*1 Shelley Campbell as Ms. Hart has not issue of constructive dis dant resign. of fact. See Shelley any to demonstrate that charge ordinarily question cited facts Cleland, e.g., by Nolan v. Campbell 686 F.2d 812-15 acted under color of state law (9th. Cir.1982) im (summary judgment telephone calls after monitoring Ms. Hart’s 28, 1990, proper dis February on of constructive and Ms. Hart has not the issue However, charge). may any way on alleged decided in that she was harmed as e.g., v. Citi See Martin summary judgment. monitoring Campbell’s of her result Ms. Cir.1985) (2d bank, N.A., 212, 221 762 F.2d telephone calls. dismissal of con (upholding Court’s District respect to the claims Ms. Hart as- With this discharge “[i]n claim where structive against Davis and Karen serted as a matter was insufficient case the evidence claims Wright, the Court also resolves such discharge”). constructive of law to establish in of the defendants as a matter law. favor legal above, has clarified the The Tenth Circuit no rea- As mentioned Ms. Hart had discharge: “[T]he for constructive privacy standard in the March expectation sonable discharge Indeed, question on which constructive telephone Wright call. Ms. had a employer simply cases turn is whether purpose monitoring the call. clear business illegal discriminatory acts has made work its Finally, the Court will not exercise its ing that a reasonable conditions so difficult pendent jurisdiction respect to the state would feel person employee’s position Therefore, against Ms. Hart’s claims claims. Corp., resign.” Derr v. Oil compelled Gulf contract, City Clearfield for breach of defa- (10th Cir.1986). Based on 796 F.2d mation, re- illegal interference with economic case, in the Derr the standard established lations, punitive damages are dismissed as accepting the facts Ms. Hart cites prejudice. Accordingly, without true, of law Ms. Hart cannot as a matter Summary The defendants’ Motions for discharge constructive prevail on a claim of Judgment hereby Judg- GRANTED. First, against City. as the Court Clearfield hereby ment shall be and is directed to be above, City did not en articulated Clearfield entered in favor of all defendants. “illegal discriminatory acts” gage any Second, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. against based on the Ms. Hart. Hart, by Ms. the Court presented
record person” not find that a “reasonable
does compelled position have felt
Ms. Hart’s would resign. IV. CONCLUSION GRANDY, Miguel Diaz-Balart, DE Mario as stated Even if all of the facts Ms. Ireland, Andy Smericki, Casimer B. Van true, accepted as Ms. Hart did not Hart Poole, Ketchel, Casas, Terry Roberto expectation privacy. have a reasonable Garcia, Jr., Rojas, Luis Rodolfo Lincoln Moreover, if Hart did have a rea- even Ms. Diaz-Balart, Souto, Javier Justo Luis expectation privacy, it did not sonable Poso, Cardenas, Rey Velazquez, Alberto outweigh public need for disclosure Morse, Gutman, Luis Alberto Karen E. discovery February the initial of the where Butler, Sgt. Augusta Carter, Jean Van legitimate result of a call was as the Pinellas, Meter, Woody, Anna M. Robert addition, tape. In Ms. Hart review Kester, Hahn, Petersen, Terry Bill Gina on a the March 16 call was recorded knew White, Margie Kincaid, and Brooks expecta- therefore had no reasonable line and Plaintiffs, law, privacy. matter of tion of As a of the defendants on Court finds favor Ms. right privacy claims.
Hart’s WETHERELL, capaci- T.K. his official respect to all other claims Ms. Hart ty Speaker With as of the Florida House of City against Clearfield and Bonnie Margolis, asserts Representatives, Gwen in her Kagan, the resolves such claims in capacity Court President official Chiles, of the defendants as a matter of law. Senate, favor in his Lawton addition, of defen- the Court finds favor capacity official as Governor *2 Gordon, Attorney Florida, in his General for the State of of Jack Flori- State Wallace, da; of Peter of capacity Chairman R. Chairman as official Committee, Reapportionment Committee; Reapportionment House Wallace, capacity Gordon, Peter R. in his official of Jack Chairman the Senate Reapportion- Committee; Reapportionment as of House Chairman Jim Committee, Smith, Smith, his offi- Secretary ment Jim of for the State State Secretary capacity of State of cial as Florida, Defendants.
Florida, Butterworth, his offi- Robert 92-40015-WS, Nos. TCA TCA 92-40131- Attorney capacity as General cial TCA WS and 92-40220-WS. Florida, Defendants. Court, United States District OF CONFERENCE FLORIDA STATE Florida, N.D. Poole, Sr., BRANCHES, T.H. NAACP Tallahassee Division. Jenkins, Russell, Leon W. Wil Whitfield Clayton, Dennis, lye Rufus Turner July Iles, Brooks, Hart, Kerna Victor McMillian, Walters, Johnnie Roosevelt Pearson,
Phyllis Berry, Mary A. Mable Whigham,
Butler, Wilson, Al Iris Jeff Moore,
Davis, Demon, Peggy Carlton Adams, Powell, Neil Leslie
Richard Saunders, Sr.,
McDermott, Irv Robert Davis, Moore,
Minney, Ada Anita Plaintiffs, Barnes,
Calvin
v. CHILES, capacity in his official
Lawton Florida, Smith, in Jim Governor
as Secretary capacity as
his official Florida, Butterworth, Robert
State Attorney capacity General as
his official Florida, Margolis, her offi Gwen capacity of the Florida as President
cial
Senate, Wetherell, in his official T.K. Speaker
capacity of the Florida as Gordon, Representatives, Jack
House capacity Chairperson
in his official Committee, Reapportionment House Wallace, official Peter R. his
capacity of the House Re as Chairman Committee, Defendants.
apportionment America, Plaintiff, STATES of
UNITED FLORIDA, the Unit- a State of
STATE OF Wetherell, States; Speaker of T.K.
ed Representatives; Florida House of Margolis, President of the
Gwen Chiles,
Senate; Governor of the Lawton Florida; Butterworth, Robert
State *3 Atkins, Sr. Clyde Judge,
C. U.S. Dist. S.D.Fla., Miami, FL, Special Master. Zack, Miami, FL, Margolis Stephen N. Gordon. & Ares, David, Murray, Thornton Aurora Davis, P.A, Miami, FL, for & Cuban Richard American Ass’n. Bar FL, White, Tallahassee, Larry Frank R. Parker, Wright, Lawyers’ Brenda Committee Under, Law, Washington, Rights for Civ. *4 D.C., Humphrey, Gwen al. et Rumber, Kirk & Rumberger, E. Thom FL, Burr, Harry L. Tampa, Charles G. Jr., Meros, Orlando, FL, Caldwell, George N. P.A, Orlando, Lamb, Jr., Lamb, Perry & Tallahassee, Cladwell, Rumberger, Kirk & Abrams, FL, Hayes, Dennis Courtland Willie FL, plaintiffs. for Fund, Special Contribution Balti- NAACP more, MD, Florida State Conference of for Tallahassee, FL, Levine, Si- for. Mark S. Branches. NAACP mon Ferro. Mulroy, Dept, of Steven Gerald Hebert Dean, Waas, Atty. Denis Asst. George L. Section, Justice, Div.-Voting Rights Civ. Tallahassee, Affairs, Gen., Dept, Legal D.C., Washington, for U.S. FL, third-party defendant. for Hunter, Vanture, Tal- Henry C. Charles E. Peters, Cobb, Bell, Cole & Talla- A James lahassee, FL, Rodney Gregory, Rodney G. G. FL, hassee, & Wallace. for Wetherell Jacksonville, FL, Reaves, P.A, for Gregory, Ervin, Jacobs, Odom, Joseph C. Perry Hargarett. F. & Brown Tallahassee, Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Turanchik, McCrea, J. Zinober & Edwin FL, Andy Ireland. for FL, Tampa, Margolis. for Gwen James, se. Craig pro T. School, Gelfand, Law M. David Tulane Orleans, Expert. Independent for New LA Middlebrooks, Steel, & Hector Donald M. Miami, FL, Davis, Butler, for Jim Bacchus. University of Inglis Katharine SC, School, Columbia, Law Carolina South FL, Ford, George C. Largo, for Edwin I. for AFL-CIO. McGough al. et Cardenas, Fertel, Fer- K. Alberto R. Aan Doran, Atty. Deputy E. Asst. Richard Morales, P.A, rell, Cardenas, Fertel & Mia- Tallahassee, Affairs, Gen., Legal Dept, of FL, mi, for & Cardenas. Fertel FL, & Butterworth. for Chiles Davis, Dubbin, Steel, & Hector Samuel Matthew, Matthew, Gorman & L. Sidney Bloom, FL, Silver, Miami, et Ron Elaine for Tallahassee, P.A, FL, AFL-CIO. for Florida al. Lewis, pro se. Halley B. Lardner, Jr., Foley & Tal- Bryant, Bill L. lahassee, FL, Stephen R. McNamara. for Webster, pro se. J. Daniel Zack, Jr., Stephen Moody, N. Douglas W. HATCHETT, Judge, Circuit Before Reapportionment, on Committee The Senate VINSON, Júdges. District STAFFORD and Akerman, Franks, Herron, D. Mitchell Mark Moffitt, Tallahassee, Eidson, Senterfitt, & HISTORY I. PROCEDURAL FL, Alzo Reddick. for forty districts currently has Senate Florida twenty Represen- Licko, House of Thomson, one hundred A Mia- Carol Parker D. Senterfitt, created Moffitt, Akerman, These were districts. mi, tative FL, LeeH. Tallahassee, currently malapportioned. Moffitt, FL, Prof- in 1982 and are Eidson & data, the total According 1990 census to the Special Master. fer as 12,937,- jurisdic- lack of prejudice subject matter of Florida (document 41). 9, 1992, of 1980 the census persons. Between On March tion population increased Florida’s Grandy plaintiffs amended filed a second 3,213,602 persons. equality To be- achieve (document 44) alleging violations of complaint districts, forty tween each Florida’s Senate I, of the Fourteenth Article 323,448 ideally per- district would contain Fifteenth the United Amendments to (cid:127) sons. To achieve Florida’s equality between States Constitution well as violations of districts, twenty one hundred each House Rights 5 of Voting Sections Act of 107,816 ideally per- district would contain amended, § seq. 1965 as U.S.C. 1973 et sons. short, present I alleged Count that the day opening On the of the 1992 Florida House and districts were un- Florida session, Grandy, a legislative Miguel De constitutional inasmuch as violated Representa- member of the Florida House of Fourteenth Equal Protection Clause of the (“De tives, registered Gran- and other voters Amendment, I, Article Section 2 of the Unit- against filed a dy plaintiffs”) complaint “one-person, ed States Constitution and the Representa- Speaker of the House of principle. alleged II one-vote” Count Senate, tives, the President the Florida these because districts diluted Florida, other state the Governor *5 voters, strength they of violated the the Grandy plaintiffs The De filed officials. 1965, Voting Rights Act of as amended. challenging this court the consti- complaint in alleged Legisla- tutionality congressional of Florida’s Count III the Florida current legislative The De Gran- impasse adoption and state districts. at an in of state ture was alleged dy plaintiffs that the current redistricting plans. alleged Counts and VI V Equal Clause of both the Protection violate redistricting the time lines for set forth and the Vot- the United Constitution States III, in Article Section 16 of the Florida Con- amended, 1965, ing Rights Act as stitution, conjunction preclear- the or- jurisdiction court to urged this assert requirements Voting the ance Section 5 of state. reapportion to redistrict and the der Act, “permit imple- Rights adoption and the place of new to take mentation district lines plaintiffs filed a first The De year cen- 23, so late after the decennial complaint January on 1992. amended deprivation sus” that result in a the com- The defendants moved to dismiss right hearing plaintiffs’ participate mo- to in the 1992 arguments After on the plaint. tion, equal court dismissed the action without elections on a fair and basis.1 Doeu- the n 3, 16(a) adopts plan, legislature reapportionment Article Section of the Florida Constitu- the a n tion requires general provides attorney that: to the constitution the petition Supreme Florida the Court for a declara- representative leg- districts. The Senatorial tory judgment determining validity of the the regular at its in the second islature session 16(c). apportionment. § census, Fla. Const. Art. 3 following joint year each decennial Court, rules, Supreme resolution, accordance with its apportion shall the state in accor- permit adversary present their shall interests to with the state and of dance constitution the and, filing thirty days views within from the thirty States into nor the United not less than petition, judgment. the shall enter its forty consecutively numbered sena- more than Supreme ap- If the Court determines that the contiguous, districts of over- torial lapping either invalid, legislature portionment made the is territory, not less or identical and into governor legislature shall the reconvene the eighty twenty nor more than than one hundred days extraordinary five within thereafter an consecutively representative numbered dis- apportionment exceed contiguous, session which shall not overlapping of either or iden- tricts during days, legislature territory. fifteen adopt the shall tical joint apportionment regular con- legislature resolution of fail its ses- If the should forming judgment Supreme legislative apportion to the of the Court. into the sion to themselves 16(d). 16, § Supreme required by Fla. Const. Art. 3 If Court the as Article Section districts governor apportionment legislature legislative required determines that the is reconvene valid, thirty days special apportionment precleared by Depart- in a must be within days. thirty may before val- to exceed ment of Justice it be considered session not consecutive time, 16(a). During idly may § plan precleared, this no Fla. Const. Art. 3 enacted. Until any shall be and it shall be other business transacted not be used election. mandatory duty legislature adopt as what The Florida constitution is silent 16(a). § joint Department pre- If Fla. Art. 3 if the of Justice fails to resolution. Const. occurs ¶ many alleged a Branches facial individual African- ment 44 at Count V “as challenge, alleged an granted while Count VI American voters. The court also challenge. alleged that applied” organizations Count VII persons in- leave to “intentionally mis- certain defendants or April tervene act amicus curiae.2 On procedures found used time lines and 17,1992, Attorney General State of redistricting pro- Article ... III delay Florida submitted Senate Joint 2- Resolution cess to of white incumbents advantage legislative concerning state reapportion- G and to of voters and would the detriment Department ment to the United States challengers Document to those incumbents.” (DOJ) preclearance pursuant Justice ¶ 13, 1992, Florida 44 at On March Voting Rights Section Act. That regular its session without legislature ended day, same order this issued an bifurcat- plan. adopting reapportionment state ing redistricting congressional and state three-judge court this On March reapportionment hearings. special mas- convened, all to dismiss and denied motions promptly hearings ter concluded his on con- adop- expedited schedule established an gressional redistricting report issued his legislative congressional and state tion and recommendation. This court considered (document 56). That May plans by parties objections, hearing conducted a enjoined way pre- scheduling order in no judgment May and issued its on redistricting reapportion- vented state (document 439). attempting from enact agencies ment 13, 1992, May Supreme On Florida 2,1992, the plans. April Governor own On Court validated Senate Joint Resolution 2-G. re- special redistricting and called validation, stayed Legisla- As a result of the this court apportionment session of the Florida III, 16(a), of proceedings r.eapportionment related to pursuant ture to Article *6 10, 1992, April 27, May hearing Constitution. On A the Florida until was held on adopted 27,1992 Resolu- legislature Senate Joint the May at which time the court consid- and reapportioning state House tion 2-G pending hearing, At the ered all motions.3 Senate districts. granted government’s to the court the motion party litigation, as a the but be dismissed
Meanwhile, progressed and on this case from Gerald invited comments J. Hebert 6, 1992, special appointed the court a April DOJ. Hebert the United States Mr. advised 53 for both pursuant Fed.R.Civ.P. master Department the court the Justice would reapportion- Congressional legislative and by 7,1992, probably its June issue decision April ment. the court consolidat- On plans by a filed as to whether the House and Senate this similar lawsuit ed case precleared.' All other motions were of the NAACP would the Florida State Conference Reaves, Representatives Darryl by Supreme Corinne plan previously State validated clear a 13, 1992, Hargrett May ["Reaves-Brown” T. Brown and James Court. In its order dated Representative "plaintiffs"], Jim United States explicitly or Bacchus; Supreme "retain[ed] ex- Court Florida Representative Andy United any and States jurisdiction all to consider and clusive state Representative Alzo is a Ireland. relating validity State Reddick proceedings of-this future Constitutionality defendant-intervenor. plan.” apportionment re 2G, Special Apportion- Senate Joint Resolution (Fla. So.2d Session ment Attorney included General’s 3. The motions 1992). Subject for Matter Motion to Dismiss Lack of to State a Claim Jurisdiction and for Failure Ferro, acting (document State as amici are Simon 2. Those Upon Can Which Relief Be Granted Party; 363), the Florida Democratic Preliminary Injunction Chairman of Application for an Cause; AFL-CIO; United by Against Implementation Common 2-G of SJR filed James; 390), Craig (document Representative Cuban Humphrey States Motion intervenors Association; of His- Temporary Restraining Bar The Coalition American Order and Prelimi- Women; (document 391) Representative Injunction panic nary Daniel and a State Motion Scheduling Stay, include Gwen and Set Plaintiff-intervenors Establish Order Webster. Lift Adams, 416) (document Redistricting Kelly, Legislative Wilma- Humphrey, Vivian Gene on Trial (document 416) Chandler, Goodman, Grandy plaintiffs Percy L. Jesse filed the De teen W. Dr. Smith, Injunctive Relief Carolyn Wil- Dismiss Nipper, L. and a Motion to L. Moease 426). (document filed the defendants' ["Humphrey "plaintiffs”]; liam Intervenors” Order, Legisla- Scheduling and Set Trial on reappor- denied, stay legislative 444) (document continued. a Mo- Redistricting tionment was tive Com- File Third Amended tion for Leave to 16, 1992, pre- its DOJ issued On June (document 448). grant- decision, plaint The latter was noting that its review clearance only plans inso- determination addressed complaint, in their third amended ed and counties were preclearance far as the five alleging that added a count plaintiffs affected. Exhibit 1 to document joint apportionment violat- resolution of did Attorney United States General of the Voting Rights Act. On ed Section 2 of the to the Florida interpose any objection 18, 1992, scheduling issued a June the court redistricting plan. Representatives House of hearing pending mo- and set a on all order the Senate preclear The DOJ refused to (document 449). 26, 1992 tions for June stating: the same conclu- to reach are unable We expe- Supreme The Florida Court set an redistricting the Senate regard to sion with objec- the DOJ’s dited schedule to address Hillsborough regard to plan. With plan. In its order dated tion to the Senate area, to draw has chosen the state 17, 1992, Supreme encour- Court June there are such that its senatorial districts reap- legislature adopt proper aged the minority persons con- no districts which taking portionment plan, into consideration age popula- majority of the stitute a objections Department. of the Justice result, the state this accomplish tion. To at 2. The See Exhibit A to document 462 mi- politically cohesive to divide the chose Legisla- Tampa and St. “In the event the nority order continued: populations plans were Petersburg areas. Alternative reappor- inability adopt ture declares its uniting the legislature presented to the adopt plan by June tionment or fails to Petersburg minority popu- Tampa and St. that a this Court will conclude provide voters in order to lations occurred, legislative impasse has and this pre- to elect their opportunity an effective to make such promptly Court will undertake Senate---- candidate to the State ferred forth reapportionment.” The court also set us, including the before information [T]he ac- time frame within which an abbreviated Tampa ties between and other economic tion must be taken.4 political Petersburg, as the as well and St. minority voters in those cohesiveness 18,1992, Speak- In a letter dated June *7 cities, that the two areas demonstrates two Wetherell) (defendant er of the House commonality Final- of interest. a do share (defendant Margolis) of the Senate President evidence, including examined ly, we have Supreme Court of their decision advised the record, legislative in the evidence respective Houses in an not to convene their approach to sena- suggests that the state’s See extraordinary apportionment session. Hillsborough redi'stricting in the torial was A to document 478. The court Exhibit intent to an area was undertaken with intend that the Governor did not advised rationale, a protect incumbents. Such legislature the in an extraordi- to convene course, mi- justify the treatment of cannot Exhibit A to by nary apportionment area the State session. nority in this voters 17, plan. 478. In an order dated June document 1992, Court declared a Supreme at 2-3. the Florida 1 to document 447 Exhibit impasse adopted an amended legislative immediately filed a Renewed and Plaintiffs schedule.5 Stay, to Lift Establish Expedited Motion 26, (c)June parties advised that 1992." "[A]ll interested pertinent A to document 462 at 2. may briefs and Exhibit file with this Court by plans no later than the proposed alternate whichever, order, following, person By per occurs first: each interested was noon, 22, 1992, by (a) June Legislature’s adoption mitted to submit a days after the two modify redistricting proposed the plan; correction to reapportionment (b) plan Senate so as to resolve the Legislature’s for the Florida days declaration two after the by objection reapportionment the United States inability adopt specific outlined an to affecting Department in senate districts of Justice plan; or
1557 Hillsborough raised both tion County. were to After questions Jurisdictional review Supreme ing plans, Supreme the six submitted the court and the Florida this plaintiffs adopted plan filed The De their Court the submitted Court. Gwen al., Humphrey, supported by et January Repre action in this court on Reaves, Darryl et continually jurisdiction [“Humphrey to sentative al. asserted that objection Department’s plan”]. Constitutionality of SJR-2G, correct the Section Reaves Supreme 601 So.2d at Chief Shaw only lies this court. Florida Justice wrote Court, however, separately discussing pro- opinion the to indicate his the without jurisdiction, plan including present revi federal held overall the priety of concurrent — comply sion—does not with Section Voting Rights Aet: legislative reapportionment of state [T]he present this Because Court’s review delegated power not bodies is proceeding limited in to DOJ’s scope to the of the United States Constitution preclearance I inquiry, section concur in provisions Under the government. federal present I opinion. believe to the United of the Tenth Amendment plan objection revision meets Constitution, power this is a re- States admittedly re- course, evinced DOJ’s restricted this Court is to states. Of served note, however, I that I still view. write to any apply applicable federal obligated to plan, including conclude that the overall any provisions and federal constitutional revision, present fails under Section implementing provisions. statutes these provide of the Act because does not an upon places this Florida Constitution opportunity to elect equal for minorities review responsibility Court to the Flori- representatives of choice Ill, Art. legislative reapportionment. my legislature, as noted in earlier dis- da § that author- Fla. Const. Pursuant to sent. legislative ity, approved original we SJR-2G, 601 jurisdiction Constitutionality So.2d and retained reapportionment (Shaw, specially concurring). thereto. C.J. subsequent objections to entertain provisions of article with the Consistent litigation continually has The focus this Constitution, III, the Florida section complaint first amended shifted. Plaintiffs’ obligation re- that it is our we believe III, delay alleged that the inherent Article objection satisfy draw (and 16 of Constitution Leg- Department now that Justice legislature expected the fact that the going that it is not islature has declared pass reapportionment plan in time for do so. elections) resulted in an scheduled right intrusion in a citizen’s unconstitutional Constitutionality re Senate Joint Reso- legislature passed SJR 2- vote. When 2G, Special Apportionment Session lution G, (document plaintiffs (Fla.1992) asserted would not this 601 So.2d *8 DOJ, by and then 491). precleared be when consistently have main- Defendants was, indeed, plan precleared, Senate III, Section 16 of because Article tained that adopt plaintiffs plan court to asked this specifically con- the Florida Constitution Voting of the complied Section 5 legislative jurisdiction over ferred redistrict- Rights Act. Court, Supreme this court ing to the Florida principles in deference to should abstain 23, 1992, filed in this the DOJ On June comity and This court has of federalism. against of the State court its own lawsuit6 to abstain. declined invitation alleging officials Florida and several elected (1) 25, 1992, redistricting plans for the mem- Supreme the Florida On June Legislature dilute the redistricting of the Florida adopted plan bers Court a Senate strength of and objec voting with the DOJ’s complied which it felt al., Florida, Furthermore, 92- States State et TCA Hillsborough County. each 6. United v. inter- of noon, by permitted person to submit was 40220-WS. ested 23, 1992; analyzing comparing report and June any proposal. the merits of 1558 districting by Margolis of the state Plans and areas Submitted
Hispanic citizens several Voting 478). seq. (document of the in violation of Section 2 et court then The Wetherell Act, 1973, seq. § et and Rights 42 U.S.C. redistricting to the Florida turned Senate plan in the Hills- proposed the state’s Senate plan. politically borough County area divides Flori- its that the The DOJ indicated belief Tampa minority populations in the cohesive Hills- to the Supreme Court’s there are da modification Petersburg such that and St. areas minority per- satis- borough districts in which area no senatorial voting age sons constitute a Department previous objection. The fied its Grandy plaintiffs were population.7 The De preclearance would stated that a decision complaint permitted amend days of the made within State’s submission the House allege violations both Section day, Department. plan to the The same On plans. 448.8 and Senate See document imposed Supreme this court the Florida 26,1992, its hear- June this court commenced plan plan as its for section 5 Court own At the ing legislative reapportionment. on See Tr. The effect of this purposes. 1-37. outset, pending on several the court ruled preclearanee. to eliminate for was the need others. argument and heard on the motions9 by imposed court are not sub- “Plans order R. argument, granted Alberto After court [preclearance] requirements ject to the Alan Motions Cardenas’ and K. Fertel’s 535, 542, Lipscomb, § 5.” Wise v. 437 U.S. (documents Pro Appear Hac Vice Leave to 2493, 2498, (1978); 98 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 483) Motion and the United States’ 482 and also State Texas v. United States see pending its into the to Consolidate lawsuit (D.D.C.1992). America, 201, F.Supp. 2).10 (document also de- litigation court time, however, indicat- At the same the court and moot Defendant Wetherell’s nied as its intention to entertain 2 chal- ed Section (docu- Quash Subpoena Margolis’ Motions lenges and Flori- 487), on both Florida Senate denied Plaintiffs’ ments 485 Proposed plans.11 Re- to Strike State Senate da House Motion entirely unexpected, on it did not lawsuit was not House or Senate the basis that 7.This refusing Voting Rights preclear comply Act. the Florida Senate with Section of the its letter Department belief plan, the Justice indicated its granted by 460. In contained 8. This motion document both the Senate and House 13, 1992, May Su- its order dated the Florida 2 violations: Section preme willingness Court indicated to enter- its Finally, we there are chal understand that challenges tain Section 2 to the then-validated Rights lenges Voting under Section 2 Act plan, plaintiffs but to assert their elected being presently in the consolidated considered 2 claims in this forum. Section federal Wetherell, of De v. No. 92-40015- cases NAACP WS and Florida State Conference GRANTED contained in the motions Chiles, Branches No. 92-40131-WS 71, 204, 381, DENIED documents addition, (N.D.Fla.). In some of the comments the motions contained in documents alluded concerns in we received to various 445, 446, 372, 386, 443, 450, 452, 453, 455, 459, volving adequacy plans in non-cov 477, 481, 499 and 503. ered counties. Because our review these plans impact is limited law to the direct on 27; By pursuant order dated June geographic areas covered Section we did Code, States Title United lawfulness of the not undertake assess the Judge Chief Circuit Court of Eleventh Collier, Hardee, legislative choices outside Appeals three-judge panel consisting convened Hillsborough Hendry, Monroe counties. judges. of the same three note, however, allegations have We do *9 regarding minority cov been raised dilution of jurisdictions, example immediately in the Pensaco ered It was our intent to conduct a County County plan area and the Dade 2 la-Escambia section review Senate and the we legislative adopted despite plan potential area. Because and these other the its section 2 impact upon directly problems. adopted did not the five plan choices Because the the counties, they Supreme plan covered cannot be the basis Court could not be a valid withholding preclearance plan. subject challenge of either to a section 2 until after it was Justice, precleared by Department 1 Exhibit to document 447 at 6. the we Department’s jur- "preclearance” adopted Supreme plan Because the Court as our own reviewing plan give is limited to five parties plan isdiction Florida’s order to a formal to counties, reject challenge. covered could not either the
1559 Grandy plaintiffs’ submerges Hispanic the De further voters In Count VIII allege districts,- complaint12, plaintiffs specifically, black Dis- fourth amended (62% re- black, that both Florida House and Senate Hispanic), trict 103 27.8% Dis- joint districting encompassed (63.0% resolu- plans black, Hispanic), trict 109 34.5% SJR, 2-G, legislative reapportionment, tion of (34.5% black, District 118 His- 27.1% Voting seq. Rights violate 2 et Section panic). examples Less egregious pack- Code, Act, Section Title United States ing, dilutionary having but still the same at seq. et See document 506 5Í-60. (57.8% effect, black, 104 16.1% District Specifically, plaintiffs “[t]he contend (19.2% Anglo Hispanic), District 105 His- ... unlaw- apportionment joint resolution (32.3% panic), Anglo Hispan- District 106 minority communi- fragments cohesive fully ic), (66.2% black, District 108 His- 16.0% submerges impermissibly ties and otherwise panic). appears purposefully SJR 2-G right participate and to their to vote pack, submerge Hispanic pop- fracture and 52 Document process.” electoral deliberately dilute ulation vot- ¶ Dade attack both the Coun- 137. Plaintiffs ing strength; ty plan Senate Dade districts in the Hispanic-American County majority in the House Nine districts districts Escambia 2-G; alleging however, of Section violative were created SJR Legislature plans submitted show population in Es- The African-American districts, majority-Hispanic-American split into two eleven County cambia population County and one of one of black seats can be created in the Dade 30% 2-G deliber- population. 14% black SJR Hispanic voting area. This dilution of County’s ately Afri- fractures Escambia strength accomplished the aforemen- population pro- in order to can-American fracturing, packing, tioned and submer- white, representative, incumbent tect gence purpose pro- with intent and Bo Johnson. Alterna- Speaker-designate incumbents; tecting white population encapsulate the black plans tive cohesive, compact, .relatively 40% in a
mented in District packed with elect candidates In Dade Many dilutes biack [*] community of interest. County, of African-Americans to ability many Hispanic citizens which [*] of choice. black citizens Jfc 118 and District 119. seats were also [*] were [*] frag- [*] With tricting plan for the Florida State da County area. The state’s such that creates voting age population only in three Hispanic population respect Hispanics comprise enacted Senate, ... by the State of Flori- districts in the Dade plan fragments apportionment concentrations majority redis- [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] districts. racial and ethnic existing concentrations packed in Districts 110 voters (77.5%) that, (75.7%), (82.1%), such if area are River, Lee, Okeechobee, 27, 1992, St. Coun- Lucie ruling on June Indian In a from the bench ties). plaintiffs again Although plaintiffs’ once permitted motion indicates that the court Depart- complaint. Justice prejudice, Both the amend their without this dismissal would be plaintiffs allege NAACP section ment and the the dismissal would did not state whether court violations; fourth amended com- filing subsequent preclude plaintiffs lawsuit however, precise. plaint, more- challenging the dismissed districts. plaintiffs complaint, 13. In their fourth amended Afri- plaintiffs Because concede With other House districts. also attacked several in Es- be drawn can-American district cannot plaintiffs dismissed their approval, later really challenge County, is not cambia (Leon, challenges Gads- Act; Voting Rights Section 2 of the based on rather, Jackson, Counties), den, Calhoun, Liberty allegations lines plaintiffs’ that the district Putnam, Marion, (Alachua, Levy, St. Johns Coun- discriminatory purpose is were drawn *10 Brevard, Counties), Seminole, ties), (Volusia, the United Amendment to based on the Fifteenth Counties), (Pinellas (Polk Hillsborough States Constitution. DeSoto, (Charlotte, Highlands, County), and 82 1,1992, testimo- equally July On at the close of all divided into area of the state is from ny argument, re- and oral the court ruled districts which populated legislative interest and follow spect the bench that communities non-discriminatory plan-drawing cri- plaintiffs Hispanic have shown a fourth teria, signifi- constitute a Hispanics would district can be drawn in accordance with voting age cant 30, [Thornburg Gingles U.S. ] [478 district in Dade one additional standard, 25] 106 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed.2d County. plaintiffs15 prove but the have failed to (b). ¶¶ 141(a), (i); 142(a), can that a fourth be Document 506 at alleges creating regressive that the creation drawn without effect complaint also upon both intentional Afro-American voters Dade Coun- of these districts was Florida____ willful, preserving purpose ty Consequently, and for the and South and discriminat- legislators Supreme precedent, white incumbent this court under Court ing against African-American give policy as must deference to the state Document 506 at and electorate. candidates expressed in the Florida as validated ¶ 145. Supreme the Florida Court. days Fri- lasted five The entire trial plaintiffs’ Tr. The court denied oral VIII-53. —from through Wednesday, July day, June motion for reconsideration. Tr. VIII-61. 1, 1992, Sunday, excluding June hearing closing argument After as to the testimony concerning The court first heard County portion of the Florida House plaintiffs’ close of Plan. At the the Senate plan, the court ruled from the bench that chief, orally moved for a defendants case circumstances, totality “under verdict, by the was denied directed plaintiffs of Section 2 have shown violation Senate defendants Tr. III-216. The court. plaintiffs in that the have shown that more The court next presented their case. then may than nine drawn County upon the Dade to the attack turned creating regressive having without effect plan. portion the House upon black voters in South Florida and in parties the court that advised County.” Tr. The court indi- VIII-83. attempting por- to settle the Escambia were immediately proceed cated its intention to by redrawing the Escam- tion of the lawsuit remedy phase into the of this case. The hearing County After bia House. districts. imposed court later the Modified De testimony plaintiffs’ of one of Escambia plan. Plan as its own Tr. at 160. On VIII witnesses, from the court ruled 2, 1992, July judgment entered court “plaintiffs established a [had] bench that (document to the 1992 Florida Senate Plan facie, constitutional viola- prima case on the 553) and as to the 1992 Florida House Plan Coúnty area of Flori- tion in the Escambia (document 554), supplemented latter on plain- the close of Tr. IV-18. Before da.” (document 559). July Following case, prima was notified tiffs’ facie the court trial, the Executive House and defendants parties, plaintiff-interve- except that the (documents moved for reconsideration Reaves, Darryl nor had reached a settlement 556) (docu- These motions denied were agreement as to the House Escambia 560). ments 555 and The House defendants Upon granting of the districts. House reconsideration, rehearing also moved for defendants’ oral motion to dismiss Reaves for (document 561) stay and for a the court standing, County,14 as to Escambia Tr. lack of (document 571). denied VIII-59, approved considered and (document judgment opinion explains This proposed consent memorializes and 548). rulings. July court’s rationale for its See Tr. VIII-94. ruling County. specifically resident of Dade 15. The court noted that its 14. Reaves applied plaintiffs just and not the De Gran- all dy plaintiffs. Tr. VIII at 60.
1561
Bolden, Congress amended Section
FACTS AND
2 in 1982
II. FINDINGS OF
to include a
or “effects”
to
OF LAW16
“results”
test
CONCLUSIONS
determine
racial vote
has
whether
dilution
Rights
Voting
2
Act
A. Section
27;
Report
See
at
occurred.
Senate
Thorn
35,
30,
burg Gingles,
v.
478 U.S.
106 S.Ct.
pertinent part,
As
amended
2752, 2758,
(1986);
3.
the extent
unusually
has
478
49
106
subdivision
used
U.S. at
n.
S.Ct. at 2765-66 n.
litical
206).
districts, majority vote re-
large
(quoting
election
15
at
U.S.C.C.A.N.1982
quirements, anti-single
provisions,
shot
Court, however,
following
set
the
The
forth
voting practices
procedures
or
or
other
important
on
to
limitations
the extent which
opportunity
the
may
enhance
liability
these factors establish
under Section
minority
discrimination against
the
2:
group;
many
listed in
slating pro-
[WJhile
or all
the factors
is
4.
if there
a candidate
may
Report
cess,
Senate
be relevant to a
members of the minor-
the
whether the
through submergence
access to
claim of vote dilution
ity group have been denied
districts,
there is a
multimember
unless
process;
circumstances,
conjunction
following
of the
members of the
5.
the extent to which
generally
of multimember
the use
political
minority group in the state or
impede
minority
ability
will not
the
vot-
the effects of discrimi-
subdivision bear
education,
representatives
ers to elect
of their choice.
as
nation in such areas
em-
health,
ployment and
which hinder their
Gingles,
panics,
will
because,
Hispanic] population
per
if
least
cent
Rights
even
of at
65
Voting
Act violation
(or
fifty
voting age
least
population
minorities constitute
Hispanics]
age population
percent)
provide
[or
blacks
overall
district,
fifty percent
up
opportunity
they may
not make
to elect
candidate
an
Byrne,
Brace,
ori
Ketchum v.
supra
voters. See
at 44.
choice.”
denied,
(7th Cir.1984),
United
gin
F.2d 1398
cert.
rule has
traced
this
been
L.Ed.2d
Supreme
U.S.
S.Ct.
Jewish
States
Court case United
(1985)
Carey,
in Ketchum that Organizations,
found
Inc.
U.S.
something
more
“minorities
than a
has
must have
tion’ higher turn out in much African-Americans Ketchum, urn, (citing F.Supp. at (Lisa Hispanics. Tr. rates than VI-282-83 21). F.2d at 1416 nn. Handley). affidavit, Arrington indicates his Dr. experts have modified of the African- why he other The effectiveness majority it affects rule insofar as African-Ameri- districts created 65% American plans is not in cans: House and Senate [Bjecause The African-American dispute. now VAP minority communities are 50.96%to 57.24% ranged these districts from organized minority citizens better from districts and in the House 51.7% likely register and vote than more [,i]t party no always in the Senate and has at era is not 52.5% true in an earlier argue tempted to that these districts would necessary [African-Ameri- a 60% to have op- in an result African-American candidate to assure blacks district] can VAP being elected.21 Thus we find that of their of choice portunity to elect candidates majority an African-American Although 60% a district with black VAP choice. gives Afri is an effective district goal, black VAP probably good still a 55% VAP testimony because districts Arrington, as 21. There was experts, such Dr. While some simple majority containing of African-Ameri- attempt Hispanic districts to create still would candi- VAPwould an African-American can elect 65%, containing Hispanic VAPs of Affidavit choice, containing per- 58or districts date 6), (Exhibit Arrington to document 474 Dr. designed to VAP are cent African-American Weber, experts, Dr. would not. such other therefore, are, votes and African-American waste ‘‘packed.” Tr. VI-135-36. majority Hispanic dis- electing to create “rock solid” for candi potential can-Americans Accordingly, containing Hispanic tricts 65% VAP choice. dates of their African-American dis- three “rock solid” proposed NAACP’s “sufficiently large” re satisfy containing districts tricts 55% African-American therefore, only quirement. question, VAP, “for an these districts were created proposed whether one addi the VAP and he on entirely purpose” different “erred addi Hispanic tional Senate district two making sure that seats [these] side House would enable Hispanic tional III-94, He be safe.” Tr. III-233. would elect Hispanic in these districts to voters conclusion that “a then reaffirmed his without-impairing the candidates of choice district, an lock while not absolute Hispanic surrounding 3 in the VAPs range to certainly ... comes well within Hispanic and 9 districts. House- provide Hispanic potential a realistic voters choice.” Tr. HI- candidates of their elect an witness testified that Plaintiffs’ own containing His- Hispanic 55% Senate district inas- “problematic” be panic VAP22 would hand, Defendants, on the other submitted guar- too low to much as the VAP would accounting after the lower evidence that result the district would antee that citizenship Hispanics, level of some Hispanic candidate choice. election Hispanic not be newly created districts would evidence, Plaintiffs submitted Tr. 11-66. words, although the His- effective. In
however, containing 59 percent a district might panic that these districts VAP indicate Hispanics to would enable would tend to elect a candidate Specifically, of choice.23 elect candidate choice, citi- because number *16 testified that Dr. Lichtman (as residents) age to did opposed zens Hispanic reaches a Once the concentration Hispanics majority, not a would constitute then all those districts seem point, certain choice not be able to elect a candidate of Hispanics, given below that to but elect percentage of relying on a certain without seem elect point, none of the districts According defen- white-crossover votes. of Hispanics____ candidate choice of [N]o dants, two the creation of these additional ... elected in dis- Hispanic has been Hispanic nothing more districts would do level, percent Hispanic tricts a 59 below citizen in the Hispanic than dilute VAP above, percent at in districts in a remaining nine and would result every have in instance elect- those districts Hispanic in safe districts. decrease Hispanic ed candidates argument, In support concluded that the of their defendants Dr. Lichtman Tr. III-24. adjust- testimony in 40 cite De Grove’s that after Hispanic of 62.1 district VAP ing citizenship, containing 66% opportunity” a a district provided Hispanics “realistic Hispanic less than 50% of choice dis- VAP would have to elect a candidate that VII-26, Hispanic Defen- Dr. Lichtman’s voters.25 Tr. trict.24 Tr. 67-8. Ill— citizenship vary note adjusting included for the lower dants further that levels assessment older, among Hispanic His- Hispanic Declaration of Dr. settled voter turnout. districts — 2, Although panic neighborhoods part in the of J. Dr. Licht- central Allan Lichtman city higher citizenship have previously recommended to the will levels man had they neighborhoods which attempt than the attract more commission Grandy posed Hispanic Hispan- De district contained number in the 22. District 62.1% VAP) plan. ic would more effective. repeatedly had been reelected 23. Javier Souto population 25. De Grove testified that 32% containing Hispanic Tr. II- a district VAP. 59% Hispanic (Anglo, com African-American and bined) VII- not citizens. Tr. in Dade are Furthermore, hypo he testified that in a 20-1. Hispanic proposed in the 24. The district fourth popu containing Hispanic a thetical tract 100% Hispanic Grandy plan VAP. contained 55% lation, population would be agree of the tract’s plaintiffs 55% The De seemed (where pro- Tr. non-citizens. VII-23. the fourth Reaves/Brown Arrington ac- Although analysis Tr. VII-49. Whereas Aff. at 6. his arrivals.26 recent Weber, higher cording specifically applies only to Dr. Cubans a to African-Ameri- V-26, cans, citizenship groups, than Tr. rate is suspect there no reason to it would high due to the apply Hispanics. Dr. Moreno testified that not also Hispanic tending arrivals of recent number The court finds that because area, a there was to settle the South Beach groups have younger population a than ma- non-citizenship [Hispanic] “higher level jority groups, supermajority' a of Hispanic non-registra- higher [Hispanic] and a level population and African-American total in other areas of tion” in South Beach than necessary in opportunity order to create an this, city. Because of Tr. 11-72-73. elect groups for these candidates their Senate district proposed 35th plaintiffs' Hispanics choice. Because communities 11-72. effective district. Tr. be an would by large characterized a of non citi- number pro- by noting that their responded Plaintiffs registration and a voter and turn- zens lower entirely not consist posed 35th district does rates, supermajority Hispanic a out VAP rather, Beach; Hispanic lack of South necessary His- to create districts which South Beach is balanced citizens panics can elect candidates of choice. Like areas of Little highly Hispanic concentrated Hispanics, African-Americans must con- Havana. supermajority total popula- stitute argued plaintiffs were Defendants also tion of the elect a order to candi- According changing position. to defen- choice; however, date of because of the re- dants, congressional redistricting hear- increase cent in African-American turnout 65% had contended that a ings, plaintiffs registration, supermajority of African- necessary supermajority was necessary American VAP is not in order to choice, but now elect candidate an African-American candidate of elect supermajority 59% or 62% contend that a Furthermore, although choice. the court ex- to do so. Plaintiffs allow them would supermajority finds that both a why plaintiffs advo- plained the reason and African-American total for the high VAP cated such a supermajority of neces- only because two congressional districts was express sary, require- we decline to these *17 being Because ev- were formed.27 districts percentages. ments as exact Hispanic eryone agreed only two dis- that drawn, “it sense to ma[de] would be finds tricts The court further that both the Sen as your and make those districts hedge by plaintiff-intervenors bet proposed districts ate 11-115. also possible.” Tr. See Hispanic Reaves/Brown/Hargrett and the House dis Furthermore, according Dr. to Tr. II-67-8. proposed by Grandy plaintiffs the De tricts neces- Arrington, higher VAP is a containing create districts effective would perform sary congressional for districts majorities. Hispanic voting pro Each of the legislative perform: districts than for state posed Senate districts the Reaves/Brown certainly and House districts in the want somewhat One would Hispanic contains an of at least Congressional dis- higher black VAP for percent already rule Because the 65 legislature 60%. for the state because tricts than citizenship, making another ad financing accounts greater organization justment citizenship overstate its campaign would conduct at that necessary to counting.28 importance and lead double level. districts, formulating we while here possible 2 when Although be to estimate the tion it would 26. basis, specific challenge the presented with a citizenship tract the are on a tract levels (district county) plan. sample Florida size versus smaller present problems. VII-52. statistical Tr. would premised 28. Specifically, rule the 1992, however, many fact non-citizens May on the that our dated order registration and turnouts. voter supermajority neces- and have lower that a was court found this case, would be no inquiry were not the there sary. congressional was different If this The containing more than reason create inquiry in this Section case because from the disagrees Hispanic that former, "considering” VAP. No one merely Sec- were 50.1% we majority in to constitute a two Senate plaintiffs themselves that the Finally, the fact n County.30 House districts four Dade percentages also these are satisfied pop- of the African-American concentrations effectiveness tends to indicate the essentially rest north in the central Coleburn, ulation F.Supp. at proposed districts. including portion of urbanized City. Opa-Locka, Liberty City and Carol Geographical Compactness b. VI-205; pock- Tr. 11-15-16. There the Dade Plaintiffs have shown that non-Hispanic African-Americans ets sufficiently County’s Hispanic population is Overtown), (including Coco- downtown Miami compact large geographically to consti Grove, Heights. II- nut and Richmond Tr. eleven tute in four 16; Finally, there are African- VI-205. nearly Hispanics constitute House districts. neighborhoods City, American area, persons one million Goulds, Homestead, and South Miami. Tr. county sufficient concentrations and the has Allapattah 11-16. The area is border easily can neighbor- zone between African-American Senate and eleven to create four combined (to east) (to hoods areas Hispan effective districts that contain House west). Tr. 11-15. primari majorities. Hispanics have ic Bd. Elec The court in Hastert v. State ly Dade: settled three sections tions, (N.D.Ill.1991), F.Supp. 634 noted Miami, City Little section of the Havana compactness Gingles geographical comprising com Dade area” “West concept.” requirement is not “an aesthetic Green, Sweetwater, Village West munities of case, Hastert, F.Supp. at 649. In that Kendall, and the North chester and West Chicago/Cook County’s Hispanic most of county consisting of the west section en population was “clustered into two dense Hialeah, Springs, and cities of Miami claves, Chicago’s one on near northwest side Aff. at surrounding neighborhoods. Moreno side,” and the on the near southwest (most is also a sizeable 5-6. There that the two were “less than a but enclaves Mexican) community in the ly farm-worker points.” other at their closest mile from each 5-6. area. Document 471 at Homestead Hastert, F.Supp. Concluding migration patterns from went Cuban Hispanic community geo Chicago’s improved economi east to Cubans west —as compact meaning of graphically within the cally, they of the Little Havana moved out Gingles despite the fact that clusters Tr. III-12. area into the suburbs. With held separated, “[t]he were sepa exception airport, of the Miami separation of is not indicative of /clusters rates Havana Hialeah and Miami Little from communities, but existence of two distinct Hispanic. population forms Springs, appears have occurred as a result of *18 line to compact contiguous and from Hialeah exogenous physical and institutional barri The two dramat Kendall. Tr. Ill—13. most Hastert, F.Supp. Despite at 649. 777 ers.” Hispanic growth County in ic of areas Hispanic community in the fact the existed Miami and the Ken along area Beach29 enclaves, separate two the court Hastert Tr, 11-14. Kendall area. dall/West Chicago/Cook County concluded that the Hispanic community sufficiently large population is also was The African-American large compact compact to sufficiently geographically geographically and constitute citizenship registra- quire Hispanic citizenship in each of the lower to the levels because rates, Hispanic con- districts must tion/tumout tain district. proposed previ- supermajority Hispanic VAP. As stated, ously percent rule "arbitrari- the 65 was 1980, percent Miami Beach was 30 His- In Thus, problems. ly" for these created account 1990, Hispanic. panic. percent In it is 49 Tr. (1) accept modify must the 65 this court percent either 11-14. its rule or formulate own methodolo- estimating gy re- the number non-citizens population 30. The African-American can Hispanic VAP for various dis- flected support majority district in Bro- another each of the districts contains tricts. Because therefore, Beach counties. and, ward/Palm Hispanic VAP "satisfies” 60% rule, in- need further 65 the court not
1569 Hastert, majority. single district 777 Kendall Lakes.” Tr. Additionally, III-264. F.Supp. at 649. Dr. Moreno testified that protect in order to a white plan incumbent packs Other courts have echoed fact that 114 Hispanic District with an VAP over 78 compactness concept. not an aesthetic percent. Tr. Ill—265. Dr. Moreno also Dillard v. Baldwin Board Edu pointed out that in District 102 and District (M.D.Ala. cation, 1459, 686 F.Supp. 1465-66 the State repeated process 109 frag 1988), the court held “[a]n aesthetic menting Hispanic communities. Tr. Ill—265. norm, itself, by only would be not unrelated This court does not find that districts legal presented to the social issues under the. drawn Grandy plaintiffs De 2, signif it concept, would be an unworkable icantly geographically compact less results, resulting arbitrary than capricious those drawn of Florida.31 guidance no as to it is Nor because offers when Eu, unreasonably are these irregu 1 districts “so met.” The Cal. 4th court Wilson lar, ‘bizarre,’ (1992), approach Cal.Rptr.2d 4 P.2d or ‘uncouth’ as to Coleburn, requirement compactness obvious gerrymandering.” held Furthermore, promote F.Supp. should be the creation of at used these dis voting ef compact functional districts that allow for “relatively tricts are and are in line Specifically, representation. fective configuration with the of electoral districts court held that approved that have been other cases.” Coleburn, geometric F.Supp.
Compactness'
(citing Ry
does
refer to
at
not
Elections,
shapes
ability
but
to the
of citizens to
bicki v. State
F.Supp.
Board
(N.D.Ill.1982)
representa-
(three
their
relate
each
1166-67
court)).
representatives
ability
tives and to the
judge
Finally, the court finds that
effectively
constituency.
relate
Grandy
the districts as drawn in
De
plans
House and Senate
would create func
Eu,
at
Cal.Rptr.2d
west. Tr. IY-22. among were cohesive themselves but plaintiffs dy/Reaves/Humphrey and the DOJ all cohesive—and were often at odds—in re- argue fragments that Florida’s House III-35-36; e.g. lation to each See Tr. other. and dilutes the vote. Dr. Moreno County, v. Metropolitan Meek 908 F.2d House 116 of Flori testified that District (11th Cir.1990). 1540, 1545-46 There is a 48 percent. da has an high degree of tension Dade be- Additionally, point Dr. Tr. III-263. Moreno tween the African-American separates out that the line of ed District neighborhoods population. Tr. 11-82. Fur- heavily Hispanic District thermore, heavily hispanic while African Americans tend to 112 from the rest Democratic, Hispanic voters tend to *19 Lakes area and the Kendall area. vote Kendall Dr. The Republican. III-263-264. Moreno concluded that vote Tr. 11-28. focus of Tr. however, Gingles not prong, joint erects a barrier between this is same, up making basically separate minority two “neighbors cohesiveness of housing development groups, “Hispanics” same in but rather whether is the as a what Clinton, apportionment plan. F.Supp. present the court in 730 tained in the 31. As The Jeffers (E.D.Ark.1989), inevitably one-person, 207 stated: requires one-vote rule by plain- [proposed county and [S]ome of the districts lines natural' barriers be strange, instances, we do tiffs] look rather but not believe crossed in and that cities and some plaintiffs’ position. this is Their alter- split fatal political geographic in units materially stranger native shape are in not others. than at least some of districts con- a vote. Aff. at 16. Between 1980 and “African-Americans” as Moreno group and/or group politically registration among cohesive. party are Democratic Hispanics County from 49 Dade decreased Hispanic a. percent, Republican registration while Hispanic population Dade of The total percent. increased from to 68 Moreno 953,407 County percent is is The Aff. at 18. Cuban vote stands in stark at is Cuban Moreno Aff. 5. It American. to that other Latinos across contrast 1980’s, 300,- during over estimated that consistently sup- States who have United into 000 Latin Americans moved Dade Coun by ported ticket the Democratic two-to-one these, the ty. at 5. Of Mariel Moreno Aff. 18. cohesive- 125,000 margins. Moreno Aff. at brought Cuban boatlift in 1980 fleeing Hispanic community ness has also the San of Dade’s refugees, Nicaraguans while by idealogical affinity of civil in 1986 and 1987 regime and war been buttressed dinista 79,00032. II- approximately Tr. numbered Cu- largest groups Nicaraguans its two — Colombians, Peruvians, 17. Thousands groups Moreno Aff. These two bans. at 9. Hondurans, and Puerto Ricans Guatemalans continually together for a work conservative flourishing Hispanic into Dade’s also melded 9; foreign policy agenda. Moreno Aff. at Tr. during According to community the 1980s. According Miguel Representative 11—18. census, hispanics ac the 1990 non-Cuban Grandy,34 Hispanic count for 40.7% of the voters is a union Cuban-Ameri- There between County. Tr. 11-86. Dade cans, Nicaraguans and other Central high testimony that there is a showed philosophy, Americans basic first among Cu- degree political cohesiveness basically policy ... form because although County in Dade the tes- ban voters migrations, political not un- economic timony clear less about cohesiveness Hispanic like other sectors the United Hispanics. of non-Cuban Because Dr. More- States; they generally very conser- group Hispanics no focused on as vative, very political philos- anti-communist Hispanic subgroups, he was on the individual ophy foreign on the affairs. any form conclusions not able to subgroups33. preferences of these individual Tr. 11-145. Tr. 11-84-91. County significant Dade has a amount general, County in Dade In “the including immi- African-Americans Hispanics in distinguished from the other grants Republic from Dominican country by being part of more conserva- Tr. Although Puerto Rico.35 II at 33. Dr. Republican.” more Moreno tive and much Moreno testified that identified Dominicans strong loyalty Cuban-Ameri- Aff. at 16. The more with the culture than that of Republican party cans have to the seen Americans, the African cohesiveness In voting patterns several elections. 70,000 County Dade Puerto less Ricans is Bob Republican Martinez carried the According clear. Moreno Aff. at 33. to Dr. his Hispanic precincts Dade over Demo- Moreno, County Dade Puerto Ricans seem receiving percent of the opponent, cratic stronger identify language minority with vote. Moreno Aff. President 11-33, minority. than Tr. 84- with the racial precincts George Bush carried the Furthermore, Ri- Puerto percent over Republican more vote, cans tend to be more while Senator Connie Mack carried the conservative than their Puerto Rican coun- same districts with about Moreno, significant, example, According to Dr. this number is be- 35. This 30,000. non-Hispanic lieved to be undercounted where the African Ameri 49%, can VAP is but the total African-American *20 is 33. It unclear whether this data not avail- was Thus, approximately there is three is 52%. analysis appropriate or done. able if the not percent Hispanic African-American VAP in this Tr. 11-112. district. testifying expert. as an 34. Mr. De is not against 11-17. None- candidates of other races.” York.36 Tr. Tr. HI-
terparts New theless, 35. Supreme the evidence shows that Both this court and Florida statistical Court register to more as Dem- Chief Justice Leander Shaw pre- Ricans tend have Puerto (50%) (40%). viously 590,000 Tr. Republicans approximately held that the than ocrats Moreno, 11-142, According to 179. Dr. African-American residents the Bro- do county politi- Ricans and Cubans not area37 fact that Puerto are ward/Dade/Monroe cally does party affiliation cohesive38: share same cohesive; groups mean that two are not Black voters in generally vote as a rather, Hispanic Democrats tend to vote for racial cohesive block for black candi- Republicans they have that when date there when is a black versus white opportunity. Tr. 11-103. given choice on the ballot for a office. Master) (Report Special According Grandy, Document at Representative 2G, 23. See also In re at 290 Hispanic groups tend SJR So.2d the various (Shaw, (Re- education, C.J., dissenting); in the similar views areas document 388 very needy among port Special housing, medically programs Independent Expert to Mas- ter) ¶ Furthermore, Furthermore, testimony 10. Tr. II-145-6. others. legislative Hispanic groups hearings tend to have the received under- various Accordingly, score political such as this conclusion. we con- philosophy same areas groups clude that both rights These African-Americans and His- civil and discrimination. English panics politically actively oppose groups are cohesive within have united to Moreno, According meaning Gingles Dr. prong. second only initiative. language fear of based discrimination “[t]he Voting 3. Block White English only initiatives in the form [both Lichtman,39 “racially Dr. Allan J. defines has served to united Dade’s otherwise] polarized voting” as extent “the to which Aff. Moreno at 7. communities.” groups members of distinct racial ethnic that there is a sufficient de- conclude We support different of their choice.” candidates Hispan- political among gree of cohesiveness Lichtman, Affidavit of Dr. Government Ex- satisfy Gingles prong, second ics to al- ¶ 4; Racially polar- 46 at Tr. Ill—13. hibit though might there be differences between voting parts: ized can be into subdivided two Hispanic subgroups. several cohesion, minority is the extent which b. African-Americans minority support which voters candidates choice, voting, is their and white bloc indicated that Dade All of evidence support different extent to which whites community County’s African-American is ¶4. Exhibit candidates. Government 46 at cohesive. Dr. testified African- Weber Lichtman, “[r]acially According polar- to Dr. “generally” cohesive tend Americans if, politically significant under a ized is general for Democratic candidates to vote given system, impedes oppor- electoral Lichtman simi- elections. Tr. VI-142. Dr. candi- tunities for voters elect politically larly testified that “blacks Exhibit dates of their choice.” Government cohesive, large ... behind unite numbers ¶ 46 at 4. prefer ... of their choice and candidates amount there are elec- There was a substantial of testimo black candidates when elect during Congressional competing ny redis with black candidates tions —both fact, groups presidential in recent ethnic candidates is illustrated "[a]U 36. nationality no tend to be conservative than races GOP candidate [where] more state-wide counterparts large metropoli- percent in other U.S. than 12 of the Black received more heavily 11-18. areas.” Tr. tan vote.” African-Americans also vote Id. legislative Id. for Democrats elections. Hoeffler, Affidavit Thomas B. document 472 at history professor 39. Dr. Lichtman College formerly of Arts Associate Dean of the registration in Dade n University in at The American Aff. at 19. Sciences Democrat. Moreno Republican Washington, antipathy D.C. of Black voters to "The *21 County, opportunities for His- legislative panics in Dade hearings and the tricting elect candidates of their choice are County panics is ra voting in Dade hearings —that ¶ impeded. Aff. at 11. Lichtman cially notes Chief Jus polarized. The court in In re Con tice Leander conclusion Shaw’s Moreno, County According to Dr. stitutionality Resolution 2G Senate Joint competing inter- profoundly by divided n1992, 597 Special Apportionment Sessio separate ethnic ests of three distinct and (Fla.1992) (Shaw, C.J., dis So.2d American, Hispanic, and groups—African legis senting) that results of Florida’s “[t]he of whom has dif- Non-Hispanic White —each estab past years ten lative elections over economic interests. More- ferent social and racially polarized vot presence lished Moreno, According to Dr. “[t]he no Aff. at 3. Likewise, Arrington Dr. stated ing.” along of Dade ethnic lines has made division Afro-Ameri involving both “most elections contemporary symbol of racial Miami the racially polarized.” Hispanics are cans in America.” Moreno Aff. at 3. upheaval Furthermore, according 1. Arrington Aff. at “high degree of in Dade There is a tension Lichtman to Dr. popula- Afro-American between the Hispanic population.” Tr. 11-82. reported [exhibit in Table tion and the The results Furthermore, major pat- of the three show a clear the division government 46] exhibit development of voting, Hispanic groups has led to the racially polarized ethnic tern Miami; is, ethnic voting. tripartite politics It also cohesion, and white bloc pre- three communities factors between the united with white black voters shows that poli- in Dade all other factors Hispanic dominate over candidates opposition voters tics. positions40---- and House for Senate 1 likewise reported Table The results Moreno, are According “[minorities to Dr. voting by strong bloc pattern of show a only to elect their candidates usually able ... non-Hispánic [ candidates
whites majority.” firmly in the Mor- when joined whites with indicate that blacks and] Furthermore, candi- Aff. at 20. “white eno and House Hispanic Senate opposing cleavages be- deep dates are aided candidates____ Hispan- findings of These Republican Hispanics and Democratic tween voting sup- white bloc cohesion and ic According to Dr. Blacks.” Moreno Aff. at 3. local analyses of additional ported by the Moreno, racially po- types of there are four County. Miami; in Dade elections elections in larized ¶¶ 6-9; III — 18— First, See also Tr. featuring Hispan- Aff. at Lichtman are races [there] with ic candidate versus a candidate White candidate; supporting the Black[s] White Furthermore, Second, candidate versus a White a Black racially degree polarized vot- high supporting Hispanic voters candidate with legislative elections in ing documented candidate; third, candi- a Black the White Hispanic vot- indicates with Hispanic candidate date versus to elect opportunity an ers would holding power, the balance of voters White only in Districts their choice candidates of between two finally are races the[re] majorities. Oth- voting-age Hispanic group in of the same ethnic candidates usually bloc would erwise white group[s] the other two which voters from of choice to defeat the candidate sufficient two candi- support the least ethnic of the Hispanic voters. dates. ¶ Finally, the re- Affidavit at 10. Lichtman at 21. Moreno Aff. for the state consultants prepared ports examples of re- specific cites strong Dr. Moreno that because of recognize predomi- ethnic factors cent races which Hispanics and non-His- between polarization studied, legislative positions. In 11 of 13 to state every voted for didates "In election House, ecological greater proportion than re- Senate of Hispanic candidates elections for the reported in The results gression either whites blacks. more than 75 results show that strong political pattern cohe- I Table show opted candi- voters for the overwhelming majorities, generally By ¶ sion. Hispanic Exhibit 46 at dates.” Government preferred to elect can- voters
1573 including congres- against elections at all levels all both Latin over others chal- nated lengers and incumbents.” Moreno at and Aff. 27. Gerald Richman sional race between campaign where “[t]he Ileana Ros-Lehtinen African-Americans have also been the vic- campaigns of were based strategies both voting. of According tims block to Dr. More- Moreno Aff. on ethnic calculations.” purely no, “Black candidates faced with a White- Cuban-Americans, by the at offended Hispanic lacking adequate coalition and fi- Richman, perceived voted for Ros- racism of largely running nances have been limited to 12 by margin percent. of (106, Lehtinen 88 in the three state House districts 108) of carried all Although Richman one and in the state Senate district Jewish, Anglo, comprised Black— an overwhelming blocs of where Blacks voters— majority.” represented only 47 Moreno Aff. at 28. In these Bob because voters Starks, electorate, Republican, barely beat White Na- lost the percent of the Richman Edmond, an Dem- Moreno, thaniel According race. to Dr. “Ros-Lehti- general in for ocrat election state House simply more Cubans voted nen because won Despite district 118. the fact that Demo- all of them voted Ros-Lehti- almost out-registered Republicans crats in this dis- nen.” Moreno Aff. at 24. 21,202 9,968, by carrying trict Stark won Hispanic almost In two incumbents nearly all in of the votes the district. White legislature state to non- lost their seats in the despite This occurred fact that Edmond at challengers. Moreno Aff. Hispanic White of support had the all the African- almost barely re-elected to Javier Souto was 26-27. Jones, Darryl American voters.42 In from the 40th district when the State Senate African-American Democrat won the election non- Easterly percent Tom won despite losing the white vote. Jones beat percent of the vote and 92 White percent 64 to John Minchew because more 26-27. Moreno at Souto polls Black vote.41 Aff. African-Americans turned out at the (24 by Anglo opponent his enough to defeat able he carried of the White vote Hispanic, vote. percent over 80 winning percent) put top. him over Moreno nearly Moreno, A1 Dr. Representative According also Aff. at 29. block State Gutman races, non-Hispanic voting legislative seat to a limited to lost his 105 district not poorly Leif- in challenger, His Steve candidates have also fared “Blaek[ ] White candidate. man, seeking county-wide Aff. vote this office.” Moreno at percent won by carrying heavily Hispanic two- 29. vote non-Hispanic thirds White Findings 4. Additional Gut-
percent of the African-American vote.
winning
by
percent of the
man survived
against Afri-
history
of discrimination
race,
another
vote.
In
Florida was addressed
can-Americans
easily
challenger
Orlando Cruz was
defeated
will
May
1992 and
depth
our order
ethnically
in an
Art Simon
incumbent
here. See document
at
not be restated
de-
polarized
in the 116th District
election
also
sufficient evidence
2-3.
finds
percent of
against
carried 77
spite the fact that Cruz
language
based discrimination
26-27;
Aff. at
Tr.
Hispanics. According
vote. Moreno
Latin
Dr.
Moreno,
pat- Moreno,
According
anti-Spanish
to Dr.
“this
fear
an
back-
11-109.
“[t]he
voting against
by English only
His-
polarized
ethnic
has been reinforced
tern of
lash
level,
initiatives,
county
the 1990 elec-
both the
panics was
restricted to
Rather,
specifically
at Mia-
aimed
“[t]he
Moreno Aff. at 27.
seem to
tions.”
Moreno Aff. at 7.
population.”
mi’s Latin
pattern
bloc
non-Latin
Whites
affidavit,
specific
his
Dr. Moreno
cites
against
In
and Blacks
found
Hispanics in
this
testimony,
influence
most of
Moreno
because
his live
Dr.
stated
Thus,
over
crossed
States
even fewer African-Americans
not United
citizens.
district are
(3.7%).
represent
Tr. 11-95.
over
third of
one
African-Americans
registered
in this district.
voters
comprise only
Although
blacks
district, they
greater
this
exert
the sur-
discrimination Americans
language based
examples of
*23
supermarket
respect
Florida’s
suspension
rounding
of a
areas.
including the
With
cus-
Spanish
par-
in front of
the
speaking
reapportionment plan,
all of
clerk
House
frag-
personnel agency
agreed
refusal of a
tomers and the
ties have
that Florida’s
job
foreign
community
accents to
in
people
to refer
the African-American
ments
Moreno Aff. at
De
openings
County45
a Miami bank.
DOJ
The
Escambia
plaintiffs
8-9.
have
Grandy/Reaves/Humphrey
reap-
also established that Florida’s House
clearly
that Flori-
The
established
record
strength
portionment plan
voting
dilutes
social,
eco-
da’s
have borne
minorities
County.
in
must now
Hispanics Dade
We
of this discrimina-
political
nomic and
effects
remedy.
fashion a
despite the fact that Cu-
tion.
true
This is
in South Flor-
relatively
bans have fared
well
n
mayor
Cuban
Although
has a
ida.
Miami
III. REMEDY
is
home of three Cu-
and South Florida
A The Senate
senators,
language
Tr.
ban state
II—
in
exists
South
based discrimination still
.
330)
(Plan
Florida’s new Senate
disagreed as to
Florida.
the witnesses
While
minority-majority
five
creates
districts
Hispanics
African-Americans
whether
voting age
have African-American
which two
discrimination,
bore more of
brunt
(VAP)
population
majorities and three have
everyone
groups
that both
had suf-
agreed
majorities.
Hispan
The
three
VAP
fact,
this
as a result of
discrimi-
fered.43 In
of the
majority
ic
districts and one
VAP
nation,
preclear
must
States DOJ
the United
majority
are
districts
VAP
pursuant to Section 5
counties
five Florida
wholly
County.
Dade
The
contained
within
Act,
Voting Rights
as amended.
majority dis
other African-American VAP
Collier, Har-
seq. Those counties are
1973 et
in the South Florida coun
trict is contained
dee,
and Monroe.44
Hendry, Hillsborough
ties
Broward
Palm Beach.
In
districts,
His
case,
De
VAP
Gran-
three
In this
the DOJ and
panics
following percentages of
plaintiffs have
constitute the
dy/Reaves/Humphrey
estab-
(2)
(1)
percent;
reapportionment
District 34—66.3
Florida’s Senate
VAP:
lished that
voting
percent; and
District
strength
Hispanics
District 37—64.3
plan dilutes the
surrounding
percent. African-Americans consti
County and
areas.
39—76.1
in Dade
percent
has
tute
of the
District 36
Additionally, plaintiff NAACP
estab-
52.5
County,
reapportionment
percent
Dade
and 51.7
of the VAP
lished that Florida’s Senate
district,
voting strength of African-
Beach
District
plan dilutes the
Broward/Palm
subject
43. Representative
five
are
the Section
Burke felt that African-Ameri
These
counties
requirement
they provid-
greater
preclearance
because
discrimination than
cans have suffered
only
English
lan-
ed election information
guage
Hispanics.
similarly
Dr. Weber
Tr. VII-126.
voting
more
five
than
of the
when
great
that "African-Americans
had
testified
age
Spanish-speaking,
fewer
citizens were
difficulty
Hispanic Americans” in achiev
er
than
fifty
registered
percent of item were
to vote
than
political empowerment
ing
in South
Tr.
Florida.
See
or voted in the 1972 Presidential Election.
Likewise, Dr.
testified
VI-145.
Moreno
13, 1976);
Fed.Reg.
(August
40 Fed.
disadvantaged
the most
Blacks are also
—
1975).
(September
Reg.
major
groups that
live in the
ethnic
three
area.
Greater Miami
indicators!,]
all social-economic
plaintiffs
agreed
All
and the defendants
are the
off
Afro-Americans
worst
racially polarized
County,
Escambia
[C]ounty's
Dade
citizens.
population
and that the African-American
in Es-
community facing
... Miami’s Black
discrimi-
large, compact,
County
cambia
and concen-
nation,
participating
poverty, and not
in local
Additionally,
area.
trated in
parties agreed
Pensacola
decision-making
erupted
has
four
violence
plan split'the
Florida’s House
during
times
the 1980’s.
community
politically
cohesive
Escambia
Dariyl
Thus,
Moreno Aff. at 11-12. Plaintiff
Reaves
parties
County into several districts.
against
agreed
judgment
testified that there
discrimination
formulated
to consent
County
and African-Americans
could
both Cubans
area
new House districts in the Escambia
uniting
group
not state which
has been most victimized.
the African-American
(Doc. 548).
Tr.
Pensacola area.
V-132.
Additionally,
congressional order held
plan creates
our
reapportionment
County
of which five
districts
that “because
communities
seven Dade
wholly
within
of nonciti
large
characterized
number
comprised
por-
rates,
two additional districts are
registration
voter
zens and lower
surrounding'
tions of
and the
necessary to
supermajority of the VAP is
areas.
create districts in which
can elect
Grandy,
De
candidates of
choice.”
Grandy/Reaves/Hum
DOJ and the
*24
92-40015-WS, 92-40131-WS,
Nos. TCA
phrey plaintiffs
exception
take
Florida’s
sli
p
determining
a
op. at
whether
fourth
pertains
as it
reapportionment plan
Senate
can
proposed
Hispanics
state’s
district
be created in which
County
Dade
because the
VAP,
fragments
population con
a
plan
Hispanic
supermajority
constitute
we
Hispanics comprise a
that
“emerging changes
sociolog
centrations such
must consider
in
only in three districts.
majority of the VAP
minority
ical
electoral characteristics
Gran
DOJ
De
Specifically, the
groups
changes
political
and broad
in
atti
point
that
plaintiffs
out
dy/Reaves/Humphrey
Ketchum,
pared his African-American
to those
districts
plan.
found
NAACP’s
Plaintiff
Hon-
amazing,
It’s
Your
THE WITNESS:
contends
District
Reaves
that
NAACP’s
or,
comput-
you
with these
what
can do
comprised
is
of Broward and Dade
which
—ers
Counties,
comparable
is
to Plan
District
180’s
you
you
I believe that
If
ask me would
also covers Broward and Dade
32 which
it,
But it
do
I would believe that.
could
points
County. Additionally,
that
Reaves
out
of—because of numeros-
gets to
notion
wholly
District 39 which is
NAACP’s
your
you’re willing
how
to cut
ity
thin
—of
County,
comparable
Plan
is
to
within
margins on
the African-American
both
wholly
District 36
is also
within
180’s
seats,
a
cutting them down to
County. Finally,
argues
Reaves
accomplish
majority in order to
bare VAP
plan,
Bro-
the NAACP
District
that.
seat,
comparable
Beach
ward/Palm
HATCHETT: You’ve answered
JUDGE
goes through
180’s District 28 which
to Plan
my question.
Thus,
County.
plain-
and St.
Broward
Lucie
trying
plan
create a
Tr. IV-194-195.
creates,
asserts that Plan
tiff Reaves
Hispanic supermajority
dis-
four
VAP
with
essence,
major-
three African-American VAP
majority
and three African-American
tricts
diluting
ity districts without
districts,
was confronted
the NAACP
VAP
vote.
“numerosity” concern and his
Gutherie’s
with
margin
of a
is neces-
Contrary
plaintiff
over
much
how
the assertions
concern
opportuni-
insure
minorities have
sary to
Reaves,
create
find
Plan 180 does not
we
elect candidates
choice.
ties to
majority
dis-
African-American
three
fact,
tricts,
the African-Ameri-
dilutes
Burr,
NAACP,
for the
Charles
Counsel
“African-Ameri-
Plan 180’s third
can vote.
technically feas-
“it
the court that
informed
is.
seat,”
an
not contain
District
does
can
three,
were
but we
to draw four
ible
African-
VAP.
African-American
percentages of
get the
completely unable to
only
28 of Plan 180
District
Americans
a level that I believe
up
the districts
the VAP. Guther-
47.1
acceptable.”
constitutes
Tr. IV-217.
parties will find
They
votes----
African-American
majority seat as
waste
less than
ie describes this
African-
and there are more
packed,
follows:
necessary
provide
than are
Americans
to as an access
referred
What is sometimes
for African-Ameri-
opportunity
realistic
Pompano
begins in the
seat
or influence
elect candidates of choice.
cans to
Lauderdale, pro-
of Ft.
area north
Beach
Additionally,
respect
Tr.
then
VI-135.
Palm Beach and
up to
ceeds
West
his turn-
Dr.
testified that
District
Weber
Ever-
Everglades
into —the
across
indicated
out test for that
Myers
Ft.
agricultural area —into
glades
ability
miserably
[its]
in terms of
“fail
County, would
through St. Lucie
and northward
on the
in control
put
African-Americans
and Indian
Beach
into
Ft. Pierce
Vero
Thus,
day.” Tr.
general
VI-136.
election
County.
River
packing
Plan 180’s
concluded that
Dr. Weber
points out that
Tr.
Gutherie
IV-153-54.
32 and 36
into District
of African-Americans
28 is the result
District
configuration
of four
the creation
in order to facilitate
African-Americans
of Plan 180’s inclusion
districts, had a
Hispanic supermajority VAP
adjoining commu-
in Ft. Lauderdale and
cre-
possibility of
“decimating effect” on the
Afri-
the Plan’s second
into District
nities
majori-
ating
African-American
an additional
com-
which is
majority district
can-American
Tr.
Based
ty
Florida.
VI-136.
seat
South
and Broward
portions of Dade
prised of
record,
creates
find that
on the
we
Specifically, Gutherie
Tr.
Counties.
IV-157.
majority VAP
only two African-American
that:
*27
to the conclusion that
this court came
Pompano
earlier,
going from
District
in
2 claim
remedy
Hispanics’
and Indian
Beach
north
Vero
Beach
Afri
remedy for the
and the
South Florida
Myers on
of Ft.
County, and west
River
in South
Section 2 claim
can-Americans’
Coast.
the Gulf
mutually
Tr.
exclusive.
VIII-
Florida were
Florida, faced with the
The state of
Thus,
on the record as
based
Tr. IV-157-58.
Hispanics and Afri
competing interests of
create
180 does not
we find that Plan
a whole
County, sought to
in Dade
can-Americans
majority dis-
three African-American VAP
reap
in its Senate
the fairest balánce
strike
tricts.
Dade
respect to all the
portionment plan with
180 fail to create
only does Plan
Not
Supreme
communities.
ethnic
majority
dis-
VAP
African-American
third
that:
Court has held
trict,
retrogressive to African-
180 is
Plan
primarily a matter
Reapportionment is
County and the sur-
in Dade
Americans
and determination
legislative consideration
the two
respect
rounding areas. With
juris-
‘primary
legislatures have
... state
majority
VAP
African-American
reapportion-
legislative
diction’ over
after
testified that
Plan
Dr. Weber
ment____
court, in the
A federal district
particular
analyzing the turnout for those
legislative reapportionment,
context of
districts,
opinion that
it was his
that
preferences
policies and
follow the
should
turnout,
statutory
state,
analysis
expressed
as
upon that
based
reappor-
Hispan-
provisions,
for the
analysis
I did
constitutional
kind
same
districts,
legis-
plans proposed
are de-
the state
those districts
tionment
that
ic
words,
lative,
policy
sorry
adherence
state
I’m
to use these
whenever
signed —and
requirements of
from the
people
to some
does not detract
they may be offensive
courtroom,
Constitution.
they
designed to
the federal
but
are
in the
41, 102
Seamon,
Logan,
Representative
Upham
S.Ct.
over votes.
Willie
456 U.S.
1518, 1521,
(quoting Chairman of the Florida Caucus of Black
winner between citizens give-and-take of. cess margin of 65 general election questions officials. Political their elected Republican opponent. percent over the policy choices be necessarily require that district, This is can be resolved. District made before influence Tr. IV-155. This equipped to not a federal courts reapportionment task in Florida Senate They recognized their short- have in handle. in district which plan, essence creates area, will, comings whenever in this can elect a candidate African-Americans choices, legislative policy possible, strong minority coali- defer because choice unwise perceived to be if choice is even the African-Americans and tions between choice. optimum not the Mexican-Americans, simply or is white cross- as well as plain- Grandy/Reaves/Humphrey DeBaca, (citing The De F.Supp. at 992-93 exception to Florida’s tiffs and the DOJ take Voting Bights Act to Strange, Application of pertains to reapportionment plan as it House Containing More Mi- Two or Communities plan House County because Florida’s Dade Greater is the Whole nority Groups —When concen- fragments Hispanic population Parts?, Tex.Tech. Sum than the Hispanics a ma- constitute trations such (1989)). find 124-125 We L.Rev. jority only nine House districts. court, to the plans presented between all the County if the Dade plaintiffs contend that plan Reapportionment the Florida Senate equally popu- State is divided into area of the the ethnic communities the fairest to all respect communi- lated House districts which areas, surrounding County and the Dade other nondiscrimi- ties of interests and follow Conse- remedy in this case. proper is the criteria, Hispanics natory plan-drawing. to the gives deference quently, this court supermajority of the VAP would constitute a in the Florida policy expressed as districts. in two additional House Supreme Court as validated already in connec- For reasons discussed remedy in this imposes that Senate, is the hold that VAP tion with the we Seamon, 456 U.S. Upham See case. minority-major- creating number for relevant (1982). 71 L.Ed.2d 102 S.Ct. supermajority ity and that a House districts necessary to create districts of the VAP is B. The House of their Hispanics can elect candidates which plan creates .thir Florida’s House III, A. Addition- supra choice. See section of which nine minority-majority districts teen supermajority ally, we note that a VAP districts supermajority Hispanic VAP guideline for deter- appropriate is an major African-American VAP and four have Hispanic districts mining if two additional nine ity Eight of the districts. County area. See can be created in Dade in Dade are contained III, case, supra A In this the DOJ is in Collier Coun the ninth plain- Grandy/Reaves/Humphrey De and the containing an African- ty. The four districts geographi- that eleven tiffs have established are contained American VAP drawn in which cally compact districts can be Hispanic super- County. Hispanics In the nine would have districts, of their choice. potential constitute to elect candidates majority VAP (1) following percentages VAP: Grandy/Reaves/Humphrey plain- The De (2) District percent; District 102—65.68 Grandy plan the De tiffs submitted (3) percent; District 110 is 83.64 107—63.85 Hispanic supermajority VAP eleven creates (5) (4) percent; District 111 76.56 percent; following Hispanics constitute the districts. (6) percent; District District 112—68.67 percentages of the (7) 114—78.38 percent; District 113—75.70 (1) District plan’s eleven districts: (8) percent; and District 115—65.28 percent; (2) per- percent; District 108—78.2 105—71 (9) percent. African- District 117—69.18 (4) cent; Dis- percent; District 109—64.6 following percent- American constitute (5) District 111— percent; trict 110—66.2 *29 in the four African-Ameri- ages of the VAP (6) percent; percent; District 112—64.5 65.8 (1) percent; District 103—55.73 can districts: (8) (7) percent; District District 113-66.6 (3) (2) percent; 104—50.96 District District (9) 115—68.2 percent; District 114—65.8 (4) and District 109— percent; (11) 108—57.24 (10) 65.8; and percent; District 116— reapportion- Florida’s House percent. 55.21 percent. This’plan reme- District 117—65.6 twenty County Dade dis- plan creates ment Hispanic vote and dies the dilution of the wholly within tricts of which seventeen adversely African-Americans does not affect populations share with and two four African-American dis- because it creates joins population District 102 dis- other counties. In the four African-American tricts. County, tricts, the fol- Collier constitute in Dade African-Americans (1) District lowing percentages of the VAP: joins southern District (2) District 103—57.8 percent; 102—57.6 County. County with Monroe (3) percent; percent high District 106—57.7 and which as we noted has earlier concen- (4) percent. District 107—57.3 trations recent arrivals and non-citizens. Tr. Additionally, VIII-129-130. these two Upham Pursuant to v. Seamon and White districts, District 106 and District Weiser, sought this court to limit its intru- Hispanic percent. VAP of 61 Tr. VIII-130. necessary upon policy sion what was We our discussion of Florida’s Sen- noted to correct the Section 2 violation. Accord- plan high ate that areas with concentrations ingly, we allowed the State of Florida Hispanic of recent arrivals must have a VAP present which plan another House remedied higher significantly percent than our 60 pre- Hispanic the dilution of vote and guideline III, supra level. See A. policy The Florida House served its choices. Because these two 61 districts presented remedy initially defendants con- high located in concentrations of areas with taining Hispanic only ten districts which this arrivals, Hispanic recent we find these rejected fully remedying give Hispanics districts do not a reasonable warning Hispanic vote. After dilution opportunity to elect candidates of their very careful deliberate in the court to Hence, reject choice. we the Florida House any considering changes to the Florida plan defendants’ second remedial because plan, Florida House defendants House remedy Hispanic failed the dilution of the plan. presented another remedial Tr. VIII- vote in South Florida. The De Grandy/Reaves/Humphrey plain- re- The House defendants’ second Florida presented tiffs De Grandy plan modified plan Hispanic super- medial eleven contained sought respect policy choices and four African- VAP districts by merging the state of De Florida Gran- In the House de- American VAP districts. dy remedy existing for South Florida into changes plan, remedial fendants’ second plan. Florida South eleven County. were confined to Dade Tr. VIII- districts modified The eleven plan following per- contain the VAP Florida House defendants’ second remedial (1) (2) centages: percent; District 105—71.62 following Hispanic per- VAP contain (3) percent; District 108—81.89 (2) District (1) centages: percent; District 102—65.78 (4) percent; 109—63.74 District 110—62.56 (3) percent; 106—61.34 District District (5) (6) percent; percent; District 111—66.19 (4) percent; 107—61.05 District 110—77.66 (7) percent; District 112—65.10 District (5) (6) percent; percent; District 111—77.39 (8) percent; 113—66.06 District 114—66.39 (7) percent; District 112—62.77 District (9) (10) percent; percent; District 115—68.52 (8) percent; 113—62.22 District 114—65.23 (11) percent; District 116—65.83 District (10) (9) percent; percent; District 115—65.29 percent. respect 117—66.24 With Afri- (11) 65.60; District District 116— Florida, the can-Americans in South modi- respect percent. to African- 63.81 With Grandy plan fied De creates four African- Americans, the second remedial created following American districts containing containing four African-American districts (1) percentages: Dis- African-American VAP per- following VAP (2) percent; 103— trict 102—55.12 District (1) (2) centages: percent; District 103—61.51 (3) percent; per- 59.54 District 106—57.93 (3) percent; District 104—55.10 District (4) cent; percent. District 107—56.46 percent; District 109— 108—55.25 Grandy plan creates modified De percent. 64.60 strong African-American access House ar- the Florida defendants Because an African-American South Florida with bitrarily changes its Dade Coun- confined percent. of 40.34 *30 ty, the House defendants’ second remedial plan Grandy De of course House The modified plan not create eleven effective does adjustments to lines potential minor give Hispanics the contained districts which comply County in order The outside Dade the candidates of choice. elect person, of “one one vote.” plan with the rule House creates two second remedial that: Grandy Plaintiff De testified in the Miami beach area House districts Rights as amended. Grandy Voting Act tried to do in the De we What (Doc. 553.) language read as This should be possible en- to as much Modified was does not couple holding plan Florida Senate the —a that the hance a little more remedy 2 such that a different seats while at the same violate Section words, although trying imposed. to fit in the In other impacting time not and must be Section 2 of any county plan than violates plan impacting not the Florida act, nevertheless is the impacted by voting rights Dade. That that which was Dade; Monroe, minor- remedy competing which had a dis- to balance the includes best Dade; County the South coming ity into in Dade plan trict in the Florida interests Collier, respect to Florida’s a district in the Florida Florida area. With which had Districts we coming Representatives Dade and Broward Coun- House of plan into De House of adopted the Modified ty- Plan, Representative Plan as the court’s you have to not you plan, fit the When impose plan. plan configuration, but also in terms only fit the you population of each district of half the VINSON, Judge, concurring. District plan comport with the have to deviate that, fitting doing you are into. And while join opinion, separately set out I but also, deviating pop- we were we when my rationale for the result. effect, know, you boost ulation tried to (1) Voting 2 claims under they more than our seats or seats Rights three-part Act must meet the test Grandy plan. are in the De 30, 50-51, 106 Thornburg Gingles, 478 U.S. Honor, So, basically, Your what we are 2752, 2766-67, 92 L.Ed.2d 46-47 S.Ct. Honors, is, please ac- really arguing Your (1986): (a) minority population that “is Grandy plan accept it in cept the De compact sufficiently large geographically it. That’s the manner we have inserted (b) district; majority” in a to constitute really arguing. what we are (c) minority group; and “politically cohesive” plaintiffs are correct Tr. VIII-106-107. sufficiently as a a white that “votes remedy Florida adopting a South usually enable it ... to defeat the bloc to between what is adjustments must be made minority’s preferred candidate.” Dade what north of County, the second and third For Dade The total enfranchisement adopts. parts by the over- of the test are established minority populations in Dade case, whelming weight in this of the evidence creating plan, “ripple through a fair causes subject among to some variations leaving prob- effect” into other counties subject origin, and from different counties of adjust districts. lem of how to the affected Hispanic minorities to the distinction that the Grandy plan De minimized this modified to the generally diametrically opposed “ripple eleven districts outside of effect” to voting preferences the African-American County. find that the modified De We minorities. Grandy plan remedies the dilution of the best (3) Thus, challenge the issue both Hispanic vote in South Florida while advanc- Senate dis- the Florida Plan for the state ing the interests of African-Americans House districts in tricts and for the state Accordingly, Florida. this court South very is a narrow one: Have Grandy plan as the the modified adopted minority popu- plaintiffs established that imposed plan. plan and court’s sufficiently large geographi- lations are age ma- cally compact to constitute a IV. CONCLUSION jority in a district? following the com- This court issued orders (4) Regarding challenge, the carried out the the Senate pletion of this case which (Docs. opinion. Hispanic plaintiffs established that expressed in this conclusions 554). Hispanic-majority district imposing could have a fourth 553 and held our order We compact, but geographically Plan that the Flori- that would be the 1992 Florida Senate diluting voting strength only by Section 2 of either da Senate does violate *31 by Plainly, Hispanic citizenship his estimated African-American for strength that are ratios the eleven districts be preserving such in districts must viewed low large range with confidence and with a compact. The African- of geographically not error. plaintiffs established that American major- a third African-American could create (5)(b) gauge A eligible better of voters using ity only by a district that was district analysis past within a district is the of elec- compact and which would geographically not tion results. Those statistics established that strength of voting greatly dilute Hispanic Hispanics would able to elect be Moreover, Hispanics. impossible it is to ac- candidates of choice all eleven districts Hispanics and three commodate both four proposed by plaintiffs, and those statistics any majority districts in African-American automatically citizenship, account for voter Therefore, while the acceptable manner. Thus, registration, in the and turn out. ab- 2 viola- have a Section plaintiffs established data, plaintiffs’ of any sence better evi- districts, any Hispanic Dr, tion to four Further, is sufficient. Allan dence Licht- implementing the fourth district remedy plaintiffs, man’s for the based in calculations 2 as to African-Ameri-
would violate Section part citizenship on the defendants’ data esti- Thus, existing Plan for the cans. mates, age Hispanic voting reflected an citi- the com- accommodates Senate districts best zenship ques- in all 50% or more Afri- Hispanics and peting interests of both tioned eleven districts. This a more rele- can-Americans. calculation, supermajority per- for vant for, centages merely designed to account (5) challenge, the Regarding the House alia, citizenship. inter De plaintiffs have established be established (5)(c) that eleven districts can important, it Equally is unrefuted Hispanics 64% of the constitute over which Hispanics have able been to elect the geo- voting age population and which every Hispanic candidate choice Further, these dis- graphically compact. Hispanics in which constitute 59% or more of any (without tricts be drawn without dilution can voting age population regard to voting strength. There- citizenship). target necessary It is to not fore, requi- all plaintiffs have 75 established anything greater than that. Nor is it neces- 2 claim as to the Dade sites of their Section desirable, sary, may although create Represen- (or the House of districts for Hispanics supermajority of 65% 55% Americans) tatives. accomplish African Section 2’s Additionally, growth trends in purposes. (5)(a) attempted defendants County’s Hispanic population indicates it is the citizen show that percentage Hispanics contin- that the will age is determinative. That population that increase, Section 2 plaintiffs’ but ue to available, citizenship data is only on the basis claims have been evaluated data, Despite lack of available however. clearly That data of the 1990 census data. His- presented estimates of the defendants meet the that the eleven districts establishes apply panic citizenship attempted Gingles test. esti- the individual districts. Those them to aspect this court’s example, For remedial unreliable. William mates are Grandy plan the modified adoption was on a some- analysis based De Grove’s recognition major challenge. regression analysis presented method- what unorthodox policy non-citizenship respect due to the state’s own gave range ology redistricting, this court consid- no for precincts with rates of 9.5% plans, submitted two precincts with 100% ered defendants’ 55% meeting course, was even close (Acknowledging, neither voters. incorporating requirements recognized He Section 2’s precinct.) no such there is County in in Dade Hispanic districts analysis greatest eleven that the error in that findings on this court’s lia- extremes, at the 9.5% and 55% accordance at the i.e. Nevertheless, suggestion, this court bility. plaintiffs’ At the 55% intercepts. he used draw a requested that the defendants citizenship then of all his calculations. as the basis *32 plan Grandy plan incorporated relatively De that effect minor simply for Dade the rest of the into state. cannot be avoided. defendants’ belated refused, however, The defendants and the change position and announcement court recessed to consider all of the alterna- attempt plan incorpo- would draw a tives available and make a decision. Because rating the eleven districts from of the severe up- time constraints and the De Grandy plan into the rest of the state weekend, coming July holiday 4th it' was came too late. adopted critical plan that a without fur- delay. apparent ther It was delaying adop-
defendants were on intent any implemented
tion a true
eleven-Hispanic House Accordingly, County. this
adopted Grandy plan. the modified It does, course, effect,” “ripple but notes ac- and its third to be ineffective. has tested cess district popula- large concentration Because this Thus, 180 is in essence Plan four/two is not Ft. Lauderdale in downtown tion to dilute the African-Ameri- which continues ma- access seat or for a further available can vote. County, society of Dade what jority north accomplish in order to has to do Plan 180 evidence, considering all of the After string a district as we discussed that end