Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 230 Filed 08/28/12 Page 1 of 154 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) STATE OF TEXAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-1303 ) (TBG-RMC-BAH) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) and ERIC H. HOLDER, in his ) official capacity as Attorney General ) of the United States ) ) Defendants, and ) ) Wendy Davis, et. al., ) ) Intervenor-Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Before: GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge, COLLYER and HOWELL, District Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH, in which District Judge HOWELL joins and District Judge COLLYER joins all except section III.A.3. Separate opinion for the Court with respect to retrogression in Congressional District 25 filed by District Judge HOWELL, in which District Judge COLLYER joins. Dissenting opinion with respect to retrogression in Congressional District 25 filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH. Appendix filed by District Judges COLLYER and HOWELL, in which Circuit Judge GRIFFITH joins. Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 230 Filed 08/28/12 Page 2 of 154 Opinion for the Court by GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: Table of Contents I. Background.............................................................................................................................. 3 II. Principles of Section 5 Analysis ............................................................................................. 5 A. Retrogression ..................................................................................................................... 5 1. Texas’s Burden of Proof ............................................................................................. 7 2. Election Analysis Methodologies ............................................................................... 8 a. Types of Elections ....................................................................................................... 8 b. Election Analysis Sample Sets ................................................................................. 11 3. Statewide Retrogression Analysis ........................................................................... 13 4. Coalition and Crossover Districts ........................................................................... 18 a. Section 5 Analysis ..................................................................................................... 18 b. Standard of Proof ..................................................................................................... 22 B. Discriminatory Intent ..................................................................................................... 25 III. Congressional Plan .............................................................................................................. 27 A. Retrogression in the Congressional Plan ...................................................................... 27 1. Congressional District 27 ......................................................................................... 29 2. Congressional District 23 ......................................................................................... 29 3. Retrogression with New Congressional Seats ........................................................ 34 B. Discriminatory Intent in the Congressional Plan ........................................................ 38 IV. State Senate Plan ................................................................................................................. 43 A. Retrogression in the Senate Plan ................................................................................... 43 B. Discriminatory Intent in the Senate Plan ..................................................................... 45 V. State House Plan................................................................................................................... 51 A. Retrogression in the State House Plan .......................................................................... 51 1. Alleged Retrogressive Districts ................................................................................ 51 a. State House District 33 ............................................................................................. 51 b. State House District 35 ............................................................................................. 53 c. State House District 41 ............................................................................................. 55 d. State House District 117 ........................................................................................... 58 e. State House District 149 ........................................................................................... 60 f. State House Districts 26, 106, and 144 .................................................................... 66 2. Alleged New Ability Districts ................................................................................... 67 B. Discriminatory Intent in the State House Plan ............................................................ 70 VI. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 72 2 Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 230 Filed 08/28/12 Page 3 of 154 The latest Census reports that since 2000 the population of Texas grew by over four million. This dramatic increase required the Texas legislature to create new voting districts for the four seats added to the State’s congressional delegation, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 3; id. amend. XIV, § 2, and draw new boundaries for the state and congressional voting districts to comply with the mandate of one-person, one-vote, see Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461, 488 n.2 (2003). Because Texas is a covered jurisdiction under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1973, the Attorney General of the United States or a three-judge panel of this Court must approve, or “preclear,” any redistricting plan before it can take effect. Id. § 1973c(a). Texas chose not to seek administrative preclearance and instead seeks from this Court a declaratory judgment that its redistricting plans will neither have “the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or [language minority group].” Id. The United States opposes preclearance of the redistricting plans for Texas’s congressional delegation and the State House of Representatives, but has no quarrel with the plan for the Texas Senate. Seven Intervenors raise a variety of challenges that collectively encompass all three plans. We conclude that Texas has failed to show that any of the redistricting plans merits preclearance.1 I. Background On July 19, 2011, Texas filed a complaint in this Court seeking a declaratory judgment that its newly enacted redistricting plans for the U.S. House of Representatives (Plan C185 or 1 Texas sought declaratory judgment that the three plans comply with section 5 in counts two, three, and four of the complaint. In its first count, Texas also sought from this Court preclearance of its redistricting plan for the State Board of Education. No party objected to the plan, either in their written answers or during a conference call the Court held with the parties on September 21, 2011. With no opposition and satisfied that the State Board of Education plan complies with section 5, we granted preclearance for that plan on September 22, 2011. See Minute Entry Order, Sept. 22, 2011. 3 Case 1:11-cv-01303-RMC-TBG-BAH Document 230 Filed 08/28/12 Page 4 of 154 Congressional Plan), the Texas House of Representatives (Plan H283 or House Plan), and the Texas Senate (Plan S148 or Senate Plan) comply with section 5 of the VRA. This Court has been properly convened as a three-judge court, 28 U.S.C. § 2284; 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(a), and we took jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1973c and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(a)(2), 2201. After the United States and several Intervenors2 filed answers, Texas moved for summary judgment for all three plans on September 14, 2011. We heard argument on the motion on November 2, 2011, and issued an order denying summary judgment on November 8, 2011. Our memorandum opinion followed on December 22, 2011. The same three redistricting plans have been challenged under section 2 of the VRA before a three-judge district court in the Western District of Texas. The State’s population growth and the addition of four seats to its congressional delegation make it impossible for Texas to conduct elections using the district boundaries last approved under section 5. Our denial of Texas’s motion for summary judgment required the district court in the section 2 litigation to draw interim maps for the State’s fast-approaching primaries and the ensuing general election. After the Supreme Court invalidated those maps, see Perry v. Perez, 132 S. Ct. 934 (2012), the court issued a second set, which have not been challenged. See Feb. 28, 2012 Order, Perez v. Perry, No. 11-cv-360 (W.D. Tex. filed May 9, 2011), ECF No. 681 (Congressional Plan interim map); Feb. 28, 2012 Order, Perez, No. 11-cv-360, ECF No. 682 (House Plan interim map); Feb. 2 This Court has granted Defendant-Intervenor status to seven parties, each of whom challenges various aspects of some or all of Texas’s proposed plans in their capacities as individual voters, elected state representatives, or civil rights advocacy groups. The Davis Intervenors are Texas State senators and representatives from districts in the Fort Worth