Montes v. City of Yakima
40 F. Supp. 3d 1377
E.D. Wash.2014Background
- Plaintiffs challenge the City of Yakima’s at-large, numbered-post City Council elections under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, alleging the system dilutes Latino voting strength; no Latino has been elected to the Council under the current system in 37 years.
- Yakima City Council has seven seats: four with residency-restricted posts and three citywide posts; elections use a numbered-post format with top-two primaries and citywide general elections where all voters vote for each open seat.
- Latinos are ~1/3 of voting-age population but ~1/4 of citizen voting-age population; Plaintiffs’ experts used ACS/CVAP data to draw illustrative seven-district plans showing at least one district with Latino CVAP >50%.
- Plaintiffs presented ecological inference analyses of multiple elections showing strong Latino cohesion and consistent low non-Latino crossover voting that resulted in defeats of Latino-preferred candidates/issues.
- Defendants challenged expert testimony, data/methodology, and argued proposed remedial maps violate electoral equality (one person, one vote) and would improperly gerrymander or dilute voting power of minority members outside remedial districts.
- Court held (1) plaintiffs satisfied the three Gingles preconditions (numerosity, cohesion, and majority bloc voting) and (2) totality of the circumstances (Senate Factors) shows Section 2 violation; summary judgment for Plaintiffs and denied Defendants’ motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Latinos are sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to form a majority in a single-member district (Gingles I) | Cooper’s plans (and Morrison’s method) show at least one district with Latino CVAP >50%; maps reasonably respect traditional principles. | Plaintiffs’ maps unbalance citizen voting-age population among districts, violating electoral equality and thus cannot be a valid Gingles remedy. | Held: Numerosity and compactness satisfied; CVAP-based majority shown and electoral-equality concerns do not defeat Gingles I; remedial refinements can occur later. |
| Whether Latinos are politically cohesive (Gingles II) | Ecological inference analyses show Latinos consistently vote for the same candidates/issues in multiple contests. | Defendants argue wide confidence intervals (esp. in primaries) undermine cohesion findings due to low Latino turnout. | Held: Gingles II satisfied; EI analyses reliable and low turnout does not defeat cohesion under Ninth Circuit precedent. |
| Whether the non-Latino majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat Latino-preferred candidates (Gingles III) | Election results show low non-Latino crossover (≈30–42%), causing Latino-preferred candidates/issues to lose despite strong Latino support. | Defendants attribute defeats to Latino low turnout rather than majority bloc voting. | Held: Gingles III satisfied; majority bloc voting demonstrated and low-turnout arguments cannot be used to defeat Gingles analysis. |
| Whether totality of circumstances (Senate Factors) supports Section 2 liability and whether remedy proposed is impermissible | Numbered-post system + effective majority requirement, socio-economic disparities, prior DOJ action on language access, racial polarization, and absence of Latino electoral success demonstrate dilution and support single-member district remedy. | Defendants claim remedy would dilute other minority members, violate one-person/one-vote, and be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. | Held: Under the totality, Section 2 violation established; remedy ordering districting is appropriate and electoral-equality/Equal Protection concerns can be addressed at remedial stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gingles v. Thornburg, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (establishes three preconditions for Section 2 vote-dilution claims and Senate Factors for totality analysis)
- Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146 (1993) (Section 2 requires showing discriminatory result, not intent)
- Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) (numerosity requires majority in a single-member district by preponderance)
- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) (compactness under Section 2 should consider traditional districting principles)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (one-person, one-vote requires substantial equality of population among districts)
- Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (1993) (plaintiff must postulate a workable remedial district to measure dilution)
- Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996) (districts drawn to comply with Section 2 must not subordinate traditional districting principles to race substantially more than reasonably necessary)
- Romero v. City of Pomona, 883 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir. 1989) (CVAP is appropriate numerosity measure under Gingles)
- Gomez v. City of Watsonville, 863 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1988) (courts must not discount minority cohesion evidence due to low registration/turnout)
- United States v. Blaine County, 363 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2004) (racially polarized voting and minority electoral success are key Senate Factors)