DocketNumber: Case Nos. 11-CV-562 JPS-DPW-RMD, 11-CV-1011 JPS-DPW-RMD
Citation Numbers: 862 F. Supp. 2d 860
Filed Date: 4/11/2012
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/26/2022
ORDER
After a two-day trial in this ease, we issued an opinion upholding Wisconsin’s new congressional and legislative districts in all but one respect. We concluded that, as drawn in Act 43, Assembly Districts 8 and 9 violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and had to be redrawn. Baldus v. Members of Wisconsin Government Accountability Bd., 849 F.Supp.2d 840, 859-60, 2012 WL 983685, *17 (E.D.Wis. Mar. 22, 2012). On March 27, 2012, we instructed the parties to conduct at least one meet-and-confer conference to explore the possibility of reaching an agreed-upon configuration of Assembly Districts 8 and 9. In the event that the parties were unable to agree upon a joint recommendation, we directed them and any interested non-parties to submit suggested maps that they believed would correct the VRA Section 2 violation the court has found, while also complying with the United States Constitution, the Wisconsin Constitution, and associated case law.
The parties submitted a joint report on April 2 notifying the court that they were unable to offer a joint recommendation. We thereafter received one map jointly proposed by the Baldus and Voces de la Frontera plaintiffs and two maps proposed by the defendant Governmental Accountability Board (GAB). The Wisconsin Legislature chose not to make any submission. (As the GAB has repeatedly emphasized throughout this litigation, it is not the same entity as the Legislature and it does
We first address the City of Milwaukee’s motion. While we sympathize with the City’s position and share its concern that the two wards will undermine voter anonymity and unduly burden City officials, we are constrained to deny the relief the City requests. Nothing in our March 22 decision adjudicated any claim establishing a right to the requested remedy, which falls beyond the scope of our March 22 and March 27 orders in any event. The issues raised by the City are more appropriately addressed in a separate action, if the GAB is unable to resolve the City’s concerns.
We now turn to the heart of the matter. The plaintiffs’ joint proposal would create a new Assembly District 8 with a Hispanic Citizen Voting Age Population (HCVAP) of 55.22% and a new Assembly District 9 with 34.78% HCVAP. In the course of formulating this map, the plaintiffs engaged in a bipartisan consultative process with individuals and groups in the Latino community. Their proposed map offers minimal population deviation (-0.43% in Assembly District 8 and -0.28% in Assembly District 9) and retains compactness (75.84% and 69.19% core population retention in Assembly Districts 8 and 9, respectively). The plaintiffs applied the 42% Hispanic non-citizenship rate to calculate HCVAP, in accordance with this court’s March 22 opinion. Baldus, 849 F.Supp.2d at 855-56, 2012 WL 983685 at *13.
The defendants have presented two maps. Because they continue to object to the need to take citizenship into account for the Latino community, they begin with overall voting age populations. Map 1 provides 62% Hispanic Voting Age Population (HVAP) for Assembly District 8 and 53.43% HVAP for Assembly District 9. They assert that this translates to 51.4% and 41.5% HCVAP for Assembly Districts 8 and 9, respectively. They have not, however, offered any evidence contradicting the unchallenged testimony that the Latino community faces low turnout rates. In light of that unrebutted fact, Map l’s alleged 51.4% HCVAP is plainly insufficient.
We find once again that the 42% non-citizenship rate is more rehable. Applying this rate to the defendant’s Map 2, the HCVAP for Assembly District 8 drops to an unacceptably low level of 51.8%. By contrast, the plaintiffs’ joint proposal gives the Milwaukee Latino community an effective majority-minority Assembly District 8, while also balancing the traditional redistricting criteria of core retention, communities of interest, and minimal population deviation. As such, the Court will adopt the plaintiffs’ joint proposal, substituting their submitted map of Assembly Districts 8 and 9 for the maps that appear in Act 43 as passed by the Legislature and which we have declared to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the maps appearing in the plaintiffs’ joint proposal (Docket #224, at 12 (titled “Joint Plaintiffs Proposed Remedy”)) be and the same are hereby ADOPTED and INCORPORATED herein by reference and SUBSTITUTED for the redistricting plans affecting Assembly Districts 8 and 9 that were adopted under Act 43 and which this Court has previously declared unlawful;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the redistricting plans adopted pursuant to Act 43 for all Assembly Districts and Senate Districts, with the exception of Assembly Districts 8 and 9 to the extent noted above, shall remain unchanged;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City of Milwaukee’s motion to appear as amicus curiae (Docket #219) be and the same is hereby GRANTED; however the City of Milwaukee’s request for relief be and the same is hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jesus Rodriguez and Híspanles for Leadership’s motion to appear as amicus curiae (Docket # 227) be and the same is hereby GRANTED.
. In fact, even if we were to consider HVAP rather than HCVAP, Map 1 would be a nonstarter under existing Seventh Circuit precedent. See Barnett v. City of Chicago, 141 F.3d 699, 703 (7th Cir.1998) (specifically noting that "because of both age and the percentage of noncitizens, Latinos must be 65 to 70 percent of the population in order to be confident of electing a Latino”).