Legal Research on Electricity

    ABDF

DATE: August 29, 1989

RE: Proof of Raclal Bloc Voting

1. How to deal wlth sparse data; or

2. The non-relevance of whlte-on-white electlons.

PDH: oet

Attachment

Natiorul Ofrcc Rcgiorul Offrcc

Cutibttim nc Thc NAACP Lcgal Dcfcm & Mucational Fund, lnc. (LDF) is not part Suitc 1600 Suitc 800

dt&tihle lu U.S. of thc Natioml Arciation for Ac Advuccmcnt of Colorcd Poplc 99 Hudrcn Strcct 634 S. Spring St.

iuw t4x pt tpos6. (NAACP) dtLougf, LDF wa fonded by thc NAACP end sharcs its Ncw Yorh, NY 10013 [os Angelcs CA 90014

comitmcnt to equal rights. LDF has had for ovcr 30 years a sparatc 212/219-l9C0 213/624-2$5
Board, progrm, staf( o(fice erd budgct. Fzx:21?JDG75/2 Fzx:21U624475

RcSiMl OlIrcc

Suite 301

1275K St. NW
WashingtonDC20005 202/682-l3N Fax:202/682-1312

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

MEMORANDUM

TO: SherrilYn Ifill
Pam Karlan
Lanl Guinier

FRoM: Penda Hair ? ts\ .

Attached is a copy of carol Birnhakrs memo on proof of
racial bloc voting. She relies almost excfusivel'y on the 9lestwego
case. Are there any other cases that would be helpful on the
issues:



National Olfieas
Robcrt H. Prciskcl

Ptcsilbat

Wilcy A. Branton
Via haidon

Billyc Subcr Aaron
Atlanta, Gcorgia

Anthony Amstcrdam
New York, Ncw YorL

Clarcnce Avent
Los Angclcs, California

Mario L. Baeza
Ncw York, Ncw York

John T. Eakcr- 
Bloomington, Indiana

Alicc M. Bcaslcy
San Francisco, Cali[ornir

Mary Frenccs Bcrry
Washington, D.C.

Anita Lyons Bond
St. Louis, Missouri

William H. Brown [l
Philadclphia, Pcnnsylvania

Helcn L. Buttcnwicscr
New York, Ncw York

lack G. Clarkc- 
Ncw York, Ncw York

l.H. Cleyborn
Dallas. Tcxas

William K. Coblcntz
San Frrncisco, California

Talbot D'Alcmbcrtc
Tallahasscc, Florida

Allison S. Davis
Chicago, Illinois

Ossic f)avis
Ncw Rchcllc, Ncw YorL.

Pctcr J. Dcluca
White Phins. New York

Adrian W. DeWind
Ncw York, Ncw York

Anthonv Downs
Was(ington, D.C.

Robcrt F. Drinan
Weshington, D.C.

Charlcs T. Duncan
Washington, D.C.

Kcmcth C. Edclin
Boston, Massachusctts

Marian Wright Edclman
Wrshington, D.C.

Christophcr F. Edley, Jr.
Ncw York. Ncw York

Hclcn G. Edmonds
Durhm, North Carolinr

David F, Feller
Bcrkclcy, California

Clarcncc Finlcv
Ncw York, i.lcw York

Norman C. Francis
Ncw Orlcans, Louisiana

Exccutive Officns

Julius LrVouc Chambcrs
Dircclor-Cwnscl

Jamcs M. Nabrit III
A s socialc Director - Couasel

Bood of Diectors
Marvin E. Frankel

Ncw York, New Y,,rk

John Hopc Franklin
Durham, North C-arolina

J. Thomas Frenklin
Boston, Massachuscrrs

Ronald T. Gault
New York, Ncw York

Jack Grccnbcrg
Ncw York, Ncw York

Gordon G. Grcincr
Dcnvcr, Coloradcr

Lucv Durr Hacknev
Philadclphle, Pcnnrvl'ania

Charlcs V. Hamilton
Ncw York, Ncw York

Eliot Hubbard lll
Lincoln, Massachusctts

Am Hutchinson
Ncw Yorh, Ncw York

Hcrman Johnson
Kansas City, Missouri

Anne Faith Joncs
Boston. Massachuscrtt

Jctta N. Joncs
Chicrgo, Illinois

Quincy Joncs
Los Angcles, California

Anna J. Julien
Oak Park. Ilhnors

Harry Kahn
Ncw YorL. Ncw Y,,rk

Nicholas DcB. Katzcnbach
Morristown, Ncw Jcrscy

David E. Kcndall
Washington, D.C.

Rcginald Lcwis
Ncw York. Ncw York

Conoic S. Lin&u
Ncw YorL, Ncw Y,rrk

Gcorgc E. Marshell, Jr
Los Angclcs, Californra

Robcrt McDougal, Jr.
Chicago, Illinois

Paul Mmrc, Jr.
Ncw York, Nc* Y.rrk

lamcs M. Nabrir, lr.- 
Washington, D.t).

Mery Ogdcn
Ncw York, Ncw York

Barrington D. Parkcr, Jr.
Ncw Yorh, Ncw York

Martin D. Payson
Ncw York. Ncw Y,'rk

Stcphcn J. Pollek
Washington, t).(i.

National Officas
Williem T. Colcmen, Jr., Esq.

Cluimoltk Bood

Harrict Rabb
Sccrclul

Elcanor S. Applewhaitc
Trccutd

Robcrt S. Potter
New York, Ncw York

Hugh ts. Pricc
New Yor!, Ncw York

Glcndora Mcllwain Putnem
Boston, Massachusetts

Danicl L. Rabinowitz
Newark, Ncw Jerscy

C. Carl Randolph
Ncw York. Ncw York

Gilbcrt T. Ray
Los Angclcs, California

Hcnry T. Rcath
Philadclphia, Pcnnsylvania

Norman C. Rcdlich
Ncw York, Ncw York

Charlcs B. Rcnfrcw
Sen Francisco, California

Hrrvey C. Russcll
Purchasc. New York

William H. Scbcidc
Princcton, New Jerscy

Fredcrick A. O. Schwarz
Ncw York, Ncw York

Bcrnard G. Scgal
Philadclphia, Pcnnsylvania

Jacob ShcinLman
Ncw YorL, Ncw York

Gcorgc C. Simlins, Jr.
Grccnsboro. North Carolina

Michacl l. Sovcrn
Ncw York , Ncw York

Chuck Sronc
Philadclphia, Pcnnsylvania

Jay Topkis
Ncw York, Ncw York

Cyrus R. Vance
New Yorh, Ncws York

Jamcs Vorcnbcrg
Cembridgc, Massechusctts

John W. Walker
Little Rock. Arkanses

Robcrt C. Wcavcr
Ncw York, Ncw York

M. Moran Wcston
Ncw Rochellc, Ncw York

Rogcr W. Wilkins
Washington, D.C.

Karcn Hastic Williems
Washington, D.C.

E. Thomas Willims,Jr.
Bronx, Ncw York

Andrcw Young
Atlanta, Gcorgia

Horcrav Boul Mabn
Doroth', R,,..r-r.

Ncw'York, Ncw York..COMMITTEE 
OF 1OO"

Hcnry Aaron
Stcvc'Allcn
Arthur R. Ashe
Ioen Bacz
tlirch Bavh
Vivien I.'Bcrmon
Harrv.Bclafontc
Saul bellow
lohn C. Bcmctt
tcronc Bcmctt. Ir.
Viola W. Bcmar-d
Lconard Bcmstcin
Hens A. Bcthc
lulirn Bond
Hcnrv T. Boumc
Gcoric P. Brockwav
Yvon"nc Brathwaitc'Burkc
Helcn L. Buttenwieser

Marilvn Hornc
lohn H. lohnson
Mrs. Peicv lulian
Horacc M. kallen
Erhel Kcmcdv
Iemcs Lewrentc- Ir.
Mex krner
W. Arthur lrcwis
lohn A. Mrclav
Horacc S. Man'ccs
Henrv L. Merrf,'lll
Wrlhim [amcs McGrll
Linda B. "lllcKcen
Karl Mcnninccr
Charlcs Mcrrlll
Arthur Mitchell
Paul Ncwman
Anrhony Ncwlcy

Chairman, BlSt'lOP PAUL MOORE, JR
Eleanor Holmcs Norton
Richard L. Otrinccr
Lcon E. Prnctra "
Gordon A. B. Parks
Sidrcv Poiticr
IoscoK L. Rauh- lr-
Carl T. Ro*.r' '
lohn L. Saltonstrll- lr.'\villiam H. scheiJc'
Arthur Schlcsinccr. lr.
Charlcs E. Silbe?mai
Iohr P. Soicqel'Villi.- Sru?..
Tclford Tailor
Robcrt Penh Watren
Robcrt C. Weavcr
Tom Wickcr
Myrlic Evcrs Williams

Diahann Carroll
Jemcs E. Chcck
Shirlcv Chisholm
Ramsdv Clark
Aaron Cooland
Bill Cosbi
Mexwell D.n.
Ossic Davis
Rubv Dee
Vict'oria Detrc
Relph Ellison
Iohir Hox Frenllin
Itlrs. A. tl. Gaston
Kcnncth A. Gibson
Roland B. Gittelsohn
Charlcs E. Godcll
Richard G. Hatchcr
Thcodore M. Hcsburgh

Thc "Committcc of 100," a voluntary c@pcrarivc group of individuals headcd by Bishop Paul Mmre, Jr.,
has sponsorcd thc appcal ofthc NAACP Lcgal Dcfcosc and Flducarional Fund, Inc. rincc 1943 to cnable thc
Fund to put into opcration a progrm dcsigncd to mahc dcscgrcgarion a rcality throughout thc Unitcd Statcs

As ofJuly l, l988



TO:
EROId:
D^ATE:
RE;

UEUORANDT,Ii{

PENDA HAIR
CAROL I.[. BIRNHAK
23 AUGUST 1989
Proof of racial bloc votlng.

rn order to prevail ln a clairn under 52 of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 (42 USCS SL973), ptalntlffe must show that the
voting schettre in questlon interacte rith socl-al and historical
conditions, resulting ln an inequality between the abillties of
white and black voters to elect represerltativea of their chol,ce.
Where plalntiffs claln that an electoral syatern dilutee alnority
grouP voting strength lt is eseential to show that a bloc voting
naJority iE usually abLe to defeat oandid.ates supported by a
trpoliticarry coheslve, geogrraphically insular nrnority group. rr

r.lhornburg v. clnqles t 47a u.s, 30 106 s.ct. z75zt 92 L.Ed.zd 2s
at 46' rn order to prevall in a vote dir.ution claim, praintiffs
nuet satlsfy the three factor teet set out in Ginglee. * Flfst,
the nlnority group nust prove that it ie sufficlentry rarge and
geographicarly compact to constltute a uajorlty in a slngre-
meuber district. second, the urlnority group uust be able to show
that it ls pollticalry eoheslve. Thirdr the nlnorrty group must
be abre to dr:monstrate that the white najority voteE sufflciently
as a bloc to enable it--in the absence of epeclal clrcrurstenees
sueh as a ninorlty candidate rrrnninE unoppoEed,--usualry to defeat
the nlnorityrs preferred candiaate.l The ueual predictablltty of

the
ure

1 rhe second. and third elements ere usualry establlshed byuse of statistlcar evldence of racialry polirlr.a-"ttrrrg byvoters in the relevant potltlcal 
"nli.-



the najority's aucceEs distingulshes etruatural dilutl"on of
voting strength from the mere lose of an ocoaslonal. election.r

Accordlng to the senate Report acaornpanying the 1982

Auendments to the Votlng nlghte Act, the nextent to which voting
Ln the electlons of the state or the poritieal eubdlvision Ls

racially polarlzed iE relevant to a vote dirution cralm.rr
Senate Report 29. (clted in Thornburo, 92 L.Ed.zd 49) An
tnguiry into the exietence of racially polarrzed votlng 2 is
relevant to a vote dllution clairn for two r6asone. Fi.ret, it
herps determine whether nlnority group mernbers oonetitute a
polltically eohesive unl-t. second, tt helps determlne whether
the white najorlty votes sufficiently as a broe, usuarly to
defeat the rninorityrs preferred candidates. .8. at Eo. -The
degree of bloc voting that constltuteE the threghold of legal
slgnificance wlrl var'Y fron diEtrlet to dietrict, d,ependlng on an
anaLysts of ttre rtotality of the clrcunstanceg., rhornburg, gz
L.Ed.2d at S0,

one way of demonstrating that a nlnority group 1s,politlcalry cohesiver is showing that a slgniflcant nunber of
ninorlty erroup uenbere usualry vote for the saue candldates.
such a ehowing estabrlEhes a nlnorlty voting broc within the

JFeIgegs, Flfttr ciroult courr ofAppeals, No. az-e@dE'E't;:'
2 rhe suprepe court a.dgpled the .follorring defrnitron ofraclal polaridation o" iaciar' tr"" ioitt'g, i'io"i.f porarizationexlsts where there lE-i consr=te"i-r"i"tionship betneen the raceof a voter and the way 1n-wntch-JZti 

""tes, I[It-i"] wnere bl.ack
IETf"":li.white votefs ""te alliJ"litii. " ' rtor.,hrii , ez r.Ed.2d



I
t. .i::

-....-it

context of $2 of the Voting Rlghte Act. fn general , a, white,
najority broc vote that ,iff normally defeat the cornblned
etrengrth of the nlnority bloc and any white croEg-over votee,
rises to the level of a regally signlfieant whlte voting bloc.
rd' at 50. It ls iuportant to note that proof of d.iEcrluinatory
lntent is not necessary under s2 of the votlng Rlghts Act.
enalysis under S2 focueee on the resulte or effectE of erectoral
strrrctures and practices. trThe legar concept of racialry
polarl-zed votlng, a6 tt rerateE to craius of vote dilutlon,
refers only to the exi.stence of a correlation betgeen the race of
the voters and the eelection of certain candidates. praintlffs
need not prove causation or lntent ln order to prove a prlna
facie caBe of ractat broc votlng and d,efendants Day not rebut
that caae wlth evidence of causation or Lntent.tr Le- at 61.-

Tlplcally, plalntiffs nake use of Etatietlcal evidence in an
effort to prove raelal broc voting. There are, however, casea
where there l'E llttre, if onyr data within the erectoral sy'iten
tn question where brack candldates were ln the field. For
example, ln
wFstrrego, Fifth clrcuit court of ^[,ppeale, No. 8?_376]. (r{ay g,
1989) praintiffs alleged that the at-Iarge election of arder'en
tn the city of westwego waEi an abridgenent of brack citlzens
rlghts to e'ect candidates of their choice in violation of s2 0f
the voting RlghtE Act- westwegg, at z. plalntlffs sought to use
evldenee frou state and 1ocal elections to deuonetrate that the
voting patterne of westwellors voters erer6 racially polarized and
that a black eould not be erected under the present electoral



--li.

Bystem' Plaintlffs areo gqught to prove that routElana had a
lonE history of raclal aiscriurination and ttrat the present city
government of leestwego waa hot responelve to the concern' of its
braqk residents. IE- at 3, The trlal waB lnltialry postponed
pending the Supreue Courtrs deciElon in
After the supreme court r.ssued the Glngles decleion, the
distrlct iudge dlsnissed the westweEo case. Flaintiffe appealed
to the Pifth circuit. The court vacated the distrlct court
decislon and remanded the case for epeciflc findings of fact,

9peciflcally, the court held that the distrlct court errect
in hording that suarl nunlcipal governnente are subJect, to lege
etrlngent standards under $2 0f the votinE RiEhts Act than are
larger polltical subdivision. Ihe court held that there is noauthority for the proposition that because Ginotee Lnvor-ved
reapportionment of etate Legislatlve cllstricts, it doee not apply
to nuniclpal el.eetl.on. ,Id. at 13.

The coutr algo herd that the diEtrlct court ."red. tndeclinlng to consider evidence of raciar broc votlng derived, from
erectl0ns other than aldermanlc erections, rt appear' that thedietrict court relled heavlly on the fact that there had never
been a black cand.ldate for the l{reetuego Board of Aldernan. Thecourt noted that a plurality of the supreue court held inGingles that the race of the candldate was unlnportant.
Nonethelesr, t-he circuit court held that cilqle* ie properly
interpreted to hold that the race of the candldate rs lesssignlficant than the race of the voter--but only in the context
of an election that offers voters the ctroice of supportlng a



viable uinorlty candidate. rl1 racea with an alr white fierd, it
ts virtually unavoldable that a larEe percentage of the nrnorlty
group w111 eupport a white candldate. Thls kind of evidence 6ays
nothlng about the tendency of rhite racl-aL bloc votlng to defeat
black candldates' For precisery these reasonB, the Fifth circult
herd that evidence frou other ereetl0na [ay be ueed to eupport a
vote dilution clafun where evidence frou the epeeitic electoral
ayeten at issue Is aparse. rd. at 15-r-6 n.?. Furthemrof€r the
ctrcul-t court crltrclzed l{estweqlors re}iance on carrol lton Brarro6
of NAtcp v. Eta1l.inge, 82e F.zd Ls4z (llth clr.) ror the
propoeltion that evld,ence frou exogenous elections is trrelevant.
The court ln car{o1Iton held that evidence fron other electLons
was r-rrelevant-- ln that parttcular case--after a fact specific
aesessuent of the rerevance of the particurar elections ueed.
The lsestuego eourt read carrolllon to etand for the propoeltion
that evidence from other electi.ons ehould not be deeued
lrrerevant per 6Gr but must be evaruated according to.,, itepartlcurar probatlve varue given the totality of the
circumetancea- I{estwFgo, 8t 77 nr g. Moreover, the court heldthat Glnqrea suggeets frextbillty ln the face of Eparse data.
fd-. 4t 18 (clting 

,834 F.zd. at 502.

ftte circult court uent on to address the Eltuatlon where arnlnority group has Just begun to sponsor cand.rd,ates. Ehe alrcult
court noted that ttte suprene court consldered thie sltuation inGlnqles, statlng that in such caseE, rthe fact that statlstlcs
fron only one or a few erections are avalrable for exaulnatlon



:)r

does not foreclose a vote crrrution craru.w fleFtwego, at 18
(citing Grngree, 92 rJ.Ed.?d it sI n.2E). Furthermore, both the
rifth circult and the supreue court have refueed to preclude vote
dllutlon clalus rhere few or no brack candidatee have sought
offlceE ln the challenged electoral systeu. According to the
Fifth clrcult, ,to hold other wise would arl0w voting rlghts
caBea to be defeated at the outset by the very barriere to
polttlcar partrcrpation that congrese has sought to reaove.3
}I,g,stweggr tt l7-1g 1.9.

rn order for the Jeffers plaintlffs to prove raclal bloc
votlng, fr.rst they nust Ehow that the ninority group is
sufftcientry large and geographically coupact to constitute auaJority in a slngle ueuber diEtrict. rt wourd appear that sucha showlng nust be rnade ln each of the 16 countles lnvolved in -theclain' Next the platntiffe rauet shou that the nlnortty group ispollticarly coheslve. This Day be done by uslnq statistlee toshow that brack voters have a tendency to support cet'tatn

candidateg. r,astry, the plalntlffs nust show that ttre whiteuajorlty votes sufflciently aa a b10c to enabre it to defeat thenlnorltyrE preferred, candidate. once again, statistics tray be
ueed to denonetrate the exiEtenee of raclal bloc voting. rn theevent that there is no data avallable to the ilqffers plaintiffs
regardinq' black candidateE in the electoral eysten in gueetion(atate legl_elatlve elections) the plaintiffe are free to uBedata fron other elections. rhe probative varue of the data fron

Ar_ ]_ll t[g.Mit1an v. EscaflI;,i':I" ;1"**1.l3llilSt:",i"'.1



alternatlve electoral systeua will be evaluated. relativ'e to the
iltotallty of the clrcunstaniesn and tlre apecitla facts of the
Jeffera caae. rr eEsence, the court must dectde whether the
evldence fron electoral ayetens other than the systeu in questloh
iE a nsufflciently locar appraisal that eetablishee Bone degree
of racial bloc voting.r, WcgtEecro, at 20.

when anaryzrng the,totallty of the ctrcunstancesrr, the
court uuEt a66eEE the l-urpact of the oonteeted Etructure or
practlce on the basle of objective factore. The senate Report
tlrat aceonpanied the 1982 amendnentE to $2 of the votrng Rights
Act, enuuerates certain factors that t14plca}ly are rerevant to
vote dllutlon claime. rhese factors lnclude: the hlstory of vote
related dlecrluination in the state, the extent of racr.al
porarlzatlon 1n the state, the presence of voting str,ctures or
practices that enhance the opportunity for diecriulnatton against
the nlnorlty group such as unusually large election dlstrlcts,
najorlty vote requirementBrprohtbitlone agalnst bulret vofing,
excluglon of rninority group nernbere from the candldate elating
proceaa, the exletence of past discrluination in area' Such as
health educatlon and enplo,ruent, the use of subtre raciar. appeals
in campaigns, an:d the extent to whlch uinority g.roup nembers have
been elected to prrbllc office in the juriediction. rn aditltion,
a showing that er.ected offic1a1' are unreaponElve to the-neede ofthe ninority group uay aleo have probative va1ue. Thie list offactors is not tntend,ed to be conprehenstve
tlepending on the indivldual c?E€r there nay b€
factors whlch nay be considered. GingIe,E, at 43.

nor exhaustive.

other relevant



. *t @)lA'39Ud lUlOi {({(

Although the sehate Report eapouBeg flexlblllty for i2
vloratlons, it 11tr1t8 the cl,rcrrnstancer in whtch 32 violatLons
may be proved ln tlrree wayr. FLrst, erectoral eystenr euch aE
at-large erections are not per se vioratlons. seconcl, the
conjunctlon of an allegedly dllutlve electorar eysten and the
lack of proportionar representatton alone does not eetabllsh a
violation. Third, the reEults teet of SA does not agsune the
exlstence of raclar bloc votlng. Glngles, at 44.

rn 6um, for the ileffers plaintiffs to prove raclar broc
voting they nust satlsfy the three factor test eet out in
Fincrlesr- rn ord,er for statietieal data fron ereatlonE outEide
the electoral eyeteu in question to be of probative var.ue, it
must qualify aa a aufficiently local appraisar of the existence
of racial b10c votrng. The plarntiffrs caBe u111 be evaluated
with respect to the totality of the circr:metance' test whlch
encompaEBes those factorg enunerated in the senate Re;rort on the
19gz anendrrents to the Voting Rights Act . !.