Vera v. Richards

sought forfeiture suit a determination that existed,

probable money to seize the cause VERA, Calhoun, Al Chen, Bill Edward present while suit seeks redress under Orcutt, Blum, Pauline Edward Kenneth § alleged 1988 for Craig’s violation of Thomas, Powers Barbara L. Plain rights. e.g. Constitutional Mitchell v. tiffs, Bertolla, (La.1976) (suit 340 So.2d 287 v. rescind lease for fraud held not the same RICHARDS, Governor, Ann Bullock, Bob as, barred, cause of action and therefore not Governor, Morales, Lt. Attorney Dan by prior suit under same nonpay- lease for General, Laney, Speaker Pete Watts, rent); ment of 720 F.2d at 1421-22 Representatives, Texas House of Ronald (guilty plea drug charge to state did not bar Kirk, Secretary State, Defen subsequent § challenging suit the le- dants, gality of the search which recovered the conclusion, drugs.) the doctrines of collar v. judicata eral estoppel and Res do not bar America, UNITED STATES plaintiffs claims.33 Defendant-Intervenor,

State Claim v. Finally, Craig recovery seeks LAWSON, Rev. Scales, Jr., William Zollie against Sheriff Fuselier his capaci official Boney, Deloyd Rev. Parker, Jew Don T. ty under the Louisiana Responde doctrine of Perry, Clark, Dewan and Rev. Ceasar Superior. See Jenkins v. Parish Jefferson Defendants-Intervenors, (La.1981) Office, 402 So.2d 669 Sheriffs v. (holding vicariously Sheriff liable for the deputies). torts of his genuine LEAGUE OF UNITED Because is LATIN AMER (LULAC) sues of ICAN material fact exist CITIZENS Craig’s as to Defen against dant-Intervenors, claims summary the deputies, judg ment in favor of Sheriff Fuselier on this v. claim is DENIED. REYES, Angie Garcia, Robert Robert An guiano, Robles, Dalia Nicolas Domin

Conclusion guez, Garcia, Oscar T. and Ramiro Gam boa, Defendants-Intervenors. above, As discussed the defendants’ mo- tions are DENIED in and GRANTED Civ. A. No. H-94-0277. part. It is so ORDERED. Court, United States District Texas,

S.D. of Houston Division. Aug.

Order Sept. Issued 33. This court will not allow the Louisiana forfei- Louisiana’s state apply preclu- courts would no proceeding ture Craig seeking to bar re- proceeding. sive effect to the alleged dress for constitutional violations when Hurd, LA, Hirtz, Monroe, Loy

Paul Ted Houston, TX, plaintiffs. for Hicks, Sol., Austin, TX, for Renea State Richards, Bullock, Dan Ann Bob defendants Morales, Laney Pete and Ronald Kirk. Hume, Kengle, Gaye A. L. Robert Steven Rosenbaum, Justice, Voting Dept, H. U.S. Herrera, DC, Nancy Section, Washington, Office, Houston, TX, de- Attorney’s U.S. fendant-intervenor, U.S. Hair, Zieve, NAACP D. M.

Penda Allison Inc., Fund, Legal & Educational Defense DC, Brown, Pa- Washington, Alice A. Union Boze, Houston, Dept., Lawrence cific Law TX, Rev. William for defendants-intervenors Jr., Lawson, Scales, Don Rev. Jew Zollie Parker, Perry, and Boney, Deloyd T. Dewan Rev. Ceasar Clark. Sanders-Castro, Ameri- A. Mexican

Judith Fund, San Legal can Defense & Educational Antonio, TX, Reyes, Reyes & Frumencio TX, P.C., Houston, defen- Reyes-Castillo, dants-intervenors, Latin League United (LULAC) and, Individual- American Citizens Garcia, An- Reyes, Angie Robert ly, Robert Robles, Dominguez, Nicolas guiano, Dalia Garcia, Gamboa. and Ramiro Oscar T. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction.............................................................1308 History.......................................................1310 II. Procedural Evidentiary Background..................................................1311 III. Redistricting............................1311 Demography A. Related Texas Pertinent History Redistricting B. Related Texas.....................1312 Congressional Redistricting C. The Process..........................1313 Background..............................................1313 General 1. Rights Voting Act Considerations..................................1314 Racial a. Polarization............................................1316 History b. of Discrimination......................................1317 Incumbents’ Interests.............................................1317 4. Use of Racial Data...............................................1318 Congressional 5. 6. District 30..........................................1319 Districts 18 and 29.................................. District 28.......................................... Other 8. Expert Districts......................................1326 Testimony....................................................1328 D. Districting E. Other Plans...............................................1330 Findings Legal TV. Factual Conclusions...................................1331 Voting Rights A. The Districts...........................................1337 Congressional 1. District 30.......................................... 1337 1339 Congressional 2. 18 and Districts 29.................................. Tailoring Narrow Compelling 3. to Achieve a State Interest?...........1341 Congressional District 28.......................................... 1344 Congressional B. Other Districts.........................................1344 V. Conclusion...............................................................1345 Special Concurrence......................................................1345 30).................................... 18, 29, Appendix (Maps of Districts 1348 Order...................................................................1351 JONES, See, Judge, Before Circuit HITTNER backgrounds. e.g., Rogers Lodge, v. 458 HARMON, 613, 3272, Judges. 102 U.S. S.Ct. 73 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1982); Carr, 186, Baker v. 369 U.S. 82 S.Ct. OPINION 691, (1962); 7 L.Ed.2d 663 Gomillion v. JONES, Judge: EDITH H. Circuit Lightfoot, 364 81 U.S. S.Ct. 5 (1960). L.Ed.2d The Fourteenth I. INTRODUCTION prohibits government Amendment also Voting Rights The Act one of 1965 at blow invidiously classifying persons because of obvious demolished the devices that southern Repeatedly their race. in the strongest states had used African- disenfranchise terms, Supreme Court has condemned American The voters decades. Act intentional racial by discrimination state maturity politi- marked the full American agents or bodies. Where official discrimina- cal life of Founders’ “all idea that men exist, tion is found to the burden is on the equal” are created and the Lu- Rev. Martin governmental body justify it no less King’s ther hope his children would be than compelling governmental a interest. judged by character, of the content year ago, Supreme One Court reaf meaning color of their skin. The firmed that intentional racial discrimination equality—as also enshrined in the Four- is Equal offensive to the Protection Clause guarantee “equal teenth Amendment’s legislative when it occurs as redis protection subject of the laws”—is —Reno, tricting. U.S. -, See Shaw v. lawsuit. (1993). 113 S.Ct. 125 L.Ed.2d 511 In longer disputed It is no the Shaw, the Court “redistricting leg held that Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments em [is islation if it] unconstitutional is so ex body right equality among to ballot box irregular tremely that it rationally its face American or only citizens different races ethnic can segregate be viewed as an effort any implication voting, proposed disclaim that the purposes of without the races is districting principles plan otherwise lawful constitutional. traditional regard for justifica- sufficiently compelling and without at United States at-, at 2824. 113 S.Ct. tion.” Id. plaintiffs this case are six Texas who reside in voters Districts of Texas deliber the State 18, 25, 29, pretrial stipulation, and 30. In a boundary its ately redrew they alleged that 24 of the state’s Con- nearly following the lines 1990 census gressional product of Districts are the racial makeup of knowledge of the racial exact gerrymandering or racial intentional discrim- in the every inhabited block of land state. ination.3 Brother, Big insight, worthy of Orwell’s This question before this court is whether computer technology, because was attainable any challenged Congressional Dis cen made since the last decennial available tricts, many of whose boundaries clear sus, keyboard superimposed at a touch of the considerations, ly affected racial can be block-by-block upon racial census statistics sufficiently explained by legitimate redistrict maps local vital to the redistrict the detailed —Shaw, race. criteria other than ing process. Not did the state know the at -, For U.S. S.Ct. reasons African-American, His precise location follow, we conclude that repeated panic, Anglo populations, but presently Districts and 30 as drawn ly segregated populations those race explainable. They are not so were conceived of incumbent office prospects further purpose providing for the “safe” seats “majority-minority” or to create Con holders Congress for two African-American and an Legis result of the gressional districts. The They Hispanic representatives. were scienti (“HBl”), Bill 1 lature’s efforts House fically per designed to muster minimum closely crazy-quilt that more re of districts centage minority or of the favored ethnic Modigliani painting than the work sembles a minority virtually all group; numbers are representatives.1 public-spirited shape of those districts. that mattered the the consequently odious Those districts bear (HBl) passed in challenged plan apartheid, imprint of racial and districts that of the 72nd Texas the second called session necessarily racially them are intermesh with by into Legislature signed law the Gov- tainted. 29,1991. August on See Plaintiff ernor 1991, 18, challenged the Con- Texas Dis- 1. On November Texas Other § to or Redistricting disfigured4 are less favor disad- gressional Plan received tricts group than to Attorney vantage one race or ethnic preelearance from the General.2 incumbents; they 1007; reelection Stip. promote 37. Not- the United States Exh. unconstitutionally segregated. not preclearance, Attorney are withstanding the the expressed reservations General fundamental may not hold that the state We do redistricting plan: about the a Congressional boundaries with draw race, goal be preclearing plan eye under which would are this blind toward While we prohibit 5, altogether is extraordinarily impossible, nor that it the convoluted Section majority-minority creating districts. compels me to ed from nature of some districts right abridging on of race or alternatively the to vote account to as Plan HBl will referred 1965, C657, assigned by Voting Rights plan the State’s Act U.S.C. color....” number redistricting plan to the embodied in software § 1973c. HBl. plaintiffs' post-trial submissions seem 3. The by Voting Rights § 5 As Texas is covered districts, challenge suggest all that now Act, (1) any Legislature must either have attempt reject to broaden the we this belated but Department plan precleared proposed scope of the case. Justice, (2) judgment the United seek a or Court for the District Columbia States District declaring any "configured” in pur- 4. To call these districts plan "does have the not implies would be a misnomer. denying order pose not or sense and will have effect Speaker But State redraws boundaries when the well as of the Texas House of 18, 29, contiguous and 30 and Representatives. Districts districts, respect it can must exhibit complaint alleged that the 1991 Con- communities, neighborhoods, political gressional Redistricting Plan the State of Supreme put As lines. Court subdivision “represents an unconstitutional effort it, at-, appearances do matter. Id. segregate purposes the races for of voting: appearance reality, S.Ct. at 2827. (1) regard districting without for traditional gerryman- racially these three districts were including principles, compactness, contigu- dered. [sic], consistency existing politi- ousness gerrymandering unconstitu Racial cal, economic, societal, governmental juris- or tional, morally wrong, also but it is inconsis (2) boundaries; sufficiently dictional without founding tent Martin with our tradition and (3) justification; compelling and without ‘nar- person’s vision. King’s Luther The color of tailoring’ required by row the United identity her skin or his or ethnic is the least ¶ Complaint States Constitution.” at 2 l.5 meaningful way in which to understand 8, qualifying Candidate for the March person. racial To elevate classification as primary January elections in Texas closed on political representation inevitably basis for 3, early voting began 1994 and February on principle equality defeats the because 16. On March court enteied an more, society less, causes all of become denying plaintiffs’ order motion for a Douglas race-conscious. Justice William 0. injunction preliminary and their motion for put point well: expedited hearing consolidation and and set religious or When racial lines drawn trial for June Also March State, multiracial, multireligious granted the court the motion of the that our communities Constitution seeks to participate United States to as amicus curi- together separatist; weld as one become 14,1994, ae in the case. On March the state antagonisms that relate to or to reli- race defendants this action filed answer to gion than political rather issues are complaint. generated; communities seek not the best representative but the best racial reli- 5,May granted On the court gious partisan. system Since that is at motion intervene of six African-American ideal, war with the democratic it should registered represented voters footing find no here. Legal NAACP Defense and Educational Rockefeller, 52, 67, Wright v. 376 84 U.S. (“Lawson Fund, Intervenors”). Inc. May On 603, (1964) 611, 11 S.Ct. (Doug L.Ed.2d 512 20, 1994, granted the court the motion of the — las, J., Shaw, dissenting) (quoted in U.S. later, United to A States intervene. week on 2827). at -, 113 at S.Ct. 27, 1994, May the court entered an order granting intervention to League both The II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY (“LULAC”) Latin United American Citizens plaintiffs registered The are six voters who Hispanic and registered seven voter mem- Congressional reside in Districts and organization. bers of the (located 29 in whole or in in Harris (most 13,1994, County), On June and in District 30 which the United States is filed a trial; to County). Complaint located in motion Dallas See bifurcate the court denied ¶7. 4 17, on Original 16, Plaintiffs filed their motion June Com- 1994. On June plaint 1994, Injunction pretrial Permanent Declara- the court and conducted the confer- tory Judgment conference, Preliminary pretrial and Motion for ence. At the the court Injunction January 26, pretrial on against 1994 set the schedule and directed the Governor, Governor, plaintiffs the Lieutenant the At- to file a narrowing statement General, torney Secretary and the of State as they districts which challenges asserted Equal Amendments, 5. In addition to their claim under Voting teenth Rights as well as the Amendment, Protection Clause of the amended, Fourteenth Act § U.S.C. 1973. plaintiffs alleged that the 1991 ¶ Complaint at 14 39. Redistricting Plan violated the Fifth and Fif-

13H 16,986,510, 4,339,- supported by had increased to whom eliminating any claims not and (22.55%) 1,976,360 (11.- Hispanic, were or law. re- evidence case substantial 63%) African-American, non-Hispanic 16,1994, plaintiffs filed a were sponse, on June (60.59%) 10,291,680 Anglo. § 26 and were The dismissing and state statement population increase in from identifying six dis- claims constitutional (2,757,319 challenge persons) under the entitled Texas to three did tricts that subsequent In a additional seats in House Amendment. United States Fourteenth Representatives, increasing their Fifteenth filing, plaintiffs dismissed the size was held June delegation Stip. claims.7 Trial from 27 to 8. Amendment 30. See Based Census, July 1994. 27-30 and concluded of a on the 1990 the ideal size Texas 566,217. Stip. See matters, court limited the expedite To permitting while them to parties’ trial time virtually docu- unlimited additional submit Census, voting-age Under Texas’ par- mentary deposition evidence. 9,923,085, 1,756,971 population was of whom liberally accepted The court this offer.8 ties (17.71%) (11.04%) 1,095,836 Hispanic, were brought has all of the evidence reviewed African-American, non-Hispanic were us. The record references below before (69.87%) 6,932,894 Anglo. Stip. 9. were See testimony. highlight and summarize the By voting-age population Texas’ had 12,150,671, 2,719,586 increased of whom III. BACKGROUND EVIDENTIARY (11.0%) (22.38%) 1,336,688 Hispanic, were African-American, non-Hispanie were Demography A. Related Re- Texas (64.43%) 7,828,352 Anglo. Stip. were districting citizenship Taking into account alters these redistricting oper- Texas figures, percentages. the total Under 1990 backdrop important against a demo- ated 11,313,- voting age population is citizen Popu- changes throughout the state. graphic (18.4%) 2,085,857 Hispan- of whom were largely 1980 to 1990 was growth lation (11.6%) ic, 1,315,860 non-Hispanie were growth significant population attributable 14, Ap- African-American. State among Hispanics and African-Americans. pendix particular is the enormous in- Of interest Hispanic population state-wide. crease in cursory foregoing review Even Thus, figures follows are the Census what significant growth Census data reveals the minority-led growth in chronicling population communities, and, in experienced by minority during the 1980’s. growth explosive population particular, Hispanic Census, Hispanics in among Texas. According to the 1980 Texas’ total 2,985,824 14,229,191, grew from 1980 to the state population was of whom 45.4%; (11.89%) (20.98%) 1,354,081 1,692,542 persons, Hispanic, African-American, population in the state non-Hispanic and African-American were 283,818 (65.7%) by persons, Stip. grew 9,350,297 Anglo. from 1980 1990 See 7. 16.8%; in Census, Anglo population and the By population Texas’ total 1990 districting in § of scheme Act 1. Voting Rights 42 creation a new 6. Act of U.S.C. 1973. - -, Hays, U.S. 114 S.Ct. See v. Louisiana specification, 7. As delineated in their June 16th (1994). two-day 853 After a 129 L.Ed.2d plaintiffs challenge twenty districts as uncon trial, again court struck down the district once gerrymanders racial under the frame stitutional redistricting plan as an unconstitu Louisiana Reno, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. work of Shaw v. 2816, Hays v. gerrymander. See Louisi tional racial (1993). targeted 511 The 125 L.Ed.2d 1994). (W.D.La. II), F.Supp. (Hays 119 862 ana 3-9, 12-13, 18-19, 21-26, districts are Districts by opinion- adopted in reference its The court districts—Districts and 28-30. Four additional Hays See This court finds I. id. 121. 1, 2, 14, Hays challenged 15—were under v. whether, parties unnecessary as the to determine (W.D.La. I), (Hays F.Supp. 1188 839 Louisiana beyond Hays goes argue, Shaw. I 1993). judg Supreme vacated The Court Hays I and remanded case ment in however, use of parties, chose not to all light 8.The consideration in district court for further Legislature’s repeal 42 allotted tried time. of Act the Louisiana 1312 243,918 by 941,383 voting age. grew

state from 1980 1990 whom are of See growth Hispanic Stip. in persons, The 15. or 10.1%.

population for a accounted remarkable 49.1% population County d.The total Bexar population in of the Texas’ total increase 196,594 by persons increased from Stip. from 11. 1980 to 1990. See Hispanic population 1980 to 1990. The County by 128,269 in Bexar increased largest growth four "with The counties persons, accounting for 65.2% of the in population from 1980 to in number of growth in population the total Harris, Tarrant, Dallas, persons gained are county. The popu- below, and Bexar As noted Counties. County by lation in Bexar increased growth Hispanic African-Ameri- 13,326 persons, accounting for 6.8% population can these counties accounted county’s growth. Stip. See 12. significant proportion for a increase in Significant Hispanic population popula- increases in counties: each these tion occurred between sev- population County a. The total of Harris eral other counties: 408,652 by persons increased from Hispanic population a. The of Cameron Hispanic population 1980to 1990. The 51,341 County by persons increased county by 275,858per- in the increased between and 1990. sons, accounting for 67.5% of the Hispanic b. population The growth population Hidalgo in total in the coun- 96,760 County ty. by persons increased population The African-American 58,674 between 1980 by and 1990. persons, increased account- county’s growth. for 14.4% of the Hispanic c. population of Webb According Stip. See 12. to the 1990 34,227 County by persons increased Census, 644,935 Hispanic there are between 1980 and 1990. persons County, in Harris of whom 405,735 voting age. Stip. See 13. Stip. See Furthermore, 527,964 there are Afri- History B. Pertinent Related to Redis- persons county, in the can-American tricting in Texas 359,248 voting age. whom are of Texas did not redistrict Dis- Stip. 14. tricts at all between 1957. See population b. County The total of Tarrant Following United States Exh. 1071 at 7. 309,223 by persons increased Census, by the state “redistricted” cre- Hispanic population 1980to 1990. The ating at-large Congressional a new seat. See County 72,247 Tarrant increased ¶23, State Exh. approach This to redis- persons, accounting for 23.4% of the tricting allowed all existing incumbents’ dis- growth population in total in the coun- tricts to remain intact and meant that the at- ty. population The African-American large campaign candidate had to across and 37,765 County Tarrant increased represent the entire Also in state. persons, accounting for 12.2% of the 1960’s, created the now infamous Dis- county’s growth. Stip. trict 6—often known “Tiger” Teague’s dis- ran County trict—which from Fort Bend c. total of Dallas through rural east Texas into the southern 296,420 increased persons from ends of both Tarrant and Dallas Counties. 1980 to Hispanic population 1990. The See State Exh. 41. county 161,069 by in per- the increased sons, accounting growth for 54% of the The Congressional 1971 round of redis- in population the county. total of the tricting was notable at least because The African-American great lengths in- of the legis- to which the state 76,343 by persons, creased accounting lature went to solicit the views incumbent growth. county’s 25.8% the congressmen. See The Senate Stip. County, 12. In Dallas Redistricting actually there are Subcommittee flew to 362,130 persons Washington to meet with delega- the Texas

1313 and following committees subcommit- basis.9 The group and on an individual a tion as Legislature ¶8. 1980’s, were tees of the Texas involved 23, In the Exh. See State redistrieting in task of 1990 and 1991: put together Legislature managed Texas Legislative on the Senate Select Committee first Re- novel facts—the plan despite two Redistrieting, by chaired Senator Bob Glas- in Texas since Re- governor elected publican Redistrieting, on gow; the House Committee §of 5 of applicability and construction Uher; by Representative Tom chaired Congression- Rights Act Texas Voting Committee the Whole on Redis- Senate redistrieting. States Exh. 1071 United al See Brooks, by Senator Chet tricting, chaired (Map of Plan 14; Exh. 28A 1980’s Plaintiff which two subcommittees—the Subcom- had C001). Districts, mittee on chaired Johnson, Eddie Bernice then-State Senator Congressional Redistrict- C. The 1991 Legislative and Subcommittee on Redis- ing Process Glasgow;10 Bob tricting chaired Senator Whole, and the Senate Committee Background 1. General by Senator Chet Brooks. chaired requires the Texas Texas Constitution The Legisla- Committee The Senate Select on Congressional Dis- Legislature to redraw Redistrieting tive and the House Redistrict- Decennial Census. See Tex. after each tricts joint regional held outreach Committee Const, Ill, Legislature § Texas art. 26. The hearings throughout Specifically, the state. body consisting of the Senate is bicameral testimony heard and received committee Stip. Representatives. See and the House of organizations from concerned individuals and 1991, had 31 mem- 4. In the Texas Senate following redistrieting about cities: single bers, districts. (March member 28,1990); elected (February Austin Lubbock (March 31 of the 1991 Stip. 17,1990); the members 16,1990); Corpus See Of Amarillo Senate, 1990); 6, (May 18, Democrats nine were were Paso (April El Christi African-American, 19, 1990); (May Republicans, 1990); two were Midland/Odessa (June (June 1990); 22, All Hispanic Anglo. and 24 five were Houston Beaumont were (June 23, 1990); 1990);' Hispanic Tyler Fort Worth members the African-American 14,1990); (July 13,1990); (July Dallas Lare- See Exh. were Democrats. State 27,1990); (July Edinburg/Harlingen (July had do Representatives House of 25, 1990); 28, 1990); (August Antonio members, San single-member elected from also 1990). (September members and Austin Stip. Of the 150 districts. the Whole on Re- House, Committee of were Democrats Senate of the 1991 Texas public outreach hear- districting held its own African- Republicans, and 57 were were scale in Houston Americans, ings a more limited Hispanic, and 117 were 26, 1991), 5, 1991), (April Senate, (April Brownsville Anglo. African- As all 1991). (May See United Hispanic Antonio House members San American and Exh. 1086. Exh. 2. States were Democrats. See State minimum, however, comparison of Plan Lyon, the Texas At a 9. Ted a former member of C001, the 1980's C657 and Plan involved in the 1980 House and Senate compact- battles, plan, strongly suggests ”[C]ompact- districting redistrieting asserted “eyeball” approach was districting principle’ in ness as measured not a ‘traditional ness is espe- important part, in Plan C657. This much less For most traditional Texas. counties, major namely operated cially urban districting principles ever true that have (map Exh. 28A protected Plaintiff and each Dallas and Harris. are that incumbents are here Cf. C001) (map 34B of Plan Plaintiff Exh. party grabs can. is no Plan as much as it There C657). why to draw the State should now have reason majority-minority compact districts when has Subcommittee on years drawing staff the Senate 10. over the shown no interest Reynolds, Redistrieting Legislative Carl included majority-white compact districts.” Lawson Noble, Sharman, 14, 17; ¶ ("Neither ¶ and Laura pretty Shannon districts Chris see id. at 12 Texas, the sub- McElroy. Stip. 27. Sharman compact priority are a nor districts map See drawer. technician and I was in- committee’s not since well before have been ever."). 3-156-58. districting, TR. at if volved in 6/29/94 1314 transcripts of these challenged

The summaries Terrazas the Texas 1991 Con- and/or hearings regional are voluminous. gressional Redistrieting numerous Plan as unconstitu- hearings played ultimately role What these Voting Rights tional and of the violative Act redistrieting is difficult alleged that it mem- ascertain. At least one Texas House rights political of sacrifices the racial and Grusendorf, ber, Representative Kent testi- minorities to enhance the reelection hearings— regional fied that the outreach of Anglo chances Democrat incumbents by legislators—“essentially often ill-attended fragmenting concentrating popula- the had no effect on outcome of the redis- the Hispanics Republicans, tion centers of tricting process.” TR. at 96. Gru- 6/27/94 diminishing the likelihood that candidates sendorf further “At time I observed: the of their within choice can be elected from serious, thought think I in hind- it was but their communities. sight I for the most show.” think was Nevertheless, strongly Id. the state relied United States Exh. 1005. The Ter- court participation hearings on citizen in these razas the ruled that 1991 Texas Con- justified plan when it to the its United States gressional Redistrieting did not Plan di- Department of Justice. racial, rights ethnic, lute voting the or Legislative The Texas Council advised the political minorities in violation of the Legislature legal Texas on issues of concern Voting Rights Constitution the Act. drafting Congressional redistrieting legis- Slagle, F.Supp. See Terrazas v. Dep. lation. See of Archer at 7. Arch- Jeff (W.D.Tex.1993). er, lawyer for Council lead the on redistrict- implementation challenged The plan ing, presentations to made committee mem- minority did composition increase the regional public hearings bers at the outreach Congressional Delegation. Texas During the legal on various issues be considered in redistrieting by consideration of the Texas redistrieting process. See id. at 87-88. Legislature the Texas addition, published the Council series Delegation members, had 27 whom redistrieting—dubbed “gray books”— Democrats, Republicans, nine were one together a more comprehen- served as African-American, was Hispanic, four were appli- sive statement of state federal law Anglo. Stips. and were See 46-47. aAs redistrieting. cable to See Plaintiff Exhs. Census, result the 1990 the Texas Con- 13A, 13B, Legislative 13C. The Council also gressional Delegation increased to 30 mem- developed jurisdiction and had RE- over Stip. bers. See Of 48. the 30 members of (a/k/a Apple”), DAPPL “Red which was the the Texas Delegation elected primary drawing maps software used in dur- in 1992 after the 1991 redistrieting—20 Dem- Congressional redistrieting process. ocrats and ten Republicans—two Afri- Dep. Archer at can-American, are Hispanic, five and 23 are (HB1) challenged redistrieting plan Anglo. Stips. 49-50. generated litigation before it even passed. May plain- On Republican Voting Rights Act Considerations tiffs in Slagle, F.Supp. Terrazas v. (W.D.Tex.1993), Legislature brought Congres- upon action under the embarked redistrieting against legal Fourteenth and sional Fifteenth Amendments to back- Voting drop Voting Rights Constitution and Rights Act Act. As described against various swpra, Legislative the State through officials of Texas Texas Council Party. “gray the Texas attempted Democratic In their books” to summarize First Amended Original Complaint, Voting Rights filed af- Act concerns for the HB1, adoption ter the plaintiffs Further, in Legislature.11 Archer, Jeff "gray In reference to a statement made attempts in the that "those terms are to some extent Gingles books" that ap- “the explain person standard does to a who’s not familiar with this pear require majority [redistrieting] compactness district to be drawn if might what mean.” extremely elongated district would be or oth- He noted that the statement was made shape," erwise bizarre plaintiff Jeff Archer testified of a redistrieting context in a case under guage Congressional to elect lawyer redistricting, fre- minorities lead Council’s Legislature’s representatives. Accordingly, the the three quently before testified Voting Rights predominantly re- include Act new districts a on the committees instance, County Archer told the For black district drawn the Dallas quirements. predominantly Hispanic on Redis- of the Whole area and districts Senate Committee rep- proportional County of tricting that “mere lack in the Harris area and South the a enough” to establish region. creating is not to resentation Texas In addition the Act, Rights is Voting districts, but minority proposed of the the violation three new at 10. “strong evidence.” Plaintiff plan redistricting increases strength voting of the black the current Legislature from concerned also heard The (Harris County) increasing District 18 Voting the organizations about citizens population the black the to assure to Con- Rights Act relevant considerations may community a candi- continue elect example, redistricting. For gressional date of its choice. Korbel, for Tex- litigation George director regional di- Legal observations, Aid and former as Rural making these initial Id. After Legal De- Mexiean-Ameriean rector analyzes the three new minori- the Narrative Fund, testified before the Senate Com- fense ty greater well as District 18 in districts as Redistricting that of Whole on mittee detail. least two additional [sic] is at “unless there Legislature agreed The that a Texas new and one ad- Congressional districts Hispanic district should be “safe” African-American district, ... Black ditional County.12 id. drawn in Dallas See at Congress going of the

reapportionment community in African-American Dallas pass Department of Justice.” United County African- insisted on a 50% total (4/5/91). Exh. 1086 States district “which population American redistricting legislation necessary had community Once the felt was assure Voting Rights Congressional rep- Act considerations passed, ability elect own its its September having in a set forth to form coalitions HB1 were resentative without § 5 en- minority groups.” Meeting to the State’s submission Id. attachment with other Voting Rights Act figure Consid- meant that titled Narrative the threshold 50% more prepared proposals for compact Districts District 30 erations alternative Affected Redistricting rejected.13 Staff. id. Texas had to be See sets Plaintiff Exh. 4C. As document the fail- legislators Texas were aware that introduction, the func- in its Narrative forth majority to draw African-American ure “give efforts made tions to an overview the County might in 1991 be in Harris district Voting Rights Act concerns.” Id. to address retrogression under Section 5 interpreted as at 1. Rights TR. Voting Act. See 6/30/94 by noting legis- Therefore, begins 4-31; The Narrative Exh. 1047. United States agreement the three new Con- lative 18 as a “safe” keep in order to apportioned gressional district, seats black “additional African-American adjacent districts way taken from configured as to such should racial, ethnic, African-Ameri- thereby increasing the total lan- allow members in Dallas which alleging have district the voters should section If the best Dep. legisla- to show that could do was a candidate choice. See violation could elect Texas with could have connected South tors at 47. Grusendorf Dallas, Houston, gone in his then over to view, probably any obli- the State is not under 13. Creation of "safe” by drawing gation violating the law is not obviously County impacted the other in Dallas Dep. of Arch- other forms of districts. See some and Tarrant Counties. The districts in Dallas er at 192-193. why splitting briefly Narrative discusses community in Tarrant the African-American agreement County on Dallas traversed and 24 does not Districts 12 between Republican party House member Kent lines. community. minority of that amount to dilution Voting that fairness and Grusendorf testified id. at 3. Rights African-American voters Act dictated that 1316 population decreasing any

can to 50.9% and threshold 50% would obviate need population form coalitions. Plaintiff Exh. at Hispanic total to 15.3%.”14 Plain- 4C remaining Hispanic tiff at 5. The Exh. 4C County, University In Harris of Houston placed population in District 29—the was political Murray Dr. Richard scientist ob- Hispanic district—consisting of a new “safe” served that population a Hispanic 10.2% Afri- 60.6% political forged alliance that had been population. id. can-American The Nar- Hispanics between blacks and in the 1960’s changes that the in rative concludes District began Open down. to break electoral con- configuration 18 of District 29 “result and the flicts became more common. Relations minority in voting the maximization of when, especially strained in 1989 in a strength geographical area.” Id. open at-large an contest for seat on Hous- council, city ton’s African [sic] Ameri- area, heavily Hispanic In Texas South can, Lee, upset Sheila Jackson the favored major problems Legislature faced no con- Hispanic, city former controller Leonel minority voting strength adjust- or cerning Hispanics Castillo. returned the in favor population totals. See id. ments District Grade when Guzman Saenz unseated Hispanic 28—the “safe” district in new South a at-large black incumbent in another elec- input constant Texas—was drawn hard-fought mayoral tion. And a race minority leadership County in Bexar African Americans rallied behind Valley. the Rio Grande See id. The location Representative Sylvester black Texas Tur- portion 28 in the District northern ner, given him [sic] 97% of their a votes in part by South determined Hispanics supported Anglo runoff. configuration historical north-south of Con- winner, Lanier, by nearly Bob three to gressional 15 and 27. This Districts was the one margin. attempts remedy January 29, result of Lawson Exh. 26 at 15. This breakdown of objection expressed Section which past prompted Hispanic coalitions strategists original configura- concern that the east-west argue Hispanics and African-Ameri- tion of 15 and 27 in packing Districts resulted cans should not be in a combined new Harris Hispanic population. of the See United County Congressional district. See id. As 9; States Exh. 1065 at TR. at 3-169. 6/29/94 City Reyes Houston Councilman Ben testi- Houston, fied at hearing an outreach held in a. Racial Polarization minority combining groups nearly equal County numbers in a new Harris configuring Congressional In in30 would “they be the “worst scenario” because County, Dallas the African-American com- will vote for members of their own ethnic munity sought 50% total African-American group, making likely it more that a non- necessary as the minimum to as- minority candidate will win.”15 Plaintiff sure that a candidate of choice would be Exh. 15H at 18. figure elected. 50% signifi- The was deemed “[tjhere cant because is little evidence of general, polariza- some racial ethnic voting coalition between blacks and Hispan- tion majority-minority occurs in districts County” ics in reaching Dallas the Texas. Plaintiff Exh. 23-27. The County Rodney represented. Harris Senator Ellis viewpoints described Often these are majority-minority the value of districts such represented by minority, better but' not al- District 18: ways. 7, ¶4. Lawson Exh. Majorityf-minority] important districts are provide opportunities for minorities to elect testimony County 15. of Harris Senator Rod- Democracy candidates of their choice. cannot ney Ellis is consistent with the view that groups function at its best when whole Harris separated Hispanics African-Americans and political pro- excluded or from the may political not Majority-minority cess. form coalitions. See people Lawson districts offer (“[T]he ¶ philosophies always rep- whose have candidate of choice been get game. community resented a chance into the will often not be Hispanic districts do not ensure that minorities will candidate of choice of win commu- They viewpoints nity.”) seats. ensure that their will Lichtman, expert erat from El Paso and head of the Redistrict- analysis of Dr. Allan J. Committee, Texas, Anglos asked Democratic incum- concluded for the State represent; bents what areas wanted to Hispanic candi- usually against bloc-voted overlapped, to preferences the extent their In majority-Hispanic districts. in the dates Coleman mediated between incumbents. See categories, a of 21% or mean each of four “overriding objective,” id The committee’s Hispanic candi- Anglo voted for voters fewer however, incumbency protection. Id 5). was at (Table Exh. at See State dates. ¶10. districts, majority For the similarly Ang- concluded Dr. Lichtman Delegation played significant a role in The against usually African-Ameri- los bloc voted determining configuration of Con- the the categories, of a can In each four candidates. districts, gressional developing their own al- Anglo voted for of or voters mean 34% fewer plans presenting plans ternative and those to catego- In all

African-American candidates. ¶3, legislators. Exh. 9. state See Lawson (which legislative included but the ries Congressman As observed: “We Coleman district), a mean of 25% for each one election plans presented drew our own and them to Anglo for African- or fewer voters voted Legislators, the various members of the at 22. Dr. candidates. See id American [Ljegislators Delegation met with in Austin Weber, expert plaintiffs, the an Ronald prefer- to discuss incumbents’ needs and the polarization, some racial or ethnic conceded Delegation definitely The a ences. force legally politi- or that it is “not but concluded process.” in the Id at Plaintiff Exh. 36 27. cally consequential.” surprisingly, Republican incumbents Not process redistricting in the as were active History of Discrimination b. instance, Congressman For Joe Barton well. long, history has a well-documented urged Texas joint redistricting the committees to upon has the of touched many congressmen discrimination protect as as incumbent Hispanics rights of African-Americans and possible. 25. See Plaintiff Exh. 15H at vote, participate register, rule, or to otherwise short, sought a general incumbents process. as the in electoral Devices such the Legislature to influence the to draw districts tax, primary system, poll an all-white that would their chances for reelec- maximize periods time registration restrictive voter Furthermore, Legisla- of tion. members minority of this State’s unfortunate acknowledged role incum- openly ture rights history. States voting See United redistricting process. See Unit- bents 3; (Senate Exh. 17 at 6. The Exh. 1065 at State ed Exh. Committee of States in history 17) the Texas Whole, 8/24/91, of official discrimination at transcript dated process—stretching (statement to Recon- election back Eddie Bernice John- Senator State as struction—led to the inclusion drawn practically “have son: incumbents jurisdiction a under Section 5 covered practically, Not their own districts. Voting Rights (statement Act. to the have.”); 1975 amendments Exh. 23 at 21 Plaintiff jurisdiction, “Well, a covered Since Texas became I Representative think that not Uher: frequently Department of has majority Justice just large congressman but objections against the interposed State Congressional delegation have endorsed with, Exh. its United States subdivisions. See plan that we started basic adhering that we’re still that’s reason majority plan, is because of that basic Incumbents’ Interests Congressional delegation support of the necessarily congress- just one individual case, Congres- historically As has been the support.”). man’s actively involved sional incumbents were Incumbency protection would definition process. Texas Demo- redistricting require minimum not be that incumbents Delegation formed a re- cratic against other. Plan re- began paired each C657 districting work committee which this result. avoid early Exh. flects a successful effort See Lawson late 1989 maps Coleman, ¶4. the various Stip. 52. As shown Congressman Ron a Demo- See 9B, any making up groups incumbent resi- as well as State and individuals just repeatedly along sponsored Legislature. dences fall members Congressman resi- lines. Lamar Smith’s Plaintiff primary Exh. 13D at 1. The Bexar dence lies an inlet in map drawing Congres- software used for (“VTD”) last tabulation district before voter redistricting—REDAPPL—was sional readi- ends at the his ly avaüable on work stations in the redistrict- Congressman Henry boundary northern Legislative offices of Councü. Congressman 20.16 B. Gonzales’ District id. turn residence in lies in the last Gonzales’ The feature of REDAPPL of most interest VTD ends at the before his district southern system’s ability provide is the to racial and boundary County, In District 21. Dallas ethnic data at both the VTD and block level. Congressman Frost’s residence lies a operator REDAPPL software allowed the into of jutting small indentation a Dis- up at work the VTD level and call racial/eth- Congressman Bryant’s trict resi- nic information in addition types to other of just barely of dence lies on other side a population, information voting age such dividing line District 5 between and District location, population, incumbent and street Finally, County, 30. Harris small indenta- names. See TR. at 173. Election 6/29/94 permit Congressman Jack tions Fields’ resi- contest information was at avaüable the VTD Congress- dence to remain in District 8 and level, id., see REDAPPL but did not aüow man Andrews’ to remain in residence District operator multiple to work with elections 25. simultaneously a par- on screen.17 Indices of At least as measured election re- tisanship Index, such prepared as the NCEC sults, experienced great the incumbents suc- Democrats, at a national level the use of redistricting incumbency cess in to assure elections, multiple involved but could protection. Each incumbent member of Con- not be a accessed on REDAPPL screen. See Bustamante, gress—except Albert His- an id. at 175.

panic represented Democrat who The critical feature of REDAPPL Congress is that it 23—was reelected to in 1992. Bus- operator “split” allowed the a VTD tamante was defeated in the 1992 General block-by-block work on a Bonilla, by Henry level. See id. at Hispanic Election an Re- 176. publican. breakdown was Stip. specific avaüable 51. Additional Racial/ethnie on a block level on REDAPPL. See id. at instances incumbent interests will be de- By contrast, no election contest tañed infor- analysis particular Con- infra mation was at gressional avaüable the block level on the Districts. sum, REDAPPL software.18 See id. In RE- 4. Use of Racial Data DAPPL aUowed the user to work with ra- level; data at even the block elec- cial/ethnic interests, As incumbency particular simply tion information was unavaüable at instances in which data racial used through that level REDAPPL. redistricting are hereafter detaüed in dis- cussing Congressional individual Districts Legislature If the intended to allocate vot- However, shapes. and their general some race, ers on the certainly basis of REDAPPL observations about information racial/ethnie provided avaüable, readüy efficient means widely avaüable legislators are appropri- fact, doing so. because the software ate. constantly displayed racial and ethnic data on

Redistricting data were to all anytime available the screen operator an used the Legislature members of the system, and their map staffs a would-be would drawer affir- purposes, 16. For our a VTD is the functional 18.Election information at the block level was equivalent voting precinct. of a all—only through personal available—if at knowledge incumbents 17. The REDAPPL did software not itself contain their staff. TR. at 177-78. 6/29/94 databases, electoral but election information was through comput- available the State’s mainframe er. glance cursory map As even ignore the data. See matively have 6/30/94 Sharman, reveals, prin- as Chris District 30 isolation the district at 81. But TR. technician/map in- computer drawer cipal really only be here in the most can described redistricting, testi- meanderings volved its general terms as too fied: frequent complicated and to detail. See you on this draw problem Thus, when Exh. 33. the remainder of the State data, you computer, it tells District 30 in this discussion move, you Every make time

racial data. opinion exclusively will portion of the focus on You right there the screen. it tabulates Legislature in the intent of the Texas ignore it. can’t drawing Dis- the convoluted boundaries of Id. trict Congressional District 30 According Voting to the Narrative Congression- Describing the boundaries Rights Dis- Act Considerations in Affected easy is no task. Even al District 30 tricts, § 5 sub- attachment the State’s difficulty analyzing the has

State of Texas mission, Legislature agreed that a the Texas extraordinarily oddly-config- of this contours Congressional Dis- “safe” African-American ured, (Map sprawling Appendix See district. County.19 in trict would be drawn Dallas 30). Weiser, expert em- of District Dan Plaintiff Exh. 4C at 1-2. The African-Amer- States, map prepared a ployed the United community a upon ican insisted 50% total and isolating Congressional District 30 in to as- population order breaking it a “core” and no less down into a sure “safe” African-American district segmented portions. See State seven than County. community at 2. The Dallas See id. analysis, Exh. 33. Even under State’s succeeded, as District 30 con- for District 30 accounts the “core” of African- figured under Plan C657 had a total voting age population. the district’s 50% of population American 50.0% a total See id. Hispanic See id. population of 17.1%. is The of the district includes what “core” testimony Dallas, Park, The of District 30 Con- trial Fair generally known as South in Ter- gresswoman Cliff and Pleasant Eddie Bernice Johnson portions of South Oak challenge Dallas. See United v. to C657 Slagle—a previous Grove southeast razas (declaration Paul at 9 of Dr. Rights States Voting under the Constitution and Waddell). district then moves northeast plainly stated Act—is consistent with the splits into a northern and from its core and that the Texas in the Narrative conclusion extremity. id. The west- at 10. western Afri- a safe Legislature intended create incorporate extremity proceeds to much ern County. In Dallas can-American district off before it branches of West Dallas domi- response question about whether a to a portion gath- The southern north and south. redistricting Congres- goal nant existed in Prairie, core” of Grand while ers the “older County, Dallas Johnson— sional Districts in “through mostly portion moves northern redistricting chaired the at time of who Arling- Irving and undeveloped land between on Dis- Senate Subcommittee Airport.” Id. ton, at and into the DFW representative of Dallas was a tricts and extremity portion includes The northern Senate—replied: County to the northeast of Central the district to that had made a commitment Yes. I “particularly as Expressway characterized they have a community, that would Black expert, Dr. land use complex” by the State’s district, had been mandated safe Id. Waddell. Paul Democrats”, American-States Austin appearing be Pluses for man, Newspaper articles statewide ("Minor 4/21/91); States Exh. 1017 during redistricting process United confirm fore County”, Morn ity Dallas Legislature early agreed District Foreseen had view that News, 12/27/90); States Exh. 1038 minority— United County get would a new Dallas that Congress See, May Spell e.g., ("Minority Seat Peril namely African-American—district. 5/5/91). Herald, men”, (“Redistricting Mostly Dallas Times States Exh. 1012 United years, forming expected expressed for a number of and I did voters who desire district____ go minority intend to home without that. to be in the Well, Q: to the Exh. 8B at 231. extent then that we see Plaintiff fingers going ... off in explaining In the boundaries the dis- County, the north—north Dallas trict, Congresswoman Johnson testified that into County, even southern Collin I way as a the district was drawn this result of suppose, talking we are about these tensions—namely competing two that Black migration you areas district was intended be a “safe” African- attempting bring into the dis- American district and the African-American trict; is that correct? population in Dallas had over time A: That is correct. previous dispersed from “core” its location. exchange following particularly infor- sum, Id. at Congresswoman 233-35.

mative: Johnson testified in shape Terrazas that the Q: say deteriorated, you 30—including When what “finger”-like you respect,

do various mean extensions that are com- Mrs. mon Expressway—(cid:127) Johnson? northeast of the Central can be understood aas conscious effort to Well, A: had moved— pick up African-American who voters had out; started to move there were lot of dispersed from the core area.20 up boarded houses. The whole core of When asked about the incum- moving area was out. influence of There had bent Congressmen been a Martin Frost and John deterioration of about 40 to 45 Bryant shape Congress- on the percent to 50 of District certain areas of voters woman in Johnson that year period. a 10 testified her sole focus In addition to in that, drawing looking the district was on large there were a out for number of persons felons, African-American voters: there who were who So, though they could not vote. Q: right. Now, All was anything done in 18, substantially over deteriorated the course of map, the creation of this voting strength. We then at- Johnson, you Mrs. that tell could us tempted popula- to locate where that about, Congressman Bryant to aid tion to. And in attempting shifted to Congressman map Frost? this Or did trail population, that—to trace that we just happen way? moving could see that it was outer and got A: I up many beat so times I because going around. It was into the Grand anything wouldn’t do but out look Prairie area and into the Pleasant Black voters. Grove area. And then there were Id. at 247. principal Johnson—the architect pockets persons here, who had lived 30—proceeded District testify to that in and then this was moved— drawing the district pick she was able to Q: Who in the lived Black core district? choose “performing” African-American district, A: —who in include, lived the core voters leaving she wanted to also in County, the north end of “nonperforming” Dallas African-American voters into County. Collin per- Bryant Those were and Frost.21 See id. at 248. widely acknowledged It was that then-Senator less on the west accomplish side to—to what had authority drawing Johnson they enormous in they felt that needed to do. boundaries of District 30 as she fit: Dep. Reynolds saw at 23. point governor some [A]t the lieutenant made Congressmen Bryant signifi- it clear that he wanted Frost and a Senator Johnson had to Senate, draw her cant respec- district and that of their old as far districts—24 and 5 as concerned, governor tively—removed the lieutenant was to draw the safe African-Ameri- going support to good what she wanted to can seat. As do in Chris Sharman "[A] noted: point portion Dallas. And at it came down core of District 30 inwas Con- district, drawing gressman Bryant's her prior, or the district that she and the other in, working would run portion Congressman prior with accommodat- inwas Frost’s ing Bryant on the east redistricting....” side and Frost more or June 1994 TR. at 3-187. Bryant—wanted the area: testimony “[Five] at 5—John Fred Blair’s Representative they previously rep- wanted voters that had Congress- is consistent with trial in Terrazas resented, just 6, just just just as in that as as expressed view woman Johnson’s everybody Every- in as that had stake it. shape the district can a ease that same previ- as body wanted much of what had locate and select explained an effort to as ously represented possible on in or- both sides voters African-American “performing” political spectrum.” Dep. of com- of the Johnson guarantee the African-American der testified that a more at 82. Johnson further munity African-American seat. a safe majority district compact African-American member from Dallas— Blair—a Texas House in if could have been drawn the Dallas area that District observed the concerns of she did not have address sought to in a manner that we was crafted Dep. of at ISO- incumbents.22 See Johnson communities, up precincts, those pick those 32, 142. thought were stable those areas we opportunity to present an areas that would testimony emphasized in this case Other African-American____ look- [I]n elect an shaping in the the role of incumbents Plan, ing developing Congressional we a Lyon, 30’s bizarre boundaries. Ted thought that we wanted to find those areas a member of the Texas House and former Homeowners were were stable areas. involved in redistrict- Senate very wanted to make important to us. We again in in 1980 and described significant number sure we included general terms the active role of incumbents lump just because those within district drawing District 30: say African-Americans and we have focusing congressmen on the incumbent may have a district that area, the Dallas it became clear almost there is a lot apartments where number immediately fight there would abe on, going thought we we had of movement Bryant, Congressmen Frost and between sure, careful, very drawing very to be hand, Eddie Bern- on the one and Senator create district that lines so that we could Johnson, other, over the Afri- ice per- thought was with a 50 we winnable had previously who can-American voters cent. and 5. Frost [sic] resided Districts Furthermore, Plaintiff Exh. 8D at 108-09. Bryant concerned about and were not directly this effort to testimony linked just his to They these voters. wanted race of shape irregular find areas” with “stable to assure re- enough onto Democrats hold at 109. of the district. See id. trying to Johnson was election. Senator minority voters take and Democratic both ger- testimony in this racial submitted previously what been Districts from had glance starkly rymandering case at first is majority- to 5 in construct a and order explanation for the district’s odds with the satisfy Voting that would black district offered in Ter- severely contorted boundaries arose, course, Rights be- Act. Conflict razas, gerry- not a racial which was course populations and African- Democratic cause mandering prominent exam- case. The most often the same. populations are American by Congress- testimony ple offered no redistricting process became a in this woman Johnson case. fight, fangs political and were holds barred Terrazas, not ac- where she did Unlike out. Congressmen knowledge Frost ¶8. Exh. Lawson determining in the dis- Bryant had a role boundaries, specific im- Lyon about Congresswoman also testified Johnson trict’s incumbency protection on the con- pacts of purposes this case that Dis- testified instance, he attrib- of the district. For portions tours did include some trict 30 in shape “irregular” of District encompassed by her senate district be- uted area fighting be- Prairie in Oak Cliff Grand congressman District cause the incumbent opposition plan much 29. That drew Congresswoman in fact drew a much Exh. Johnson 22. quickly majority abandoned. compact dis- incumbents African-American more III. E. See Plaintiff Part trict in Dallas in her Plan C500. infra. eventually par- tween Frost and Johnson settled to increase the Democratic essentially splitting ty the areas between index in those areas. ¶ Lyon 24 and See id. at Districts Id, words, protection In other in incumbent irregulari- in also attributed some County Dallas involved the allocation of Afri- ty shape in eastern incum- the district’s among can-American voters the districts. bency protection—namely keeping Congress- Again prior in contrast her Terrazas neighborhood Bryant’s East Dallas in man testimony, Congresswoman Johnson de- ¶ id. at District 5.23 See deposition scribed her in this vari- case a ety of nonraeial went factors that into the Apparently, incumbents Democratic drawing of District 30’s boundaries. For quite in keep- Dallas were interested instance, map- she testified that the district newly voters pers put “made an effort to communities of configured Congresswoman districts. John- together interest in this district. We made Congressman son testified that Frost was identify an sup- effort to voters that would “looking [in for voters the urban areas of port major the same kinds of issues in the county] going Dallas that were to vote manner, same notwithstanding their color.” Primary, clearly Democratic he was Dep. of Johnson at 32. Johnson further likely more sure of if be asserted that she and her staff considered Dep. Quite black.” at 129-130. Johnson deciding result certain votes in whom 28,1991 telling August is an letter written to include in District 30: Dunne, then-Senator Johnson John then at a couple We looked of referenda votes Rights the head of the Civil Division at the rapid for the system. Dallas area transit Justice, Department of in which the Senator alsoWe looked at a bond election vote for requested proposed a review Districts independent try- the Dallas school district potentially and their dilutive effect on ing to determine might where there minority community in County. Tarrant interest, more communities of where there para- Plaintiff 6E6. the first support go beyond would be that would letter, graph of this Senator Johnson ex- color the candidate. plains why African-American voters were so fighting attractive to incumbents Dep. over district of Johnson at 144.

boundaries: testimony ostensibly supports Other Con- gresswoman suggestion Johnson’s that “com- elections, primary For approximately 97% munities of put together interest” were of the total votes cast Blacks a report 30. In dated June metroplex Worth area cast Dallas/Fort Geisel, expert state, Dr. Paul for the primary. in the Democratic Because of proclaims represents that District 30 a com- consistency pattern, the of voting this munity of economy, interest that shares “one generally Democratic incumbents seek to transportation one system, one media/com- many possible

include as Blacks as into system munieations higher and one edu- respective Throughout districts. the system.” cational State Exh. 18 at 7. course of the redistricting process, Waddell, the were continuously lines recon- Paul Dr. the United land States’ figured protecting to assist in expert, the Demo- report use in a prepared June cratic incumbents the attempts Worth explain Dallas/Fort the boundaries of by metroplex spreading area the Black District 30 in nonraeial land use terms. Lyon certainly 23. Ted Bryant was split sole source County of Frost and Dallas we support proposition additional for that forcing right in- another district down in- cumbency protection played role a in the bound- pushing between the two of them and them outward, Representative aries of District 30. naturally Grusendorf and so then there were configuration neighborhoods testified that the odd of repre- District 30 that or the one other had protecting Bryant. know, was the result of Frost people that—you sented and there were Dep. of Reynolds, Grusendorf at 41. people they And Carl represented a there were had staff member of the Senate they Subcommittee represent on and that wanted continue to Legislative Redistricting, testified that there was had to out the work lines to do that. a conflict Dep. over the Dallas Reynolds area because at 24-25. fingers” Hispanic population.24 See id. at 5. To First, “arms and most situation, “remedy” additional African- 30 follow both natural Congressional District boundaries, adja- population taken includ- American was land use and commercial districts, thereby increasing areas, Trinity belts, cent total retail industrial population to 50.9%. River, freeway See United corridors. Second, remaining Hispanic population shifted at 8. District 30’s Exh. 1070 States thereby Hispanic new over District encompass within their bound- extremities use, decreasing Hispanic population the total “clus- single-family land but little aries part, Third, id. For its District 18 to 15.3%. See multi-family use.” Id. land ters Hispanic total incorporate District 29 consists 60.6% the district the extremities of office, popula- and 10.2% total African-American use areas that “substantial land areas, industrial, retail, tion. See id. airport land use clearly do not serve when these areas even appreciation precision for the An Id. bridge areas.” a to other residential segregation Hispanies and Afri- which this not, Fourth, upon do district boundaries County can-Americans Harris was carried family analysis, single residential divide close may look at out not be had without detailed neighborhoods, encompass “multi- but fact map of District 18 based African- single family areas and avoid established American distribution Census Id. family neighborhoods.” map block and the of District based on Hispanic population sug- distribution Census nor Dr. Geisel Neither Dr. Waddell Plaintiff 55 and 53. The Legislature partic- block. See gested had these maps highlights these in mind when detail allowed ular “communities of interest” example, “many narrow District drawing boundaries of District 30. While corridors, fingers wings, or that reach out to testimony suggests Fred Blair’s in Terrazas voters, excluding Hispan- enclose black while map preferred to include drawers ic residents.” Richard H. Pildes & Richard apartment-dwellers, an home-dwellers over Niemi, Harms, Expressive G. “Bizarre Dis- Dr. conclu- assertion at odds with Waddell’s ” tricts, Voting Rights: Evaluating sions, Elec- support the record is otherwise void sum, Appearances v. tion-District Shaiv any In both re- land use thesis. After (1993) (herein- Reno, 92 Mich.L.Rev. accurately ports undoubtedly describe the Niemi”). after, 29’s district, “Pildes & District bor- properly post but are more seen as similarly by fingers characterized der descriptions hoc of the boundaries. fact, Hispanies. reaching to enclose out finely so “crafted” that Districts 18 and these districts are exact boundaries one cannot visualize their According Voting to the Narrative n without looking map at least three feet Rights Dis- Act Considerations Affected square.25 tricts, Legislature sought to create a dispersion of various geographic Hispanic in the new Harris Coun- “safe” seat minority Harris 29 as in- communities within ty District well as definitely drawing majori- voting strength an obstacle in in is crease African-American ty-minority for African-Ameri- Afri- district each 18 in order to assure that the Weber, Dr. Ronald Hispanies. cans and As community could continue to can-American at plaintiffs, expert main testified a of its choice.” Plaintiff elect “candidate trial, community dispersed Hispanic is redistricting in “[T]he Exh. 1. Prior to 4C at 116,549 about 10:00 or 11:00 o’clock underpopulated by quadrants in two District was ... and about 5:00 53] Afri- on up [Plaintiff made total people and was 35.1% commu- while the African-American and 42.2% total o’clock” population can-American opinion appendix maps in to the African-American dis- 25. District 18—asafe That severely up Hispanic plurality having roughly an in convoluted trict—ended outline the districts' given explo- surprising (Maps total is Appendix of Districts boundaries. community growth Hispanic Harris of the in 29). sive supra. County II.A. over the 1980's. See concentration, nity legislative process present plan “one we has three centers as approximately [on 10:00 o’clock Plain- to both [sic] as the House and the in the Senate 55], west Legislature. tiff Exh. which is of the if State But this district as concentration, Hispanic one 1:00 at about product we envision it is not a o’clock, another which is African American legislative process, help will we enlist the concentration, finally then 6:00 at about Department of the U.S. of Justice and the and 7:00 o’clock.” TR. 263. This at jurisdiction Voting 6/28/94 courts under the of the n dispersion helps account for the fact that Rights Act. through District 29 cuts the center of Hous- Id. join Hispanic quadrants ton to the two Representative testimony Martinez’s at tri- city 18 snakes around the District Slagle al Terrazas v. is consistent with the capture con- the various African-American analysis offered in the on Narrative the cre- 264; Appendix (Maps at centrations. See id. ation of majority-minority the two districts 29); of Districts 18 and see also Plaintiff County. primary Harris As the architect of (small 34H8, maps). Exhs. 34H9 County, lines Harris Martinez defined stages Congressional In the earliest goals his in redistricting: redistricting process, state Democratic and Again, goal the first was to assure no Republican leaders rallied behind idea retrogression for the 18th creating Hispanic a new safe seat Harris District, insuring that that was maintained County preserving while the safe African- as an African-American district. And American seat in early District 18.26 Also on then, secondly, it a very important was redistricting in the process, Texas House goal Hispanic representative to insure Martinez, member Roman an Hispanic Dem- that we created for the time first a Con- Houston, plan ocrat from announced gressional Hispanic community seat for the drawing the Hispanic new district while Congressman. to elect the first Hispanic maintaining majority-minority District 18 Plaintiff Exh. 8A at “goals” 146. These preserving the “Democratic nature” Legislature. example, took hold For Congressional District 25. See Plaintiff Exh. Reynolds, Carl a staff member of the Senate Representative two Martinez—one of Legislative Subcommittee Redistricting Hispanic members the Texas House actively who involved in County—would major Harris play a role redistricting, observed that an “[t]here was drawing of District as would another understanding that that new district Har- [in Congressional aspirant, then-State Senator County] ris be percent would a—I think a 60 press Gene Green.27 release announc- Hispanic Reyn- or more Dep. district.” plan, promised his Martinez at olds what Hispanic community Houston’s has

long worked for—its own At least two other factors influenced accomplished. My district—will hope be boundary drawing County of the Harris dis- that it will accomplished through First, tricts.28 possible, to the extent Con- Party, 26.The chairman of the Texas Democratic Representative 27. Both Senator Green and Mar- Slagle, Redistricting Bob told the House Com- and, Congressional aspirations tinez had conse- Hispanic Congressional mittee an quently, Hispanic wanted the new district to be could be drawn keeping in Harris while legislative Dep. based around their districts. See District district and 13-14, eventually Martinez 16-18. Green leaving "significant” minority District won the race for the District 29 seat in a bitter population of about See United 40%. States Exh. against longtime City contest Houston Council- Feasible, ("Hispanic House Com- Reyes. man Ben Hears”, Post, 4/2/91). mittee Houston The chair- Republican Party, man of Meyer, the Texas Fred Ellis, Rodney 28. Senator Democrat from Hous- expressed support his for efforts to draw ton, great observed to a that extent "District Hispanic County, calling plans district in Harris “ it," shaped by feasible, was ‘possible, districts around Lawson responsi- for such a district ” ¶ 17, (“His- Exh. 7 at in ble fair.' United because it was assumed States Exh. 1061 panic Congressional County District for Harris District 18 would an continue to be African- News, Proposed”, 3/24/91). Morning Dallas majority American district and because incum- necessary to it became district—Congres- tinez testified Mike Andrews’ gressman level, in kept operate order to to intact at the Census block be District 25—was sional upon of Martinez at 21. Dep. agreed Hispanic percent- See 61% Democratic. reach the Martin, sum, of the Texas Director age. Executive of certain Ed See id. the inclusion suggestion Party, testified that a precincts Democratic in Anglo District 29 necessitated Washington that Dis- Craig by Congressman is, neces- operating at block level—that shape reconfigured based on 18 be trict Hispanic sarily splitting precincts—to find majority Senate District of target percentage.31 See voters to meet it unacceptable would have “because 18 was id. 25.”29 large chunk out of District taken a splitting of to The effect of dozens VTD’s ¶15, Congressional Dis- 18. Exh. Lawson Districts 18 and 29 was electoral create redistricting in spared trict 25 was not it nightmare. Harris estimated that however, eventually popu- lost as it process, precincts its of must increase number Coun- 18 southern Harris lation to District 1,225 the new Con- 672 to to accommodate popu- thereby necessitating additional ty gressional Polling places, ballot boundaries. southwest, area, Baytown from the lation forms, employees of and the number election Ship Channel. See and north of the 6/30/94 multiplied. correspondingly Voters were TR. at 445. precinct align- into new and unfamiliar thrust desire of Sena- factor was the The second ments, populations as as 20 a few with low to draw tor Gene Green voters.32 run, namely one he district which could of his Senate district included as much which 7. District Dep. of Martinez at 22. possible. See not en- surprisingly, Green was Not Senator Hispanic pop- growth in the The enormous map tirely influencing the draw- successful in Texas—particularly Texas— ulation in South instance, pres- ing. an alternative to the For Hispanic new seat would assured that a configuration of 29 would have District ent Plaintiff in the Texas area. See drawn South 29 around the northeast brought District According to the Narrative Exh. 4C 5. County. See State portion Harris Voting Rights Act Considerations Affected per- included areas at 4. This alternative Districts, the South construction of to Senator Green. as more favorable ceived concerning major problems posed no per Representative Martinez’s As See id. adjustment strength or minority voting major wishes, two the downtown links the numbers/pereentages because population 29 in its final form.30 quadrants of District throughout heavy Hispanic concentration 28 as region. at 5-6. District See id. including his Green’s insistence Senator to County south runs from Bexar constructed Anglo precincts in District primarily “home” is 60.4% His- Zapata Starr and Counties diluting Hispanic 29 had the effect African- panic population and 8.5% total See percentage of the district. Mar- American.33 Representative Dep. at 28. of Martinez 29. Senator 30. At least one trict bent absence the size of Exh. 7 at 18. active in protect the House and majority-minority ^[13] district go drawing around could have Congressman all incumbents of an Andrews’ redistricting. go ¶ Districts it.” Lawson Exh. Ellis through population added to 21 votes in the observer, Martin, been the similarly districts, Craig Washington 18 and Downtown See id. district, Senate both Ed starting point testified district.” Lawson Senate parties, "the get bring ¶ only way 76 votes noted draw "[i]n was not other for one up that, Dis- two 31. As Carl jeopardized VTD no Dep. ceive proposed east-west racial information id. if turnout ent north-south 15 and 27 in South A In such election information at at 35. that the split, Reynolds objection was Reynolds micro-precincts, a voter by the secrecy 50% configuration. redistricting at 34. Unlike election is available at this new Texas resulted configurations for Districts testified, or below. precinct his or her ballot Justice the block level. once software lines, Department United States in their precinct or might per- level. See especially provides data, pres- was Tejeda, Frank much portions Then-Senator Vice-Chair of ter—had in common with the Congressional in the Senate Subcommittee on San Antonio District 28. See id. Districts, responsible primarily for the Finally, Tejeda Congressman observed development of the South districts represents District constituted

generally drawing for particular and in of many communities of interest. The district 5; new id. at 28th District. See LULAC composed primarily of is low to middle in- Tejeda Congressman now at As come, collar, working blue class families. in in concedes his affidavit submitted this See id. at 2. Much of the involved case, attempted to he draw district which agriculture in and related industries. See id. potential candidacy. would facilitate his See very large The district also has a veteran end, Tejeda Exh. 6 8. To LULAC at population approximately 10%. See id. at County included south Bexar and much of 3. in east San Antonio District 28—both areas represented

which he had in the Texas Sen- Congressional 8. Other Districts ate. See id. Many the remaining challenged districts plaintiffs troubling share a character- Tejeda Congressman also testified he istic: counties appear within the district attempted comply and his staff with the split County on racial lines. Lubbock is a Congression- wishes of the Texas Democratic prime example among of this trait these dis- delegation drawing al districts in South part tricts. County While the Lubbock example, Texas. id. at 5. For See Con- split Congressional that was into District gressman Kika De La Garza insisted that 13—occupied by Sarpalius— Democrat Bill Hidalgo County not be divided between dis- tricts, contained 77.4% African-American and His- Congressman Solomon Ortiz “let panic population, part split Republi- into he be known that did not want either Larry can Combest’s District 19 County contained split.” Cameron or Nueces at Id. only Hispanic 19.2% African-American and up split None of these counties ended population. See Plaintiff Exh. 36H. During redistricting plan. Keeping final these coun- the Texas on meant, however, August Senate floor debate ties whole that Jim Wells day passed by Plan C657 was Kleberg County—apparently Senate, Johnson, then-Senator Eddie- politically powerful—would less Bernice eventually be Chair of the Congressional Subcommittee on split. splits See id. at 9. As for the Districts, succinctly explained split Guadalupe Tejeda County, maintained he County: Lubbock had no reason to believe the cuts were made anything political other than reasons.34 I’m referring BIVINS: But to the 19th and the 13th specif- districts Tejeda Nick Dauster worked Senator ically pointing out that there split during Congressional redistricting the 1991 specifically— counties and person was the lead Senate staff Yes, I you JOHNSON: can tell why Lub- South Texas redistricting. split. bock is It splits to remove that explained LULAC Exh. at 5. He community Black into a district where 28 needed additional impact. can have more suggested “it was that we include Democratic United States Exh. 1092 at 21. in Guadalupe communities and Comal Coun- ties.” Id. at 15. These communities were Midland and Ector Counties raise the heavily minority, but—according County, to Daus- part same issue. Ector 9; Exh. 1065 at Hispanic TR. at 3-169. This popula- 6/29/94 23.4% African-American and certainly influenced—perhaps dictated-—the Similarly, tion. Plaintiff Exh. 36H 4. configuration north-south of District 28. part County split of Comal into District 28 contained 62.1% African-American Guadalupe County While split into Hispanic population, portion put but the District 28 contained combined 52.3% African- only Smith’s district was African-Ameri- 10.6% Hispanic population, portion American and Hispanic population. can and See id. 21—represented by Republican slit into District Congressman Lamar Smith—contained

1327 Chapman’s split into Jim part Democrat Dis- split into former Democratic Con- county only 28 District 1 13.2% African-Ameri- gressman Albert Bustamante’s trict contained His- Hispanic population. African-American and 72.1% can and See Plaintiff contained part Republi- panic population, while the Exh. 36H. only 21.2%African- District 19 contained can County, part Texas: The Montgomery 2. population. See Hispanic

American and County split was Montgomery that into neighboring In Midland Plaintiff Exh. 36H. 2 District contained 40.9% African-American county split into County, part of the the population, part split the Hispanic and while District 23 76.5% contained 8—represented Republican into District Hispanic population; and African-American only Fields—contained 8.1% African- Jack split less part into District 19 contained the Hispanic population. American and See id. Hispanic and 17% African-American than County, part the 3. Waller Texas: While (16.2%); split part the into and County split that was into Demo- of Waller District 21 con- Republican Lamar Smith’s Laughlin’s 14 Greg crat District contained only His- African-American and tained 10.9% Hispanic popu- and 56.9% African-American id. panic population. See lation, county part the allocated the split County explaining the Midland only District 8.6% African-Amer- 8 contained August during floor debate on then-Sena- Hispanic population. ican See id. and Congres- “the tor maintained that Johnson [i.e., Congressional Delegation] sionals County, part Texas: The Brazos ought go minority population feel that that County split Brazos was into Democrat that minority district and that’s where into that Bryant’s 5 contained 71.7% Af- John District go, there and minorities out wanna those population, Hispanic and rican-American why they put them that’s reason into part split Dis- while (tape at 1 United States 1092 there.” only trict 8 15.3% African-Ameri- contained 2). testimony explain- Johnson’s Terrazas Hispanic population. See id. can County emphasized split the Midland County, Texas: 5. Brazoria While responding really were that district lines County split was part Brazoria that into to the desire of minorities to be District African-Ameri- District contained 32.0% 23: Hispanic split population, part can and input made sure we had the minorities’ We DeLay’s Tom District 22 Republican into these areas. I have comments heard only contained 22.8% Midland, somebody have what about Population. Hispanic See id. you. responding to minorities. We County, part 6. Hunt Texas: While They They places. wanted be certain into split of Hunt District contained free, me, always feel tell didn’t Hispanic popu- 20.4% African-American else, anyone they felt that to but even say lation, county split part of the into Demo- responsive me. And we were free tell District 4 contained Ralph crat Hall's to them. Hispanic popula- 8.0% African-American Plaintiff Exh. 8B at id. tion. See generally, Congresswoman Speaking more County, part of Gregg Texas: The county splits along mi- Johnson testified into Gregg County split was District nority in Plan not accidental. lines C657 are and His- 32.2% African-American contained county Dep. at 97. These of Johnson part split into panic population, while the urgings mi- splits—whether reflecting only 17.8% African- District contained both—occur norities or incumbents Hispanic population. See id. American and throughout challenged districts: County, Texas: While County, 8. Denton 1.Nacogdoches Texas: While split into Bill County that was Nacogdoches County of Denton part of 22.0% Afri- Sarpalius’ District 13 contained split Con- into Democrat Charles Wilson’s population, Hispanic gressional 52.5% Afri- can-American contained Barton’s Dis- part split Republican into Joe Hispanic population, can-American and Hispanic Hall’s District con- tained 80.2% African-American and trict 6 and Democrat only population, part 10.0% and 9.2% African-Ameri- the Fort tained while of Bend Hispanic population respectively. County split only can and into District contained See id. popula- Hispanic 29% African-American and See id. tion. County, part Texas: While the Collin County split Congres- of that into Collin was split Another sort of different merits sional African- District contained 57.4% mention, of specifically splitting city the the population, Hispanic part and the American Amarillo, of which lies in both Potter and split District 4 contained 17.2% African- into County Randall Randall and Counties. its Hispanic population American and the and portion Republi- of were Amarillo included part split Republican District into Sam Hall’s Larry can Combest’s District while Pot- only 3 contained 7.7% African-American and County city ter and share of its the sent Hispanic population. See id. Sarpalius’ Democrat Bill District 13. Dur- County, part Texas: The day Smith debate on the the Senate floor on County split plan’s Smith into District 5 contained passage, the Senator ex- Johnson Hispanic popu- and plained 64.0% African-American split response the of Amarillo as a lation, part split the County while of Smith minority the demands of the communities in only into District African- city: contained 13.2% the population. Hispanic

American and id. popu- SIBLEY: You mentioned the Black County, part 11. Ellis Texas: While lation of ah Amarillo was moved into the the County split of Ellis was into Democrat 13th For District. what Martin Frost’s purpose? District contained 29.0% Hispanic population, and me, direct quote JOHNSON: Their part split only the into District 6 contained they was that [sic] would rather be in Hispanic popu- 10.8% African-American and a Representative Potter and have lation. id. they could relate best and the—the County, respect Randall,

12. McCulloch Texas: to the other one in While part County they split McCulloch felt was into that with the two the various Chet populations Democrat Edwards’ District 11 con- could communicate well and Hispanic tained good 30.3% African-American and had two team members to look population, part county split of the after their into interests. Republican Lamar Smith’s District 21 con- 22; United States Exh. 1092 at Dep. see also only tained 13.1%African-American and His- of Johnson at 243.

panic population. See id. Expert Testimony D. County,

13. Williamson Texas: While part County split Williamson that was portion opinion This provides a brief into District 14 contained 33.7% African- summary of the conclusions of most of the Hispanic population, part American and experts by employed parties. Repeating split into District 21 contained summarizing employed methodology only Hispanic 15.5% African-American and by experts avoided in the interest of population. See id. brevity. References to the voluminous re- ports experts point submitted will County, 14. Tom Green Texas: While the interested right reader in the direction. part County of Tom split Green into Demo- crat Charles Stenholm’s District 17 contained Dr. plaintiffs’ Ronald Weber was the main 44.6% Hispanic popu- African-American and expert only witness expert to testi- lation, part split into District 21 con- fy trial. Dr. following Weber made the tained 13.1%African-American His- report: conclusions in his race over- panic population. See id. riding factor in drawing lines Bend County, districts; Fort Texas: Plan C657 violates Fort Bend split districting that was into traditional creating criteria noncompaet Mike Democrat Andrews’ 25 con- splitting. districts as well as experts municipalities; other for the state submitted Two number 35 counties 18, 20, 28, “overly reports. Dr. and 30 Chandler Davidson discussed districts assuring standpoint of history voting from the of African-American safe” African- rights candidate of choice of of a in Texas. See State 17. He election Hispanic Plaintiff polarization voters. See “in American or concluded that racial the so- Finally, Dr. Weber concluded ciological Exh. 36. sense” still exists in Texas and that plans, districting analysis alternative actually polarization such will increase if the developed he for including C676 which majority-minority Plan number of districts de- at litigation.35 See 30. id. 87. Paul See id. at Dr. Geisel creases. profile provided demographic of detailed compact- as Dr. conclusions to Weber’s 18, 29, 30. Exh. 18. Districts and See State of the districts merit ness “eyeball” ap- Employing an elaboration. Lawson defendant-intervenors submit- compactness, Dr. concludes proach to Weber Murray. report ted of Dr. Richard See 4, 9,12,14,15,16,18, 5, 6, 8, that Districts Murray Exh. 26. Dr. reviewed the Lawson 23, 24, 25, 28, and 30 are not Congressional redistricting history of in Har- Next, employing compact. id. at 10. See County, focusing especially ris on the 1991 compactness, quantitative measures of three county. redistricting of the id. at 1. Dr. See compact- compactness, perimeter dispersion Murray observed that various factors influ- ness, compactness, Dr. Weber and Legislature designing in enced the Districts districts—3, 4, 6,14, that ten of the observes to improve 18 and 29: clear commitment 18, 21, 23, 25, 29, in the and 30—score lowest opportunities representational for His- category compactness on one of the three panics; personal of ambitions certain 11; id. see Pildes & measures. See at also County delegation; of Harris members (1993) (as- 549-50, Niemi, at 553-59 supra incumbents; politics; protection party of sessing quantitative of each measure worth interests; class of the preservation 18th inquiry). Shaw-type in seat; majority an and together. as the main keeping neighborhoods Dr. Allan J. Lichtman served certain See report His expert the State of Texas. id. 17-18. First, major Dr. conclusions. offers three sub- The LULAC defendant-intervenors Plan “substan- Lichtman concludes that C657 Dr. report of Robert Brischetto. mitted tially protects of both the Demo- incumbents Brischetto’s re- See Exh. 19. Dr. LULAC Republican parties.” State Exh. cratic and plan port Dr. Weber’s alternative evaluates Second, 14 at 6. in the areas elections against it “discriminates concludes that majority-minority state created

which the Bris- Hispanic id. at 16. Dr. voters.” See by racially polar- districts are characterized plan at- suggests that the alternative ehetto voting Anglos and minorities. ized between “crack,” tempts “pack,” and “stack” suggests Finally, Dr. Lichtman id. at 4. See minority in South Texas. id. populations plans proposed by the three alternative C676, Finally, the States submitted Plan Senator United plaintiffs—Dr. Weber’s C500, reports experts. four Dr. Paul Waddell of original Plan Ow- Johnson’s uses as related analysis land conducted Plan C606—are deficient ens-Pate legislative goal of to the boundaries they “fall short of the well Exh. 1070. Dr. J. incumbents, United both Democrats and States protecting motivations effectively Morgan Kousser examined the Republicans,” reduce id. at redistricting efforts recent for minorities to elect candi- opportunities (Plan United Texas. See States Plaintiff Exh. dates choice. See efforts, (Owens-Pate redistricting Dr. C676); reviewing Plan Plaintiff Exh. 33 C500). (Plan essentially concludes:36 C606); Kousser Plaintiff Exh. districting before him. pro- view of the "evidence" Dr. Kousser’s Furthermore, An of the alternative overview inquiry provided part supra. E. was limited posals Dr. Kousser's is partially ex- least "other motives at whether fully IV of out 36. As will be set plain why drawn where the lines ... were disagrees strongly opinion infra, the court It there are instances tricts in each of I is conceivable those. What tried to do counties, splits which a create a district one is as few desire do between I explana- group got point racial is the basically you or ethnic down to where shape legislative tion boundaries. you for the to do some have because have one conclusively considerations; shows that Tex- person, evidence one vote but basi- as in not such an instance. cally important things 1991 is one of the most I operator is I told computer, did of the Handley Id. at Lisa evaluated the 53. Dr. you put I “I do said: not want on the Plan C657 in terms of districts under make-up any screen the racial geographic compactness and concluded that building going blocks we use.” “reasonably plan compact because a large portion composed districts are Although TR. at 133. he did not 6/28/94 state, county, whole follow counties and VTD’s, split any want to Dr. Weber testified city boundaries.”37 United States Exh. 1067 eventually one-person, that he had to for one- Lastly, at 5. Charles Dr. Cotrell summarizes vote id. considerations. See § objections Texas in since the state be- Pate, William Owens and A.J. two con- jurisdiction came a covered and considers Texas, presented cerned citizens of backdrop light pres- in this historical of the plan—eventually denominated C606—to the configuration. ent district See United States Redistricting Texas House Committee at Exh. 1065. hearings in Austin. Plaintiff Exh. See Districting E. Other Plans plan—entitled Proposal Their “A Modest Redistricting Fair in the 1990’s”— districting plans

Three alternative received a new creates urban African-American seat litigation in considerable attention this and Dallas, in possibility “with the creating briefly will The therefore be described. first impact new rural Black district.” Id. Weber, at 11. plaintiffs’ was Dr. authored the plan The Owens-Pate witness, also creates two new expert part main report. as of his seats, Hispanic in one the Houston area and According Plaintiff Exh. 35. Dr. to Web- along additional seat the er, border with a Plan C676 allows two African-American population base Laredo. See id. at 3. County districts—one each Dallas They plan believe their in “compact results Hispanic six County; Harris districts—one basically equal population, districts of Texas, which far County, South one in El Paso unifies economic/geo- communities similar County, two in Bexar one in South Texas graphic interests” as well as corrects for with “major center,” Nueces as its underrepresentation of ethnic and racial mi- Texas; and one in southwest rural one See id. norities. at 11. County “subject district in Harris to substan- tial Hispanic African-American and influ- Senator plan—denominated Johnson’s ence.” Exh. Plaintiff 36 at 31. Each of May C500—was first released in 1991 and these majority-minority districts “[is] also de- great drew a deal of reaction from around signed compact compa- be more than the Dep. the state. See of Johnson at 51. While rable in the plan.” districts current state Id. minority object, voters did not certain incum- at 32. bents—especially Congressman Martin Dr. principles Weber described he fol- upset. Frost—were C500, See id. Under developing lowed in Plan C767: Congressman Frost’s residence was not in

I principle tried to follow the but was included Senator John- metropolitan split counties would proposed son’s African-American District 30. could, they little as recognizing, but plan, of See id. at 52. Under the five other course, you have to construct whole dis- congressmen would have been thrown into literally were" or whether race was regard 37. At least with to Districts shapes. reason for suggestion See United States that these districts are “com- IV, pact” 1071 at 1. In we any elaborate on our under reasonable definition of the disagreement implicitly proposition flatly reject. narrow view of term is a we See IV. A. a Shaw claim. 1.-2. infra. they currently they split along counties and cities racial than the ones other districts Exh. 1036 lines achieve balance.38 United States represent. (“Frost, Dis- Aides Assail New House Bryant To it is evaluate these contentions 5/13/91). News, Plan”, Morning Dallas trict necessary of a first review criteria impressed with C500: Dr. was Weber weigh claim and to Shaw some State’s very first really I was amazed analyze separate We defenses. then general public

plan was released to ly voting rights and the districts State’s if, legislature all my plan that the mind the Congressional Districts that are chal other being equal, they if had to things other pertinent lenged plaintiffs. is they adopted have quickly, rush could in each instance what role race sues are plan had a fairer than would have played formulation of the districts legislature adopted. plan the resulting boundaries whether districts’ sufficiently explainable on other than ra TR. at 129. 6/28/94 Finally, grounds. consider cial we whether compelling justification the state had AND IV. FACTUAL FINDINGS segregate voters race. LEGAL CONCLUSIONS way in which the Court described jurisdiction pursuant has to 28 This court protection equal claim the nature both Having §§ consid- U.S.C. squarely in places Shaw the traditional mode evidence, of law the the memoranda ered analysis concerning of constitutional racial parties, stipulations of by the the submitted classifications and reflects the Court’s sensi conclusions, fact, findings and proposed the districting tivity legislative process. to the arguments, this court and counsel’s oral explain, we do not For reasons that shall we following con- findings of fact and makes the recog agree with narrow that Shaw the view law, pursuant to clusions of Fed.R.Civ.P. equal protection an claim in such nizes 52(a). law which be Any conclusion of should gerryman racial circumstances of extreme hereby finding of fact as construed any dering hardly that claim will ever such finding adopted Any of fact that as such. contrary, provable. the the Court be On a conclusion law is should construed as of an distinguished Shaw on obvious itself hereby adopted as such. truly ground from the narrow constitutional gerrymandering adopted in partisan of claim that v. contend under Shaw Plaintiffs 109, Bandemer, 118-27, Davis v. 478 U.S. —Reno, 2816, -, 125 113 S.Ct. U.S. 2797, 2802-07, L.Ed.2d 85 106 S.Ct. 92 (1993) Equal and the Protection L.Ed.2d 511 (1986): the racial classifications are accorded Clause, Congression six of State’s all but the Shaw, scrutiny. constitutional strictest They illegally al districts are constituted. — at -, 113 at 2828. U.S. S.Ct. 29, 18, allege that Districts then, What, identify as extraordinarily shapes does Shaw 30 their odd owed protection in the equal segregate minority the characteristics to an voters. intent 28, districting process? districts, The Court together legislative will These accepted registered voters occasionally as the the claim be referred to hereinafter “redistricting legislation that Carolina “voting rights districts.” Other districts North its extremely irregular on face that state, according plaintiffs, is so to the only as rationally an effort segregation can be viewed products intentional because By majority de district. non-African American and the Lawson Intervenors 38. Both the state challenged standing plaintiffs of the ciding appellants have for constitu stated a claim constitutionality question relief, inferentially they decided tional the Court than in which reside. other those Shaw, districts standing to sue. See had constitutional Shaw, clearly hy argument seems refuted Their remand, U.S. at -, 2821. On - 113 S.Ct. at plaintiffs, Durham five residents of in which Hunt, v. 861 three-judge court in Shaw Carolina, makeup County, challenged North (E.D.N.C.1994), F.Supp. also concluded 408 Congres- majority two agree plaintiffs standing. with that We had plaintiffs resid- in the state. sional districts reasoning and conclusion. court’s adjoining, those an ed one of districts 1332 purposes voting, fying at -, for segregate the races citizens race. See id. 113 regard districting traditional S.Ct. at 2826.

without sufficiently compelling principles and without Having connected the constitutional claim at -, justification” Id. is unconstitutional. recognized in to its unbroken Shaw line 113 S.Ct. at 2824. jurisprudence, Fourteenth Amendment voting rights Court drew on two cases and a purpose of the The central Four hypothetical example to illustrate how to rec prevent teenth Amendment “is states ognize a gerrymander. racial v. Gomillion purposefully discriminating between in 339, 125, Lightfoot, 364 81 S.Ct. U.S. (citing on the of race.” dividuals basis Id. (1960), represents “excep L.Ed.2d 110 Davis, 229, Washington v. 426 U.S. proof tional ease” in which of intentional (1976)). L.Ed.2d S.Ct. —Shaw, easy. classification is U.S. Drawing on Fourteenth traditional Amend -, Gomillion, U.S. at cases, precedent ment in racial the Court opinion Court illustrated its with a map pointed benign out that or remedial racial formerly rectangular shape of Tuskegee, suspect malign classifications as are as dis Alabama, disfigured by as it had been among crimination and that the vices of ra municipal boundary “uncouth 28-sided” line tendency “stig cial classifications is their that allegedly city out of all fenced limits matize reason individuals of their mem but four locality’s or five of the African- bership in group a racial and to incite racial obvious, Similarly American citizens. Shaw hostility.” (citing Id. Richmond v. J.A Cro observed, a case in “would be which a State Co., 493, 109 son 488 U.S. S.Ct. dispersed minority concentrated (1989) (plurality opinion)). L.Ed.2d 854 single in a by disregarding traditional legislation expressly distinguishes Staté that- districting principles such compactness, among citizens because race must be contiguity, respect political subdivi narrowly tailored to further a compelling at -, sions.” Id. 113 S.Ct. at 2827. governmental Wygant interest. See v. Jack Ed., 267, 277-78, son Bd. 476 U.S. 106 Just as Gomillion demonstrates 1842, 1848-49, (1986) S.Ct. 90 L.Ed.2d 260 irregularly shaped that districts can be evi (plurality opinion). analytical These princi purpose dence of segregate or intent to vot apply legislation ples not that makes by race, ers in Supreme so a later case the explicit racial distinctions but also to those Court segregation held that de alone is facto that, although race-neutral, “rare” statutes if districting insufficient other criteria contra- “ ‘unexplainable on their grounds face on diet discriminatory purpose. Wright v. —Shaw, than other race.’” See U.S. at 52, Rockefeller, 603, 376 U.S. 84 S.Ct. 11 -, (quoting Arlington S.Ct. at 2825 (1964). Wright, L.Ed.2d 512 New York Heights Metropolitan v. Housing Develop state had City redistrieted the New York Corp., 555, ment U.S. S.Ct. area to four in Congress accommodate seats 564, (1977)); 50 L.Ed.2d 450 see also Yick rather than previously the six that had exist 356, Hopkins, 373-74, v.Wo 118 U.S. 6 S.Ct. drawn, ed. As the district lines were one (1886). 1072-73, 30 L.Ed. 220 white, predominantly district was one was agreed plaintiff The Court “non-white,” with the predominantly voters’ and the others redistricting assertion that if legislation populations. is so had minority sizable Plaintiffs bizarre on its ‘unexplainable [it] face “that is contended that the minorities had been grounds race,’ on packed other than it demands the into one district violation of Gomil scrutiny give same close Court, that we however, other lion. Supreme state accept classify Shaw, laws that — citizens race.” ed the findings three-judge fact of the panel at ---, U.S. 113 S.Ct. at that racially 2824-25. intent to discriminate had not voting rights The Court cited sup proven. cases to been Wright observed that because port established, that conclusion. Once geographical concentration of non said, gerrymander Court a racial should not white voters in area county, one it less scrutiny Equal receive under Protec would have been to “fix difficult districts so Clause legislation tion than other state as to anything equal classi have like an division of general Texas asserts two defenses among districts.” Id. these voters that, accepted, if would undermine essential at 606. at 84 S.Ct. U.S. of uncon premises behind Shaw’s definition of a the limits Wright aptly illustrates redistricting. stitutional race-conscious Supreme Court claim. Both Shaw First, the its State asserts that districts can make three-judge Wright court decisions unconstitutionally shape not be bizarre in racially although were two that there plain not Texas does have and never has because districts, their borders distinct principles redistricting traditional such used configura- irregular; highly not boundaries, geographical contigu natural as pre- from the logically was traceable tion conformity ity, compactness, political boundaries; existing each district district Second, the State asserts that subdivisions. contiguous; and reasonably compact irregular shapes districts’ were caused indeed, minority split up to have any racial of voters classification area geographic primarily that resided one Congressional delega instance but accomplish. have difficult to been would demands, by state govern tion’s acceded to 605-06; 56-58, Wright v. 84 S.Ct. at ment, id. that all incumbent of Rockefeller, F.Supp. 466-68 protected. ficeholders be (S.D.N.Y.1962). true no It is that Texas has constitutional statutory creating legisla- constraints represent Wright and Gomillion However, portrait districts. of redis- tive potential poles of a Shaw claim.39 the two tricting history Texas, painted by as Gomillion, bizarrely appears it From state, is cur- inaccurate. From State’s cre shaped whose boundaries were districts generations perspective, rent successive racially segregating purpose ated legislators tying have dis- eschewed Court’s are unconstitutional. The voters pesky geography, constraints like tricts example boundaries, condemns dis hypothetical likewise compactness, political subdivision together dispersed minori bring tricts contiguity. Certainly, this state’s vast ty population regard without traditional undoubtedly has to fit layout made difficult majority-minority districting If a perfectly criteria. districts within sin- objective reasonably regions. dis gle geographic district adheres But since however, factors, no tricting Wright, assigning Congres- one principle at least major exists; city has fol- type seat to each been invidious discrimination sional lowed, apart satisfying geographical justified on its own terms obvious community at Lawson Exh. 26 race.40 interests. See the incidental factor of from claim, describing ously rather than dis do not constructed districts foster thus Shaw we racially stereotyping, pel and see suggest motivated racial consciousness mean to that other Shaw, - U.S. at ---, procedures longer 113 S.Ct. at 2827- districting are election no or 32, stated, districting expressly traditional constitutionally protected. the relates to As Shaw minority principles. voters remains intentional dilution under Fourteenth Amend- unconstitutional the majority had to min- The Shaw remand court’s 755, Regester, 765- v. 412 U.S. ment. See White appearance of imize Shaw's concern with 2332, 2339-40, 66, 314 93 37 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. By ac- for obvious reasons. all racial districts counts, (1973). proscribes The Fifteenth Amendment majority-minority dis- North Carolina's right outright abridgement of denial or Texas, tricts, among most like are those vote. survive the nation. If those districts distorted in may scrutiny, then Shaw constitutional close respect two-judge majority on 40. With due meaningless exercise. Shaw, (E.D.N.C. F.Supp. remand of majority tra- 1994), misshapen discounted disagree strongly The remand in Shaw we that the (1) districting principles an ele- racially both as ditional constructed district boundaries of (2) protection as equal violation and merely prima of a constitutional ment evidence facie compare by narrow which to part As we a standard not of its essence. violation and above, racially gerry- tailoring to be upon the of a district found pointed reliance out Shaw's Gomillion, in on the error dispersed We have commented among mandered. contrast the Court’s majority’s remand Wright of the Shaw minority hypothetical, this the first and refute Moreover, part of analysis. error in the second their reading. Supreme The Court’s insis matter, n. 55. rationale is discussed appearances because tortu tence that do infra 2321, 8, 9, in 2331 n. of Harris districts 753 n. S.Ct. (maps 1971). (1973). L.Ed.2d 298 points to one Texas important that It is to realize as enacted in past in a configured district that was many protection incumbent Congres- manner. That highly irregular sabotaged boundaries traditional redistrict- spanned ungainly which sional District they routinely ing principles as divided coun- running corridor from Dallas rural and urban ties, cities, neighborhoods, regions.41 years many to Houston and was held for maintaining winning sake of or For the seats Representative “Tiger” Teague. excep- The Representatives, Congress- in the House of dis- tion—a mild deviation traditional Congressmen men or would-be shed hostile tricting principles compared when to the potential groups opponents fencing that, prove rule 1991 districts—seems them out their districts. See TR. 6/30/94 intentionally generally, not Texas has disre- (construction 18); at 4-46 of District Plaintiff garded districting criteria. A traditional (construction 29). Exh. 15 at 5 of District maps showing glance organization Legislature obligingly carved out dis- in 1980 of Texas’ districts re- incumbents, apparent supporters tricts of recognizes argument futes the State’s incumbents, suggested as and then redistricting no state interest traditional appendages to connect resi- .added principles. (map Plaintiff Exh. 28A supra. dences those districts. See III.C.3. C001). Plan final result seems not one in which the fundamentally, More the State de people representatives, select their but protection scribes as a “state in incumbent representatives which have selected the redistricting sufficiently terest” in ex people.42 plains irregular Congressional otherwise dis event, any But in the State’s realiza again trict boundaries. is tension be There goal may fully tion of its undo the tradi tween the state’s contention the facts of districting principles tional uses thing, this case. one For no more than two Shaw as a benchmark. Shaw nowhere refers to Congressmen or three incumbent Texas protection incumbent as a traditional district seriously jeopardized by Legislature cre acknowledges criterion. Shaw that com ating minority Additionally, more districts. pactness, contiguity, political respect sub never before have districts on a been drawn divisions, criteria—though and like not con block-by-bloek neighborhood- or town- stitutionally required—are “objective fac splitting perceived to corral level voters may disprove gerrymander tors” that a racial sympathetic op to incumbents or to exclude —Shaw, at -, claim. See ponents U.S. 113 S.Ct. of the incumbents. form of This extent, To implicitly at 2827. protection incumbent Shaw reaf much different important degree generalized, legitimate, firms the interconnection of com from the goal munity and seniority protection geography repre of incumbent and and effective government previously recognized by drawing Supreme Court. sentative its distinc See, Weiser, 783, e.g., 791, v. districting White tion between U.S. those ideal criteria 2352-53, 93 S.Ct. gerrymander ignores 37 L.Ed.2d 335 and a racial that (1973); Gaffney Cummings, v. 412 U.S. While important them.43 these criteria are 43.Traditional, redistricting split objective districting 41. in 1980 ten criteria are a counties. those See Plaintiff ten "representative” Of truly single concomitant counties, Harris, Dallas, split and were Bexar districting plans. Organized political member population county because the exceeded activity place effectively neigh- takes most within required single persons the number of for a dis- communities; scale, larger borhoods and on a Thirty-four split trict. for counties were organizing may these units evolve into media Harris, Dallas, plan. Only the current See id. geographic regions. markets and When natural Bexar, Travis, Tarrant, split and El were Paso political geographic and boundaries are arbi- because the of those exceed- counties cut, trarily organizations the influence of local is persons required single ed the a number seriously the civic diminished. After and veter- district. unions, groups, ans labor chambers of com- merce, religious congregations, and school ¶ 42. See Plaintiff Exh. at 6 establish, destroy, themselves, or re- they are to Constitution—to critical and calculus; logi- that have no organize by expansion districts contraction Shaw’s its by except dictated race those cal boundaries political freely rec- subdivisions ... [W]e by and without voters within perceived are ognize importance the breadth and of this solely to afford racial existing as the districts aspect political power. of the state’s To representation.44 into is power exalt this an absolute to the reach rule of misconceive of incumbent The talismanic status decisions____ court’s protection argument in the somewhat State’s v. Alabama’s defense Gomillion resembles at Frank- Id. 81 S.Ct. 128. Justice 339, 81 S.Ct. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. divorcing furter that the State was said (1960). Frankfurter As Justice L.Ed.2d teaching eases their of other from concrete described it: factual circumstances. He concluded: generalities ex- respondents invoke redistrict], power [S]uch extensive power— [to pressing the state’s unrestricted is, by unlimited, is, though is met and by the United overcome States pect vantaged his The bedrock likely fense they terests after has process. no boards are subdivided tion interdependency of locate dertaking grass-roots activity gressman’s held recognition gressional waxes. Incumbents are tendency would seem to follow their incumbent these that ensured ers to gerrymandering: as constituents, ditional organizations matter. their theid. same bers of rated ment uncomfortable resemblance in one another but community and who abandoning Shaw longer district. Put attempted to neighborhoods influencing would to wield the same accountable campaign principles and created gain to be voter its boundaries. by geographical race, age, differently, districting principles. eloquently It reinforces from district individuals who A citizen will be the same racial importune A re-election. An even one area in which may and small base if all their members incumbents those reapportionment plan education, is thus undermined but who are otherwise their electoral Similarly, principle in which wanes, traditional the effectively organizing because their have such racial distribute interests participation color of their we Legislature to draw stated vigilant, opted their representatives little among that of the believe that to find that she could not degree economic local no split. influence of they districting principles apparently Congressman discouraged perception the constitutional of- in common with one group—regardless of have been longer self-government, political success, leaflets in her con- if, of zealous organized gerrymandering: rely groups districts, numbers, money, to live—think Another of influence that special more by ignoring appearances skin, political on their name belong status, instance, widely reapportion- boundaries, Texas Con- likely that mem- truly pernicious are and their dispersed. foreswore voters bears an they electoral local in- interests support- includes casualty districts disad- apar- sepa- alike, to be local elec- tra- can she un- the ex- do is —Shaw, times such When a district missible rejected effectuate the likely voters representative democracy. one political share fer the same candidates at the erbate the This Amendment. Amendments than elected threatens to racial rather than their gerrymandering tion that cannot kanize us into mocracy by signaling to elected officials that undermine reinforces racial ters—a explained, harms are not continues to dering, Racial classifications with carry other Souter does not (citations omitted) Justice Souter represent only racial is represent notions, to believe that the same said than particular message group’s altogether goal even for remedial representatives such U.S. majority-minority districting system in which race no * ^[*] racial race very patterns to counteract. however, constituency group, an effort to our carry that aspire. embody, at---, perceptions a racial cognizable under the Fourteenth perceived injures ^[*] * political voting strength. that such stereotypes. By perpetuating competing obviously is harmless unless apparently believes that racial particular system representative de- adequately explain the stereotypes dangers. antithetical us further elected constituency their (emphasis Fourteenth reapportionment * understood members voters gerrymander may and to which interests, is classify as a whole. common interests of of racial bloc primary elsewhere districting is created purposes, equally racial officials are more * racial sis 113 S.Ct. respect Racial from the in other to our polls. We added). of that and Fifteenth as whole. and will group As we have threatens obligation ^[*] * as longer factions; pernicious. it dilutes a the why gerryman- as system ways. may sends solely anything is some- at 2927- goal separate legisla- Justice Nation imper- group, voting rather voting * ^[*] exac- these have mat- pre- bal- of to to It is it a plaintiffs’ maps expert to the demonstrated on Amendment] Constitu- [Fourteenth ... opposite the of most of 34 Texas counties whose tion of the United States conclusion, by split urged upon respondents, among Congressional us boundaries were by closely popula- achievement a state racial and would sanction the districts how ethnic any voting rights Congres- impairment of of whatev- tion data were coordinated garb in long er so as it was cloaked of In boundary sional lines. numerous instanc- realignment political es, subdivisions. of between race and district the correlation nearly perfect. In Dallas boundaries is at at Reliance on a Id. S.Ct. area, Metroplex area and Harris argument -like ill-befits the State Gomillion rights cre- voting where three districts were protection Texas. Incumbent is a valid of ated, line-drawing the racial character of the extent interest to the that is not state of manifest. The borders Districts pretext gerry- for unconstitutional racial a block, change block to one from mandering. other, to side of the and traverse street notwithstanding Finally, the State’s at- water, streets, commercially bodies of significance, tempts to minimize their racial developed seemingly arbitrary areas in fash- omnipresent ingredient in data were an ion until one realizes those corridors redistricting process. Preparatory to the minority populations. connect session, legislative the REDAPPL sys- redistricting maps tem contained the State’s specific concerning More details the racial capable displaying every neigh- that were of patterns districting developed of will be- be in the to the borhood state down street and compelled low. This court felt to reveal the block level. As soon as became avail- clarity input the racial into detail census, following able the 1990 the racial redistricting simply signifi- because of its for each and block were statistics street coor- question cance in this case. The must arise system with the REDAPPL so dinated future, in the oth- when census statistics and programmer display could both kinds of political er information become more even simultaneously. information No other socio- sophisticated, legislators far ingo how will placed census were economic data on the adjusting protect district lines to in- computer Legislature. to or available cumbency. they micro-manipulated Just as composition Congression- the racial of Texas Sharman, legislative Chris assistant 1991,they may al districts in enabled heavily drawing Congres- involved body new of statistical data to select their districts, ubiquity sional confirmed the of ra- precisely voters even more in 2001. computer data sys- cial on the REDAPPL tem. He also testified that other forms of proceeding Before with the discus pertinent redistricting information districts, particular necessary sion of it is Legislature Congres- available to the or the understanding state our the allocation Delegation. sional Such information includ- proof burden of under Shaw inasmuch ed socio-economicinferences drawn from the advocacy- our understanding differs from the streets; shape drive-by knowledge of ter- approaches parties. agree based We aides; ritory gained by legislative and the Hays with the on courts Shaw legislators familiarity intimate with their remand that a claim proved Shaw should be neighborhoods. po- constituents’ While some by the typical equal protection method litical information on was available the com- analysis. obliged present Plaintiffs level, puter precinct parti- none of the support gerryman evidence in of their racial voting san information was available for dering claim as outlined Shaw. Defen block-by-block portions of VTD’s. other produce dants then burden have the evi words, the racial information was the most any racially dence that districts found to be specific information could be used gerrymandered compel were dictated districting process. those involved ling narrowly state interest and are tailored

That throughout lines the state further that interest. Like the court very closely Hays, majority coordinate with racial but unlike remand Shaw, hardly disputed by boundaries is the state. we believe of the State’s burden

1337 majority-minority Congressional devise four required it to demonstrate production of racially gerryman- seats. of appearance the the existence, districts, as well as their dered hardly disputed. can The This much narrowly in all Constitu- tailored.45 As however, disagrees, vigorously with the State cases, plaintiffs the ultimate the retain tional HB1, statute, districting suggestion that the proof. burden accomplished purposeful gerryman a racial legis majority-minority The creation of

der. Voting Rights districts, more, may The Districts without no A. lative raise —Shaw, question. Constitutional U.S. that Con The defendants concede (“We at -, express 113 S.Ct. at no 2828 were creat Districts and 30 gressional ‘the creation view as to whether intentional opportu enhancing the purpose the ed for districts, majority-minority without more’ minority rep minority voters nity to elect gives protection always equal rise to an Congress. 18 has to District resentatives claim.”). act of the To ascertain whether the majority district African-American been an verged government into unconstitution state 1970; although African-American its since territory, al the court looks to several significantly since had declined population Among things, departures other sources. 1980, Legisla the is no evidence that there districting principles traditional such as in a racial sought to redistrict that seat ture compactness, contiguity, respect political for way. District ly Congressional neutral subdivisions, and communities of interest are Houston, artfully is interwoven with also legislative in important determining the responded Congressional District 18 and —Shaw, at ---, tent. See U.S. community to Hispanic demands of Further, public record at 2825-28. S.Ct. Hispanic burgeoning for create a district process HB1 enacting in the created County.46 in Harris District 30 preclearance § submission State large intended Dallas’ Dallas was to enable legislative important determining community to elect a Con African-American Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. intent. Finally, 28 assured gressman. District 266-68, 563-65, L.Ed.2d 450 97 S.Ct. Hispanic community in South expanding (1977). analysis by sepa is Our facilitated of the would elect another member Texas discussing Congressional rately District Congressional delegation. Texas and 29. We Districts 18 Finally, we “majority-minority” Con- consider District 28. The demand will then chal repeated by together numer- the other districts gressional Districts was will discuss plaintiffs. leg- lenged groups appeared before ous interest who hearings redistricting committee islative the state in Then-Senator throughout vigorously Bernice Johnson asserted

Eddie testimony re- creating District In of the African-American residents the desire legislators to reach aimed veals Metroplex for of the Dallas-Fort Worth voting minority population of least 50% Congressional seat there. African-American number age the minimum population, Houston, Híspame carried banner was acceptable to in the election thought result groups; prominently involved by a number The representative. an maneuvering Representative shape in the State has been de- ultimate district Martinez, “complex to run body Roman who intended with as a tentacles scribed Tejeda DNA mole- Then-State Frank as a that seat. Senator and attenuated series Ujifusa, satisfy Antonio South Michael Barone & Grant from San intended cules.” upon a seat draw- Almanac of American Politics Hispanics’ claims (1994); Appendix (Map of District also encompass his see 30). short, Dallas record, sprawls throughout replete The district aspirations. wealthy deliberately County, excludes Legislature that the intended proof Ironically, "Anglo” an His- beat candidate 45. See n. 55 infra. seat. to fill this panic candidate in election Highland neighborhoods of Park and The state asserts the convoluted white fingers explainable University and extends into boundaries of District 30 are Park Using County, grounds which include the outermost other than race. a demo- Collin County, study graphic compiled specifically In Collin the for this suburbs of Dallas. trial, African-American that there picks up a small State asserts are socio- economic, geographic, into neighborhood. The district extends Tar- and other similarities County only pick up among a border the residents of District rant small 30. See reject high African-American concen- Exh. 1070. area United States We this First, study claim Hamil- tration. It also reaches out to for several reasons. there is no Park, an affluent African-American evidence that the information it contains was ton by neighborhood Legislature any organized whites. Part of available to the surrounded along Trinity River bot- the district runs fashion before District 30 was created. Sec- tom, ond, dispersed minority study persuasive using expla- it to connect is not as an split in population. Numerous VTD’s were nation for the boundaries of District 30. It describes, required harmonize, mix population but it does not order to achieve district, concerning for the district. information and it does not differentiate the district from sur- nothing compact contiguous is There Third, rounding study areas. in so far as the about this district. It is at least 25 miles units, multi-family living focuses on it is in- long, wide and 30 miles but those measure- map expressed consistent with the drawers’ begin ments do not to reveal the district’s many single family desire to include homes. geographic complexity. Lying in the center of one of the heaviest areas of The Lawson intervenors assert that there Texas, community among the district’s boundaries reveal as is a of interest African- they popula- much exclude as regarded what American voters which should be they Congresswoman legitimate legislative tion include. Johnson as a criterion for dis- tricting. was those argument careful include African-Ameri- Even if sup- would neighborhoods port can which she felt the' Afri- Legislature the decision of the to take voting participation can-American group rate would African-American voters’ interests high. neigh- to exclude other way She desired into account in the same does the which, voters, suburbanites, borhoods for reasons such as e.g., interest of other conviction, disability felony retirees, city-dwellers, African-Amer- argument cannot voting participation go ican rate large part would be low. too far. Because of this supra. argument See III.C.5. upon Then-Senator Johnson’s ground- based similarities testimony race, demonstrated that was particularly race ed it is vulnerable to the primary consideration in the construction of proscription Fourteenth Amendment’s of ra- fought District 30. Further, She with incumbent cial society. classification in our Bryant Democrats Martin argument Frost and John support intervenors’ will not maintain her share of the Dallas African- the creation of districts that have no basis jostling position American vote. The districting traditional neutral criteria. To designed permit to secure a minimum 50% African- fly such districts would the face of population. American total Shaw.

The extent to which this proffers district differs policy State also its of incum- truly compact contiguous majori- from a protection bent as a non-racial reason for the ty-minority plan district is revealed convoluted By boundaries of District 30. all accounts, that then-Senator infighting among Johnson herself submitted Congressman Legislature. Frost, Bryant, the state See Plaintiff Exh. and then-Senator Johnson for plan, slightly larger portion “sympathetic” hap- voters was fierce. As it however, popula- pens, many Dallas being the voters tion is within a compact fought included much more over were African-American. The geographic neighborhoods area. ways. Identifiable cannot State have it both It cannot within say Dallas remain intact. No VTD’s are that African-American voters Afri- split. can-American when are moved into Dis- split were to achieve the district’s merely streets they are “Democrats” trict but carefully gerry- contig- deliberately placed in a racial mix. The district they are when bolstering the a racial basis to achieve a cer- purpose of mandered on for the uous district voters; other Democrats.47 African-American of tain number of chances re-election incumbents, Robert significant protect it that other African- considers order The court Mansker, Congressman deliberately Martin aide to were fenced out American voters Frost, played a according to witnesses placed who of District 30 and in other districts developing Congressional re- key equally role “untraditional.” Plaintiffs that are plain- vigorously avoided plan, apportionment proving a racial have carried their burden testify in this ease.48 subpoena gerrymander. tiffs’ Parenthetically, if incum- Exh. 37. Plaintiff pro- important as to the protection was

bent Districts 18 and 29 in de- witnesses testified cess as the State’s more in the case of District Even than trial, surprising it is that the and at position and 29 were tai- Districts 18 virtually ei- no such evidence offered State designated numbers of mi- lored include § preclearance sub- ther in its voluminous nority Achieving these results was voters. Department in Ter- mission to the Justice simple no task. African-American and His- challenge previous to the Slagle, v. razas panic populations large portions inhabit regard to Congressional districts. With pattern Harris in a checkerboard policy that we conclude District other and with white citizens. with each to the extent moti- protection, incumbent fact, decade, in former African- Over the last Legislature, was not a countervail- vated the majority had lost mem- American District 18 In- against gerrymandering. racial ing force population gained minority of that bers stead, an essen- gerrymandering was racial Hispanic population. Neverthe- over 40% incumbency protection, as Afri- part of tial less, preservation of District 18 as an deliberately seg- can-American voters majority district was as- among of their race sev- regated on account sumed. Congressional districts. eral in Har large part A of the increase Congres- conclude that the contours of We during the County Hispanic population unexplainable in terms ris District 30 are sional immigration. The integrity in was attributable to They no 1980’s other than race. have immigration voting traditional, redistrieting consequences of cri- terms of neutral Legis- VTD’s, The rights problematic49 matters are and individual Neighborhoods, teria. preclearance mony legislators, § submis position the 5 is bolstered 47.The State asserts that its sion, on the REDAPPL and the use of racial data decision in the Fifth Circuit's recent en banc inferentially makeup system, from the as well as League v. Clem United Latin American Citizens (en banc), ents, (5th Cir.1993) of the districts themselves. cert. 999 F.2d — denied, U.S. -, 127 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. case, (1994). § 2 vote dilution In that newspaper reported that Con 48. At least one plaintiffs prov had not concluded that the court acknowledged Mansker gressman that Mr. Frost judi racially disparate outcomes in state en that subpoenas "by disappearing for several avoided voting races were caused white bloc cial helping Republicans days in order to avoid against preferred candidates of African- Flick, Challenges GOP Foe their case.’’ David Instead, proof Hispanics. Vouchers, Americans or Morning Dallas Aides' Frost Release partisan politics than rather demonstrated News, July at 23A. determining politics influence. was the racial requires argues us to find state that LULAC routinely interpret 49. Under the Constitution drawing legislature's district bound ed, Repre representation in the U.S. House politics partisan ary based on lines was also among apportioned the states ac sentatives is disagree. ar We The State's rather than race. just persons—not citi cording to the number of oranges. gument compares apples In LU- high population. States with zens—in their LAC, prove plaintiffs' whether burden was to non-citizens, Texas, like benefit numbers of throughout the state. motivated white voters race this situation. ecologi largely proof consisted of bivariate Their large consequences of a non-citizen But the regression inferential statistics and other cal techniques. case, however, voting rights are unclear issues legisla Supreme side-stepped through proven directly, and have been testi ture’s intent was lature, however, attempt campaign to create testified that voters were confused decided to majority-Hispanie They why District. and frustrated. did not know subject 29 then shape of District became arbitrarily changed, district had been dispersion to several constraints: did not know the candidates run- Hispanic population around the borders Dep. ning for office. See of Powers at 43-44. the east in Harris 18 and far to complex The boundaries had become so Rep- County conflicting ambitions of and the county wrong clerk’s office sent the bal- Martinez and then-Senator Gene resentative precincts erroneously lots to certain “Hispanic” in Congress to run for Green counted those votes within District 18. The Representative Martinez testi- district. As precincts County total number of in Harris fied, in- borders of District 29 became nearly following doubled the 1990 redistrict- he and creasingly distended as Senator ing complex as a result of the new district place fought to their state constituents Green lines.50 See Plaintiff Exh. 10. In Districts Finally, within the new district. 29, split 60% the residents live in south, Congressman Andrews desired to precincts redistricting, after and in District many minority constituents as maintain as 25, over 40% were so affected. See Plaintiff possible in his Democratic district. 34Q. tortuously These two districts are so line-drawing appears The result of this x map begin 11" drawn that an does 8/t utterly irrational—unless one in factors block-by-block lines. show their overlap between these district boundaries 29). (Map Appendix of Districts 18 and makeup and the racial of their underlying literally The meander from one side districts populations. goal separating Hispanic The major of the to the other and cross street and African-American residents from each Drive, thoroughfares, Shepherd like numer- pur- other and from the white for ous times. poses voting led to the creation of these say configuration To that this violates tra- particular districts. redistricting principles ditional is an under- 30, inAs the case of District the state Niemi, generally statement. See Pildes & posits irregular that the boundaries Dis- 567, 563-64, supra (concluding tricts 18 and 29 were caused the demand among Districts 18 and 29 the most noncom- protection for incumbent rather than racial nation). pact magnitude in the of the disagree. considerations. We The essential light in violation becomes clear of the testi- goal creating in segre- these districts was to Blum, mony plaintiff Edward who cam- gate Hispanics from African-Americans and paigned Congress in the new District 18 both minorities from whites order to retain spent in 1992. Blum and his wife months at least 50% total popula- walking the entire district order to shake tion in District 18 and achieve at least 61% They carry hands with the voters. had to Hispanic population lines, total in District 29. map identify the district because so Representative often would move from Then-State Roman Martinez the borders block to clearly deposition block. testified so in TR. at 20-21. Plaintiff his 6/27/94 Kenneth Powers who Blum in particularly assisted his case where he said it was neces- DeGrandy, - U.S. -, purposes, Hispanics Hispanics, Court. See Johnson v. are whether citi

- believe, however, n. 114 S.Ct. 2662 n. zens We or not. that in future Texas, (1994). overwhelming L.Ed.2d 775 cases, minimum, Hispanic plaintiffs at the should majority Hispanics. of non-citizens are Former prove have to the citizen and non-citizen Representative Roman Martinez estimated that Hispanic populations regarded should be as a Hispanics residing County in Harris are 40% See, Shaw, group. e.g., cohesive ethnic ineligible they citizenship. to vote because lack - U.S. at -, 2830; Emison, - 113 S.Ct. at Growe v. This uncomfortable fact did not deter Texas His -, U. 113 S.Ct. S. panic politicians demanding Hispanic from more (1993). L.Ed.2d 388 though § seats—even 2 vote dilu ordinarily premised tion claims are on measures County precincts, 50. Harris created new voting age population. of citizen bringing its total from 672 to 1225 for the coun- assumption, We decide this case based on the ty. See Plaintiff Exh. 10. parties, equal protection shared that for sufficiently compact pass they are muster. capture pock- in order to sary split VTD’s disagree. parties expert for the new dis- We As all their Hispanic residents ets hav- insistence on agreed, compactness his must be a He reiterated witnesses trict.51 population in that Hispanic Legislative 61% districts. at least relative measure regard Further, we concluded district. Districts West Texas protec- goal of incumbent though they span to District compact even hundreds seg- by the deliberate realized tion was itself square encompass all miles because in the of race regation of voters on the basis distinct, population lying within a metropolitan area. Incum- Harris major clearly area. In a urban coun- defined into fencing minorities were Democrats bent compactness little sense if consid- ty, makes majority-mi- into the new districts or alone, geographic sprawl ered terms of but districts, those same minorities nority while probative when viewed in it seems far more effectively being Repub- removed city’s county’s neighborhoods, terms of a districts. lican incumbents’ subdivisions, geopolitical and business loca- Adjusting compactness tion. the sense of that African- also contend The defendants County density complexity in Harris of the Hispanics Americans interest landscape communities of demonstrates that Districts belong to identifiable urban such for may recognized as compact that be and were and 29 are not at all. Their trou- argument This districting purposes. shapes contorted are the antithesis of com- regard to noted in bling the same reason pactness. minority Although the issue of District 30. 18 and 29 are formed in Because Districts § 2 to a vote dilution is relevant cohesion redistricting disregard traditional utter claim, entirely, matter as we it is another shapes are ulti- criteria and because stated, group racial or ethnic previously for a than mately unexplainable grounds on other representation based to claim an award quotas for those dis- the racial established ethnicity from traditional dis- apart

race or tricts, product they are the of unconstitution- Moreover, ques- must tricting one criteria. gerrymandering. al racial Hispanics how citizen and non-citizen tion community interest—many ob- comprise a Tailoring to Achieve a Com- 3. Narrow issues, edu- sociological such as relative vious pelling Interest? State attainment, competition for similar cational status, jobs, non-taxpayer taxpayer versus contend strenu The defendants also linguistic differences were and even having ously that Districts that plumbed this court. We conclude before satisfy the State’s been created eases, may proven other whatever Act, Voting Rights duties under the federal permit districting to be based does not Shaw justifiable under Shaw. are for that reason as ethnicity in conditions such on race or misreading. significant This is a subtle but these, districting cri- traditional which violate equal protection is claim for denial of A Shaw teria. bizarrely shaped if state created stated segregat racially purpose for the districts Finally, assert the defendants geographically and other ing voters who are and 29 each include because Districts 18 dis dispersed according to traditional wise back of similar socioeconomic residents plain tricting But makes County, criteria. Shaw fully within Harris ground and he trial, Legislative provided by Coun- the Texas During testimony at numbers Weber’s Dr. report. In exam- analyzed portion included in Dr. Weber's cil and asked whether he had court ining from VTD’s split from the the number of individuals VTD's that were excluded of the creating split 18 and compared with the Districts those numbers were districts they majority overwhelming were exclud- those individuals from which core of Hispanic while an placed at 26-27. Dr. Weber indicat- 29 were ed. See TR. in District 7/1/94 performed analysis majority placed overwhelming but in District ed that he had not supports provided analysis with the that he had the court This indicated were African-American. methodology. County necessary numbers and in Harris the inference that VTD’s achieving purpose a cer- split composition for the central analyzed the racial The court has composition. tain racial split based on VTD’s in Harris seriously comply Interestingly, does not ar- with the intention that the states’s such dis- and 30 are “narrow- Voting Rights gue Act when it created that Districts necessarily obligations save it constitution- ly tricts will not tailored” to fulfill the State’s may not ally; Voting Rights Act be used Voting Rights Act and would thus under apartheid” that the “racial Shaw scrutiny to sanction withstand the strict test. Based on Amendment condemn. evidence, and the Fourteenth nigh im- this would have been possible. The State admits that more tradi- holds, clearly how Part IV of Shaw tional districts could have been fashioned. ever, Voting Rights compliance with the proposed redistricting plans for At least two that, compelling state interest might Act be a Plan C500 and Dallas—Senator Johnson’s tailored, narrowly if would withstand the Plan 606—and two for Hous- Owens-Pate scrutiny of racial classifica strict demanded Plan 606 and Dr. ton—Owens-Pate Webber’s tions under the Fourteenth Amendment. compact, contig- Plan far more 676—included was written to refute Jus Part IV of Shaw majority-minority uous districts. Defendants dissenting position that advocat tice Souter’s contend, however, proba- that these districts scrutiny gerryman exacting ed less of racial bly would have sacrificed one or two incum- applied types to other of dis ders than is Congressmen, bent but cannot and do crimination under the Fourteenth Amend preserving not contend that incumbents rests —Shaw, at-, ment. See U.S. 113 S.Ct. compelling footing on the same interest majority rejected at 2830. The Shaw his compliance Voting Rights with the Act. peppered contention.52 Part is with the IV Many acknowledged majority- witnesses language compelling ap- state interest as minority districts could have been created plied comply to the state’s the need with respect Harris and Dallas counties with more Voting Rights Act. The difference between compactness, contiguity, geography, interpretation the and what State’s Shaw neighborhood preservation. Dep. really says Shaw lies the allocation of the 130-32, 142; Johnson at TR. at 2- 6/28/94 If, production. burden of as the defendants circumstances, 128-129. Under these the contend, Voting Rights Act an concerns are produc- has its State not carried burden justify bizarrely “explanation” that drawn ra- tailoring. tion on the issue of narrow districts, plaintiffs prove part cial the must as comply of their case that the districts did not Because, brief, Voting Rights post-trial the Act. as we In its the United concluded, plaintiffs’ pro- adopts position, contending

have burden of States a different solely compelling duction extends to the race-conscious- not had a the State of the complying Voting Rights ness districts combined with the disre- interest in with the gard criteria, 18, 29, districting of traditional Act then but also that Districts and 30 are producing narrowly the State has the burden of evi- tailored to further interest.53 narrowly tailoring dence of to achieve its It is not obvious to this court that the State54 compelling justifiably potential liability § state interest. 2 feared under reason, reject argument redistricting” 52. For this we act “affirmative if it had a action compelling eradicating particular “benign” United States that interest in- race-conscious dis- inequality. stances of racial No evidence tricting subject was to intermediate rather than presented support at trial to this basis for minori- scrutiny. po- strict The United States founds its districts, ty and we will not consider it further. Broadcasting sition in on Metro v. Federal Comm’n., 547, Communications 497 U.S. 110 concedes, Act, § 54.As State 5 of the which 2997, (1990), ap- S.Ct. 111 L.Ed.2d 445 which implements nonretrogression principle a racial plied that standard to federal antidiscrimination districting, only required preserve the state to however, agree, measures. We with the Shaw Districts; "minority” require extant it did not Broadcasting remand court that Metro has little minority creation of new Districts 29 and 30. Hunt, to do with this case. See Shaw v. 861 States, 130, 141, See Beer v. United 425 U.S. 408, (E.D.N.C.1994). F.Supp. 434 n. 22 1357, 1363-64, (1976). S.Ct. 47 L.Ed.2d 629 18, The defendants also assert that if Districts 29, 53. The United States cites Richmond v. J.A. Cro- majority- and 30 had not been drawn as son, 469, 498-500, districts, minority 488 U.S. 109 S.Ct. 724- the State would have been (1989), proposition, 102 L.Ed.2d 854 for the § vulnerable to a vote dilution claim under 2 of Shaw, Further, jurisdiction might Voting Rights Attorney reiterated in that a en- Act. government’s caution. In the Act if it failed to afoul of this Voting Rights § 5 of the or view, just set aside three new District 18 and Texas could draw these districts in protect 28, 29, mi- and 30—for any shape long districts—Districts about bizarre as as it attrib- Nevertheless, for this Congressmen. nority shapes protection to incumbent uted reasons, Legislature created and other another “non-racial” consideration. Shaw, According to this is the districts. implicitly equating is also in- United States narrowly tai- if districts are permissible compelling protection with a state cumbent Voting Rights Act con- comply with lored to interest, unjustifiable utterly argument. reapportion- “A cautions: But Shaw cerns. Because a claim embraces narrowly tailored to Shaw plan would not be ment retrogression if the avoiding State racial goal appearance the district’s well as its reasonably necessary beyond construction, what tailoring went must take both narrow — Shaw, U.S. at retrogression.” to avoid is, into account. That to be these elements caution, -, This we at 2831. S.Ct. tailored, narrowly a district must have the assume, prophylac- § 2 apply to a would also possible irregularity least amount tic measure. shape, making allowances for traditional dis States, tricting The United criteria.55 Dis- characterization of The United States’ deferring heavily narrowly tailored runs state’s choice of and 30 as tricts Id.; also, General, ground.” political § exercising responsibility common see LULAC her under Clements, (5th Cir.1993) Act, supra, preclear v. 999 F.2d 831 refused to could have (era banc) (concluding minority judicial plan candi apportionment this reason. Sec State's defeated not because of race but because of proven by dates estab 2 vote dilution claims tion - denied, ---, partisanship), cert. U.S. "Gingles lishing three criteria" and then (1994). S.Ct. 127 L.Ed.2d What totality showing under the of the circum dilution § 2 amounts to a ritualistic invocation of surrounding districting scheme. See stances simply proves possibil too much: the defendants Gingles, Thornburg 2752, 478 U.S. 106 S.Ct. v. might ity prevailed § that some 2 claim have (1986). Gingles The first 92 L.Ed.2d 25 against the state if HB1 had contained more minority population are suffi criterion is that the justi minority plan districts than the base cannot geographically compact ciently and to numerous noncompact, noncontiguous fy these districts. single-member majority district. See form a in a Emison, - U.S. -, -, S.Ct. v. 113 Growe tailoring, Regarding aspect 55. this of narrow we 1075, 1084, (1993). aspect 388 This 122 L.Ed.2d disagreement two-judge again register with the Shaw, legislative Gingles, presupposes dis like majority that decided Shaw on remand. Those geographic integrity satisfy and tricts that have only pertaining judges conclude that the factors See, districting e.g., John traditional standards. shape size of a district that bear on to the and — -, -, DeGrandy, 114 S.Ct. son v. U.S. limits, tailoring i.e. narrow are constitutional 2647, 2655, (1994). L.Ed.2d 775 That test 129 princi- compliance person/one the one vote 18, 29, § 2 for Districts cannot be met under right ple to have their votes and the of voters not perfunctory wholly unsup 30. Defendants' limits, however, must be added To these diluted. contrary ported to the are incorrect. contentions requirement emphasis that a ra- on the Shaw's § undermining Also the assertion of violation satisfy neu- cially constructed district must other Supreme in v. Court decision Johnson the recent two-judge districting majority tral criteria. necessary DeGrandy, it is not which holds that Voorhees, Judge simply ignored point, as minority jurisdiction political to maximize for a Hunt, F.Supp. dissenting, 408, Shawv. observes. comply § voting strength with 2. See in order to (Voorhees, J., (E.D.N.C.1994) concur- -, at As the statute 114 S.Ct. 2661. id. dissenting part). ring part, in in representation says, proportional is not its itself majority apparently con remand The Shaw goal or mandate. shape "voting rights district” cluded that the majori Gingles requires proof Finally, that the long as the state had a sufficient is immaterial as minority's ty usually to defeat the vote as a bloc might upon vulnera which to believe it basis 1990's, it preferred In Texas in the candidates. § 2 claim. This conclusion ble to a vote dilution longer condi accurate to assume that this Supreme is no Court’s clear distinction overlooks the every Gingles case. Johnson v. permits, tion of exists in and what it between "what the law U.S. at -, point: DeGrandy, supra, emphasizes Shaw, a similar requires.” 113 S.Ct. at - minority Further, majority citi in which “[T]here are communities the Shaw remand de Supreme with voters from zens are able to form coalitions Court’s observation scribe as dicta having majority-minority groups, no need to racial and ethnic creation of other that the deliberate single remedy past to majority district in order discrimination be a within districts constitutionally permissible beyond frame candi of their choice. Those elect candidates Voting Rights em perfection every Act if the state may represent mi work dates voter, districting principles and if the minority ployed sound nority are not immune but voters patterns permitted group's residential obligation pull, to find racial haul and trade from the surprising that the new district boundaries, tailoring narrow to an also not commits Hispanic majority. ignores dispositive would have an Then- insignificant role Tejeda drawing of plans for Districts influenced the fact that alternative Senator geographically much more district lines so that as much of his Bexar and 30 were all cheese logical County constituency possible than the Swiss fall and otherwise would district, plans progression the state. Where obvious south chosen within the but its districting racially offensive configu- to a alternatives from Bexar is similar to the exist, bizarre districts are not scheme in ration of the other districts narrowly tailored.56 compared Texas. When with the oth- South Texas, Congressional er districts discussion, foregoing we con- From the highly irregularly shaped. fin- 28 is not Its 29, 18, clude that Districts jut Seguin gers do into the small cities of gerrymandering product of unconstitutional doing, according New Braunfels. so narrowly tailored to and that are not plaintiffs’ maps indicating county racial compliance about further the State’s concern minority, composition, the district excises the Voting Rights Act. wdth the largely Hispanic populations from those cit- Congressional District 28 affected ies. The number voters these compared to extensions is small the size markedly There is less evidence Legislature the district. The took ex- no concerning the record the creation of Con traordinary measures that render this dis- designedly Hispanic gressional District districting trict so out of line with traditional located the South Texas area. question criteria as to raise a serious about growth experienced a dramatic South Texas gerrymandering. racial Hispanic origin, population, largely of dur 1980’s, and it was foreseeable that a B. Other Districts Congressional district would be located new majority-Hispanic popu Plaintiffs attack there. Based on the most the other Texas, throughout lation much of South it is districts the State of Texas Shaw, - U.S. at -, Seamon, problem. Upham of districts. v. 456 U.S. creation 40-41, 1520-21, (citing Organizations 5.Ct. at 2832 United Jewish 102 S.Ct. 71 L.Ed.2d 725 (1982). Thus, Williamsburgh, Carey, 430 U.S. we Inc. v. believe the Shaw remand ma- 996, 1010-11, 167-68, jority policies support 97 S.Ct. 51 L.Ed.2d 229 search in vain for th'eir White, (1977) J.)). (opinion of We believe these decision. importantly the "fit” between statements bear question Courts confronted with the whether compelling addressing the state’s interest Vot narrowly a remedial racial classification is tai- ing Rights concerns and the form of the districts purpose lored to serve its have considered narrowly tailored to suit them. must be important. of factors number to be These factors Finally, reasoning we that under the of note (1) efficacy include: the of alternative race-neu- majority, bizarrely shaped the Shaw remand measures; alternative, (2) efficacy tral the of grounding district that has no in traditional dis- classifications; (3) narrowly-tailored more racial tailored," tricting “narrowly was held criteria flexibility remedy; the and duration of the and although it is that the same district inconceivable (4) impact remedy rights of the on the of § 2 could have been authorized under and the See, Paradise, parties. e.g., third United States v. prong Gingies supra. first See note 54 of test. 149, 171, 1053, 1066, 480 U.S. 107 S.Ct. 94 (1987); 28, L.Ed.2d 203 Local Sheet Metal Work- Among discounting signif- their reasons for EEOC, 421, 481, 3019, er’s v. 478 U.S. 106 S.Ct. compactness contiguity icance and of narrow 3052-53, (Powell, J., (1986) 92 L.Ed.2d 344 con- 448, tailoring, majority denigrate the Shaw remand Klutznick, curring); Fullilove v. 448 U.S. importance of factors and issue an those 510-11, 2758, 2791, 100 S.Ct. 65 L.Ed.2d 902 is, expression judicial frankly, of restraint (Powell, J., (1980) concurring); see also Ravitch already hard to We defended swallow. have York, City v. New 1992 WL *7 196735 at objective districting Supra at criteria. n. 43. of (S.D.N.Y. 3, 1992) Aug. (applying these factors to Moreover, judges routinely deciding are nontrad- redistricting); Hays a racial classification used in cases, questions § itional among 2 vote dilution II. possibility which are the to create "com- 18, pact contiguous” minority-majority and we districts. Because have concluded that Districts reflect, upon judicial narrowly The likelihood of intrusion and 30 are not tailored to as criteria, prerogative districting possible, districting state’s is the same in far as traditional we § both cases. When a 2 or Shaw violation is need not discuss these factors in detail." Our found, course, first, second, judges defer as must far as conclusion bears on the and fourth possible legislature’s attempt to the to solve the factors. segrega produced parties deliberate racial nous evidence having produced investigated goal of Texas’ to subserve of incum Dis- tion voters before, Although indisputably tricts. noted the State protection. As we there used bent process racial data extremely high is an correlation between the state, reapportionment throughout the many of and it irregular these districts features sophistication preci- used the data with populations racial are drawn to sion, we Congres- conclude that three III.C.8. supra. or exclude. See At include unconstitutionally sional Districts were trial, ra- generally explained Chris Sharman cially 18, 29, gerrymandered. Districts away by saying that the in these divisions designed highly irregular 30 were all Congressmen seeking to cor cumbent boundaries that take no heed of traditional ral into their districts. More “Democrats” districting criteria; those districts function testimony provided Congress candid primarily to include sufficient numbers of the during woman Bernice Johnson Eddie minority favored groups and to exclude the case, preceded Terrazas which the issuance groups disfavored as to so assure election of decision in Supreme of the Court’s Shaw v. groups’ one of the favored members. If Terrazas, Reno. then-Senator Johnson districts—tortuously these constructed block- stated that African-American voters from by-block and from one side of the street to many requested towns had to be of these satisfy another across entire counties to placed within districts Democrat Con constitutional, goal—are desired racial then gressmen. conclude that both We race easily the State could more hand each voter a politics the divisions influenced of these racial and allow identification card him to towns between districts. racially participate separate elections. follow, It however does not that racial exclusively makeup racial of these dis- First, gerrymandering occurred. with few harks pri- tricts back to the infamous “white exceptions, non-Voting of the the outlines mary,” constitutionally which was condemned Rights Congressional districts within the Adams, ago. Terry decades v. U.S. are (except contiguous state those which to 461, (1953); 73 S.Ct. 97 L.Ed. 1152 Nix- already the districts we have found unconsti- Herndon, on v. 273 U.S. S.Ct. tutional), fairly regular or at least not (1927). Surely L.Ed. 759 districts as race- highly irregular apart racially from the small 18, 29, specific as Districts and 30 have no Second, appendages. deciding distinct our place system government. .in segregated by have been whether voters Moreover, 18, 29, and 30 were not Districts race, frame of reference must be consid- narrowly compel- to fulfill the State’s tailored ered. It true that voters within individual § ling avoiding liability interest in under 2 or separated along cities were often or counties Voting Rights § Act. federal racial lines into the districts incumbent hereby court foregoing Based on the Republican Congressmen. Democrat districts, standpoint From of those how- ORDERS that Districts and 30 as ever, or subtraction of these the addition enacted in HB1 in 1991 are declared uncon- proportionately minority populations was not stitutional under the Fourteenth Amend- significant; they gave Congressmen also the relief, with ment. consistent Further effectively a cities and dou- toe-hold such upon opinion, will be considered written sub- representation Congress. bled cities’ by August or before parties mission on Further, say per- that from we cannot 26, 1994. districts, spective there was unconsti- gerrymandering. tutional racial HITTNER, Judge, specially

concurring: V. CONCLUSION join fully colleagues in the my I unan- with specially concur ger- opinion nature of a imous herein and to explained Shaw racial potential rymandering highlight an area which has to claim under Fourteenth in future significant into a issue in- Utilizing precepts, Shaw’s evolve Amendment. redistricting. carefully analyzed all of court has the volumi- stances specific challenge practice This offends the in this case did not them.3 plaintiffs religious gerry- process principle Bill 11 on the basis of a democratic election House however, testimony mandering; whereby by adduced representatives are elected their religion play did definitely indicated they quali- trial constituents because are the most of the Dallas in the creation a role fied candidate rather than because Congressional (or Districts. members) particular members reli- gious affiliations. been the central

Although religion has not redistricting litigation, the cases that focus of ethnicity, The idea that race or or lan- repeatedly have have addressed the issue guage religion might or become the basis religion congres- to using create noted distributing during periodic voters may as violative of the sional districts be redistricting process runs counter to our as racial consider- Fourteenth Amendment professed belief the ‘oneness’ of Ameri- certainly It is foreseeable that vot- ations.2 political can life and belief De- designed to exclude or districts could be mocracy emphasis itself its on the groups religious include certain considered individual citizen. There is no one coher- necessary political if candi- to win an election political philosophy, political principle, ent dates can create districts to assure electoral political program or subsumed under such “incumbency protec- success rationalized as citizens,’ group as citi- labels ‘black ‘white regard tion” without for traditional district- zens,’ citizens,’ ‘Hispanic ‘Asian or citi- ing principles. ” zens.’ case, In the instant the State of Texas Arkansas, F.Supp. Turner v. oddly configured attempted legitimize (E.D.Ark.1991). by congressional partially Dallas districts at- Further, evidence in this case indicates tributing religious their contours to consider- District 30 extends to the ations, solely rather than to racial factors. County specifically northern of Dallas witnesses, Sharman, One of the Chris State’s Community include the Jewish Center and Congressman testified that Martin Frost surrounding neighborhoods. Jewish Con- certain rural wanted exclude areas gresswoman express- Eddie Bernice Johnson congressional his that he believed ly Community wanted the Dallas Jewish to him because he would adverse is Jew- Center included District 30. type TR. ish. See 3-206-09. This 6/29/94 144-48; Dep. of Weiser at redistricting TR. 3- practice example is another 6/29/94 53, districting 190-92. The State’s exhibit a opinion the unanimous what characterizes map promulgated by representatives selecting people the State of At- rath- Office, people selecting representa- torney depicts Congression- er than the General’s through parts tives the balkanization of those al District 3, 5, 6, groups may support 26, Denton, oppose who either Districts challenged plan, passed Organization Carey, 1. House Bill 3.In United Jewish v. by 144, 185-86, 996, 1019-20, the second called session of the 72nd Texas U.S. 97 S.Ct. Legislature signed governor into law the (1977), Stewart, concurring L.Ed.2d 229 Justice August judgment in the wrote that: principle equality Although composition is at war with the reference to racial of a represented by notion-that District A must be a political may, unit under certain circum- Negro, as it stances, is with the notion that District B starting point pro- 'a serve as in the Caucasian, represented by must be District C shaping remedy' rigid cess of ... adherence Jew, Catholic, District D a and so on this, quotas, especially in a case like de- called, system, by ... That whatever name it is prives opportunity citizens ... to have the community, emphasiz- is a divisive force in the legislature make a determination free from un- ing differences between candidates and voters racial, ethnic, necessary against any bias for or that are irrelevant in the constitutional sense. religious group. - Reno, -, -, Shaw v. U.S. 113 S.Ct. Justice Stewart further added that “mathemati- (1993) (quoting 125 L.Ed.2d 511 quotas ghet- cal formulas and in districts sustain Douglas' dissenting opinion Wright Justice v. by marshalling religious groups tos into en- 52, 66-67, Rockefeller, 376 U.S. 84 S.Ct. (Stewart, J., concurring). claves.” 610-11, (1964)). 11 L.Ed.2d 512 that, Tarrant, community in the event that anoth- Kaufman, Dal- but Rockwall, Collin, against candidate ran er African-American exhibit, into evi- entered This las Counties. white, her, support she would have State, designates the expressly by the dence voters. Dep. of Weiser at Jewish bold, Community Center” “Dallas Jewish 144-48; TR. 3-190-92. 6/29/94 letters, extending arrow with an capital red District 30 portion of into a sophisticated advances in com- With future symbol—the religious the Jewish wherein may technology, legislators no doubt puter appears on the David—prominently Star religious able to determine the affilia- also be desig- only such districting map; this is practice of households. This of custom- tion offi- aside from this entire exhibit nation on districts, by picking building hand which John- county identifications. cial groups, including religious groups, should be district, did she have included in or excluded from a di- son believed rectly implicates equal protection principles. the Dallas Jewish support of members

APPENDIX ORDER carefully reviewed the court has

This pertaining parties and submissions

briefs the unconstitu- question of relief from by the Congressional districts created

tional and, Texas, applica- upon based

state to this represented law and the facts

ble

court, hereby: it is

ORDERED That elec-

1. the fall proceed shall for the state

tions

according by the 1991 to the districts created C657;

plan legislature develop that shall

2. the Texas 15,1995, Congres- a new

on or before March conformity plan redistricting

sional opinion during the previous court’s

this legislative

regular session that convenes on 10, 1995;

January shortly after March

3. on hearing hold remedial court will legislature’s redistricting

on the status of

efforts; plaintiffs appli- shall submit attorneys fees and costs within 30

cation hereof;

days of the date sought par- relief all other post-trial

ties in their submissions relief is

denied. OIL

SERGEANT & GAS INC., Plaintiff,

CO.,

v. MAINTENANCE &

NATIONAL

REPAIR, INC. and Kimble

Lehman, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. H-93-1613. Court,

United States Texas.

S.D.

Aug.

Case Details

Case Name: Vera v. Richards

Court Name: District Court, S.D. Texas

Date Published: Sep 2, 1994

Citation: 861 F. Supp. 1304

Docket Number: Civ. A. H-94-0277

Court Abbreviation: S.D. Tex.