657 F. App'x 871
11th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Mathis Kearse Wright Jr. sued Sumter County, GA under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, challenging the County’s 5 single-member + 2 at-large ("5/7 with 2 at-large" or "⅜ plan" in the opinion) Board of Education election method.
- In 2014 the county population was majority African American by overall and voting-age measures, and voter registration between Black and White registrants was nearly equal.
- Wright’s expert, Dr. Frederick McBride, analyzed twelve elections (eight in 2014 under the mixed plan; four earlier single-member-district elections) and opined that eliminating the at-large seats and using seven single-member districts would allow African-American voters to elect at least three board members.
- The County’s expert, Dr. Karen Owen, reviewed McBride’s work and concluded Wright failed to show white bloc voting usually defeats minority-preferred candidates (the third Gingles precondition).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the County, finding Wright failed to satisfy the third Gingles precondition; the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the district court impermissibly weighed evidence and made credibility determinations at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether minority-preferred candidates are usually defeated by white bloc voting (third Gingles precondition) | McBride’s models and a 4-way at-large 2014 election show white bloc voting usually defeats minority-preferred candidates; excluding certain contested elections is improper | County argues McBride’s results are unreliable and that district elections show minorities can and have won in similarly composed electorates | Reversed: genuine disputes of material fact exist; district court improperly resolved credibility and excluded contested elections at summary judgment |
| Whether particular 2014 at-large elections should be counted as minority defeats or wins | Wright: a four-way at-large race where minority candidate had a plurality but no majority shows white voters coordinated to prevent a minority win | County: plurality result can be treated as a success for the minority-preferred candidate | Held for Wright on summary-judgment standard: disputed factual inferences must be resolved in plaintiff’s favor; district court improperly resolved this dispute against Wright |
| Admissibility/reliability of expert statistical models that produced >100% totals for minority preferences | Wright: the models reflect real uncertainty and should be weighed by factfinder; excluding elections based on model quirks was improper at summary judgment | County: models producing >100% indicate unreliability and justify exclusion of those elections | Held: exclusion was an improper credibility determination at summary judgment; models raise factual disputes for trial |
| Whether Wright’s proposed remedial single-member district plan is sufficiently supported to show a Section 2 violation remedy | Wright: proposed seven single-member districts would create three majority-Black districts and increase Black representation | County: past election data and lack of statistical proof that new districts would elect Black candidates make the remedy speculative | Concurrence: even if credibility issues were resolved differently, the district court must make findings on how at-large and proposed districts would likely vote before approving remedy; remand required for these factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (establishes the three preconditions for Section 2 vote-dilution claims)
- Payroll Mgmt., Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 815 F.3d 1293 (summary-judgment standard; review de novo and view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Flowers v. Troup County, Ga., Sch. Bd., 803 F.3d 1327 (procedural standards on review of summary judgment in voting cases)
- Alves v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 804 F.3d 1149 (court must not weigh conflicting evidence or make credibility determinations at summary judgment)