron 4. I.he .resur,B, {_:__t,e_ms

of concentraLion of black popul.aElons ln voting districta 1s

elear; !n eonnec:ion vith this concentration t,he alleged
eorrespondence bet,r+een district 1lnes a:td racial divislons
(charac!eri zed f or rhetorical purposes as a 'ral1') Eus). be

c:aialned f urther. Por ve nu st decide rhet,her t,hese .resul,!s'

4/ Co n t, i.nued

Tesiinony i n the ins-.anE case established thaE,
S,epresenr-aBive !{ad:.-ol;: anc bis staff !rere uade arlare of t,he 659guideline by !tr. Bracer t,heir consuLlant, during t,he Euaner of1981. (I!. aE 1957). At trialr yiinesseE for botb sides
r-ef erred apgrovingly of the 55r f igure. (Tsui, Tr. a! 26-zj ilievhcuse, Tr. at, 623 i Eof,eller r rr. at {0 3-04 ; Brrcs r !r, a!,1955-57). noreoverr de!endant,sf ex3xrt, teEtlf ied Eha! t,he 5st
Euldellne had been used ln EE,a: e reapportlonnenE and
recistrlc:ing. (tsrace, tr. Et 1957). The 55r standard yas
aiso refe:.-ed to ln lhe recent oplnlon of the three-Judge courr
1n In re :i:.1;rois Ccncre g1 ?nal. D i s:,ri c:s Relcro r: icr-,-ilii!,
S€, Nc. 81 rl35r alip op. ai 1g (li.D. ilI. lggi), tjf 'ds,:p noni. HeClor-; v. fttot _ E,.S. _, J,02 S. Ct. ggS @7).

He t,hlnk tC app:opriater hove,?c-rt tc take ,{udi,cia1 notice
of !,he faci Eha:ln lhe Xarch 19E2 Denocraiic priaary elect!onfor lhe ne'r Senaie Dist,rict, l8r a Ci.st,ric'. reCia.;:: a! Bhe
behest of t,h:.s cour: tc lncluce a 55r black populrii.onr black
canc!dal,es eere unsuccessiul in Ehelr effor!,s Eo unse:E thevht r- e lncuacen: Senat,or.



' ] .i', Page 7

(hlgh concenEraBions and correspondence begreen electlon
istrlct and bousing eegregat,lon denareations) r citber sirrgly

or 1n coabi::ationr aad 1n Ebe eonE,ext of Chicago polltical
realiEiesr violate the Votlng Rights Act.

lle thlnk lt, dese!?eE notlee ai tbe outaet that the

colcPlaints re address here bave tbeir rooL in the erlrcaely
narked housing aeglegail.on on Cbi.cago's South Side. A lerge
area on the sout,h slde ls. aore tban 85t black. see 11 . Ex.

12, Given this segregation and the terrlLorial basis of

representetion under eur syslenr it is inevit,abLe, absent the
- Eost, cut,landish gerrynenCe:ingr thaE aE least tbe vot,l::g

dist,ricts ln the lncerior of t,his area will be "ery heavily
black. Obviouslyr r€ depJ.ore the extreme degree of housing

aegleEalion in th:s area; but there !s no evidence be3ore us

that the design of voting districLe has any lnpact, on housing.

Our abillty in a redistricting case Eo deal vj.th Bhe problem is
thus linlt,ed at best,.

Congress has sugges'-ed that b'e consider certaj.n faciors:n
dec!Cing a chaLlenge '.o t,he result, of an elec'-ion practice or

structure. The iact,ors are set, fort,h ln the follorlng exce:pE

f roa a Senat,e coro"alttee report:
1. the extene of any hJ,story of

of f iclal discrininat ioa ln t,be st,ate orpoliBlcaI subdivisicn that touched tbe rlghc
of the nenbers o! the elnorit,y grou? to
regisieir Eo voter oE oEherrise to
particlpa:e i,n Ehe denccra:ic proce6si

2. E he e: Eent to yhich vo t,i ng I n t,he
elect,j.ons of the st,a:e or po11t:.cal
subd:visicn I s raciaily polari zeC i

3. t,he exr-en!, |.o vhich !be st,ate or
poliiical subdivision has r:sed unqsuaIly



i' ' ?age 8

larEe cleeElon distrlctsr aajority Yote
requj.reraentsr ant,i-aingle shoc provisionsr
or oEher. voting Practlces or Procedures Ehal,
,oay enhance the oPPortunitY for
discrininaiion against tbe ainorlty glouPt

{. tf Ehere ts a candidat,e s1at,lng
ploc€ssr vhet,her t,he nenbers of the ainorlty
group have been denied aecess to EbaE
Proce6si

5. the cxler:E, to vhich nenbers of the
ainortt,y grouP in the state ol Political
eubd ivi s i on bear t,he ef f ecis of
di scriainat, j.on 1n sucb areas aE educationr .
emplo:rnenE and health, rhlch hinder Bheir
ability to partlclpate effectively ln tbe
polit,ical proce6si

5. vhet,he r Polit,ical camPaigns have
beea characteri.zed by overt or subEle racial
aPPeat. s;

7. the exBenE to rrblch raenbers of the
alnorlty grouP have been elected to Public
of f ice in t,he Juri sCict ion.

fdditional facEors thac 1n Eome cases have
had probative value as part of plaintiffs'
evidence t,o establish a violation are:

vheEher there is a signlficant lack of
res:?onsiveness on the Pa:i of elected
off icials to t,he particul,arized needs o! the
aenbers of the ainorit,Y g!ouP.

vheLher the policy underlying the st,at,e
or Political subdivision's use of Euch
voeing qualiiieat,iont pterequisit,e to
vot,ingr or sianqardr PracLice or Procedure
1s Eenuous

ilhlle t,hese enumelaied fact,ors v1]1 of,ten be
the aoEE relevant ones, in 8otre caseE otber
factors ri11 be indlcatlve of tbe a!.J.eged
dilut,ion.

?he cases de;onsirEie, and the Ccr.a!:Eee
lniends Ehat there 1s no requtreaenE l,!ac any
part tcular nunber of f act,ors be ProveC r Qr that a
aajorliy of thea poinB oee ray or Ebe othel.

S. .?.e?. Ho. lL1 | 97',h Con9. r 2C Sess. 28-29 ( 1932) (f oocnoEes

oai: t, eC ) .



:' .r., page 9

Ehese faclors are ln turn derived f ron t,he analysis ln
Hhit,e v. Rcgest,er, 1L2 U.S. 755 (I973). In whiter the Suprene

Court revleveC a tbree-Judge dlstrlct, eourtrs lnvalldatlon of

tbe Te:as 1970 legislatlve reapportlonraent. fte. slgnl.flcance

of tbe case for presenL purposes ie6ts ln the approach taken by

the d!stricE courE and folloued by the suprene courf 1n

lnvalldailng ault,laenber districts 1n Dallas and Be:ar

Count,ias. In looking aE Dallas Count,y, t,be district court

consldered t,he blstory oi Texas polltlcs, lncluding the ef,fect,

of official raci.al discriainaEion on tbe right of blacks to

register and yote and to par'.icipate j.n -.he dencerallc proce6si

the use ol a sl,stera that enhanceC the oPportunity for racial
dlscrininailonl the facE thae since X,econstruction Ehere had

been-on]y lvo blacks in the Dal.las CounEy deiegat,ion t,o the

Texas Eouse of Re;:resentatives; the facE thaE a vhite-doainateC

olganizat.ion effect,ively conErolled Denocratic ParEy candida!,e

elat,lng in Dal1as Cou::t}t and thus had great influence over

eJecij,c::s; the fact that Ehis orEanizar-ion Cj.d nog need tbe

support of blacks to vin elect,ions and Ehetefore dj.d noE,

concern i Eself vith polit,lcal and other needs and aspirat,lons

of blacks; and the f aet Bbat thls organiza!,lon used racial
carnpaig:': tactics 1n rhlte ptecincLs !o deieai black-gupported

candidates. tlhe distrlct, cour! E,bus concluded thal ''che black

eoaauni-.y has been effectlvely e:cluded fron particj.?aiion ln
the Deeocra:lc Pr:Ea!:/ selectlon Proc€6s7 r . ! . anC L-as

theref ore qenerallv not cemit'-ted Bo enter tnto the oolit icaL

Proeess in a relieble lnd meai!nofuI manner. I lilite v,

Reees!er, {12 U.S. at, i67 (eaphasis {iupg1led).



i.., page l0

A sinllar apgroach uas enployed in analyzing tbe legality
of t,he trultinenber Cistriet 1n tsexat C'cuntyr a county rith a

slgnlficant Eispanic ccnnunity. Eere the district coutt

considered the effec-. on poli!,icaI Pa=tlclpation of

diecrininatlon 1n educaElonr enployaent,r econoalcsr beaJthr and

oEher areas. Ehe court concluded that 'Be:ar County

Hexican-Inerlcans tare etfect,ieel)' reaoved froa the Polit,ical
procesges of tsexar ICounEy] ' r . 'lt Hhir-e v. ?egester, 1!2

f,,.S. at 769.

The Suprene Court affiraed the disirict court's

lnvalida:ion of the DaLlas and Bexar Counties roultlnenber

distrlc)-S. The Court accorded defeience to t,he dist,rict,

court'B caref uI consideraii,on c! lhe laitual clrcu:rstancesr and

sald rith reeect, to Bexar CounE,!r

[o ]n the record before usr He are not
:nclihei to overturn these find!ngs,
represeniing as Ehey do a blend of history
and an int,ensely local aPpraisal of the
desig:l and inpacE of Ehe tsexar Counly
nultinenber district 1n the 1lght of Past
and PresenE, real!ey, poliEicai and ot'herviEe.

White v LeEeq!_e_E,1L2 O.S. at 769-70.

As Ye noted in our opiaion of January 12' 1982r the recorq

before us does noB disclose a history of overt and 8ystenaLic

clecEoraL diecrl:uinat,ion coBParabJe to that iCenlified by t!:e

dlst,rlct cour'. !n Hhite v. Recester. I1li,nois has Devel had a

vbl...e prha:y ci a pc!.J. tgx. !{ost l.agcrtant1yl unlike the

otganiza:1on t,hen in control of the Denocratic ?ai:y ln Dailas

Ccunty I !):e De;rccratlc organ:zat,lon ln t,5e Clty of Chicago

depe::Cs upcn t,he suppor'. o j the bl ack ccmar:nlt,y to vin

clecclons rnd therefore tru3t be a: Ieas: sonerhat respons:.Ye !o



' '',' Page 11

black voEersr needs and aspiratlons. Indeedr rather than

igncring causes helpful to blacksr the Democrat,ic party in
I:.linois has been a prinelpal exponent of elvil rlgbt,s
legislalion and o! social legisl,atj,on lnportant to bLackE.

Ftor unllke tbe si,tuatloa ia H,hite v. Reqest,err Brtl! blacks

bave been elected t,o 1ocal office ln cbicago and to suat,e and

natlonal positlcns lePresenEing Chicago. Sixteen of tbe fifty
alderaen ln chicago are b1ack. rbirteen of tbe tbirty-;ive
state rePresentatives and five of the nlneteen state senators

f rom Ctricago districi,s ale blaek. Three of the sevea U.S.

tepresent,aEives fronr ChicaEo are black, fn 6uEr tbere has been

nc Eyslenat,ic exclusion of blacks fromr o! denial of eeaningful
partici..oaEl.on 1n, Chica-oo's and Illinois t pollt,ica1 grocesses

conParable t,o Ehe history ou|-1i.ned 1n ilhi';e'r. Reeesler.

On the other side of the baLanc€r h,e rnust, glve reight t,o 
i

our tindings of purposeful dilut,ion cf black vol,ing sErength ln
lne Cc::.aission's act,ions vj.ih respect, to Eenat,e diatriees L4,

17 and 18 of lhe Co:anission Plan. He found that the innediate

pur?ose of the Connrssion 1n draving these districts uas

Prira:ily to preserve the incuabencies of tvo nhiie stat,e

Senators. lre also found tha! tB}is plocess vas Eo intinat,ely
lnfertvined vlt,hr aDd depen'denE oi:r raclal d:.scrlninaBi.on and

Cl1ut1on of a:.nor!:y votlng st:engt,h tba: purposeful diiution
bas beer clearly Ce.nons'.ra;eC ln the cons:ruciion oi Cos:::asion

genate dis:ricts 14, l7 and 18.' Rvbieki Ir gllP op. a8 68.

lle also not,e ou! f!nd:ng that on Chi.cago'a liest Side there
yas frac'-urlnE anC packing of blacksr r-he ne! effect of 'vhich

yas'the ?ul;oseful diluticn cf bieck voting sf,reng-,h on the



i.,

liest, Side by at, leasE one Eouse District.'
Page L2

f d. at, 72.

Further, ye ehould take lnto aeeoun!r to the ertent
reLevant r 1n deciding vhet,be: the challenged practlees deny

blaeks an equal opportualEl' to particlpaEe ln tbe po!ltical
process and to elect tepreseniaiives of thelr choicel tbe poor

aocio-€cononlc condit,ionsr Enenplolaen!r and tradiEionally low

voter rcglstret,!on affllct,ing black eonaunities ln Chlcago.

11sor y€ recognize as part of thts ease'B 'toLallty of

cireurastaneesr' lhaB erap!.olaent or oEher discrlainatlon has

---bee-n-ETfeged anC/oi proven -fn-suEtr-Cit-y-uETt6 as the Chicago

Pclice Departnent, the Ctricago Eousing Authorltyr the Chicago

Board of Educationr the Chicagc PubIic Librs!yr and the Chicago

Park Dlstrict,. ggg iC. at 94.

Although 1: 1s unclear that the Crosby plainElffs are

arguing the lssue of 'packing' through e:cessive conceni,ralion

o! rninority populaEions in voEing districts excepE insofar as

llese co::cent::'-ed Cis'"ricts iiay have boundaries th:t fo11o"r

raciai divisionsr ye think ve shoul,d first consider vhether the

present, concen!,ra!,i.on o! bJacks 1n elecBion diEtricta approved

by -.bls cou:tr ln 5.he tot,a:,ity of circunstai:ces and ln and of

lt,se1fr denles blacks egual access to Ehe political Proc€sS.

the Bouse DistlicLs vlth partlcularly blSb black concentraElons

are Dlalriet 23 (9{.33f black)r DistrlcE 24 (98.{31 black) r

DiEtrici 25 (8.{.331 black) r Dlelrict 31 (98. {1t black)r

DlEcrlct 32 (98.941 black) r and D!st!:ct 36 (97.8i.t black).

!!,ree oBher South Slde house Ciat,rie'.s bEve aaJori:y black

pogula:ioiits, *ese ate Di.str!et 33 (65.37t biack)r Dis:rlct 3-{

(73.351 biaek)r and Dist,rict 26 (78.21t black). 3he fou: b1:ck



\' , PaEe 13

rajority llest Side bouee disLricts are District 15 (55.32t

black)r District 17 (71.93t black)r Dletcict 18 (77.05t black)r
and District 19 (75.31t black).

tt lbe or:t,setr Y€ are lnclined to trenove f roo conslderat,ion

lhose dist rlcts rhose black populailon consLituEes less t,ban

80t of the diatrlct popuratlon. Given that 55t ls a Eenerally
accepted Ebreshold for provlding an opportuniEy for ninorlties
to elect a tepresent,ailve of tbelr choice, lt seens to us

unnecessary ln llghE of--aLl Ehe clreurostances of tbis case to

be concerned ritb dist,ricts ubose black popula!,lon ls less than

15t abcve this threshold. In addl!j.onr tbere ls evldence that
in Eci:ie circurilstances rrinority represent,atton aay be ln
Jeopardl, even vhen the portlon of n!norities ln a dtstrict
e:eeeCs 80t

fbis leaves us rith Dis'.ricts 23, 21, 23, 31r 32, and 36

-- districts the black populations of rbich t!Er respectively,
9{.33t, 98.431, 84.33i, 98.44t, 98.94t, and 97.811 of the

diECric: |-ot,aL. Fhe erguably j.11ege1 're6u1L'of having Bhese

bighly ccncentrat,ed districts is noB Epecific t,o any one of tne

distrlcts; lndeed blacks rit,bin each concent,taEed di.strict have

an obviously st,rong opportualty Eo clect represent,at,ives of

thelr cbolce. Inst,eadr lhe adverse result Eay be ldentif lable
ln t:ms of vhai aight ot,hervlEe have occurred elsevbere. If
keeplag bLack naJorlEles in Cistricts belov 80t vere a priaary

obJecllve of red:.s--tic:lngr iever black voBes vould be 'yasted'
and lnslead vouidr EE least, 1;: theoryr be avallabLe F-o lora



-cr:E a!

' black naJorlty dis',rl.cts e1sevbe r".2/
But tbis'vast,lng'of minority yotes ln and of ltgelf docs

not,, Ye beLiever ln the circums!,anees before us violat,e the

Vocing ?ights lct. Given lbe presenE leveI of black
partieipation 1n tbe polilical process and tbe abiltty of
blacks to elect, represenEaiives of thei: choleer ye eannot Eay

that, these highly concenlraEed disEric!sr vltboui Eorer

denonst,raLe: votlng Rights AcE vlolation. This 1g noL to say

that, !n otbir clreunslances ln vhicb the lihite v. RegesEer

factors night veigh llore heavily ln favor of plaint,iffsr btgh

concentraiions could not be found 111e9al. He det,emine only

that ln the case bef ore ESr and viLhout .Dore, t,ire}, ate no!,

111e9a1. Bu't rle now conlronE the lssue vhether t,hey aay be

tinged vj,th i1legalit,y yhen considereo in conneci,ion vlth t,he
l

corres?ondence of district llnes to lines of racial division
i

(lhe'tracing' lssue).
t{e could t:eat the tracing lssue !n eit,ber of two Hays.

-E!:a!r ue nighE consider nhe|-her voEing Cistricc 1lnes

co:3e+ondj.ng !o Llnes of racial division segregate black
yoEerE and vheE,her t,his 1s uncons!ltutlonal vithout rega:C !,o

dilutlon of voting strengeb. SecondT ye atgh!, conslder

t/ !nas.;;iuch as house Cist,rlc:32 !s an'int,e;i.cr'Clat:ic-.,
roughly 1n ihe cen:er of Bbe a:ee of hea',1 black concen!rat,!on
on tbe South Slder ll Eeees Coubtful lhai, rbsen! the aoai
outlanClsh ger::/ina!'lderingr dis',-ric: 32 coui,d b€
deconcei:ra'.-ed. 3ecause of our ccnclusiong in this cES€r
hoveve3r ye neeC noa deciCe vhet,her a different analysis shculC
be used for'in-.erior' versus'ex'.erior' conceaLraEeC CtstricLa.



vheEh.!, as

concentrateC

divistons 1n

a;naB:er of dilutlonr the conjunct,ion of bighly

black districts and tbe traclng of raclal
draring diairict llnes ln sone fashlcn resultsr ln

only correcE one ln
t,be crosby plalnttffs
R. Clv. P. 15(b) to

teriaE of the Yoti__!o. B,lqhts I9!, ln blacks baving unegual lceess

to the PoIitlcal Proce6s.

He tbink tbe laBter-apProacb ls tbe

this vote Cilutlon cese. To Ebe e::enL

ceek E o anend t,he i r ccnpl ai nt, unde r Ped .

assert neir cIalns apparenBly alleg!ng unconEtltuttonal raclal

regregation and inf ringeiaent of eertain aBsociatlonll_llgftig.-gf

black c1!:,zensr H€ reEerd such clairns as essent,laLL:' unrelaeed

to the allegations uPon vhieh t,his acBion Yas Prenlr.d.9/
This lansuit yas pleadedr tried and decided on a theory of

dlluEion of I or ger ryganderlng of t black vot,ing st,rengtb.

Clains alleglng unlawful racial. EegreEat,ion by voting district,
ln a lashion not encotrPassed rilhin a cbarge of

gerry:ianCer-based vote dilutionr H€l€ not pleaded I Floved or

decided he=e. @, , 31 5 0.S. 52, 59

(195{) (Dougras, J., dissentlng). llsov nothing aE t!iaI has

suggest,ed EhaC defenCants have glven thelr e:Press or inPlied

consent, t,o reaolueion of such vholly distinct clalas by this

tse neie 3ba: rre a:e una?are o! any decision ynieb has
heLc e eiaLa of segr?gasion by voting dis:ric:. sucb a

aiar ye presune, voulC involve sQne analogy betveen vot,ing
si,rlc'.s LnC, for cxanPler !!egtegateC Echools (vhere race Yas
B an ex:1ici.t at:endance criEerlon) and schoo! dis'-ricis. In
gas oG?Ia!lonal fac:oisr such an analcgy vouIC se€n

9/
u?

d1
no
Fo
di .f f j.cuLt to dla't; but Ye i:eed noE reach Bhe lssue beEe.



.egurt. lnd ye teaain persuaded that any tbeorlt or segEegation

by yoLing district is fundanental!,y at, odds ytthr o! le at

leas! lnconsistenB vtthr tbe ldea of acbieving sufficienE,

ninority concentlations 1n voE,lng dlstrices to enable

sinori.Eles to elect rePrer.naaiives of tbe!r cboice. lbis
.-a

concluslon 1s dranat,lcally iliust,rated by tbe f ect tbat, voBlng

at large (end rlihout distr!ets) achleve6 Ehc hlghesi Posslble

lnEegraElon of raclal and otber aj.norit,lesr bu! siaultaneously

provldes auch ulnorltles vith the least opportunity to eleet,

represenLat,lves of Eheir choice, Thereforer Efld€r theEe

circunsEances ve cannot al1ow tbe Crosby plaintiffE to anend

their conplaint at, Ebia lat,e sLage to lit,igat,e these

essenCially unrelaLed claLns. See 6 C. lf.lIGET & A. HILL!B,,

rED=AL.PRiCTICS AND 9ROCEDUF.E S 1193 (1971).

Eoweyg!t ln Part III ts 3 of Rvbicki Ir Y€ carefully
considered -Dlaint,if fs' arEunentE re-qarding election district
1lnes correryonding t,o racially segregated bousing Pat,t,erns

lnsofar as these lines Eay conEribute Eo excessive

conceniraiion ( or 'packing' ) and r t,heref ore, 'vast ing' of the

black vot,e. Rvbicki Ir sJip op. a8,73. lfe found against

pialntiffsr applyLng the Ciev of xoblle crlEeria, becauEe t,he

evldence did not cstablisb Ebat tbe distrlct lines v€re dravn

vlth the pur?ose to dl1uEe black vot:s. tle now recoDside: t,be

evldeEce to deternine vhel,he!r as plalnElffs alleger eleciion

Cist;:c:- lines !race dlvisj.ons b€:veen blacks anC vhl.BEs and

vheEher tblsr by'packing'and tvasting'the biack voLe,

viciaies Bhe 'rasuL'-a' Bes-- o! t,he anendeC Voiing Sight,s Ac.. rs

applied to i,hese circunstaaces.



-tr

Our firs[ task 1s to detenline whether and vhcre Euch

traeinE takes Place. The Crosby plaintiffs stated broadly ln
tbel: prcposed fi::dtngs of fact thaE, 'It]be boundar], lines f or

Con:rissicn Eouse Districts l7r 18 , 23, 24, 2Sr 31, 33 and 3{

trace ln gleaE, part the boundaries of Ehe beaq, black
concenLration ln Cbicago. . . . These lines create a trall'

around the resldentlally segregat,ed blaek co!r'rti'unit,!es 1n

Chicagor thereby aPpearing to eonfer rn officlal governilental

aancilon on the raclal segregation vhlch e:ists ln Chieago.'

No. 9i.
Sinila;iy, 1n thelr Eenorandum Eupporting E,heir post,-t rial
aoilonr the Crosby plaintltfs referred to'the val.I, vhich

EeparaLes the taces by faithfully lracking the lines of
\

6egregat,ion in housing on tbe souih side of Chicago for nore

than 15 milesr'and conplained that,'the Eap adopied by the

court i:ilposes the aa:ie raciaL Hall as the Comnission's original
rrapr onl,y now involving Eenat e districis :.2r 15 and 17 (as

reviseC) and houae diatricts 23' 21r 31r 33 (as reviseC) and 35

(es revised).' !{enorandu:ir in Suoocr}. c! Crosbv ?Lg!ntiffsr
Post-TriaI !{o!.!cn 3-4.Y Pinallyr the Crosby plaint,lfis
as6erted lhatr 'everv elassiflca:ion aade ln Ebe creat,ion of

ile alao noLe l,haa bouse disBric:E 17 ani I8, the tiest
Ce dlsLrlc:s slngied ou!, ai, !;iaL by tbe Crcsby plain:lffs as
ai.rlcts vl:ose bosndaries traced rac!al divl slonsr y3!€
t,erEd in oul original ordel ln:esponse Eo our f:ndiag of
rposef ul yc:e Cilut,lon. Dis:rict, I7 is now 7i.931 biack qnd
s'-rtcB 18 ls 77.051 black. Shusr t,hey ars no: hlghlY
ncenrra-.ed, E -L\i!j3, F. 13r anC fu:ther aoii::calion is
early not requlre<i by i,he YoL,lng 3i;Ita Act, lll E'l!ra pp.
-l.l .

l/
ei
dt
al
-Yta
d!
co
c1
't?



thi: 15-nrile barrier ras racially founded. lbe lines forning

tbe uali yere a concession to the racial aniaoelEy and

bos!lttty tn the'vhlte areas ad'tolninq the va11.' Reolv

Hemorandu:n tn Support of Crosbv Posi,-Tria1 Hotion 15 (eaplrasis

gupplieC) '
fn Rvbieki I ve did no! pereelve a need to establlsh Ln

detall and rlth Preclsion Ehe facts lnvoLving lhe alleged

tracing of raeial dlvisions because ue focused oD tbe notlves

of Ebe Ccnnissiori, as Eequlced by Cltv of l{o.blle v. Bolden, 146

E.S, 55 (1980), and f,ound t,hat they had noB been eho$n to be

unlardul. Novr hovevetr H€ are lnsirueted to look at lhe

'!esults' of redistrict,ing and the noBives of the ConmiEsion

are noE cont,rolling. l'lrus He should deLeraine lf ln facL the

Co:',urission and cour!,-adoPt,ed plan trace racial divisi.ons and,

tf Bor vheEher this in 6oi0e fashion vlolaies the Yot,ing B,ights

ict.
Ile noie at the outset t,hat the allegal,ions of the Crosby

plaier-1f !s guo..eC above paint with t,oo broad a brush. Inseead,

greaB specificit,y is requlred Eo aPPraise the precise locaBlon

of district lines and t,he populatlons t,brouEh vhich they run.

lloreov€lr ye aust begin vl Eh aE least a Preliiainary ldea of

yhat 1E ae:,ns in t,be reCtst,ricllng conte:t, to trace raclal

dtvisions.
Cu: analysis vlll focus on Ehe PoPulatlcna of census trac+-s

ln:nedla:ely aC3 acenr- !,o di si rlct lines thai f oIlov beavily

concen!:al:C (851+1 black census trac'-s ln bouse distric:s 23,



' 24', 31 r and 3 6.

rCl:E Lr

g/ Fe have luo aliernat,e uays of looking at

the.popular.ion data in t,esfing the traclng allegatlon. !l:st,
ve night flnd rhat tracing occurrec vhere tbe dist,rict line
EunE bet,veen a bighly concenE,rated (85f+1 black cei:sus Erac:

and a ainina!.ly concent,rat,ed black cen6us traci. ?hus ou! :

f,ocuE uould be on tblack' ?etsus tnon-black' census t,racts.
I'!re eeeond Hay of lookirg at the popul,aLlon data ls to find
tha'. t,racing occurreC vhere Ehe dis'.rlct line runs betreen a

bLShl.y concen|-raied black census tract and a bishly
concenlrated vhit,e census traet (or at least a tract congaining

a significant, nur,rber of vhites vith no subs|-antj.al non-black

ainorlty). ?rom this vierpoinE a districe line drawn betveen a

black census tract and a tracB conEaininE substanBial

nu"u"rJ/ oi non--*hites (oEher than bracks) vouid not be

eharact,erLzed !s signiticantly tracing raclal divisions.
I{e believe Bhat the lar-Eer approach !s the correct one.

He looked nore broadly at Ehe black versus non-black census

tractsr He vould not, recogn:ze t,he legi-.ina'.e inierest,s of

Tf

2/
P.

Census Eracr- daia ale conr-ained ln ?I. ?-x,.28.

Plalnttff,s also obJected Eo Bhe lines of house dist,ric:33,
as revi.aed. Henorandu:n !n Support of C;osby Pla:.nt!fi's
Post-Tria1 Hol,lon {. lhis dis:ric:r bovev€!r 1s only
55.371 biack anC t!:eref ore t,he llnes do not conEribuee to
any 'packing' problem 1n tbis distric!. ?uttberr
plaintiifa do noE challenge lhe linea of house dis|-rlct 32,
rn t j.nEericr' d:sttic..r o.i hcuse Clsirict 25, a Cistr:c:
borderi r4 lake ){:chigan. fnsr-e:C, plrinEl!f a challenge-Ehe
hcuEe disr-ri.ct, s on lhe uest,ern side of the a:ea of heary
biack concentrrtion. 1te aliegar-!on 1s thai the dis:rici,
Iines of these Ciat,ric:s irace the rrctrl. div:sion b€:veen
vhiies :o the vest and blacks to Ehe east.

For this pu-cse ye ha're generaily reggrded a aiaori'-y
rcen:age of 33t or Eore as 'substantial.'



;'

non-blackr Ronrhlte groups in avoiding the fracturing of their
vot,ing pone t.t0/ ?or exam!:ler the district boundary along

Ehe aoutheasL edge of bouse district L8 on E,be liesi Sider a 771

black dlstrictr run6 betveen heavily corrcent,raEeC bl.ack census

tracts Ln Dis'.rlet l8 and tracts 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3003,

3002 and 2915, v!:ich are ln bouse distrlct 20. Eouse Dlstrlct
20 !s 7Lt Eiryanic and l,t,s comPoEiilon ie Prescribed by the'

EisPanieSet,i,1eaenElgreenent'E@l81!poP.aE,100-01E
n.104. ?ract -1005 has a populatton of 3535 and ls 75'9t

Eispanic. Traet 3005 ls 59.81 Eispanle. Eract 3007 ls 89t

Ei spani,c. Tract 3008 ls 90.1i Eispanic. Tract 3003 1s

Ei*anic. 38g!-.]!!] 1s 38.59 Aispanic. Pinal1y, !igg!
is 71.1t Eispanlc. S:ni1arlyr the northeast boundary of house

Cistrict 23, a 9dt b!cck Cistrict,r tllhs betreen heavily

concenLraLed black census tract,s and tract,s 3402 and 3101 in

house dis:rict :.9. These tro Eract,s are 711 and 29.3t Asian

and r ue tray t ake Judi.ci.a1 not,iee Eha! r toget,her uith t,racis

3101 aad 3{03, they conEain the area knovn as 'Chinatoun.'

Slnce rle a:e noi avare of a Percuaslve basis 1n Jaw for

fracCurlng one nlnority ln the j,nterest of deconcentratlng

anoEber I ve Ebink lt apPro?riate Co exa.nine an aP?arenB tracing

of a raciai division as presenting a susllec! circuaslance under

Ebe Votlng RighEs AcE onLy vhere a llne tuns belveen heavlly

ccncen!.raled black and sUbstan'-iai]Y vhir-e census t,tacts

45.78

2915

than'vhit,e
ihe crcsby
1r.16- lrlr i,.rn=U V t t r : a a r - v aa 9

t0/ 'fe voul,C also be looking a! scrce'-h:.ng other
arets ad jo:.ning Ehe va11r' t,he sieuaiion of vhich
plaini,lffs conPIai.n and t,he faciual Predi.cai: for
lbou.- a raciaL'ra11,' See aupra pp. 17-18.



Page 21

(or at leasB tracts conEalnlng a.algnificant, aua.ber of ublt,es

vlth no aubsianElal non-black ainoriEy), and yhere sucb a line
arguably eontrlbutes to 'packing' and therefore ryastingo of
black voLes. lle nov turn to tbe evidenee.

Eouse disiri.et 23 is a 94t black distriet on Chicago's.near
Soutb Side. Disitict 23's vestern boundary !o11ovs the eastern

cdge of sLx census tracts: tracts 3{02, 3{04r 3405, 5015, 5101,

and 5108.1L/ tract 3402 has a totar populat,ion of 5319. of
thls nunberr. 3941 (7{t ) perBons are tsian,/Pacif ic Is1ands!6r

991 (18.51) a!e yhitesr 28d (5.31) are blacksr aaC 103 (1.99)

are listed rs ot,her, In addiLion !o and Eeparat,e fron the

raclal breakdoHRr 136 (2.5t) pergons are listed as perEonB of
spanish orig iv1.l2/ Tract 3101 has a total populatlon of

1605;DadeuPof,,,-mhiBes,172(29.3t)Asian./Pacifie

ll/ Census tracts bordering the challenged districBs can be
i.Cenr-:,f:.ed by using Ct. Zx. IA, r-hich 1s a rep:oduc.-icn of the
coLlri-approved district lines superinposed on a census tract,
traP of Cook Counr-y.

12/ 3ecause persons listec in census data aE being of
Spanish origin rnay be of any racer (?1. E:. {3, Bure![ of the
Censusr U.S. Degt. of Comnerce, 1980 Census of ?ooulaiion and
Eousiqo -- IlLinois Advance Recori 3 (t{arch l98I) ) r one cannoE
knoe !ron t,hj,s oaca vhich of Lhe iive racial caE,egories (vhiLer
bIack, Anerican Indian-Eskioo-AleuE r tslan,/?acif ic Islanderr
and Other) shouLd be reduced for present, purposes fo reflect
the El spaale concent,ratlon ln a census trEct, Ihia does not,
pcse s ?roblea herer hovev€!r because for tbe purpose of
loenel:ying any Eracing of raciaL dlvisionsr ue thj,nk tbat the
cxis:snce of a subseantial nun-ber (33f or Eore) o! SlapanJ.c
voBels in a census t,ract, bordering a black diatric! negat,es a
finding of a 3us?ect C:acing cf a:ecial C:vision. See Bu?ra
n.9 and accc$panylng text.



. 'lalandersr 105 ( 5.6t ) ot,hersr and 101 ( 5.2t ) blacks. traei
3{04 bas 273 (15.9t) persons of Spanish oriEin. tract 3{05 has

a populatlon of 1765r v!lh 1375 (771) vhiEes and 367 (20,5t)

blacks. 79 (4.{t) people ale Eispanlcs. ?raet 6015 has a

popula!,lon of 515., vith 116 (85.4t) vhiEesr 32 (1Or) othersr

and 16 (3.11) blacks. 1C7 (20.73) persons ln tract 6015 are

Elapanlc, Traer- 5101 has a populaLlon of 1220, ritb lA77

(88.21) vhitesr lS (5,It) blacksr EDd 58 (5.51) oEbers. 178

( 1{.5t ) peisons are Eispanlc. Finallyr !g.!-!.I!.!. bas a

populat,ion of 1939 uit,h 1905 (98.21) vhitesr 30 (1,5t) othersr

3 (.lt) blacksr tItC 1 (.05t) l:nerican tndian. 1{0 (7.28)

personE are Er *anic. In Eu::I, of the six census tracts Just

beyoad the vestern boundary of house disLriet 23, trae'. 5108

clearly neeis our crlteria for tnvestigal,ion. fract,6101 is aE

ieast euspec! since the largest'non-rhiEe grouP iE Eispanic and

this group cons'.!Eutes only 14.51 of t,he district population.

Similarlyr tract 5016 bears lnvestigation since 1c ls on1:t

20.71 Eispanic. Trac', 34A2 is 74f Asian ead 5.39 black. TracL

340{ is 29.31 tsian ,E/ 15.9t Eispanic, and (depending on the

race of t,he Eispanics) uP Eo 5.21 bIack. Tract 3.t05 j.s 20.5t

biaek vith no other substant!al ainority.

11/
o!
l'\a

and

fti the ass'Jnpt.i.cn iha'-
'Clj.neLovn, ' g- gre P.
our purpcses even tho'Jgh
33t 'LnresholC' re have
acconPan:'ing text,.

i5e 29.31 Aslan linori..y is pa=--
20 , ve -.hiak 1: 1s 'suDs:ant iai'
E,his ninoriry ls alighriy belor

gel:eraLly fol,l,oted, !g sr.:3rt n.9



., rage zs
^ Eouse district,2{ ls a 98t black district fumediately eouth

and vest of bouse district 23. ghe distriet llne under
tnvestigat,ion bere runs along the border of census tracts 5109r
6110 and 6i19. trac'- 6109 bas a populaEron of rl7zr vitb r04g
(71.11) vhltesr 302 (20.51) blacksr lI9 (gf) oEbersr and 3

(.2t) traerlcan Indlans. 181 (12.S1 ) perBons are Eispanic.
lract 6110 has a populatlon of 1700, ylt,h 1O5l (6Zt) blacksr
337 (19.8t) vhitesr 301 (17.71) othersr and 8 (.4t) Asians anc

lnertcan rndians, 3g5 (23.2t) persons are Eispanic. Traet
6l.19 has a populati.on of 17gl r Hirh 1771 (37r) rhiies t !726
(35r) blackst 1215 (28.51) othe:sr and lE (.3t) Asians and

L.rerican InCians. 1g99 (41.71) perscns ln tract OlIg E,re

Eispaii.cs. ?ract 5109 is at, leaat Bus?ect under our criteria.
iiouse distriet 3l.r the next district vhose boundary is in

guestionr ls a 9Et black district. fE 1s borCered by census

tracBs 5119, 6119, 6117, 670:), 671{, 651,0, ?O0l and parr of
7005. r:act 51.19, vhich also borders distric: 24, has a

po.DuiaEion of {791, riih 1774 (37t) t,hitest lj26 (35s) blacksr
L275 (25. 6t ) otherar and 15 ( .3i ) Asians and .\terican Indians.
1999 (11.71 ) per6ons in this Bract, a:e Eispanics. Tract 511g

bas a populat,ion of 3520, rir,h 2261 (52.4t) yhiE,esr 772 (21.3t)
othe;sr 572 ( 15,8f ) blacks, and 15 ( .4t ) Asians and Aroerican

rndia:rs. 1573 (16.2t) perBons 1n tbls tract aie Ej.spanics.

Siggj_9-1-lJ, bas a popularion of
912 ( 25.21 ) othersr i5E ( {. {t )

A.terican Ind!ens. 1750 (48.81 )

Eispanic. T:act 6705 has a popuLai:.on of

3585, rit,h 2.{65 ( 5 8. 7r ) vhi:es,
5t) Asians and

t ract a:e

'riBh 2L50

biacks and

per6ons 1n

20 (.

Bhis

2251 |

(95.31) blacks, 7l (3.1t) vhitesr 31 (1.31) oEhersr anc z



Page 24

(.081) lslans and laerican Indlans, 57 (2.5t) persons ln this
ttacttreEispan1c.3!@!basaPcPufationof3005,v1'.b
2950 (98,1t) blacksr 51 (1.51 ) vhit,esr and 5 (.lt) Asians and

oEhers. 20 (.5t) petEons 1n thls tract are Eispanic. Traet

6510 bas a po.oulaLion of 5506, vitb 32{1 (57.81) vbiEesr 2A29

(35.11 ) blacks, 2{8 (4.41) othersr End E8 (1.51) lslans and

lnerlcan IndiEns. 357 (5.51) p€rsons are Eispanic. ?ract 7001

bas a populatlon o! 3283, vith 31{8 (95.8t) vhitesr 105 (3.1t)

othersr and 30 ( .9t ) fslans and Araerlcan Indians. 150 ({.51)

per6on6 are Eispanis.!L/ Tract 7005 borders bot,b district 31

and distrlct 36, Ehe next district, to Ehe south. tract 7005

has a population of 11r152, rith 9875 (88.11) uhiBesr 1083

(9.7t) blacksr 140 (f.2g) oEhersr and 63 (.51) Isians and

l:ae:ican Indians. 285 ( 2.51) persons ale Tispanic,
To Eu,nnarize dj.st,ricl 3lr Erac'.s 51I9, 6118, and 5117 are

.

each 40+t Eispanlc. Tracts 5705 and 67L1 are each 90+t blaek.

?rac: 6610 1s 57. 9i r'::!e and 35. It bIack. I f rac!,s 7001 and

7005 elearl.y bear investigacion. Traci,6510 is at 1er,st

su spect .

Eouse districE 35r a 97.81 b1:,ck dis'-rlctr 1s the next

dlst,rlct to sout,h. IE

tract 7005 aad t!acts

y/
CNE
:l-{aa!

t rfl

di.s
hor
P€T

t,he souihern

Trac: 7005,

llthough the Ca:a ye have for trac:700L are lor t,he
lre'.ractr the ttEct, 1tself, 1s divided cetveen house
irlc:s 29 and 30. Tlus onLy Epproxinately Eyo-thirds of, the
a o!.7001 ls ln the district, lnnediately ad3ace::t, to house
t,ric: 3I. Tle heavriy vh!r-e corpcei. !,ion of B ract 700i r

ever r D€!ates a aeed Bo lrore preci eely Cerernine the racial
ceniages ln the 3re. that j.E ad jaceni Eo disirict 31.

ls bordered by

7201 and 7202.

half of

de Eal led



'abcvel has less than a 15t ninorlty populatlon. ?ract 7201r

bas a population of {104, uir,h 35{l ( 95. 2t ) vhit,esr SZ3 ( 12.71)

blacks, 21 (.5t) Asians and lnerican InClaRSr and.19 (.4t1
others. 35 (.8t ) persons aEe Eiryailc. ?raet ?202 bas a

population of 4886, rlih 33gg (69.3t) vbitesr 1112 (2g.gt)
blacksr {3 (.8t) oihers, and 12 (.Et) lsians and loerican
IndlErls. 80 (1.5t) personE are Eisi:anlc. In Burnjualyr tract
7201 bas less than 15r ninority popuration and bears

l,nvest,iga!,1on. lract 7202 ls at least suspect.

$U?rrrrg3y

ls ye review tbe evldence, ve thus find geveral places in
chich dis..rict Jines of highly concentrated black districts
corres?ond to pronounced div:sions betreen blach and vhite
PoPulat,iohs. Pirstr traet 72clr Elir 85.21 vhite trac',. ln
Cistrj,ct 28, is aCjacenE to and Eeparated by the districL line
f ro.r t,racts 7LL3 and 7303, vhich are 96.3t and 97.4t black

tracr-s j.n dlst rict, 36. Second, traci, 70C5r Ei1 88..it vhite
t,ract in di,s'.rict 29, is Bet off froa tracta I05 a:.:C 7112r

-o8.{t and 97.lt black tract,s ln districts 31 and 35. Tblrdr

E3i!-f!!!, a 95.8t vhite tract vhich ls priraarily in district
29, borCers EE!_f}[1, ! 98.4t black tract, in dist:ici 31.

Fourt,b,!E39@,a98.2trhlte!tact1ndist,rict2!tborders

J:/ Tracr 3{c5, rhich ts ad;acenE Bc house cistricE 23, ls7ir. vhite. i E la noE lncluded vi Eh:n the t,ract,s ye have
singled outr horev€!r because the Bract, yithin Cistrict 23 !o
vhieb t: is aCjacso-.r EracE 3505, 1a 55t vhite. Thus, Crair:.::g
t,he di.s:tict line beiveen t,rac..s 3{05 and 3505 did not:race a
aign:f icani raei rJ d !vi sion.



a r:- -Y

., l{e also find aeveral places in yhlch tbe distrlcc lines,
though not corlesponcing to such narked racial divisionsr
nevertheless co!reqond to siEnlficant dlvisions bcEyeen blacks
and vhiEes and therefore are at leasE su'?ect ln tbie caEe.
tlrstr traet 7202, a 69'3t vbite tract ln districE 2gt adjoins
tracte 7304 end 73051 95.7t anc 97.6t black tracts ln distrlct
36, seeonqr lr3et G510, a 57.g1 vhite tract ln diet,ricr 29t
adJolns traer G720, a 9gt black tract 1n district 3r. Tbirdr
traet' 5109, a 71.1t vhlte tract ln distrlct ZZt adJoins traeEs
6122 and 3703 t 97.2r and 99.91 black tracts in distriet 24.
Fourthr r-raet 5101r rB gg.2t yhi.te tract in district 2!t uitb
14.59 Eieanics, rd joins tract 3701r a 98.31 black !ract in
dlsErict 23. ?if t,hr Eract 6016r ED gO.4t vhite tract ln
district 21, vith 20.78 Eispanics, adjoins tracf, 3405, a 99.8t
black tract 1n disericg 23. A fer of t,hese ident,lfied tracts
are l,n cisErici,s included in the Eispanic setilemeaE, Agreeroent,
( i.e., tracts 6109, 5109, 6101 and 5015)

oP. at, 101 n.101 (quoting frcn Eispanic
iny changes involving these traets yould

See Rvbieki Ir slip

ccnsen.. of the De1yail,e plaint,if f s.

onder t,he 'resulEs'test, of, Ehe anended voting g,ight,a Act,,
ue are teniatively of the vlev tbat, over the 10ng t.erar r.n!
rlgld adberence ln a siEnlficanL nunber of plrces to
ve1l-defined llnes of raclal. divis!on berveen blacks and

vbttcsr 1n Ebese unusuaL ci,rcu.:s'.ances vhere coneeniraii,ons of
blackE ereeeding 80r or 9ot 1n voting Cistricts are cons:rainec
by.Lake rlchi,Ean on ile east and t,he lJnes ln quest,:on on the
v:sl,r trsy have ihe resuli. of conBributlng io sone degree t,o

Se! llanen! Agreenent ) .

pre sunabl,y requi re the.



- -- -

"'pack!ng' and vote dilut,lon. Adherence Eo these llnes over

tl:ae t ye bellever tray restrict t,he opportunity of blacks .!o
particlpate ln the pollt,lcal process and !o eleet
rePreseatat'ives of thelr chol,ce.' There are so ilany varlables
and factors of slEnlficance lbat ye reach ao final eonclusion
olr tbe f act,e bef ore u6. Butr .based upoa our teni,atlve
aaalysl s r ve request t,hat, tbe Courission resubnit to us

alBertraEe diEtrlct, boundary lines thar- deviat,e froa tbe

Pronounced division bet,reen blacks and ublLes ln the Eracts ue

bave ldentiftedl vhele highly concenErated black districts e,re

lnvolved ' If the neh, 11nes lncLude sone blacks withln 'shi.te'
dj.st,ricts vhiler at the sane tine r Lncludlng whi|-es rithin
'brackn dlsl,rlcts, He tblnk'thls 1E not'gg se obJectionable.
lhe Frinary purpose, o! cour6e, should be to aove auay f,ron

using black-nhite boundaries a6 dist,rict 1lnes in conjunction
t'ith dist,ricis t,haF. have yery high biack concentraiions.

Ile ieccgnlze lhei lf Eb: addit,ion of rhites',o dist,ricts
uould arake lhen less than 80t black, this nrght, reault in the

e1ect,!on of !epresent,at,lves fron Ehe rbit,e rinori.ty. There is
evidence in tbe case aaking such a posslbility quite credible.
lurtherr Y€ PUE house diEtrlct 35 ln a special caLegory because

thls district bas already been restructured (Ct. Ex. lA) tn
orCer to provide r 55t black aaJori,ty ln Eenate distrlct 18.

rf, la obv:.ous1y lna-cpropriaee to Jeopardize the opportunlty t,o

elect, a bLack Sena:o: ln tEis C!s:ri.ce by shi.j:,lng !,he.iesiern

boundary !o lnclude subslanEtally nore non-bIlcks. fbereforer
ue ask t,he'Scnniaslon to repori to us rega=dlng vhai lig::i b€

done abou: t,he ves:ern boundary of district 36 vithout uncoing



' 'uhat thl s court has already done and yithout fracturing ot,her

substant,ial non-black alnori!ies.
lfhen the Connission aakes such a subrnlssionr t,he court utll

hold a turther hearing to evaluaie lts effect and t,o hear other
relevant evidence. tberealter ve rill nake ou! f!na1
deBeralnat,ions ln thls case, Of courBe, 1n naking adJustnentsr

tbe Couaisslon liay nake ot,her boundary aCJusBDenEE vhich aay be

regul'red o; desirabLe to satisfy all other relevant, eriter!a.
lfe emphasize that Ye are addresslng unCer Sect,ion 2 of the

Yoeing Rlght,s lct, the lono-term resul,ts in tel:as of vot,e

dlluiion of draning a significant, nuaber of district lines
along arguably rigid divisions betueen blacks and vhites. we

believe elininaiion of Ehis practice nay be inportant ln
lending bet,ter long-run flexibilit,y E,o the apport,ionraenr- of

clectlon dist,ricEs. He Perceive no basisr howeverr to respond

to this problen by adopt,ing the'Coalition' or'Crosby.
Recistrieelng llaps as long as the corunissi,on 1s villing to
correct the Ceiec:s ve ident,ify. is !{e pointeC our- ln our

orlglnal opinionr 'in vj,ey of the Epecrfie and rel.at,ively
localized defects lre have foundr Edopting such an routside'

plan 1n lts enLiret,y rouJ.d inappropria!,ely preenpt Ehe

redistrlcE!n9 procedure auLhorized by the peopre of 111inoi.s

and E,he agenci es ernpovered by llllnois lar.' l,vbleki I r sllp
op. at L0{-05 n.108.

I{it,h !eE?ect, '.o judge Grady's aepara!,e op j.nionr ye lbink he

cisply aiecoacelves ',he naF-ure of tbi s proceeding. Thls case

uas brought, on the adniEEeCly race-conscious theor]f tha: E,he

cpgor--uni:y t o achieve einority represeniaiion 1n the



tesisla!ure should be enhanced by redrauing dlstriet
bounCaries. Onder such a theory 11nc-draring ls necessarily a

race-conscious Process. It 1e lnposslble andl ue lbinkr
unlarfulr to res?ond !o a lac€-conscious clain rith a

color-b1ind renedy,16/

renedy progosed ln bis separale oPinion of January 12t 1982,

bad been soughE by none of the llttgants andr t,o our knorl,edge,

racial and ethnic ErouP6 are ProPerLl_viered aE one facet, of a

very coiilplicated probJ.era primarily involving the fairness of

represe;!,ation. Hit,h tesPect t,o Ehe u6e of 55 Percent as a

Populat ion prcport, ion providing a reasonable olrPorLuniiy t,o

eieci a rePreseniaBive of chcicer ue are siaply relying on a

subsiant,ial body o! larr and of Po]icy of the De.carEnent, of

JuStice developeC over e nunber of year8. See supra O.{.

!6/ iudge G:ad1,ts pro-posed aPproach is 'a naP dravn
accorCing Eo the frleitional neutral criieria, Yithout regard
to rhae: believe 1s the const,tl,utionally iapernissibLe
conEid erai ion of tace or e|hnic charaCter. . o . Hhateve! the
bloe 

"oElrE 
effect of a colorblind nap aiEht be, it vould be

unlntended .' .Rybickl r r sllP oP. aE 133-3 4 (Grady , J. ,
dlEsenL1ng).ffi-pproachs1nrP1y1gnorest,het,hcoryof
plainttffs! vote dilutton claias, rhich are Erounded in a
presunpt,!on of 'bloc YoB!D9.' If Judge Grady !a correc|.r the
Cros51, and DelValle cotrplaints sbould bave been dis'aissed at
tbe outaet.

Tbus Judge Grady's 'co1or-b1ind'

vould be vlgorously (and ProPerly) reJecEed by all of

gr,gm.lf./ He belleve that llnes tiaclng dtvi slons beE,reen

LJl the SuPrene Ccu:t'- ccni:nues to analyze tbe
electoral systens 1n a race-conscious Ranner.
?ort Arthur v. UniteC Strees, 51 O.S.L.w. {033

1 a,r r'ta,>b-
E.q.,
lUrSr

i:y of
Ci t,v of
Dec. 13r



Page 3g

rrl.
PinaLlyr vi!h reE)€ct to tbe otber post-trial aoBions of

the parties, ye declde the fol1orlng.
Ebe ccumtEslon'8 iaoElon under ped. R. clv. p. 52 f or

a:aendneni of this coulEf s f indings and concluslons congalned in
Rvbieki r ls denled. ?or the reasons e:pressed ln tbat
opinion; Ye believe tbat plaint,lffa adduced sufficient evidence
of purposeful dlscrlainat,lon at, trlali nen argu:ienis presented

by the defendant,s, lnierpreE,ing the sEatlstics and test,iaony
relj'ed on !or these tindings of discrininationl do noE perEuade

uE to the eonlrary. lloreover, the Coreioissicnt s arEr.ment that
thls eourt lnproperly refueed to apply Lhe burdens of proof

posiBion Has rejected 1n s!,E!!-!.

"iith respect, to the various Erotions of tbe crosby
pl,alnilffs other than t,he naEterE He have addressed aboyer ue

flrst note tha: these plaintiffs Eo a considerable degree

reargue naLters previously argued and brlefed before ua end

addresaed at lengt,h ln B:rblckl r. Purt,her oral argunent, vtl1
Dot be heL?ful to us and, t,husr u€ deny tbe crosby plainc,iffs'
ltquest, for oral argulnen! before declding the other out,st,anding

:oUio!:s.

In adCiticn io ou: ane).yeia of Ehe faces under the
tresul:s'teEt o! Ehe eaendeC Yot,lng ?.1gbts lctr ye have

carefully reconsiderec out opinion anc findings reg.,rding t,he

absence of cu-oseful vote Cilull,on or racial gerr),aander:ng

formulaBed 1n TeXas DepartmenE of Conraunity lffairs v. tsurdine,

{50 u.s. 219 (lggr) r yas f uIly addressed and l,he cornroission's



Page 31

relaeed Eo the alleged districting 'rallr' lncluding the briefs
filed by plaint,iffsr defendants and tbe amicus euriae. Insofar
aE purposefu:. Cj.acr:.ninaiion is concerneCr y€ find no basis !,o

anend our findings pursuanL to Ped. R. civ. p. 52(b) or to bold

a DeH t,riaI under ?ed. R. Clv. P. 59(a) (Zl and ye accordlngly

deny those aotlons .18'/ rhe crosby plainttf f E also rcqueEt

that Ye exerclse conLinuing Jur!.sdict,lon unBil afEer the next,

teapPortionnent to grant tuture -rellet ln thls caEe under

le/ Fa
-v

Es-19-s.,ue nci i.
page 5{

J3/
({1
125
c09
Jus
vie
In
to

clarif y our lnt,er?re ia'-ion of CiEv qf_Hobile f .
416 u.S. 55 (l98oj, and the :im lssue,ly f oot,nole 70 of ollr opinion of january L2, 1982 aEto read a6 follovs:
Justices Stevens (.1{6 U.S. aB 84-85) r }rhite

5 U,S. at 102) and llarshall (4{5 0.S. at, l0{-05,
-29) exlrressly sEaEed tha: a vote dilutlcn clala ls
nizable under the Pift,eenth Anendnent,. Becauae
tices Brennan and BJacknun did noL arBiculaEe their
!, on thls guestionr the najority vj.ev is unknovn.
t,hese circunst,EncBsr re believe lt is appropriaie
adopt, the plurallty vieu of the Pifr-eenBh lnenCnent
a viev vhich:.E also consisLenc vith our reading of

Prlor app€11aie opinlons on this subject. lee
l'tctiil1_ta v. Esc:n!ia Coun:v, 638 P.2d 1239 ,Ei3 n.9

non. Cit,v of ?ensacola
v.j:itkiae, 1.02 S.CE, L7 (198I). Even if JusLice
E-r€r-;ailG-opinion can be lnEerpreled as an laplicic
approval of t,he a-eplication of the FifE,eenth Ainendnent,
ln voEe dilution cts€sr lhls vould not a1t,er tbe
result, ve reach ln t,he lnstant case (as the Crosby
plaint,if f s apparenEly argue). It, 1E evldenL t,h^e,t only
tvo Jusiices - tsrlnnan and Harshall -- adopt the
'discrtalnatory lapaci' standard for a ?ift,eeatb
Amendmenc claia, {{6 U.S. aE 94, t30-{1; Ju6tice
Sievensr aLihough accepEing an'obJectlve' approacbr
re jec:ed any acroEs-)-he-board a?piicalion of tbe
di.ecria:'na--ory iapac: standard, 145 U.S. a: 85-E5,
90. tsui f ive .r-uacices the pLuralitiy Justices, 116
t,.S. at 53-55, and Justlce liblte, {{6 g.S. ai 95,
101-03 ex?ressly held Ehat !he ?rfteenih tutrend;aent
requlres Ploof of d j. scrininaio:), P'trPose or inEent.
Thus, !ven if ye vere Eo recognize piainc,lffat cl,ains
bere under the 9ift,eenth )tlenCnEo!,r Ye voqld aPpIy Ehe
seme s--andarC diacrinina!,sry p!.rs--ose aE ye do
under the Four'-eent,h Anendneatr as diacusseC lnfra.



' :' i. ,t' ' 'e:b --

' 3eetlon 3(c) of the Yotlng Rigbts lce, 12 f,.S.C.

S 1973a (c) ( 1975) , Section 3 (c) sEares t,bat a cour!
tsha1l reEaln Jurtsdictlon for guch period as it Eay deen

aPproprlate' 1n order to revier changes 1n voting
guallficationsr PtereguisiBesr standardsr plaCiices ot

ProeedureB. 42 O,S.C, 5 1973a(c) (1975). He deny

, plaintif f s t lequest, Ehat ye ritain Jurf sdict,ion until the

next, leapportionnent gj,nce He do not think 1t appropriaLe

or neeessary ln thi s ca6e to retaln Jurlsdict,ion lor euch

an exEended period.

He ask tbat the Connission aake a euloission ln
accordance vj,t,h Ehis opinion on or before Pebro"r) it 1983.

SO OR,DERED



t " Gsadyr District 45!g.. Dissent,ing ln part and

concurring 1n part. ltre analysts ln todayr I opinion seens

to ae to lllueL:aEe soiie of Ehe dlfficultles lnherenE ln
rny effor.. Eo draw disirict boundarles along racial
lines. rhe ciEti.nctions aade betueea di.stricts on Ehe
rrhite' side of the va11 vhieh are nost,ry vhlt,e and thcse
rlrlch are vhiie alxed viib Eispanics and_AsiaE,ics E!€r r
believ€r unsupportable In light of the unconLradicted

testinony that the purpose of draning the rlne thiE yay

uas to separaEe vhiEes fron blaeks. That other grouP6r

sueh as Eispanicsr may also be se.Darated f,rom bLacks in
the process, and even nixed in wiBh the vhltes rho prefer
them to bLack sr BEstns to me tririnaLerial in terrns of the

consLiEutlonal considerations r beiieve conErolling ln
this """".1/ Aside from t,his fundamental problen,

todal,rs opinion illuEt,tat,es the diff iculty of deciding
vhich racial lines -- nhich oEracings' as they are carled

L/ r realize thae ibe najority rejecis a const,iIr:cionar
analysi s and vlews Ehe ca6e sBrlctly ln tems of :heYoting RighBs tct as aaended. But r co Dot, believe the
anendnent to t,he votlng Righrs;€t auEhorizes lnLentionalracial segrega:lon. t?rile the effect of the anendnen!, lsto elj.ninate the lntent reculrement of the Hobrle clEsrthe anencmene eert ainly ffiEgir,inize-T6TE-rauing of,
lines vhlsh have as lhe:r e:?leEs purpose the separaelonof one race j:c:ir anoth3:. In sho:!, the YcIlng i:ghea
Acf,, eve;r as anendedr has to be read ln ligh: c! the
const,l'.ulionr yhich, i:: nr- vi evr absolur.ely piohlbi E,s the
draving of disiricc iines for t,he purpose of racial8e?aration.



Page 3{

by t,he aajority -- are tolerable and uhich are not. f !!l
uaable to Ciscern yhal principle runs EhrouEh tbe. analysis

of t,he naJori,ly rhich could guide one to Ebe conclusion

Ebat varlous 'tesults' elther do or do not pass nusteg.U
f contlnue !o disagree nit,h ibe aaJority-t s vien tbat

tbtE caBe vas noB trleC oD.a tbeory of unconst,it,utional

raclal gegregat,lon. ti}lle tt 1s true that the natBer yas

unclear f,ron t,he p!.eadingsr there can be no doubt, t,ha'.

during the trial lhe questlon of racial segBegaLtonr and

liheLher i,he natEer I s vier.'ed 'as black verEus
non-blackr' or 'biack verEus vhite plus'non-rhites ot,her
than blacks' (na jori l,y opinionr !). l9 ) r ihe quest,ion
presenEed by viering this case as si:tply a'packing'or
'Cilut,!on'problen is, if one vi11 excLlse t,he expressi.on,
vhere do you draw the llne? Eow much is enough but noE,
t,oo nuch? The aajority again seerns t,o endorse tbe '55 per
cent, fortula' (see fn.{r P. 5r vhich appears to be the
Eane as fn.8? of the uaJoriEy opinion of Jan. 12r 1982,
vith lhe exception tha'-, 1n t,he f inal garagrapl: judicial
noBlce ls t,aken of the fact, Ehal 55 per cent, Has not goo<i
eaough to elecL a bl.ack candidat,e 1n SenaEe District 18 !n
the Harch 1982 Denocraiic Prinary Election). Tbisr in
t,elas of practical poiieics, nay Eeen good ner-s ior the
Crcsbv piaintj.ffs; the le';ised nap t,he najo=:.ty has in
ninC tray provlde even greaEer najoriEies of black voLers
ln any revised dis:ricts. I believe thig vould be an
unf ortunai,e 'victory' f or the black p1ainE,.:,!is. For a
recent expresslon consoneat, vit,h E:, oun vievsr see Ebe
dissenilng optnion o! Justice Povell tn Rooers v. Seman
89.9, 50 O.S.L.'f . 50{1r 5046 (1982):

Sls ls lnherently a political area, vbere
Ehe !dentiiica''.lon of a seenj.ng violaElon
does no!, n€cessarllJt suggest, an enforcea:1e
Judi,cial reeedy or at, leasI none si]or-. o!
a Eyst,e:a of guoEas or grouP rePresentailon.
Any sucir B:, aten, of certrECr yculd be

(fooinote co::!inueC on nexi Page)



a

$:, *-
..;., pagc 35

lhe etigna resulting lron Ehe raIl, vas clearly prcsent,ed. I
vould aIlov the noLion of the Crosblt plaintlfts to aoend Bheir

complaj.nt to conf crn vitb the proof .

I fall to Eee hov the aiuendnenE to the Yol,lng R,ight,s Act

rcguires any change ln the aaP the aajority approved ln it,s

opinion of January 12, I982.r EDd as long as tbe aaJority

continues to 8ee t,hls ea6e as one lnvolving Do consEitutional

lasuer I believe that a further evidentiary hearing vi11 .be

_egEentlalllt unProductlve. The'tesults' of the present, ;uaP

2/ Co nt, i nued

anEithei,i.cal to the principles of our

See also Part IV of Just,lce Stevensr dissent ln the salne case,
56-uE.'vl. 5051-5032.

fhe idea of a 55 pe! cenE quoBar guideliner oE rhalever it,
aight be calIed, 1s aS unaccep',able to ae aS'"-hen I dissented
or ig j. nal ly r and f ot the sane reasons. I'he f allu:e of a black
to be elected in a 65 per cenE district, is not, to EBr evidence
Bhat, the pereentage should be raisedr but, raEherr evi,dence
!hat, t,he idea of a Petcentage ls unvorkable in ihe first
place. iflteE,her you ate conParing vhices versus blacks or
vi:iues ver6us bilcks, Eispanics and Asiaticsr tbe resull 1s Ehe
aane: 1E Juse yiIl noE, uork. And the effort to nake it, uork
runs counler to tbe goal of elielnating racial divieions ln
Bhi.s country.

I reaILze, toor tbaE Ebese Particular plalnt,lffs are -not
eolely lnBerested ln the Eegregatlon gue6ilon. Seyond tbat',
perhaps even as :nucb as that r '.hey vant PtoPortlonal
representa|-ion. the naJority !s no trore co:anitEed Eo

ProPort icaaL rePre senBai,ion t,han t,hey ve re at the t ine Ehe
orlglnaL opinlons in t,hls case uele filed. lhe anendnenE to
the r/ciing Righce Act nakes expllci,f tbat,, vhet,eYer tbe

:

(fooEnote coniinueC on ne:t, Page)



..t *..

(a't

:

eeea to me to bave been

oplnlon of January 12,

fully analyzed by tbe aa:ority ln iLs
1982r tnd found aceeptable.U

r do lEree vith tbe aaJority that no furcher arEuuent ls
nece8saty regardlng the evidence rhich bas already bcen taken.

llnally r I agree thae se shoulC not, re!,a j.n J uri sdicBion 1n thj.s

ease unt11 tbe ne:E reapportlonraer.t,. ro tbat e:ten! r concur

ln !he naJority opinlon.

- , '- -"

'tota).ity of circunst,ances' te6t rar! R€Enr tt does gg! require
Proport,ional rePresentaElon. Thusr the furt,her proEeeaings the:rajority cont,en.olaBes in this case seen to ne Eo be addreised
to a virtuaily de niniqis git,uailon aE far as the votlnq rightsof bracks aie concerne?I this is not a case like t,cbfE, oi
?,goerE v. Eeinap iodge, E!!B, rhere blacks have been Lire:ally
closed oui of the poiiticallroeess by at-large elecEions in
qhich they failed t,o elecB a single representative. Eerel the
d if f erence bet,ueen rhat the plaintif f s have ln the
cour!-ordered nap and vhat, they vanE !s the diffe!ence bet,reen
tepresenEation rvhich ls not quite proportional and
rePresent,atlon vhich 1s st ricEly ProportionaL. If the ua j or!t,y
1s not bent on granting proportional represenEaBionr then-r
fall to see vhy there lE need lor a furcher hearing ln tbis
F tr ea

! The najorit,y f requently ref ers Eo 't,he 'results tes:t of
the ei'nended Yotin9 X,ights Ac:.' f do not read the anendnenE as
Providing for a 'resuJt,s' test,, The phrase used to define the
teEt f,or det,erolning rhet,her a prot,ecBed group has'less
oPPort,unit,f than other ,renbers of t,he el.eetorate to part icipaEe
1n Ehe polltical pro€ess and !o e1ect, tepreseniat,ives of theircholce' 1s 'the toEall,tv g! @.' lhe totallty of
clrcurnslances roffiaEr@ 'rEsults' o! aredisiriclingr but, t,he resulEs are not, coterainous rith thetest. Tbe test ls:be toEa:.!'"v of clrcunsl,EDceSr and 1t,8eelasto ne thaE the aaJori:yffi-treaay exhausiively ana).yzed those
clrcrss:ances ln iis oplnion of ianuary !2, 1982, Hh-iJe I do
not Eglee y:!h that aaaLysj,s, liy criCic:sa !s not tha::.i yas
cur8o31t.

r