Two Native American tribes challege the at-large system for electing county commissioners. Court finds that endogenous elections alone are probative of RPV because overwhelmingly if only native americans had voted the election winner would have been different (25).
yes
yes
yes
yes
"that the minority group is politically cohesive"
yes
whether the majority votes as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the minority-preferred candidate.
"The more recent an election, the higher its probative value" (19).
1982-2006
"Endogenous and interracial elections are the best indicators of whether the white majority usually defeats the minority candidate" (18-19).
11
Each general election for county commission since the 5 member at-large system was put in place (1986-2006). RPV found in 10 of 11 endogenous elections (23).
11
RPV found in 10 of 11 endogenous elections (23).
No. The Court states that it follows the 4th Circuit's approach where "a court should not assume that a candidate was preferred by a minority group solely by virtue of the candidate's party or racial/ethnic status. It is the burden of the party seeking to establish a Section 2 violation to produce sufficient anecdotal or statistical evidence to establish the minority's preference in each election" (17) Court then quotes Boneshirt v. Hazeltine: "Endogenous and interracial elections are the best
Quotes a case where the Court of Appeals deemed it "permissible for a court to consider lay testimony in deciding whether a minority group is politically cohesive and that testimony of individuals involved in the political process is necessary if the court is to identify the presence or absence of distinctive minority group interests" (12). Court listens to tesimony from both sides about the cultural and economic cohesion between the two groups (13-16).
Hispanic plaintiffs argue that school district's at-large system for electing members to board of trustees dilutes Hispanic votes. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate Gingles I and therefore the Court does not assess G2 or G3. See data section for more detail.
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
David Ely, Richard Engstrom
Dr. Norfleet Rives
Plaintiffs fail because a majority-minority district (G1) can only be created with reliance on 1-year ACS data from 2007 that is extrapolated forward to assume a Hispanic CVAP growth rate. Using the 2000 Census data, which is assumed to be more reliable, plaintiffs are unable to create a district with a majority Hispanic CVAP (3-7).
State's Democratic member of congress challenge the state legislative and congressional maps and successfully argue that the state legislative maps violate the VRA because they crack Latino voters. The case rested on whether the legislature had complied with the VRA in creating 2 Latino influence districts instead of one Latino majority-minority district. The Court thought not because although the two influence districts had a majority Latino population, they did not have a majority of the cit
na
na
na
yes
Quotes Gingles
yes
Quotes Ginlges
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
no
na
na
Dr. Kenneth Mayer
Bernard Grofman, Peter Morrison
Court states that Citizen voting age population is the relevant metric when assessing minority electoral prospects (10).
South Carolina, Columbia Division, US District Court
4
Black plaintiffs challenge the state House and congressional maps and argue that Blacks were intentionally packed. The challenge fails because plaintiffs do not provide evidence that packing was intentionally performed by the Legislature, nor did plaintiffs show that Gingles 1 could be satisfied anywhere on either map.
Plaintiffs challenge the redistricting plans for Alabama's Senate and House of Representatives, arguing that they dilute the strength of Black voters. Case fails because plaintiffs cannot demonstrate Gingles I (and likely would have failed to convince the court of Gingles II and III).
no
yes
no
no
none given
no
none given
na, not stated in opinion
na, not given in opinion
not given
no. RPV not found
no. RPV not found
no
yes
testimony from lay and elected officials
PPV not specifically mentioned, but the Court discredits the evidence for RPV because the expert witness did not analyze whether other factors (such as partisanship) were more causal. See this quote: "we do not credit Lichtman's opinion that race is the motivating factor for this voting pattern in Alabama. Lichtman did not conduct any statistical analysis to determine whether factors other than race were responsible for the voting patterns. He did not consider affluence, strength of a political
no
Sort of. The suggestion of PPV and other [factor]-polarized voting discredited the RPV results
Hispanic plaintiffs challenge the legality of the redistricting plane adopted by the Harris County Commissioner's Court on August 9, 2011, which reapportions voters among Harris County's four commissioner precincts.
no
yes
yes
Yes
Yes
"recent elections are more probative than elections in the distant past"
2002-2010
"Endogenous elections…are more probative thatn exogenous elections. " "Exogenous elections are meant to supplement, not replace, endogenous elections."
2
Two County Commissioner races: 78.6% of Latinos voted for Sylvia Garcia in 2010, 94.4% of Latinos voted for Sylvia Garcia in 2002
24
County Judge, County Treasurer, District Judge, Leuitenant Governor, State Senator, Court of Appeals Justice, Supreme Court, Commissioner of the General Land Office
To maximize the probative value of the exogenous races included in the data set, Dr. Barreto only selected races that were sufficiantly similar to the endogenous elections in terms of the candidates, the level of office, and the partisan nature of the race
yes
political cohesiveness may be demonstrated by statistical evidence of racial bloc voting or testimony from persons familiar with the community in question, provided that testimony is not rebutted
"In the Fifth Circuit, the plaintiff must first demonstrate the existence of racially divergent voting patterns between Latinos and Anglos. If the planitiff makes this threshold showing, the burden then shifts to the defendent to show that partisan affiliation, rather than race, best explains the divergent voting patterns among Latinos and Anglos." citing LULAC IV, 999 F.2d at 850, 859-60
Compelling, but not conclusive. Defendent demonstrated that Anglos supported Anglo Republicans at 87.6% when faced with either an Anglo Democrat or a Latino Democrat, suggesting that the "divergence in voting patters could be explained by partisanship" (at 62 and 63). "While it is true that the anlysis showed that Anglo support for the Anglo Republican was identical regardless of the race of the Democratic challenger, in the end Dr. Alford's analysis merely proves that Anglo voters consistentl
Hispanic plaintiffs successfully challenge the at-large voting system for the City Council of the City of Farmers Branch, Texas. 5 members and the mayor make up the City Council, and all are elected at-large through place system voting where voters elect candidates for specific districts which can prevent bullet voting (15). Hispanics were 43% of the City's population but only 24% of the VAP. No Hispanic candidate had ever been elected to the City Council.
yes, but plaintiffs only present EI
yes, but plaintiffs only present EI
yes
yes
yes
"where there is a consistent relationship between the race of the voter and the way in which the voter votes."
Na
2007-2011
Na
4
yes, 5 elections for the position being challenged (City Council), and all demonstrate RPV.
0
na
Yes, only races between Hispanic and non-Hispanic candidates were analyzed, though the Court only loosely states that these elections are the most probative. See footnote 28.
yes
"testimony by witnesses regarding their voting" (13).
no
na
na
David Ely, Richard Engstrom
Norfleet Rives. Dr. Alford
5 year ACS data (2005-2009) as well as the 2010 Census are used to estimate population divisions by race and VAP percentages. ACS CVAP data was only available at the block group level. Ely split CVAP population by multiplying the percent population of each block in the block group by the CVAP value for the entire block (5). Plaintiffs use Spanish surname registered voter analysis to corroborate the CVAP estimates, which the Court accepts (5-6). Plaintiffs demonstrate G1 by using total populat
2013
district
W.D. Tex.
5
2013
district
S.D. N.Y.
2
2013
district
E.D. N.Y.
2
2013
state
MD Court of Appeals
2013
district
S.D. Ala.
11
2013
district
N.D. Ga.
11
2013
district
S.D. N.Y.
2
2013
Supreme Court
U.S.
2013
district
C.D. Ill.
7
2013
district
E.D. Pa.
3
2013
circuit
5th Cir.
5
2013
district
M.D. Ala.
11
2013
district
M.D. Ala.
11
2013
district
N.D. Tex.
5
2013
district
S.D. Tex.
5
2014
district
M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
11
County residents filed action challenging county's redistricting plan for the six single-member districts of the board of county commissioners, alleging that it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Latino county residents. Gingles preconditions not satisfied.
Challenge to Irving's 5-2 system for electing trustees of the Irving Independent School District because it diluted Hispanic voters. Plaintiffs win. Follows Benavidez v. Irving 2010, when plaintiffs failed to demonstrate Gingles I
no
no
yes
yes
Quotes Gingles (9).
yes
Analysis used the most recent elections in which a Hispanic faced a non-Hispanic candidate.
2006-2013
na
8
yes
0
na
Yes, analysis used the most recent elections in which a Hispanic faced a non-Hispanic candidate.
na
na
na
na
na
Richard Engstrom Ph.D (primary), David Ely (received data from the Dallas County Elections Department regarding the names of voters who cast ballots and used Spanish surnames to identify whether the votes were cast by Hispanics or non-Hispanics, and provided this info to D. Engstrom (9).
John Alford , Ph.D (primary) & Norfleet Rives, Ph.D
Plaintiffs challenge the at-large electoral system used by the school district to elect the seven members of its Board of Trustees. Hispanic population in the area increase drastically over the past 20 years and now accounts for 66.1% of the area's total population, while only one of the seven trustee members is Hispanic.
yes
yes
yes
yes
Quotes Gingles (1 &7).
"Recent interracial endogenous elections are the most probative elections"
2000-2012
"Recent interracial endogenous elections are the most probative elections"," referencing Bone Shirt v. Hazeltine, 461 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (8th Cir.2006). "Endogenous elections are more probative than exogenous elections" (7). "Endogenous elections are those that are directly related to the contested election practice. Exogenous elections are those that take place within the same geography, thus involving the same electorate, but for different types of elections" (7, footnote 3).
6
No. RPV not found from endogenous elections. Only an average of 11% difference in Hispanic vs non-Hispanic support for the Hispanic preferred candidate.
25
Yes. An average of 44.07% difference in Hispanic vs non-Hispanic support for the Hispanic preferred candidate.
"elections between white and minority candidates are more probative than elections between only white candidates" (7)
no
na
na
yes
Sort of. These results of exogenous election analysis showed strong RPV, but also strong PPV. While the Court does not specifically state that the PPV results disprove or devalue the RPV analysis, the Judge notes that these exogenous elections are all partisan races and the partisanship of the candidate is listed on the ballot. However, the Board of Trustees elections (issue at hand) are not partisan (and a candidate's partisanship is not listed on the ballot). Coupled with the lack of RPV in th
Dr. Richard Murray, Dr. Matt Barreto, George Korbel, Gerald Mark Birnberg
Dr. John Alford
"Plaintiffs' experts rely instead on a count of the number of registered voters with recognized Spanish surnames. While the ACS's estimate of CVAP projects the number of self- identified Hispanics who could register in a particular area, a tally of Spanish-surname Registered Voters (“SSRVs”) attempts to approximate the number of Hispanics who do register in a particular area....In this case, however, Plaintiffs have shown neither the probative value of SSRV, nor the unreliability of available ce
Plaintiff challenges city's 2010 ward boundary lines, arguing that they dilute African-American voting power in wards 2 and 3. City of Texarkana is divided into 6 single-member wards that elect City Board of Directors. The Mayor, who is the director of the Board, is elected from the City at large (a 6-1 system). Case failed because plaintiffs could not satisfy Gingles 2 – in order to make Black majority-minority districts, the plaintiffs drew two wards, one of which did not adhere to the 5% pop
no
no
no
Assumed for analysis of G3, but only minimal evidence was submitted by plaintiffs to prove this fact (page 5).
White registered voters residing in city brought action alleging that at-large election system for election to city council resulted in vote dilution by effectively affording white minority voters of city less opportunity to elect candidates of their choice to city council, in violation of Voting Rights Act (VRA) and Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. City was 30% white, 68% black and 2% of another race.
yes
yes (defendent expert)
yes
No
n/a
Not assessed because G2 was not found (9).
No
1995 - 2007
"Endogenous elections are more probabtive to determining whether raciall polarized voting exists" (6). "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that, in the context of vote dilution cases, the term "exogenous elections" refers to elections for an office other than the one at issue, regardless of whether the office's elections draw from the same electorate" (6)
4
1 yes, 2 no, 1 thrown out
2
2003, 2007 Chief of Police. Exact same electorate as endogenous elections. No RPV found.
Yes, affirmitively. Fifth circuit interprets Gingles to only find elections with a minority candidate probative of RPV.
Yes
Testimony stating that a white candidate that was elected had the support of the Black (majority) voters.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Dr. William Blair
Dr. John Alford
2015
district
M.D. Louisiana, US District Court
5
African American voters, who were registered to vote in city, brought action against state of Louisiana, city, and numerous officials, alleging that districting system for election to city court resulted in discrimination against African American citizens. Gingles 3 was not satisfied.
x
2015
state
NC Supreme Court
4
Opponents of redistricting plans for state legislative and congressional districts brought action against members of General Assembly, alleging that plans were unconstitutional and violated federal statutes. North Carolina Supreme Court held they did not violate the VRA and the non-VRA districts were not the result of a racial gerrymander.
x
2015
district
N.D. New York
2
Minority registered voters in county sued county and its board of elections challenging the 2011 redistricting of county legislature under Voting Rights Act. Gingles preconditions are satisfied.
x
2015
district
S.D Mississippi, Eastern Division, US District Court
5
African-American voters brought action alleging that city's redistricting plan for city council violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting voting power of city's African-American citizens. District Court found that the plan did not violate the VRA.
x
2015
district
M.D. La.
5
2015
district
N.D. Georgia
11
2016
district
E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
8
African American voters and civil rights organization brought action against school district and county board of elections commissioners under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), alleging electoral structures used in school board elections interacted with historical and socioeconomic conditions to deprive African American voters of an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
x
2016
circuit
Fourth Circuit, Court of Appeals
4
United States and various individuals, churches, and civil rights organizations brought actions against State of North Carolina and various state officials, challenging several provisions of omnibus election reform law as violative of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and the Voting Rights Act.
Civil rights organization and four black Alabama voters brought action for declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging Alabama's at-large appellate judge elections, claiming the practice unfairly diluted the black vote, which had the effect of denying black voters an equal opportunity to participate in the political process, thereby violating the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Alabama and its Secretary of State moved to dismiss. Defendents motion is denied. I don't understand what happens next in
x
2017
district
S.D. Texas, Houston Division
5
Latino citizens of voting age brought action against city, alleging that city's change from eight single- member districts for electing city council members to six single-member districts and two at-large districts diluted Latino voting strength in violation of Voting Rights Act; Gingles conditions found and Court ordered restoration of eight-single member districts.
Registered voters, who were members of city's Asian-American and Hispanic/Latino minority community, brought action against city, city council members, and school committee members, among others, alleging that city's at-large election system violated their rights under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
x
2017
district
W.D. Texas
5
Voters, state and federal legislators, and voting rights organizations brought actions alleging that Texas's redistricting plans for United States House of Representatives, Texas House of Representatives, and Texas Senate violated Constitution and Voting Rights Act.
x
2017
district
M.D. Louisiana
5
Civil rights organization and individual black voters filed § 1983 action against Louisiana governor and attorney general in their official capacities, claiming violation of Voting Rights Act (VRA) and Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by Louisiana's use of at-large voting system for election of judges to state court in one judicial district that allegedly diluted voting rights of black voters.
x
2017
district
D. Utah, Central Division, US District Court
10
Navajo Nation and individual tribal members brought action against county, alleging that the redistricting of county commission and school board voting districts was racially discriminatory in violation of Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Navajo Nation as to liability, parties submitted remedial plans. Section 2 claims were not assessed because the Court found the county violated the 14th amendment because race dominated their redistricti
x
2017
district
M.D. Alabama, Northern Division, US District Court
11
Black political caucus, political party, office holders, and county commissioners of Alabama brought separate actions against state of Alabama and various state officials, challenging redistricting plans for Alabama's Senate and House of Representatives. Court held that plaintiffs were required to prove racial gerrymandering claims on district-by-district basis; drafters had strong basis in evidence to believe that ability to elect for purposes of Voting Rights Act required black population per
x
2018
district
E.D. California
9
Latino citizens alleged that the redistricting plan impermissibly diluted the Latino vote in the county and thereby denied Latinos the opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to the county's Board of Supervisor in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
x
2018
district
N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
11
African–American registered voters brought action against Georgia secretary of state alleging that Georgia's redistricting plan for state house of representatives violated Constitution and Voting Rights Act.
x
2018
district
M.D. Georgia, Albany Division
11
Voter brought action against county board of elections, challenging method of electing members of county board of education based on allegation that current plan diluted African-American voters and voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act
x
2018
district
S.D Texas, Corpus Christi Division, US District Court
5
Hispanic voters challenge statewide, at-large elections of all justices to the Supreme Court of Texas and judges to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, alleging that at-large voting diluted voting strength of registered voters who are Hispanic and seeking imposition of single member districts to be drawn up by Texas legislature. Court determines that partisanship, rather than race, explains Hispanics defeat at the polls.
Anglo voters brought action against county alleging that their rights under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause were violated by the absence of a second county commissioner voting district that was capable of electing a representative of their choice. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that district lines could be drawn in a way that gave them equal opportunity to elect their candidate of choice, and thus they could not prevail on vote dilution claim under § 2.
x
2019
circuit
Fifth Circuit, US Court of Appeals
5
State senate candidate and voters brought action against state and state officials alleging that boundaries of state senate district diluted African-American voting strength, in violation of Voting Rights Act. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi redrew boundaries after bench trial. State appealed.
x
2019
district
S.D. Ohio, Western Division
6
Voters, non-partisan pro-democracy organizations, and party-aligned organizations brought action against state officials challenging constitutionality of state’s congressional redistricting map.
W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division, US District Court
5
Plaintiffs brought action alleging the State's winner-take-all method for selecting Presidential Electors, under which all of the state's Electors were chosen by the political party whose candidate received the most votes in the State's presidential election, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate Gingles 3. District Court opinoin affirmed by 5th Circuit Court
x
2019
district
E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
6
Federal government filed complaint against various defendants, including city, alleging at-large voting method used to elect city council diluted voting strength of African Americans who resided in city in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Hispanic town residents and community advocacy organizations brought action against town, town board, and county board of elections, alleging that the at- large system used to elect town councilpersons diluted the voting strength of the Hispanic minority, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. All Gingles preconditions are satisfied but judge rules Senate Factors do not favor plaintiffs. Later the parties sign a consent decree remedying the redistricting scheme.
x
2019
district
N.D Alabama, Southern Division, US District Court
11
Civil rights organization and two of its members filed suit challenging city's at-large method of electing members to city council that allegedly violated Voting Rights Act (VRA), under either results-only or intentional vote dilution theory of liability, and Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, pursuant to § 1983, by purportedly diluting strength of black voters in that no black candidate had ever been elected to city council even though 44.8% of city's population was black, and requesting decl
x
2020
circuit
Fifth Circuit, US Court of Appeals
5
Anglo voters brought action alleging that county’s redistricting plan for electing county commissioners violated their rights under § 2 of Voting Rights Act and Equal Protection Clause by providing only one Anglo-majority district. US District court ruled in County's favor, Circuit Appeals Court affirmed that ruling.
Minority registered voters brought action alleging that the State's current single-member districts for the Louisiana Supreme Court prevented African Americans from equal participation in the election of justices to the Court, in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), and sought injunction both prohibiting further use of the current districts and requiring the State to draw new districts.
x
2020
state
State Court of Appeals
9
Action alleging that city's at-large voting system for electing its city council discriminated against Latinos, in violation of California Voting Rights Act and California Constitution's equal protection clause
x
2020
district
S.D. New York, US District Court
2
Interest group and minority registered voters brought action against school district, alleging that the election system that school district used to elect members of its board of education resulted in minority vote dilution. Court finds that Black and Latino voters were politically cohesive and together could for a majority in at least one single-member district and that at-large system violates the VRA.
x
2020
district
S.D Mississippi, Northern Division, US District
5
County political party and elected officials associated with party brought action, alleging that county's board of supervisors violated state and federal law when it redrew the boundaries of several electoral districts. Plaintiffs (white) failed to prove that African Americans voted sufficiently as a bloc to defeat the white voters' candidate of choice.
M.D. Alabama, Northern Division, US District Court
11
Challenge to state's at-large method for electing appellate judges because of dilutive effect on African American voters in violation of the VRA. G2 and G3 are satisfied, and G1 is as well, except not in the 11th circuit where plaintiffs must also show a remedy as part of G1 (16-17).
E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division, US District Court
4
Black residents of city brought action against city, the city council, individual members of city council, the city manager, and the director of elections alleging that city's at-large election for city council violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by diluting the voting strength of Black, Hispanic American, and Asian American voters. Residents established that Hispanic American, Black, and Asian American voters in city were politically cohesive; residents established white majority in city vot
x
2021
circuit
US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
2
Interest group and minority registered voters brought action against school district, alleging that the at- large election system to elect members of the board of education resulted in minority vote dilution in violation of the Voting Rights Act. District Court ruled in favor of minorities and Circuit Court affirmed. CC held that vote-dilution claims do not require a showing of racial causation.