Rybicki v. State Bd. of Elections of Illinois

CUDAHY, Judge, Before GRA- Circuit DY, BUA, Judge, and District Judge.

RYBICKI II CUDAHY, Judge. Circuit our initial following consolidated the trial of these cases, reapportionment Rybicki v. State Elections, Board 574 F.Supp. 1082 No. 1982) (N.D.Ill. 81 C 6030 Jan. [herein ”], ruled on the “Rybicki after cited as I we challenges merits of to Illinois’ state legislative redistricting brought on behalf (the Crosby plaintiffs) black voters (the Ry Republican and suburban voters respect plaintiffs).1 Our decision with bicki (the plain Agreement Hispanic approved voters DelValle also a Settlement on behalf of I, suing tiffs). between defendants and at 1123-1124. reached 1148 so specific identify in areas we below time of the Crosby claims at the

to the I believe, was, correctly apparent districting based on the de correct these as to analysis of most recent Supreme Court’s ficiencies. City in claims as set forth voting dilution Bolden, 446 55, Mobile v. 100 S.Ct. I. (1980). 1490, After our Jan L.Ed.2d 47 64 however, issued, uary 12 was legislative history the reviewing Crosby plain the while we were Voting Rights clearly Act indi amended the motion for reconsideration tiffs’ claims of vote dilution do come cates that Crosby decision, Congress extended and Act, 417, S.Rep. scope the of the No. within Voting Rights Act.2 Conse the amended (1982). Fur Cong., 2d Sess. 30 n. 120 97th Crosby plain response to the quently, dilution, ther, prove plain in order to vote reevalu request, we have decided to tiffs’ disput demonstrate that “the tiffs need not Crosby plaintiffs’ claims those of the ate operated or as plan ed was ‘conceived [a] Bolden wanting found under that we purposeful further ... devic[e] the evidence criteria to determine whether ” Bolden, 66, discrimination.’ 446 U.S. at possible viola may be sufficient show Instead, plaintiffs can 100 at 1499. Voting Rights Act. the amended tion of merely of the Act prove a violation reevaluation, we are As a result of this challenged showing system or “that spe tentatively in certain view all the circum in the context of practice, Chicago’s South Side cific areas on jurisdiction question, stances in the lines, in the district connection location of results being equal in minorities denied districts, highly concentrated political process.” S.Rep. No. access to the factors, may light and in of all the relevant 27, 417, Cong., 2d Sess. U.S.Code 97th test of the suspect under the “results” 1982, p. (empha 205 Cong. & Admin.News Therefore, request Act. amended test, supplied).3 Under this “results” certain district lines sis Commission redraw 29, 1982, vided, nothing signed in this section establishes That 2. On June the President protected right as amended. class extension to have members of history legislative states that one of equal proportion numbers to their elected in amending clearly objectives 2 “to Section was population. in the by Congress for establish the standards intended 1982, Voting Rights Act Amendments of Pub.L. S.Rep. proving a of that section." No. violation 97-205, 3, CONG. & AD. No. 1982 U.S.CODE § 417, (1982), Cong., 2d Sess. 2 U.S.Code 97th (96 Stat.) (to at 42 NEWS 134 be codified Cong. pp. & Admin.News 1973). U.S.C. § as The amended Section reads follows: (a) voting pre- qualification Sec. 2. No or Judiciary Report on the 3. The House Committee standard, requisite voting practice, or or Voting Rights Act extension and amendment by any procedure imposed applied shall be or districting plans specifically as within identifies political subdivision in a manner State or H.R.Rep. scope of Section 2. No. 97th abridgement in a denial or which results (1981). Report Cong., This was 1st Sess. 30-31 right any citizen of United States to Cong., upon 1st Sess. based H.R. 97th color, on account of race or or in contra- vote (1981), wording slightly whose differ- a bill guarantees vention of the 4(f)(2), set forth in section ultimately language enacted into ent from the (b). provided in subsection Judiciary Report, The Senate Committee law. however, (b) (a) A violation of subsection is estab- Senate characterized the House and if, totality lished es, based on the of circumstanc- S.Rep. "virtually identical.” No. bills political processes it is shown that Cong., 2d Sess. 3 Defendants 97th leading in the State to nomination or election applicability dispute juncture” "at this equally open political are not or subdivision Section 2 to this case. the amended Defendants’ participation by members of a class of August Response Memorandum (a) protected citizens subsection its applying Order at 3. We do not think Court opportunity than other members have less present districting plan presents Section 2 to the participate of the electorate to members application because our issues of retroactive political process and to elect analysis on the future effects of this focuses extent to members of their choice. The which plan and 1990 elections. in the protected have been elected to office of a class Bell, Independent School District v. one State or subdivision is Hereford (mem.) (N.D.Tex.1978) (uphold- F.Supp. Pro- be considered: circumstance (as revised) impact of the chal- tricts 16 and 17 and house must “assess practice 23, 24, 31, (as revised) on the basis of lenged structure districts and 36 factors, objective rather than a de- revised).” (as Support mak[e] Memorandum in the motivations which termination about Post-Trial Motion 4. Plaintiffs’ adoption or maintenance.” lay its behind The “result” terms of concentration of Congress provided us with a non- Id. populations districts is objective guide factors to exclusive list of clear; in connection with this concentration determining particular in a us in whether alleged correspondence between district challenged practice or structure case (characterized lines and racial divisions S.Rep. 2. No. violates Section See “wall”) purposes rhetorical as a must be Cong., 28-29 & nn. 114-18 97th 2d Sess. examined further. For we must decide (1982). applied These factors are to this (high whether these “results” concentra- following in the Section. case correspondence tions and between election housing segregation district and demarca- II. tions), singly combination, either or continuing The focus of concern in Chicago political realities, in the context of the South districts. this case is on Side Voting Rights violate the Act. majority Side black house dis South We think it deserves notice at the outset high concentrations of tricts contain complaints that the we address here have greater popu much than of the district 65% extremely their housing root marked percentage generally presumed lation—the segregation Chicago’s on South A Side. minority population necessary for a to elect large area on the South Side is more than Further, representative of their choice.4 seg- black. Pl.Ex. 12. See Given this 85% Crosby plaintiffs contended at trial that regation repre- and the territorial basis boundary lines for Commission “[t]he inevitable, system, under our sentation it is 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 31, 33 house districts gerrymander- the most outlandish absent part great 34 trace in the boundaries of the voting ing, that at least the districts in the heavy Chicago.” concentration in very heavily interior of this area will be Proposed Findings Plaintiffs’ Obviously, deplore the extreme black. They Fact No. 97. contend now that “the area; degree housing segregation imposes map adopted the Court there is no evidence us that the origi same racial as the Commission’s but before wall involving design any impact districts has map, nal now senate dis- consultant, ing proce- during application the summer of of Section 5 election to, trial, adopted prior (Tr. 1957). dures but administered in elec- witnesses for both sides At to, subsequent the effective date of the (Tsui, tions approvingly figure. of the referred 65% Act). 26-27; Newhouse, 623; Hofeller, Tr. at Tr. at 403-04; Brace, 1956-57). Tr. at Tr. at More- general guideline figure 4. The 65% is a over, expert defendants’ testified that the 65% Justice, Department of has been used guideline reapportion- had been used in state reapportionment experts and the courts as a (Brace, 1957). redistricting. ment and Tr. at minority population in a measure of the was also referred to in the The 65% standard minority meaningful needed for voters to have a three-judge recent of the court in In re opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. Congressional Reapportionment Illinois Districts States, Mississippi F.Supp. v. United Cases, (N.D.I11. op. slip No. 81 C at 19 (D.D.C.1979), aff'd, 444 U.S. 100 S.Ct. Otto, 1981), McClory nom. sub U.S. (1980). guideline, 62 L.Ed.2d 739 65% aff’d 102 S.Ct. 71 L.Ed.2d 284 Supreme which the Court characterized as "rea- however, appropriate, judi- to take Organizations, We think United Jewish Inc. v. sonable” in Carey, 97 S.Ct. cial notice of the fact that in the March 1982 (1977), takes into account primary L.Ed.2d 229 election for the new Senate Democratic age younger population median and the lower a district redrawn at the behest of minority registration voter and turnout of citi- population, this court to include zens. were unsuccessful in their ef- black candidates Testimony case in the instant established to unseat the white incumbent Senator. forts Madigan Representative and his staff were Brace, guideline by of the 65% Mr. made aware redistricting policy housing. ability underlying Our case whether problem deal with the is thus limited at state or subdivision’s use of voting qualification, prerequisite best. such standard, voting, practice pro- or or Congress suggested consider cedure is tenuous. deciding challenge certain factors in While these enumerated factors will practice the result of an election struc- ones, most often be the relevant some are set forth in the fol- ture. The factors cases other factors will be indicative of lowing excerpt from a Senate committee alleged dilution. report: demonstrate, The eases and the Com- any history of offi- the extent of require- mittee intends that there is no politi- cial discrimination in the state or any particular ment number fac- right cal subdivision that touched proved, tors be or that a minority group of the members vote, point way them or the register, or otherwise to one other. process; participate in the democratic S.Rep. Cong., No. 97th 2d Sess. 28-29 voting in 2. the extent to which the (1982), Cong. U.S.Code & Admin.News political elections of the state or subdi- 1982, (footnotes omitted). pp. 206-207 racially polarized; vision is These factors are turn derived from 3. the extent to which the state or analysis the v. Regester, White U.S. political unusually has used subdivision 37 L.Ed.2d districts, large election vote White, Supreme In Court reviewed a requirements, provi- anti-single shot three-judge district court’s invalidation of sions, voting practices pro- or other legislative reapportionment. the Texas 1970 opportu- cedures that enhance the significance present of the case for nity against for discrimination the mi- purposes approach by rests in the taken nority group; court and followed the Su- slating if 4. there is a candidate preme invalidating Court multimember process, whether the members of the districts in Dallas and Bexar In Counties. minority group have been denied ac- looking County, at Dallas the district court process; cess to that history politics, considered the of Texas the extent to which members of including the effect of official racial dis- minority group polit- in the state or right regis- crimination on of blacks to ical subdivision bear the effects of dis- participate ter and vote and to in the demo- education, crimination such areas as process; system cratic the use of a health, employment and which hinder enhanced the for racial dis- ability participate effectively in crimination; the fact that since Reconstruc- political process; tion there had been two blacks political campaigns 6. whether County delegation Dallas to the Texas been characterized or subtle overt Representatives; House of the fact that a appeals; organization effectively white-dominated extent to which members of Party controlled Democratic candidate slat- minority group have been elected ing County great Dallas and thus had public jurisdiction. office elections; influence over the fact that this Additional factors that in some cases organization support did not need the probative part plain- have had value as blacks to win elections and therefore did tiffs’ evidence to a violation establish political not concern itself with and other are: aspirations blacks; needs and and the organization fact that this used significant

whether there is a lack of racial cam- paign responsiveness part precincts tactics white to defeat on the of elected particularized black-supported candidates. The district officials to the needs of “ minority group. the members of the court thus concluded that ‘the black com- effectively aspirations. from munity has been excluded black voters’ needs and In- primary deed, se- ignoring in the Democratic participation helpful rather than causes therefore process,’ gen- ... and was lection Party the Democratic in Illinois enter into permitted to erally not principal exponent rights has been a of civil and mean- political process in a reliable legislation legislation impor- and of social Regester, v. ingful manner.” White Also, tant to blacks. unlike the situation in (emphasis at 93 S.Ct. at 2340 U.S. Regester, many v. blacks have White been supplied). Chicago elected to local office in and to positions representing state and national approach employed A in ana- similar Chicago. fifty Sixteen of aldermen in lyzing legality of the multimember dis- County, county Chicago thirty- trict in Bexar with a are black. Thirteen of the community. Here significant Hispanic five state and five of the polit- effect on district court considered the Chicago nineteen state senators from in educa- participation ical of discrimination tricts are Three of black. the seven U.S. economics, health, tion, employment, Representatives Chicago from are black. concluded that “Be- other areas. The court sum, systematic there been no exclu- ‘are effec- County xar Mexiean-Americans from, sion of meaning- blacks or denial of processes from the tively removed in, participation Chicago’s ful and Illinois’ ” [County]____’ Reges- of Bexar White political processes comparable to the histo- ter, 412 93 S.Ct. at 2341. ry outlined in v. Regester,5 White Supreme Court affirmed balance, On the other side of the the Dallas and Bexar court’s invalidation of give weight findings must pur- to our of Counties multimember districts. poseful voting strength dilution of black in accorded deference to Court respect the Commission’s actions with the factual court’s careful consideration of senate districts 17 and 18 of the Com- circumstances, respect to Be- and said with Plan. that the mission We found immedi- County, xar purpose of the in ate Commission us, the record before we are not [o]n primarily preserve these districts was findings, repre- inclined to overturn these the incumbencies of two state white Sena- senting they history do a blend of process tors. We also found that “this was intensely appraisal design local with, intimately depend- so intertwined County impact of the Bexar multi- on, ent racial discrimination and dilution of light past district in the member minority voting strength purposeful that reality, present political and otherwise. clearly dilution has been demonstrated in 769-70, Regester, 412 at White v. the construction of senate Commission at 2341. I, tricts and 18.” at 1110. As we noted our finding We also note our that on Chica- 12, 1982, the record before us does not go’s fracturing West there was Side history systematic disclose a of overt and packing of the net effect of which comparable electoral discrimination to that purposeful “the dilution black vot- identified the district court in White v. ing strength on the West Side at least Regester. Illinois has never had a white one House Id. at 1112. District.” primary poll importantly, tax. Most Further, account, we should take into organization unlike the then control of relevant, deciding extent whether the Party County, the Democratic in Dallas challenged practices deny equal organization City blacks an Democratic of Chi- cago depends upon support opportunity participate in the of the black process community representatives to win elections and therefore and to elect choice, responsive poor at least somewhat must be socio-economiccondi- Following Opinion, Mayor Chicago, the issuance of this Ha- the first black to hold the was, Washington April rold elected office. tions, unemployment, traditionally addition, low than above this threshold. 15% registration afflicting voter black communi- there is evidence that some circumstanc- Chicago. Also, recognize part ties minority representation may es jeop- be in “totality circumstances,” of this case’s ardy portion even when the of minorities in employment or other discrimination a district exceeds 80%. alleged proven has been and/or in such 23, 24, 25, us This leaves with Districts City Chicago Depart- units as the Police 31, 32, and popula- 36 —districts the black ment, Chicago Authority, Housing are, 94.33%, respectively, tions of which Education, Chicago Chicago Board of 98.43%, 84.33%, 98.44%, 98.94%, and 97.81% Library, Chicago and the Park Public Dis- of the district total. The arguably illegal at 1120. id. trict. See having “result” of these highly concentrat- Although it is unclear that specific ed districts is not one of the arguing “pack- the issue of districts; indeed blacks within each concen- ing” through mi- excessive concentration of trated district obviously strong have an nority populations except districts to elect of their insofar as these may concentrated districts Instead, choice. adverse result have boundaries follow racial divi- identifiable in terms of what other- sions, we think we should first consider keeping wise have occurred elsewhere. If present whether concentration majorities black in districts below were approved by blacks in election districts primary objective redistricting, fewer court, totality in the of circumstances and votes would black be “wasted” and instead itself, equal in and of denies blacks access would, theory, least be available to political process. to the The House Dis- majority form black districts elsewhere.6 particularly high tricts with concen- black “wasting” But this minority votes in (94.33% black), trations are District 23 Dis- not, believe, and of itself does in the (98.43% black), (84.33% trict District 25 circumstances before us violate the black), (98.44% black), District 31 present Act. Given the level of (98.94% black), (97.81% and District 36 participation political process black). Three other South Side house dis- ability and the represent- blacks to elect tricts populations. choice, say atives of their we cannot (66.37% black), These are District 33 Dis- highly districts, these concentrated without (73.35% black), trict 34 and District 26 more, demonstrate a Act (78.21% black). The four black say that, violation. This is not to in other West Side house districts are District 15 in circumstances which the v. Reges- White (66.32% black), (71.93% black), District 17 might weigh heavily ter factors more in (77.05% black), District 18 and District 19 plaintiffs, high favor of concentrations (76.31% black). illegal. could not found be We determine outset, At the we are inclined to remove only us, that in the case before and without from consideration those districts whose more, they illegal. are not But we now population black constitutes less than 80% they may confront the issue whether population. of the district Given tinged illegality when considered in generally accepted pro- is a threshold for correspondence connection with the of dis- viding for minorities to elect (the trict lines to lines of racial division choice, representative of their it seems to issue). “tracing” unnecessary light us of all the circum- tracing stances of this case to be concerned with could treat the We issue in either population First, ways. districts whose black is less of two we consider case, Inasmuch as house district 32 is an “interior" trated. Because of our conclusions in this district, roughly however, in the center of the area of we need not decide whether a differ- Side, heavy black concentration on the South analysis ent should be used for "interior" versus that, seems doubtful absent the most outlandish “exterior" concentrated districts. gerrymandering, district 32 could be deconcen- voting corresponding oppor- lines such minorities with the least district vides whether tunity to elect of their segregate racial lines of division Therefore, under these choice. circum- is unconstitutional whether this voters and Crosby plain- cannot allow the stances we voting regard to dilution without complaint tiffs to amend their late this Second, might consider strength. we stage litigate essentially these unrelated dilution, the con- whether, a matter of as MILLER, claims. See C. WRIGHT & A. highly black dis- junction of concentrated FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCE- tracing divisions in of racial tricts and § DURE fashion re- lines some sults, Voting Rights terms However, I, III B Rybicki Part 3 of politi- having unequal access to the

blacks plaintiffs’ arguments carefully considered process. cal regarding correspond- election district lines ing racially segregated housing patterns approach is the think the latter lines insofar these contribute to case. To one this vote dilution correct (or and, “packing”) concentration excessive Crosby plaintiffs seek to the extent therefore, “wasting” of the black vote. complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. amend their I, against at 1112. We found 15(b) alleg- apparently new claims assert plaintiffs, applying the City Mobile crite- ing segregation unconstitutional ria, the evidence not because did establish rights infringement of certain associational that the district lines were drawn with the citizens, regard such claims as of black purpose to dilute black votes. We now allegations essentially unrelated reconsider the evidence to determine premised.7 upon action was whether, plaintiffs allege, election pleaded, This tried and decided lawsuit trict lines trace divisions between blacks of, theory gerrymander- on a dilution this, by “packing” and whites and whether of, ing voting strength. Claims “wasting” vote, the black violates the alleging segregation unlawful racial vot- test of the amended “results” district, encompassed ing in a fashion not applied Act as to these circumstanc- charge of gerrymander-based vote within a es. dilution, proved or pleaded, decid- were Rockefeller, Compare, Wright ed here. Our first task is to determine whether 52, 59, 84 S.Ct. tracing place. The and where such takes (1964) J., (Douglas, dissenting). L.Ed.2d 512 broadly in stated their Also, nothing suggested at trial has that, proposed findings of fact “[t]he given or im- express defendants lines boundary for Commission House Dis- wholly plied to resolution such consent 31, 33 and 34 trace tricts distinct claims this court. And re- great part heavy the boundaries of the persuaded any theory segre- main Chicago____ These black concentration fundamentally gation by residentially create around the lines ‘wall’ with, or is at least inconsistent at odds segregated Chicago, communities in with, achieving the idea of sufficient minor- appearing gov- thereby to confer an official to voting en- ity concentrations districts segrega- sanction on the racial ernmental of Chicago.” able minorities elect Crosby tion which exists This dramatical- Proposed Findings their choice. conclusion is No. Fact of Plaintiffs’ voting Similarly, sup- fact at in their ly illustrated the that memorandum (and motion, districts) Crosby the large porting post-trial without achieves the wall, plaintiffs sepa- highest possible integration of racial and referred “the which minorities, simultaneously by faithfully tracking the pro- rates the races other but (where explicit we race was not an attendance crite- We that are unaware of decision note rion) upheld segregation by and school districts. In terms of associa- a claim of which voting factors, claim, analogy presume, dif- such an would seem district. Such a tional draw; analogy reach issue ficult to but need not the would involve some between and, segregated example, here. tricts schools 1154 on segregation housing great specificity required appraise the

lines of the than Chicago of for more 16 precise south side of location district lines and the miles,” complained map that “the populations through they run. imposes adopted by the the same court Moreover, begin we must at with least a original racial wall as the Commission’s preliminary idea what it means in the involving map, only now senate districts redistricting context to trace racial divi- revised) (as 17 and house districts 16 and sions. (as (as revised) re- analysis popula- Our focus on the will vised).” Support Memorandum immediately adjacent tions census tracts 3-4.8 Crosby Post-Trial Motion Plaintiffs’ heavily to district lines that follow concen- that, Finally, Crosby plaintiffs the asserted (85%+) trated black census tracts house made in creation the “every classification 23, 24, 31, and districts 36.9 We have two found- racially of this 16-mile barrier ways looking population alternate at the forming the were a ed. The lines wall testing tracing allegation. data animosity to the racial hos- concession First, tracing find that occurred tility adjoining in the white areas line high- where district runs between Support Reply wall.” Memorandum in ly (85%+) concentrated black census tract (emphasis Post-Trial Motion 15 of supplied). a minimally concentrated black census tract. Thus our focus would be “black” perceive not I we did need versus “non-black” census tracts. The precision with establish detail and way looking population second at the involving alleged tracing facts is to tracing data find that occurred where divisions because we focused on the mo- district highly line runs between a con- Commission, required by tives of highly centrated black census tract and a Bolden, City Mobile v. 446 U.S. (or concentrated white census tract at least (1980), L.Ed.2d and found containing significant a tract number of they that had not been shown to be unlaw- whites with no substantial non-black minor- Now, however, ful. we are instructed to ity). viewpoint From this a district line redistricting look at “results” drawn between tract census and a the motives of the Commission are not con- tract containing substantial numbers10 of trolling. Thus if in we should determine (other blacks) non-whites than would not court-adopted fact the Commission and significantly tracing be characterized as ra- and, so, plan trace racial if wheth- divisions cial divisions. er this in some fashion violates the Rights Act. approach We believe the latter allega- broadly note at the correct one. If we looked more outset Crosby plaintiffs quoted tracts, tions of the above the black versus non-black census Instead, paint recognize legitimate too a brush. broad we would not in- 8. We note that also house districts 17 and therefore the lines do contribute not singled the Crosby plaintiffs Side any "packing" ther, West districts out at trial problem in this district. Fur- as districts whose boundaries challenge not lines of divisions, origi- were traced racial altered in our district, house district "interior” response finding purpose- nal order in our bordering house district Lake ful vote dilution. District is now 71.93% Instead, Michigan. plaintiffs challenge the Thus, black and 18 is 77.05% black. house districts on western of the area side concentrated, they highly supra p. not see heavy allegation black concentration. The clearly and further modification is the district lines of trace these districts required supra p. see the racial division between to the west whites 1089. and blacks to the east. 9. Census tract data are contained in Pl.Ex. 28. generally regarded purpose For 10. objected also to the house Plaintiffs lines of minority percentage a of 33% or more as "sub- 33, Sup- as revised. Memorandum stantial." port of 4. Plaintiffs Post-Trial Motion district, however, only is This 66.37% black

H55 non-black, “wasting” of groups in therefore black votes. non-white terests of voting pow- now turn to the evidence. fracturing of their avoiding the boundary example, the district er.11 For is a House district 23 black district 94% edge of house district along southeast Chicago’s on near South Side. District 23’s Side, district, a 18 the West 77% boundary edge follows western the eastern heavily concentrated black runs between of six census tracts: tracts 3005, 18 and tracts census tracts 6016, 3405, 6101, and 6108.12 Tract 3402 3006, 3007, 3008, and 3002 has of population a total 5319. Of this 20. House Dis- which are in house district number, (74%) persons 3941 are composition and its Hispanic trict is20 71% Islanders, (18.6%) are Asian/Pacific 991 Hispanic prescribed is Settlement whites, (5.3%) 284 are and 103 I, n. at 1123-1124 & Agreement. Rybicki (1.9%) are listed as other. In addition to population of 104. 3005 has a 3636 Tract breakdown, separate and from the racial Hispanic. is is Tract 3006 and 69.8% 75.9% (2.5%) persons persons 136 are listed as of Hispanic. Hispanic. Tract is 3007 89% Spanish origin.13 Tract has a total 3404 Hispanic. Tract 3003 Tract is 3008 90.1% (57.7%) population up of made of 927 Hispanic. Tract 3002 88.6% 46.7% whites, (29.3%) Islanders, 472 Asian/Pacific Finally, His- Hispanic. tract 2916 is 71.1% (6.2%) (6.6%) others, 106 and 101 blacks. Similarly, boundary northeast panic. (16.9%)persons Span- Tract 3404 has 273 of district, a of house district 94% black origin. population ish Tract has a of 3405 heavily runs concentrated black between (77%) 1785, with 1376 whites and 367 tracts 3402 and 3404 census tracts and (20.5%) (4.4%) people blacks. 79 are His- These tracts are house district 19. two panics. population Tract 6016 a of and, Asian take (86.4%) and whites, (10%) 29.3% 446 52 oth- that, together judicial notice with tracts ers, (3.1%) (20.7%) per- 16 and blacks. 107 area they 3401 contain the known Hispanic. are sons in tract 6016 Tract we are not aware “Chinatown.” Since of population 6101 has a with 1077 fracturing persuasive of a in law for whites, (6.1%) blacks, basis (88.2%) and 68 minority in interest of deeoncen- (14.5%) one (5.5%) persons others. 178 are His- another, appropriate trating we think Finally, population panic. 6108 has a tract apparent tracing a whites, examine an of racial (98.2%) (1.5%) of 1939 with 1905 presenting suspect circum- (.1%) blacks, (.05%) division as others, Ameri- only Act (7.2%)persons Hispan- stance under the can Indian. 140 heavily sum, line concen- just where a runs between ic. six census tracts substantially beyond boundary trated black and white census dis- the western house (or containing signif- clearly tracts at least tracts tract meets our crite- trict investigation. icant with no substantial ria Tract 6101 is at least number whites for largest minority), suspect group such line since non-white non-black where group constitutes arguably “packing” Hispanic and this contributes (March something looking Housing Report 3 also Advance 11. We would be other —Illinois wall,” adjoining 1981)), areas the situa- data than "white one know from this cannot black, Crosby plaintiffs complain (white, categories tion of which the five racial Amer predicate for Indian-Eskimo-Aleut, and the factual contentions about Island ican er, Asian/Pacific p. supra Other) a racial "wall.” See present for should reduced Hispanic purposes to reflect concentration challenged bordering 12. Census tracts problem pose a This does a census tract. 1A, by using be identified Ct.Ex. tricts can however, here, purpose of iden because reproduction court-approved which is a divisions, any tracing tifying we think superimposed on a census tract lines (33% that the existence of a substantial number map County. of Cook more) Hispanic a census tract voters in persons data listed in census as be Because bordering negates finding of a black district race, ing (PI.Ex. Commerce, origin may Spanish be of tracing supra suspect a racial division. Census, Dept. Bureau of the accompanying n. text. Population and 1980 Census of 1156 (.5%) population. Similarly, of the district blacks and 20 Asians and American

14.5% investigation it (48.8%) tract 6016 bears since is persons Indians. 1750 in this tract Hispanic. only Tract 3402 is 20.7% 74% Hispanic. population are Tract 6705 has a Asian and black. Tract 3404 is 5.3% 29.3% 2254, (95.3%)blacks, (3.1%) of with 2150 71 Asian,1416.9% Hispanic, (depending and on whites, (1.3%) others, (.08%) 31 2 Hispanics) up of race black. 6.2% (2.5%) Asians and American Indians. 57 Tract 3405 is black with no other 20.5% persons in tract Hispanic. this are Tract minority. substantial 3006, population a of has with 2950 6714 (98.1%)blacks, (1.6%)whites, (.1%) 51 and 5 a House district is black district 98% 24 (.6%) immediately persons Asians and others. 20 in this south and west of house dis- investiga- Hispanic. trict 23. The district line under tract are popu- Tract 6610 has a along tion of 5606, (57.8%) whites, here runs the border census lation of with 3241 6109, tracts 6110 6119. Tract 6109 has (36.1%) blacks, (4.4%) others, 2029 248 (71.1%) population 1472, 1048 of with (1.5%) 88 Asians and American Indians. whites, (20.5%) blacks, (8%) others, 302 119 (6.5%) persons Hispanic. 367 are Tract (.2%) (12.5%) and 3 184 American Indians. 3283, population 7001 has a of with 3148 Hispanic. persons are 6110 Tract has (95.8%) whites, (3.1%) others, 105 30 1700, blacks, (62%) population of with 1054 (.9%) Asians American Indians. 150 (19.8%) whites, (17.7%) others, 337 301 (4.5%) persons Hispanic.15 are Tract 7005 (.4%) 8 American Asians and Indians. 395 36, both borders district 31 and district (23.2%) persons Hispanic. are Tract 6119 next district to the south. Tract 7005 has a 4791, (37%) population has a with 1774 population 11,162, (88.4%) with 9876 whites, (36%)blacks, (26.6%) 1726 oth- 1275 whites, (9.7%) blacks, (1.2%) 1083 140 oth- ers, (.3%) and 16 Asians and American Indi- ers, (.5%) and 63 Asians and American Indi- (41.7%)persons ans. 1999 are tract 6119 (2.5%) persons Hispanic. ans. 285 are Hispanics. perhaps Tracts 6109 and 6110 31, 6119, To summarize district tracts suspect are at least under our criteria. 6118, and are Hispanic. 6117 each 40+% 31, House district the next district Tracts 6705 and 6714 are each black. 90+% boundary question, whose is in is a 98% Tract 6610 is white and 57.8% black. 36.1% district. It is bordered census clearly Tracts 7001 and 7005 bear investi- 6119, 6118, 6117, 6705, 6714, 6610, tracts gation. suspect. Tract 6610 is at least part 6119, 7001 and of 7005. Tract 36, district, House district 97.8% population also borders is the next district to is south. It bordered (37%) whites, (36%) with 1774 1726 the southern half tract 7005 and blacks, (26.6%) others, (.3%) 1275 and 16 tracts 7201 and 7202. Tract detailed Asians and American Indians. 1999 above, minority popula- has less than a (41.7%) persons in Hispanics. this tract are population tion. Tract has a population Tract 6118 has (86.2%) whites, (62.4%)whites, (12.7%) (21.3%)others, 2261 with 3541 772 572 523 blacks, (.5%) (15.8%) (.4%) 21 Asians and and 15 Asians and American Indi- ans, (46.2%) (.4%) (.8%) persons persons and 19 American Indians. 1673 others. 35 Hispanics. Hispanic. are population this tract Tract 6117 has a are Tract 7202 has a population (68.7%) (69.3%) whites, with 2465 with 3389 whites, (26.2%) others, (4.4%) (28.8%)blacks, (.8%)others, (.8%) and 42 assumption 14. On the that the 29.3% mi- Asian between house districts 29 and 30. Thus "Chinatown,” part supra p. nority approximately is see two-thirds of the area of purposes think is "substantial” for our immediately adjacent in the district to house though minority slightly even below heavily composition white generally 33% "threshold" See have followed. 7001, however, negates tract a need to more supra accompanying n. 9 and text. precisely percentages determine the racial adjacent area to district 31. Although the data we for tract tract, for the entire tract itself is divided 3406, (1.6%) a black tract in 23. A Indians. 80 district American 99.6% Asians and in of these identified tracts are dis- summary, tract few Hispanic. persons are Hispanic in the tricts included Settlement minority population 7201 has less than 15% (i.e., Agreement 6110, tracts is investigation. Tract 7202 and bears 6016). 6101 and Rybicki I, at 1123 n. suspect. least (quoting Hispanic from Settlement Summary Any Agreement). changes involving these evidence, we thus find As we review presumably \require con- tracts would in lines of places which district several plaintiffs. DelValle sent of the districts corre- highly concentrated black the “results” test of amended Under spond pronounced divisions between tentatively we are First, populations. and tract black white term, rigid over long the view that 28, 7201, tract in district is an white 86.2% significant places in a adherence number of adjacent separated by the district to and well-defined lines racial division be- 7303, line from 7113 and which are tracts whites, blacks and in these unusual tween in district 36. and black tracts 97.4% 96.3% where concentrations of circumstances 7005, Second, an white tract in tract 88.4% exceeding in blacks dis- 80% 90% 29, set off from tracts 7105 and district Michigan are constrained Lake tricts in 7112, and black tracts 98.4% 97.1% question the east and the lines in on the Third, 7001,a 31 and 36. tract tricts 95.8% west, may contributing have the result 29, primarily in district tract white which degree “packing” to some and vote dilu- 7104, a black tract tract borders 98.4% time, lines tion. Adherence to these over 6108, Fourth, a tract district 31. 98.2% believe, may restrict the 21, tract in district borders tract white proc- participate “to blacks 3702, tract in district 23.16 a black 97.6% representatives elect of their ess and to places in also find several We many There so and choice.” variables lines, corresponding though not district significance that we reach no factors divisions, such marked racial nevertheless us. final conclusion on facts before significant correspond to divisions between But, upon analysis, we based our tentative and therefore are at blacks and whites resubmit to request Commission First, boundary suspect in this case. tract district lines that least us alternate 28, 7202, pronounced division be- a white tract district deviate from 69.3% 7306, in the tracts we adjoins tween blacks whites tracts 95.7% identified, highly where concentrated Second, have in district 36. black tracts 97.6% If the districts are involved. new 6610, black a white tract in district tract 57.8% within “white” lines include some blacks 29, 6720, adjoins black tract in tract 98% time, while, including at the same districts 6109, Third, tract district 31. 71.1% districts, think whites within “black” 22, adjoins white tract district tracts pri- objectionable. The per se this not 97.2% 99.8% course, be to move mary purpose, should Fourth, tracts district 24. tract using away from black-white boundaries 22, adjoins white tract in district 19.8% conjunction with districts district lines tracts 6120 and 93.2% 92.7% very high have black concentrations. Fifth, black tracts tract 6101, an white tract if recognize 88.2% the addition of Hispanics, adjoins tract 14.5% to districts would make them less whites Sixth, black, in district 23. result tract than 98.3% white tract in district from the white election tract 86.4% adjoins minority. There in the case Hispanics, is evidence tract with 20.7% Thus, cent, adjacent tract is 55% white. which is house dis- Tract 23, is It is not included within and 3505 trict 77% white. the district line between tracts 3405 out, however, singled significant because the tracts we racial division. did trace adja- 23 to which it is the tract within district making possibility quite procedure such a redistricting credible. authorized Further, put house spe- district 36 in a empow- people agencies Illinois and category cial because this I, district has al- by Rybicki at 1125 n. Illinois law.” ered (Ct.Ex. 1A) ready been restructured in or- 108. provide der to Judge respect Grady’s separate With to obviously inappro- senate district 18. It is opinion, simply we think he misconceives priate jeopardize to to elect proceeding. the nature of this This case shifting a black Senator in this district brought admittedly on the race-con- boundary the western to include substan- theory scious the opportunity to tially Therefore, more non-blacks. we ask minority representation leg- achieve report regarding to the Commission to us by redrawing islature be should enhanced might what be done the western about theory district boundaries. such Under boundary undoing of district 36 without line-drawing necessarily is a race-conscious already what this court has done and with- process. and, think, impossible It is we fracturing out other substantial non-black unlawful, respond to to a race-conscious minorities. remedy.17 claim with a color-blind Thus When the Commission makes such a sub- Judge Grady’s pro- remedy “color-blind” mission, will the court hold further hear- posed separate opinion his ing to evaluate its effect and to hear other sought by had been none of the liti- relevant evidence. Thereafter we will and, gants knowledge, to our would be make our final determinations in this case. (and vigorously properly) rejected by all of course, making adjustments, Of tracing them.18 We believe that lines divi- may boundary Commission make other ad- groups sions between racial and ethnic justments required be or desira- properly very viewed as one facet of a satisfy to ble all other relevant criteria. problem complicated primarily involving emphasize addressing we are representation. fairness With re- under Section of the Act spect percent to the use of popula- as a long-term results terms of vote dilu- proportion providing tion op- a reasonable significant tion of number of portunity a representative to elect along arguably district lines rigid divisions choice, simply we are relying a substan- between blacks and whites. We believe body tial policy Depart- of law and of practice may elimination of this impor- developed ment of Justice over a number in lending tant better long-run flexibility to years. supra n. 4. apportionment of election districts. We however, perceive basis, no respond III. problem by adopting the “Coalition” or Finally, respect post-tri- to the other “Crosby” Redistricting Maps long as the parties, al motions of the we decide the willing is Commission to correct the defects following. identify. pointed we As out in our original opinion, specific “in view Commission’s motion under Fed.R. relatively localized defects we have Civ.P. for amendment of this court’s found, adopting plan findings such an ‘outside’ in its and conclusions contained in Ry- entirety inappropriately preempt would I bicki is denied. For the reasons ex- Judge Grady’s approach correct, proposed Judge map voting." Grady is "a "bloc If according drawn traditional neutral crite- complaints and DelValle should have ria, regard without to what I believe been at dismissed the outset. constitutionally impermissible consideration of character____ race or ethnic Whatever the bloc Supreme analyze 18. Court continues be, map effect of a colorblind legality systems of electoral in a race-conscious I, would be unintended.” at 1140-1141 E.g., City manner. Port Arthur v. United J., (Grady, dissenting). approach Such an sim- —States, U.S.-, L.Ed.2d theory ply ignores claims, plaintiffs’ vote dilution grounded presumption which are

H59 vote ing purposeful the absence dilution opinion, in that we believe pressed gerrymandering related to the al- sufficient evidence of or adduced “wall,” trial; districting including leged ar- new purposeful discrimination defendants, by plaintiffs, in- filed defendants and presented briefs guments purposeful re- Insofar testimony the amicus curiae. terpreting the statistics and discrimination, concerned, find findings discrimination no ba- on for these lied pursuant contrary. findings our to Fed. to the More- sis amend persuade us 52(b) over, this R.Civ.P. or to hold a new trial under argument that the Commission’s 59(a)(2) accordingly apply refused the bur- Fed.R.Civ.P. improperly court deny Depart- plain- in Texas those motions.19 proof of formulated dens Burdine, request also Community v. tiffs that we exercise continu- ment Affairs of 248,101 1089, ing jurisdiction reappor- 207 after next 67 L.Ed.2d until the 450 U.S. S.Ct. grant (1981), tionment to future relief in this case fully addressed the Com- was 3(c) Act, Voting Rights in rejected Rybicki under section position mission’s § 1973a(c) (1976). 3(c) 42 U.S.C. Section I. jurisdiction states that a court “shall retain of respect the motions With to various such it period appropri- as deem mat- Crosby plaintiffs other than the the changes to in ate” order review above, first we have addressed we ters standards, qualifications, prerequisites, a considerable note that these procedures. 42 practices or U.S.C. previously argued degree reargue matters § 1973a(c) (1976). deny plaintiffs’ re- at before us and addressed and briefed quest jurisdiction until that we retain the argu- length I. Further oral reapportionment since do not next we think and, thus, we helpful ment not be to us will appropriate necessary or in this case deny Crosby plaintiffs’ request for oral the jurisdiction pe- retain for such an extended argument deciding the other out- before riod. standing motions. the Commission We ask make of facts analysis In addition our the opinion in accordance with this submission test of the amended under the “results” 7, February or 1983. on before carefully re- we have findings regard- SO ORDERED. opinion considered our clarify interpretation City application the To our of Mobile of of Fifteenth Amend 19. the of 55, Bolden, 1490, cases, S.Ct. 64 446 U.S. 100 this ment in vote dilution would not (1980), the L.Ed.2d 47 issue, fifteenth amendment alter result we reach in the instant case modify opinion our we footnote 70 of (as Crosby plaintiffs apparently argue). It page 1982 at 54 to read as follows: two is evident Justices —Brennan 70 84-85, (446 at 100 Justices Stevens U.S. adopt "discriminatory im Marshall — 1508-1509), (446 at White U.S. at (446 pact” for a Fifteenth Amendment standard 1517) at U.S. at 100 S.Ct. Marshall 94, 130-41, claim, U.S. at 100 S.Ct. at 446 1519-20, 104-05, 125-29, 1531-33) 100 S.Ct. at 1533-39; Stevens, although ac Justice expressly that a vote dilution claim is stated "objective” rejected any cepting approach, an cognizable Amendment. under Fifteenth application across-the-board discrimi did Justices Brennan and Blackmun Because standard, 85-86, natory impact 446 U.S. at question, their view on this articulate But 100 S.Ct. at five Justices —the majority In these circum view is unknown. Justices, 63-65, plurality U.S. and Jus stances, adopt appropriate it is believe White, 95, 101-03, tice 446 U.S. at 100 S.Ct. at plurality Amend view the Fifteenth expressly held that the Fif 1517-18— view consistent with ment —a which also requires proof of teenth Amendment discrimi reading opinions prior appellate our Thus, natory purpose or intent. even if we subject. See McMillan v. Escambia Coun recognize plaintiffs’ un were to claims here (5th Cir.), ty, cert. 638 F.2d n. 9 Amendment, ap der the Fifteenth would City sub Pensacola v. Jen dismissed kins, nom. discriminatory pur ply the same standard — 102 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d pose under Fourteenth Amend opin —as Even if Justice Brennan’s ment, as discussed implicit approval interpreted as ion be infra. can GRADY, Judge, dissenting Hispanics, may from separated also process, blacks and even mixed in concurring part part. prefer with the whites who them to analysis opinion today’s seems to seems me immaterial in terms of the me to illustrate some of the difficulties I constitutional considerations believe con- inherent effort draw district trolling in this case.1 Aside from this fun- along racial lines. The distinc- boundaries problem, today’s damental illus- made on the tions between districts difficulty deciding trates which ra- mostly “white” side the wall are “tracings” cial they lines —which are and those which white mixed white majority called tolerable and —are are, believe, Hispanics and Asiatics I which are not. I am unable to discern light unsupportable of the uncontradict- principle through analysis what runs testimony purpose ed guide which could one to the way separate the line this was to whites conclusion that various “results” either do groups, from That such pass blacks. other or do not muster.2 majority rejects quotas group representation. I realize that the Any constitu- such course, analysis strictly system, tional and views case would be to the antithetical Voting Rights principles democracy. terms of the Act as amended. But of our Voting I do Rights believe the the not amendment to IV See abo Part Justice Stevens’ dissent the case, segrega- authorizes Act intentional racial 458 U.S. same S.Ct. 3294. tion. While the effect of the amendment is to per quota, guideline, a The idea of 65 cent or requirement called, eliminate the intent the of Mobile unacceptable whatever it be is as case, certainly legiti- the amendment not does originally, to me as I when dissented and for the drawing of mize the lines which have as their same reasons. The failure to be black express purpose separation the race not, one from me, per elected in a 66 is cent district to raised, short, another. the even percentage evidence that the should be amended, light as Constitution, which, to be read in but, rather, percent- evidence that the idea of a view, my absolutely pro- age place. is the unworkable in first Whether pur- hibits the of district the lines for you comparing are whites versus or blacks pose separation. of racial Asiatics, Hispanics whites versus the just result is the same: it will not work. And 2. Whether the matter is viewed "as black versus the effort to make it work runs counter the non-black," plus or "black versus white non- goal eliminating racial coun- divisions this (majority opinion, p. whites other than blacks" try. 1091), question presented the by viewing realize, too, this particular plaintiffs I that these simply “packing" problem case as or "dilution” solely segregation ques- not interested in the is, expression, if will one excuse the where do that, Beyond perhaps tion. even as much as you enough draw the line? How much is but that, they proportional representation. want majority again not too much? The seems majority propor- is The no more committed to (see per p. endorse the "65 1085, cent fn. formula” representation they tional than were at the time appears to be the same which as fn. 87 of original opinions the in this case were filed. 12, 1982, majority opinion the of Jan. with the Rights Voting The amendment to the explicit Act makes that, exception judicial paragraph in the final that, "totality whatever the of circum- per notice is taken of the fact that 66 cent was mean, require stances” test it does not good enough not to elect a black candidate in Thus, representation. proportional the further Senate District 18 in the March 1982 Democrat- proceedings majority contemplates the this Election). This, Primary practical ic in terms of virtually case seem me to be addressed to a politics, may good seem news for the rights de minimb situation far as as the plaintiffs; map majority the revised the has in of blacks are concerned. This Mobile, not a like is case may provide greater majorities mind even Rogers Lodge, supra, v. Herman voters revised districts. I believe literally where have blacks been closed out of “victory” this would be an unfortunate for the political process by at-large elections in plaintiffs. expression For a recent conso- they single representa- failed to elect a views, my dissenting nant with own see the Here, tive. the difference between what the opinion Rogers of Justice Powell in v. Herman map the court-ordered 613, 628, 3272, 3282, Lodge, 102 S.Ct. they repre- is what want the difference between (1982): 73 L.Ed.2d 1012 quite proportional sentation which is not inherently area, representation strictly This proportional. where the which is If seeming majority granting proportion- identification of does not not violation bent necessarily suggest judicial representation, why I enforceable al then fail to see there system remedy hearing at least none short need a further in this case. —or

H61 disagree majority’s with the I continue al., Plaintiffs, on a RYBICKI, case was tried Chester J. et

view segrega- racial theory of unconstitutional v. the matter was is true that tion. While it BOARD OF ELECTIONS STATE there can be no pleadings, from the unclear ILLINOIS, et OF STATE OF question during trial doubt that al., Defendants. stigma result- segregation, and al., DelVALLE, Plaintiffs, Miguel et wall, clearly presented. I ing from the Crosby plain- motion of the would allow the v. conform complaint tiffs to amend The STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS proof. ILLINOIS, et STATE OF OF al., I the amendment Defendants. fail to see how change in requires any Act CROSBY, Plaintiffs, al., Bruce et opin- approved in its map majority long January ion of BOARD as one The STATE OF ELECTIONS to see this case majority continues ILLINOIS, et OF STATE OF issue, I involving no constitutional believe al., Defendants. evidentiary hearing will further that a essentially unproductive. “results” of Nos. 81 C 6052 and 81 C me map seem to to have been present C 6093. fully analyzed by the in its Court, United States acceptable.3 and found Illinois, N.D. E.D. agree majority that no I with the Sept. 27, 1983. argument necessary regarding further already has taken. been evidence agree I not retain Finally, we should reap- until the next

jurisdiction in this ease

portionment. To that extent I concur majority opinion. certainly majority frequently would include “re- refers to "the ‘results circumstances 3. The I redistricting, Act.” not test’ of amended sults” of but the results are providing not read the amendment for with the test. The test is totali- coterminous phrase circumstances, used to test. The define test "results" ty it seems to me that the protected group determining whether a has already exhaustively analyzed than other members “less circumstances in its those political process participate electorate agree analy- I do with that 1982. While not elect of their choice" is and to sis, cursory. my it was criticism totality totality "the circumstances." The

Case Details

Case Name: Rybicki v. State Bd. of Elections of Illinois

Court Name: District Court, N.D. Illinois

Date Published: Jan 20, 1983

Citation: 574 F. Supp. 1147

Docket Number: 81 C 6030, 81 C 6052 and 81 C 6093

Court Abbreviation: N.D. Ill.