Defendants', Alabama Democratic Conference, Brief in Response To
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-MHT-WHP Document 295 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 50 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK ) CAUCUS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO. 2:12-CV-691 v. ) (Three-Judge Court) ) THE STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________________ ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC ) CONFERENCE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO. 2:12-CV-1081 v. ) (Three-Judge Court) ) THE STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ POST-REMAND PLANS Dorman Walker LUTHER STRANGE Balch & Bingham LLP Attorney General of Alabama Post Office Box 78 Montgomery, AL 36101-0078 Andrew L. Brasher Telephone: 334-834-6500 Solicitor General [email protected] Megan A. Kirkpatrick Counsel for Defendants-Intervenors, Jim James W. Davis McClendon, Gerald Dial and Randy Davis Misty Fairbanks Messick Assistant Attorneys General John J. Park, Jr. Office of the Attorney General Deputy Attorney General State of Alabama Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP Post Office Box 300152 1170 Peachtree Street NE, Ste 2200 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: 334-242-7300 Telephone: 678-347-2200 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the State Defendants [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for State Defendants NOVEMBER 13, 2015 Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-MHT-WHP Document 295 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 50 David B. Byrne, Jr. Office of the Governor 600 Dexter Avenue, Suite NB-05 Montgomery, AL 36130 Telephone: 334-242-7120 [email protected] Algert S. Agricola, Jr. Ryals, Donaldson & Agricola, P.C. 60 Commerce Street, Suite 1400 Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: 334-834-5290 [email protected] Counsel for Governor Bentley Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-MHT-WHP Document 295 Filed 11/13/15 Page 3 of 50 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities ...................................................................................................... iii Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 I. Summary of Plaintiffs’ new plans. ............................................................................... 2 II. Plaintiffs’ new plans are based on impractical, indefensible, and illegal districting decisions, do not comply with the Court’s Order, and do not demonstrate that the challenged districts could have been drawn differently. ........................................................................................................................ 4 A. Plaintiffs’ plans subordinate race-neutral districting criteria to racial considerations without a legally justifiable reason to do so. ........ 5 1. Plaintiffs used race to purposefully lower the black population in majority-black districts. ............................................................ 6 2. Plaintiffs used race to create “influence districts.” ...................... 9 B. Plaintiffs’ plans do not comply with the Voting Rights Act. ................. 11 C. Plaintiffs’ plans fail in many cases to preserve communities of interest. ................................................................................................... 16 D. Plaintiffs’ plans do not observe the Legislature’s legitimate political objectives of preserving the core of existing districts, true incumbent protection, and ensuring that a majority of the Legislature would pass the plans. ........................................................................................ 18 E. Plaintiffs’ disavowal of their own plans eliminates any probative value of the plans. .................................................................................. 21 III. To the extent they do anything, Plaintiffs’ new plans confirm that the Legislature’s plans are not racial gerrymanders. ................................................. 23 A. Plaintiffs’ plans confirm that population statistics in districts and precinct splits do not establish a racial gerrymander. ......................... 24 1. Plaintiffs’ plans confirm that the racial composition of a district reflects the area’s population and is not good evidence of racial gerrymandering. ............................................................ 25 2. Plaintiffs’ plans confirm that racially-disparate precinct and county splits are not evidence of racial gerrymandering. ... 26 B. Plaintiffs’ plans undermine their allegations about the process the State used to create its plans. ................................................................ 30 1. It made sense to move HD 53 and HD 73. .................................. 30 2. Starting with the black-majority districts was a good idea. ...... 31 i Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-MHT-WHP Document 295 Filed 11/13/15 Page 4 of 50 3. Sometimes districts that are already underpopulated will lose more population as surrounding districts are drawn. ........ 32 C. Plaintiffs’ plans affirmatively establish that certain districts are not racially gerrymandered. ......................................................................... 33 1. HD 19 and HD 53. ....................................................................... 33 2. HD 32. .......................................................................................... 34 3. HD 52-60 (Birmingham House Districts). .................................. 34 4. HD 67-72 (Western Black Belt Districts). .................................. 35 5. HD 82-85 (Eastern Black Belt). .................................................. 36 6. Birmingham Senate Districts (SD 18-20). .................................. 37 7. SD 23 and 24. ............................................................................... 38 8. SD 26. ........................................................................................... 39 9. SD 28. ........................................................................................... 41 10. SD 33. ........................................................................................... 42 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 43 Certificate of Service ................................................................................................................ 45 ii Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-MHT-WHP Document 295 Filed 11/13/15 Page 5 of 50 Table of Authorities Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015) ............................................................................................................ 5 ALBC v. Alabama, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (M.D. Ala. 2013) ............................................................................ 11 Barlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) ................................................................................................................... 10 Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2015 WL 6440332 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2015) ......................... 25, 42 Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001) ........................................................................................................ 33, 38 Fairley v. Hattiesburg, Miss., 584 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 13 League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 412, 126 S. Ct. 2594, 165 L.Ed.2d 609 (2006) ....................................... 10 iii Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-MHT-WHP Document 295 Filed 11/13/15 Page 6 of 50 Introduction Although Plaintiffs have submitted new post-trial, post-remand, post- briefing, post-argument plans that comply with the Legislature’s population deviation standard, they still have not shown that when the Legislature drew its plans, it had a real alternative that could meet the deviation standard, comply with the Voting Rights Act, and achieve significantly different racial balance in the challenged districts. What the new plans do show is that many of the Legislature’s decisions were right all along, because Plaintiffs do many of the same things that they have criticized the Legislature for doing. Plaintiffs’ plans do not prove that any portion of the Legislature’s plan is unconstitutional because Plaintiffs’ plans do not comply with this Court’s order (doc. 283), the Legislature’s guidelines, or the Voting Rights Act. As discussed in Section II below, Plaintiffs subordinated traditional districting criteria to race by purposefully choosing areas to add to black-majority districts simply because fewer black people lived there; they did not comply with the Voting Rights Act, because Plaintiffs intentionally lowered the black population in black-majority districts to the point of being retrogressive; Plaintiffs ignored communities of interest other than county and precinct lines; and they failed to achieve the Legislature’s race- neutral political goals of preserving district cores and providing true incumbent protection. All Plaintiffs have shown is that lowering the black percentages in the challenged districts to Plaintiffs’ preferred size requires violating federal law, 1 Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-MHT-WHP Document 295 Filed 11/13/15 Page 7 of 50 ignoring Legislative political goals, and creating plans that would not have been supported by either party. In Section III, we show how Plaintiffs’ new plans confirm that the Legislature’s plans are not racial gerrymanders. Some of the arguments