Rodriguez v. Pataki, No. 02 CIV. 618(RMB).
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam |
| Citation | 308 F.Supp.2d 346 |
| Parties | Eric RODRIGUEZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. George E. PATAKI et al., Defendants. Howard T. Allen et al., Plaintiffs, v. George E. Pataki et al., Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 15 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 02 CIV. 618(RMB).,No. 02 CIV. 3239(RMB). |
v.
George E. PATAKI et al., Defendants.
Howard T. Allen et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
George E. Pataki et al., Defendants.
Page 347
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 348
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 349
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 350
Richard D. Emery, Emery, Celli, Cuti Brinckerhoff & Abasy, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Joan P. Gibbs, Rivers, Mealy, Cransnow & Bradford, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff-Intervenors.
Michael Carvin, Jones Day, Reavis & Progre, Washington, DC, for Bruno.
C. Daniel Cvell, Gravbard, Miller, New York, NY, for Silver.
Before WALKER, Chief Circuit Judge, KOELTL and BERMAN, District Judges.
PER CURIAM.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................351
II. BACKGROUND .......................................................................354
III. ONE-PERSON, ONE-VOTE CLAIM (COUNT I)..............................................363
A. Legal Standards...............................................................363
B. Analysis......................................................................365
IV. VOTING RIGHTS ACT CLAIMS .........................................................371
A. Section 2 Legal Standard .....................................................371
B. Long Island: Nassau County and Suffolk County (Counts V and VI) ..............373
1. Suffolk County (Count VI) ................................................377
2. Nassau County (Count V) ..................................................381
(a) The First Gingles Factor: Majority-in-a-District and the
Potential to Elect ................................................382
(b) Racial Polarization and the Second and Third Gingles
Preconditions .....................................................387
i) The Methodology of Dr. McDonald ...............................387
ii) Elections Analyzed ............................................388
iii) The Second Gingles Precondition: Cohesion .....................392
Page 351
iv) The Third Gingles Precondition: White Bloc Voting Sufficient
Usually to Defeat the Black Candidate of Choice..............392
(c) Electability .......................................................394
i) Recompilation ................................................395
ii) Supplemental Electability Analysis ...........................397
iii) Turnout, Warming, and Other Statistical and Anecdotal
Evidence ...................................................400
C. The Bronx (Count III) ........................................................404
1. Introduction .............................................................404
2. Background to Plaintiffs' Proposed District 36 ...........................406
3. The First Gingles Precondition ...........................................408
(a) The Appropriate Measure .............................................409
(b) Electability ........................................................410
i) Recompilation .................................................410
ii) Supplemental Electability Analysis ............................412
4. The Second Gingles Precondition ..........................................413
5. The Third Gingles Precondition ...........................................422
6. Totality of Circumstances ................................................426
(a) Substantial Proportionality .........................................427
(b) Legislative Policies Underlying the Contested Practices .............429
(c) The Degree of Racially Polarized Voting and Political
Partisanship ......................................................433
(d) Official Discrimination .............................................434
(e) Socioeconomic Disparities ...........................................435
(f) Electoral Mechanisms ................................................436
(g) Other Totality Factors ..............................................436
7. Conclusion ...............................................................437
D. The Statewide Vote-Dilution Claim (Count II) .................................437
E. The LVRC Intervenors: Senate District 31 (Count IV) ..........................437
F. The Rivers/Barbour Intervenors: Congressional District 17 (Count VIII) .......441
V. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM: SENATE DISTRICT 34 (COUNT VII) ...........................444
A. Applicable Law ...............................................................445
B. Analysis .....................................................................446
1. Senate District 34 .......................................................447
2. 2002 Redistricting .......................................................448
3. The Plaintiffs' Case .....................................................449
(a) Shape and Boundary Lines ............................................449
(b) Information Available to the Legislators in 2002 ....................452
(c) Wolpoff Case Submissions ............................................454
(d) Burgeson 2001 Memoranda .............................................456
4. Traditional Districting Principles .......................................457
5. Politics/Race: Cromartie II ..............................................459
VI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................460
I. INTRODUCTION
These consolidated actions include constitutional and statutory challenges to the State Senate and congressional redistricting plans enacted by the New York State Legislature in April 2002 (following the 2000 census) and precleared by the United States Department of Justice in June 2002. Seven of the eight counts in the Joint and Consolidated Amended Complaint, dated January 24, 2003 ("Complaint"), pertain to the 2002 New York State Senate redistricting plan ("Senate Plan"), and one count pertains to New York's 2002 congressional redistricting plan ("Congressional Plan"). Two of the eight counts raise constitutional challenges under the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const.
Page 352
amend. XIV, 1: a one-person, one-vote challenge to the Senate Plan as a whole and a racial gerrymandering challenge to Senate District ("SD") 34. Six counts raise challenges under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b) (the "VRA"), including challenges by the lead plaintiffs to redistricting in the Bronx, Long Island, and the state as a whole, as well as challenges by plaintiffs-intervenors to SD 31 and Congressional District ("CD") 17.
On November 6, 2003, this three-judge District Court concluded that the plaintiffs had raised no triable issues of material fact with respect to Counts I, II, IV, VI, and VIII of the Complaint and granted summary judgment to the defendants on those claims. We indicated that an opinion explaining the decision would follow. Following trial, the Court has concluded that the plaintiffs have failed also to establish the claims set forth in Counts III, V, and VII by a preponderance of the evidence. Our opinion with respect to those counts on which we granted summary judgment together with our findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to all counts are detailed below, but some of the overarching considerations that inform our decision are as follows:
First, New York's 2002 redistricting laws are well within the purview and political prerogative of the State Legislature. See, e.g., Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 915, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995) ("Federal-court review of districting legislation represents a serious intrusion on the most vital of local functions.... Electoral districting is a most difficult subject for legislatures, and so the States must have discretion to exercise the political judgment necessary to balance competing interests."); see also Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 123 S.Ct. 2498, 2511-12, 156 L.Ed.2d 428 (2003); Md. Comm. for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656, 676, 84 S.Ct. 1429, 12 L.Ed.2d 595 (1964).
Second, the 2002 Senate Plan reflects traditional districting principles including: maintaining equality of population, preserving the "cores" of existing districts, preventing contests between incumbents, and complying with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. See Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer, 849 F.Supp. 1022, 1056 (D.Md.1994) (three-judge court); see generally Larios v. Cox, 300 F.Supp.2d 1320 (N.D.Ga.2004) (three-judge court).
Third, the 2002 redistricting continues New York's check and balance in its bicameral Legislature. In the State Assembly, which has been dominated by Democrats since 1974, six seats were gained by Democrats in 2002 and the balance of Democratic to Republican assemblypersons changed from 97/53 to 103/47. In the State Senate, which has been dominated by Republicans since 1966, the balance of Republican to Democratic senators shifted from 36/25 to 38/24, including the postelection change in party affiliation (from Democratic to Republican) of one senator.
Fourth, the Senate Plan reflects less than a 10% deviation in population between any two Senate districts. See Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842, 103 S.Ct. 2690, 77 L.Ed.2d 214 (1983) ("[A]n apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation under 10% falls within [the] category of minor deviations."). The plaintiffs do not assert that racial discrimination accounts for the population deviation. (See Transcript of Oral Argument of Motions for Summary Judgment, dated Nov. 4, 2003, at 65 ("Summ. J. Tr.").) Rather, they argue that the Senate Plan discriminates geographically, favoring underpopulated "upstate" districts over overpopulated "downstate" districts, and that
Page 353
the single Senate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, No. CV–12–894–PHX–ROS–NVW–RRC.
...a plaintiff must show “the deviation in the plan results solely from the promotion of an unconstitutional or irrational state policy.” 308 F.Supp.2d 346, 365 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (quoting Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer, 849 F.Supp. 1022, 1032 (D.Md.1994)). Thus, from the ve......
-
Perez v. Abbott, SA-11-CV-360.
...accompanied by the use of any illegitimate factors. On this point, Defendants argue that Larios should yield to Rodriguez v. Pataki , 308 F.Supp.2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). There, the court found "that an express objective of staying within a ten-percent deviation while pursuing other legitimat......
-
U.S. v. Euclid City School Bd., Case No. 08-CV-2832.
...voter registration."). Indeed, the United States' own expert recently testified to this effect in another action. Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F.Supp.2d 346, 401 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (three-judge panel) ("Dr. Handley's testimony supports the theory that black turnout will increase if they can elect c......
-
U.S.A v. Vill. Of Port Chester, No. 06 Civ. 15173(SCR).
...courts look to the VAP, and in particular to the CVAP, as the relevant population in the district. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F.Supp.2d 346, 378 n. 38 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (three-judge panel) ( citing Valdespino, 168 F.3d at 851-53; Negron v. City of Miami Beach, 113 F.3d 1563, 1569 (11t......
-
Harris v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm'n, No. CV–12–894–PHX–ROS–NVW–RRC.
...a plaintiff must show “the deviation in the plan results solely from the promotion of an unconstitutional or irrational state policy.” 308 F.Supp.2d 346, 365 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (quoting Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer, 849 F.Supp. 1022, 1032 (D.Md.1994)). Thus, from the ve......
-
Perez v. Abbott, SA-11-CV-360.
...accompanied by the use of any illegitimate factors. On this point, Defendants argue that Larios should yield to Rodriguez v. Pataki , 308 F.Supp.2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). There, the court found "that an express objective of staying within a ten-percent deviation while pursuing other legitimat......
-
U.S. v. Euclid City School Bd., Case No. 08-CV-2832.
...voter registration."). Indeed, the United States' own expert recently testified to this effect in another action. Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F.Supp.2d 346, 401 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (three-judge panel) ("Dr. Handley's testimony supports the theory that black turnout will increase if they can elect c......
-
U.S.A v. Vill. Of Port Chester, No. 06 Civ. 15173(SCR).
...courts look to the VAP, and in particular to the CVAP, as the relevant population in the district. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F.Supp.2d 346, 378 n. 38 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (three-judge panel) ( citing Valdespino, 168 F.3d at 851-53; Negron v. City of Miami Beach, 113 F.3d 1563, 1569 (11t......