Sign up for Bulldog News Alerts so you don't miss a thing!

donate

inn-art_copy

spj-vert

ire

guidestar

ilhigh

 

Print E-mail
(3 votes, average 3.67 out of 5)
Prop 3 Proponents Question Prop 4 Legality

Civil rights attorney and two minority groups
say federal preclearance for 8-2-1 is unlikely


by Ken Martin
© The Austin Bulldog 2012
Posted Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:38pm

President Lyndon Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965President Lyndon Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965A pointed legal question keeps cropping up in the debates between proponents of Proposition 3 (the 10-1 plan for electing council members) and Proposition 4 (the 8-2-1 plan).

Proposition 3 debaters have repeatedly stated that the Proposition 4 hybrid plan will not be able to win federal approval because it will not pass muster under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Prop 4 advocates insist the 8-2-1 plan would indeed be approved.

It would be good to get past this back-and-forth argument so that voters know whether or not the hybrid 8-2-1 plan has a good chance of being approved before casting ballots for a proposal whose implementation might be doomed. The election is November 6. Early voting starts tomorrow.

The Austin Bulldog sought to get to the bottom of this matter by seeking opinions from a number of legal experts who have significant experience in cases involving the Voting Rights Act. Not everyone contacted responded but many did so.

Although there is no complete consensus on this question, our findings indicate the majority agree on the following:

First, the hybrid 8-2-1 might be able to gain preclearance approval, depending on how the district maps are drawn and how those maps affect ethnic minority communities.

Second, the 10-1 plan has a better chance of approval.

Third, if the hybrid 8-2-1 plan is approved by more than 50 percent of voters and gets more votes that the 10-1 plan, local minority organizations are dead-set on challenging the hybrid plan when the city seeks preclearance approval, as it must under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And if that doesn’t stop the 8-2-1 plan’s implementation a lawsuit seems likely.

Voting Rights Act controls

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 national organizations, provides historical perspective on the Voting Rights Act (VRA):

“Passed in 1965 after a century of deliberate and violent denial of the vote to African Americans in the South and Latinos in the Southwest—as well as many years of entrenched electoral systems that shut out citizens with limited fluency in English—the VRA is often held up as the most effective civil rights law ever enacted. It is widely regarded as enabling the enfranchisement of millions of minority voters and diversifying the electorate and legislative bodies at all levels of American government.

“Congress has reauthorized the VRA five times, most recently in 2006, when both the House and the Senate approved the measure overwhelmingly in a bipartisan manner. Congress conducted over 20 hearings, heard from over 50 expert witnesses, and collected over 17,000 pages of testimony documenting the continued need for and constitutionality of the statute,” the Leadership Conference website states.

The introduction to Section 5 the Voting Rights Act of 1965 states: “Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained.

“This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable.”

The Federal Register of February 9, 2011, provided guidance concerning redistricting under Section 5 of the Act: “A plan has a discriminatory effect under the statute if, when compared to the benchmark plan, the submitting jurisdiction cannot establish that it does not result in ‘retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.’ Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 125, 141 (1976).”

The Federal Register guidance further states: “... the jurisdiction must establish that its proposed redistricting plan will not have the effect of ‘diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States’ because of race, color, or membership in a language minority group defined in the Act, ‘to elect their preferred candidate of choice.’”

Texas is one of nine entire states subject to Section 5 of the Act. In addition, designated counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Michigan, and New Hampshire are also covered by the Act.

Proposition 3 backers press conference

David Van OsDavid Van OsAustin civil rights attorney David Van Os said he sees “a very serious possibility that if the 8-2-1 plan (for electing council members) is adopted by voters, it will not be approved by the Justice Department.”

Van Os was the Democratic Party’s nominee for Texas attorney general in 2006. He is the lawyer who represented the NAACP and sometimes LULAC in connection with a lawsuit he filed in 1984 to invalidate Austin’s at-large system of electing council members. The case lasted five years, involving two trials and two appeals. During those same years voters twice failed to give approval for an 8-1 plan for geographic representation (eight council members to be elected from geographic districts and the mayor to be elected at-large). Both plans were defeated by the same margin of 57-43 percent.

Marcelo TafoyaMarcelo TafoyaAt a Thursday press conference Van Os was accompanied by Nelson Linder, president of the NAACP Austin, and Marcelo Tafoya, Texas state deputy director for LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens. The three men are proponents of the 10-1 plan for electing council members (Proposition 4) and have been active in Austinites for Geographic Representation, the coalition that got the plan on the ballot via a petition drive.

All three said in follow-up interviews that if the 8-2-1 plan prevails at the polls then these two minority organizations would submit comments to challenge the eight-district plan during the preclearance process in which plans must be reviewed and approved under the Voting Rights Act. 

In a written statement Van Os read at the press conference, he said, “With only eight districts, it will not be possible to draw a valid African-American opportunity district. With only eight districts the best that can be drawn from the African-American perspective is a district in which the citizens’ voting age population is 31 percent African American and 40 percent Anglo, thus depriving African-American citizens of any district with an African-American plurality.”

To have a plurality of voting age citizens, Van Os told The Austin Bulldog, the percentage of population for African Americans must be greater than for any other race.

Based on an analysis supplied by political consultant Peck Young that utilizes census data, Van Os said the 10 district plan would accommodate a district with an African-American voting age population of 38.6 percent, an Anglo population of 33.3 percent, and a Hispanic population of 22.9 percent.

Nevertheless, there is some disagreement among legal experts as to whether eight council districts would be sufficient to win preclearance.

Attorney Steve Bickerstaff

Steve BickerstaffSteve BickerstaffAttorney Steve Bickerstaff, who has represented more than 100 jurisdictions on redistricting matters, told The Austin Bulldog in an e-mail,“Neither a district plan under a 10 single-member system nor a plan under a 10 member mixed system is assured preclerance or objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Bickerstaff is the author of Lines in the Sand (2007), a book about the controversial 2003 congressional redistricting in Texas; co-author of International Election Principles (2009); and author of 25 law journal articles dealing primarily with election law and telecommunications regulation.

“In a jurisdiction with racial voter polarization, preclearance of plans under both systems would likely be difficult because a majority ‘safe’ African-American district of a majority of eligible voters is difficult or impossible to draw. However, Austin has a history of elections in which racial voter polarization has been low or inconsequential. I know that some persons attribute the success of African-American and Hispanic candidates in city elections to a ‘gentleman's agreement,’ but from a legal standpoint (the federal courts have rejected this agreement as a myth) the consistency of voting by white residents in the City of Austin and County of Travis for minority candidates at every level of government (e.g. statewide, state legislative, county, city and other elections) has shown a lack of racial or ethnic polarization.

“Austin has consistently won preclearance of its annexations and other election changes over the years because of the DOJ's acceptance of this lack of polarization in the city elections and despite the city's use of at-large elections in which the vote of racial and ethnic minority groups could be submerged by a polarized white majority. This lack of racial and ethnic polarization by white voters in past elections is the background against which all future single-member district plans will be judged. 

“A 10 single-member district system is marginally better than one with eight single-member districts because it allows the greatest possibility for drawing districts in which African-American or Hispanic voters have the opportunity (without depending on substantial crossover vote from the white community) to elect the candidate of their choice. However, I do not believe it is clear that a properly drawn plan under an 8-2-1 system cannot win preclearance.”

When informed of Bickerstaff’s statement, Van Os responded by saying, “He (Bickerstaff) doesn’t think it’s (the 8-2-1 plan) guaranteed to fail preclearance—I didn’t say it’s guaranteed (to fail). I said there’s a very serious chance it won’t pass. We don’t need to take that risk. We can adopt the 10-1 plan. It will clearly get Justice Department approval.”

Attorney Luis Figueroa, MALDEF

Luis FigueroaLuis FigueroaAttorney Luis Figueroa of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), was one of three attorneys who on December 1, 2011, testified to the 2012 Charter Revision Committee. Figueroa has been involved in numerous legal cases involving election law and redistricting, and represented the Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force in ongoing lawsuits over the legislative redistricting in 2011.

Figueroa submitted a letter to the council-appointed 2012 Charter Revision Committee that addressed the topic of hybrid plans such as 8-2-1.

“Hybrid plans, which combine single-member and at-large offices, undermine the effectiveness and fairness (of) a single-member district system. Hybrid plans allow for multiple elected officials from one group or one area to be overrepresented at the expense of the city as a whole. Just as at-large systems create barriers for equal political participation, hybrid proposals often dilute the voting strength of communities of interests and ethnic minorities,” Figueroa wrote.

Regarding whether the 8-2-1 plan would pass muster under the Voting Rights Act, in response to The Austin Bulldog’s request, Figueroa stated in a Friday e-mail, “It’s hard to make a prediction on a preclearance action without knowing what the map would (look) like and we generally avoid making predictions.

“Our position as stated in the letter to the Austin Charter Revision Committee has not changed. We continue to support a non-hybrid single member district plan in Austin as stated in our letter and in our testimony to the Committee,” Figueroa wrote.

Attorney David Richards

David RichardsDavid RichardsAttorney David Richards of Richards Rodriguez & Skeith LLP has more than 50 years of legal experience and is considered to be an expert on election law and voting rights. Among his more notable cases was White v. Regester (1973), which established single-member legislative districts for the Texas Legislature.

Richards also testified to the Charter Revision Committee on December 1, 2011, and the following week submitted a letter, which stated, “I heartily endorse the concept of single member district representation. I also heartily endorse the 10-1 plan that is under discussion. Such a plan is, in my opinion, significantly preferable as it is the best means of assuring that minority communities will be adequately and fairly represented on the City Council. Such a plan should also be viewed most favorably by the Department of Justice in a Section 5 submission.”

Richards did not respond to an October 14 e-mail requesting his comments about the legality of the 8-2-1 plan.

Nelson Linder, NAACP

Nelson LinderNelson LinderNAACP Austin President Nelson Linder wrote in an October 14 e-mail, “Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act specifically covers changes in election districts due to reapportionment and redistricting as well as switching from an at-large to a single-member district system.

“When a covered jurisdiction submits a plan for preclearance, the burden of proof is on the jurisdiction—not the minority citizens or the Justice Department—to prove that the new plan is free from discriminatory intent and that the new plan does not have discriminatory effect. Failure on both of the above requirements will result in a failure to obtain preclearance,” Linder wrote.

“Clearly, the 10-1 plan is supported by over 30 coalition groups that include a majority of minority organizations that are covered by the Voting Rights Act. We believe that the 8-2-1 plan was actually concocted within the Austin City Council and has almost no minority support that is organizationally based,” he wrote.

“Frankly there is no credible premise for an 8-2-1 plan. It's an idea with a basis that is absent of evidence that support actually exists. In fact, it will not be difficult to prove that the Austin City Council floated the idea to attempt to undermine the validity of the 10-1 proponents. The inclusion of two at-large districts, we believe, supports our perspective that inequity and unequal representation would continue to exist within the Austin City Council.”

In a follow-up interview Friday, Linder said, “If the people pass the 8-2-1 plan, we will wind up in court.”

Attorney Richard Jung

Richard JungRichard JungAttorney Richard Jung of Jung Ko PLLC, a firm that specializes in business immigration solutions, is a strong advocate for the 8-2-1 plan in Proposition 4. Jung is campaigning for passage of Proposition 4 with Austin Community for Change. He researched the question of the 8-2-1 plan’s legality and came to a far different position.

Jung outlined his conclusions in an October 14 e-mail, stating, “The actual test is that the 10-1 plan or the 8-2-1 plan must be shown not to cause retrogression in minority political opportunity, by showing that there is at least the same amount of minority political opportunity in the proposed new system as in the existing system. ...

“If the 8-2-1 plan draws a district with 30 percent African-American population it is a marked improvement over the current 8 percent. Similarly, if the 10-1 plan draws a district with 38 percent African American population, it is a marked improvement over current 8 percent. Given this logic, both would receive preclearance because there would be a huge improvement in African-American political opportunity in the new district over the old at-large position.

“There is absolutely nothing in the requirements that would mean that an increase from 8 percent to 30 percent is unacceptable while an increase from 8 percent to 38 percent is acceptable,” Jung wrote.

“In addition, the Supreme Court has been very busy watering down the requirements for an ‘opportunity district’ to the point that it no longer means a district with 50 percent or more minority voting age population, or even a district where minority voters ‘have a good chance to elect candidates of their choice’ (crossover districts). In fact, in a 2009 opinion about North Carolina redistricting, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no duty to draw voting districts that would elect black candidates in areas where blacks were less than a majority.”

“So, when AGR representatives speak about DOJ requiring an African American opportunity district, they are simply making up facts and misleading the public. There is no requirement for a city like Austin with no African American majority district to draw an African American opportunity district at all. The only requirement is not to retrogress from the current system and if we use AGR's measuring stick of percentage of African American population in a district, both 8-2-1 and 10-1 will pass,” he wrote.

Consultant Peck Young

Peck YoungPeck YoungVeteran political consultant Peck Young, who volunteered to advise Austinites for Geographic Representation, told The Austin Bulldog he prepared Voting Rights Act submissions from 1973 to 2004 that were submitted to the Justice Department. “I never had one rejected—ever.”

Young disputes Jung’s conclusions, saying that no one who's campaigning for the 8-2-1 hybrid plan “has ever made a Voting Rights Act submission.”

Young added, “We’ve drawn demonstration maps designed to show what you can do for eight districts and for 10 districts.” With eight districts, he said, “You cannot draw an opportunity district for blacks. ... We drew the most pro-African American map you can draw and with 10 districts you can draw the opportunity district required by law.”

8-2-1 thumped in 2002 election

This article does not address the political possibility of getting voter approval for the 8-2-1 plan. In the May 4, 2002, election—the last time voters were asked to consider geographic representation—the 8-2-1 plan was on the ballot as Proposition 3 and was defeated 58-42 percent.

Voters have rejected various proposals for geographic representation six times from 1973 to 2002.

This report was made possible by contributions to The Austin Bulldog, which operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to provide investigative reporting in the public interest. You can help to sustain The Austin Bulldog’s coverage by making a tax-deductible contribution.

Related Bulldog coverage: This is The Austin Bulldog’s 34th article covering issues and activities pertaining to proposed changes to the Austin City Charter.

Poll Triggers Backlash from 10-1 Proponents: Proposition 3 advocates saying Prop 4 playing dirty with a misleading poll, Prop 4 denies the charge, October 17, 2012

Proposition 4 Campaign Reports Finances: Late report indicates $2685 raised in last three months but fails to provide details about campaign expenses, October 10, 2012

Proposition 3 Campaign Reports Finances: 10-1 campaign proponents raised more than $40,000, Proposition 4’s 8-2-1 advocates’ report not submitted, October 9, 2012

Proposition 3 Rally Draws 150-200 People: Crowd hears fiery speeches by proponents of the 10-1 systemfor electing council members, October 8, 2012

Attorney Bickerstaff Addresses Critics’ Concerns: His September 24 article drew numerous comments about the Proposition 3 Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, October 5, 2012

Feisty Debate Over Electing Council Members: One panelist argues for no change to the at-large system of City Council elections, October 4, 2012

Proposition 3 and 4 Proponents Rev Their Campaigns: Raising money, organizing troops, and pushing plans for geographic representation on Austin City Council, September 28, 2012

Redistricting Need Not Be a Quintessentially Political Process: Independent redistricting commissions for U.S. states and cities, September 24, 2012

Barrientos Lampoons Prop 4 With a Fable: Other proponents of alternative plans for geographic representation push their points, September 14, 2012

Proposition 3 Advocates Falsely Accuse RECA: Group alleges ‘rumor’ of $100,000 pledge by Real Estate Council to defeat Proposition 3, but RECA says not so, September 12, 2012

No-Change Option Surfaces in Ballot Debate: Former Council Member Bob Binder opposes both options on the ballot for geographic representation, September 11, 2012

The Election Wars Have Begun: Interest in how council members elected running high, as face-off debates abound, September 9, 2012

Your Guide to Proposed City Charter Amendments: What’s on the ballot, what it will cost taxpayers, and details provided in the ordinances for each proposition, August 30, 2012

Loud Rally Follows Final Council Vote for 8-2-1: AGR’s Cries Foul Over Work Session Vote for Hybrid; Mayor Leffingwell Said Votes Driven by Ballot Deadline, August 7, 2012

Council Backers of 8-2-1 Plan Accused of Self-Interest: But Facts Don’t Seem to Substantiate Such a Claim, as Related Actions May Bar Most Incumbents From Reelection, August 6, 2012

8-2-1 Near Certain to Go on Ballot: City Council Votes on Second Reading to Put Competition Election Plan on Ballot, July 31, 2012

10-1 Plan Qualifies for November Ballot: Consultant Estimates That 22,435 Signatures Are Valid; Austinites for Geographic Representation Readies for Battle, July 26, 2012

Petition Completed for 10-1 Council Districts: Austinites for Geographic Representation Claims 33,000 Signatures, of Which About 22,800 Are Considered Valid, July 16, 2012

Council Puts 10-1 Election Plan on November Ballot: Votes 5-2 on Three Readings to Adopt Petition Language, Votes 4-2 on First Reading to Also Put 8-2-1 on Ballot, June 29, 2012

Citizens Group to Make Final Petition Push: Austinites for Geographic Representation Claims to Have 17,000 Signatures, and Shoots for 13,000 More, June 4, 2012

City Council Tackles Charter Amendments: Redistricting Expert, Charter Revision Committee Members, and Grass-roots Group Critical of Task Force Plan, April 26, 2012

Council District Backers Want Quick Ballot Decision: Big Press Conference, Big Pressure Promised, to Get Council Decision Before Council Elections, March 8, 2012

Hard Fought, Heartfelt Charter Decision: Charter Revision Committee Votes 8-7 to Back 10-1 Plan for Council Elections, February 3, 2012

New Restrictions Proposed for Lobbyist Fundraising: Lobbyists Can Only Give Candidates $25 But Can Collect Unlimited Contributions For Them, January 22, 2012

Committee Debates How to Elect Council: Charter Revision Committee Divided Over Pure Districts vs. Hybrid System, January 9, 2012

Thirteen Charter Changes and Counting: Charter Revision Committee’s Next Job: Tackle Plan for Geographic Representation, December 14, 2011

Council Confirms November 2012 Election Date for Charter Amendments: Resolution Ensures Citizens Initiative Won’t Force May 2012 Charter Election, November 3, 2011

Coalition Launching Petition Drive to Get on the Ballot for May 2012 Election, October 18, 2011

Broad Community Interest Focusing on How Mayor and Council Members Elected, October 4, 2011

Coalition Nearing Petition Launch for Grass-roots Council District Plan, August 24, 2011

Maps Prove Select Few Govern Austin: Forty Years of Election History Expose Extent of Disparity, August 4, 2011

City Council to Consider Proposal to Create Geographic Representation: Election Dates, Term Lengths, Redistricting and Other Charter Changes in Council Resolution, April 27, 2011

Petition Launch Imminent to Force Election for Geographic Representation in City Elections, March 7, 2011

 

Comments   

 
0 #21 Richard Jung 2012-10-22 17:32
Debbie, did you read the piece at all? MALDEF does not confirm VanOs position (from which he is quickly backtracking). Neither does Steve Bickerstaff who states clearly that there is very little difference in the chances for 10-1 or 8-2-1 in terms of preclearance.

As for the cases you cite, they do not apply in a situation like Austin's (again I refer you to Steve's input about the voting patterns in Austin not being racially polarized) versus the polarized racial voting patterns in Dallas. Which is why Dallas was forced to go from all at-large to districts while Austin has not (and won every challenge brought against it).

Look at my note above in comment #3. All the lawyers who were asked to comment and did provided a stark contrast to Van Os' claim that PROP 4 has a serious chance of failing while PROP 3 will surely pass. MALDEF said it's just not predictable. Bickerstaff said there is only a slight difference in chances between PROP 3 and 4. Your own experts are telling you your statements are wrong.
Quote
 
 
0 #22 Richard Jung 2012-10-22 17:41
Ken, thanks for the self-deprecatin g comedy. As I mentioned before I know you are working under time constraints and I appreciate the work you do on this.

I will emphasize again though that your statement that PROP 3 has a better chance of passing according to most experts is, while literally true, misleading. Bickerstaff's comment that PROP 3 is marginally better than PROP 4 is not on par with Van Os claim at all. The gap there is very large indeed.

The fact is that all of your legal responders contradicted VanOs' claim of a very large chance of failure for PROP 4 versus PROP 3 which "will clearly get Justice Department approval." I think that is the real story here and the truth that puts shame to AGR's claim about PROP 4.
Quote
 
 
0 #23 Debbie Russell 2012-10-22 18:31
Uh, yes. I read the piece and yes, MALDEF is confirming one part of Van Os' position (re: at-large seats), and while Steve Bickerstaff is more conservative in his take, it's still the same position. Those 2 cases DO apply...it's not about racially polarized VOTING...it's about dilution of the minority vote AND about increased harddships on minority candidates...wh ich BOTH TX cases exemplify - THAT'S what the courts look at.

I think you are confused--there are 2 matters here, which are somewhat inter-related. One is the number of single member districts, and the other is the hybrid/addition al at-large seats. The DOJ will likely, or if you want to use SB's more conservative language, will less likely pass 8 districts...and the courts will likely nix the at-large seats. The 2nd case, btw, was in Del Valle ISD--as in eastern Travis County. Same voting tendencies, generally, as Austin.
Quote
 
 
0 #24 Editor 2012-10-22 21:32
Re: #21: Richard Jung:

You wrote, “MALDEF does not confirm VanOs position (from which he is quickly backtracking).”

Did I miss something? How is Van Os backtracking?

As for what MALDEF stated, while Luis Figueroa doesn't want to get into predicting whether 8-2-1 would attain preclearance, he did present (in his letter) a strong reason why he thinks 8-2-1 is unacceptable:

"Hybrid plans, which combine single-member and at-large offices, undermine the effectiveness and fairness (of) a single-member district system. Hybrid plans allow for multiple elected officials from one group or one area to be overrepresented at the expense of the city as a whole. Just as at-large systems create barriers for equal political participation, hybrid proposals often dilute the voting strength of communities of interests and ethnic minorities.”
Quote
 
 
0 #25 Richard Jung 2012-10-23 04:51
Ken and Debbie,

I think I understand the confusion now. You asked a legal question Ken. That question was whether or not 8-2-1 would pass preclearance. That issue is wholly different from the policy question of whether or not a group or an individual believes 8-2-1 is fair to minorities or whether or not 8-2-1 is the best solution to a problem. If you think the latter answers the former, you have confused the issue for your readers.

The legal question of whether or not 8-2-1 would pass preclearance is answered directly by MALDEF and Steve as follows: 1) both agree that the question cannot be answered definitively until a map is available; 2) MALDEF does not want to wade into hypothetical answers and so will not address the legal question; 3) Steve being the professor provides more education on how the legal issue is analyzed (or what the important factors for preclearance are) - to wit a) neither 10-1 or 8-2-1 is guaranteed to pass preclearance, however, b) because Austin's history of voting is not racially polarized (and this is true at all levels of voting) both plans have an easier path than if they were proposed in a city with polarized voting and as examples Steve provides annexations and other election changes that have met with success, and c) 10 districts are MARGINALLY better than 8 districts at providing opportunity districts.

Now, all the other things you have put into this article are policy issues that have little if any bearing on the legal question and, indeed, cloud the legal issue. That has been my point from the beginning. I am not arguing the policy points that are made by MALDEF, Nelson, etc.
Quote
 
 
0 #26 Richard Jung 2012-10-23 04:51
And what is the legal conclusion? Van Os in the press conference stated that legally there is a huge gap between 10-1 and 8-2-1 in terms of likelihood of obtaining preclearance.

MALDEF and Bickerstaff, both disagree with Van Os.

MALDEF disagrees with Van Os because MALDEF believes that preclearance cannot be determined without a map. Van Os makes a prediction without a map and his prediction is that 10-1 "will clearly get Justice Department approval" while 8-2-1 has a very large chance of failure (which he backtracks from the standard AGR position that 8-2-1 will fail preclearance - I believe you have heard this many times as well Ken).

Bickerstaff disagrees with Van Os for the same reason and also makes the statement that 10 districts is MARGINALLY (only a little) better at providing opportunity districts than 8 districts. If the key difference is so small, then how can one draw the conclusion that 8-2-1 has a very large chance of failing while 10-1 will clearly get approval?

Again as to the policy points, they do not pertain to the legal question posed although they can be used in a brief to try and persuade.

Please ask Steve if I am wrong on this.

My final point is this. AGR has said that the 8-2-1 plan will not pass preclearance. That is a legal conclusion. Bickerstaff states "I do not believe it is clear that a properly drawn plan under an 8-2-1 system cannot win preclearance." This puts the lie to AGR's claim. MALDEF will not back them up on this claim either.

So, your conclusion should have been that AGR's claim is false. None of the experts backed AGR's claim.
Quote
 
 
0 #27 Richard Jung 2012-10-23 05:00
Debbie,

Correct me if I'm wrong but Del Valle proposed a 5-2-1 system and has a 75% minority population. The Del Valle system was forced to change from all at-large, as was Dallas. Austin has not been forced to do the same because of the history of actually voting in minorities to city council and other factors. The parallels you draw are not valid.

But I appreciate the tone of your points.
Quote
 
 
+1 #28 Richard Jung 2012-10-23 05:05
Debbie, I forgot one thing. It's actually about both racially polarized voting and dilution. I think Steve addresses both points in his comments.

My point to AGR has been, please show how 8-2-1 dilutes but 10-1 does not. And remember it must dilute from the present system. AGR seems to say that not drawing a 38% African American district dilutes the African American vote. But how? We currently have an 8% African American population in the city. How does going from 8% to 30% (in the claimed 8-2-1 system) or any other number larger than 8% dilute the vote?
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh