Rodriguez v. Pataki

• Decision Date: 15 March 2004
• Docket Number: No. 02 CIV. 618(RMB).,No. 02 CIV. 3239(RMB).,02 CIV. 618(RMB).,02 CIV. 3239(RMB).
• 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.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

308 F.Supp.2d 346

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.

No. 02 CIV. 618(RMB).

No. 02 CIV. 3239(RMB).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

March 15, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

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.

OPINION AND ORDER

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
                

                    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 2002New 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 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 alsoGeorgia 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.SeeMarylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer,849 F.Supp. 1022, 1056(D.Md.1994)(three-judge court);see generallyLarios 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...