IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division


DAWN CURRY PAGE,
et al . ,

Pl ai nt i f f s,

v. Ci vi l Act i on No. 3: 13cv678

VI RGI NI A STATE BOARD
OF ELECTI ONS, et al . ,

Def endant s.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Bef or e DUNDAN, Ci r cui t J udge, O GRADY, Di st r i ct J udge and PAYNE,
Seni or Di st r i ct J udge.

DUNCAN, Ci r cui t J udge:

I n t he pol i t i cal l andscape pr i or t o t he Supr eme Cour t s
J une 25, 2013, deci si on i n Shel by Count y v. Hol der , 133 S. Ct .
2612 ( 2013) , t he Vi r gi ni a l egi sl at ur e under t ook t he t ask of
cr af t i ng Uni t ed St at es congr essi onal di st r i ct s wi t h t he
over ar chi ng goal of compl i ance wi t h t he Vot i ng Ri ght s Act of
1965 ( VRA) as i t was t hen i nt er pr et ed. I n descr i bi ng t he
met hodol ogy used i n dr awi ng t he abst r act l i nes cur r ent l y under
consi der at i on, Del egat e Wi l l i am J ani s, t he ar chi t ect of t hat
l egi sl at i on, expl ai ned i t t hus:
I f ocused on t he [ Thi r d] Congr essi onal Di st r i ct and
ensur i ng, based on r ecommendat i ons t hat I r ecei ved
f r om Congr essman Scot t [ , t he r epr esent at i ve f r om t he
Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct , ] and f r om al l 11 member s
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 1 of 102 PageID# 3235
2

of t he congr essi onal del egat i on, Republ i can and
Democr at - - one of t he par amount concer ns and
consi der at i ons t hat was not per mi ssi ve and
nonnegot i abl e under f eder al l aw and under
const i t ut i onal pr ecedent i s t hat t he [ Thi r d]
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct not r et r ogr ess i n mi nor i t y
vot er i nf l uence.

And t hat s how t he l i nes wer e dr awn . . . . [ T] he
pr i mar y f ocus of how t he l i nes i n [ t he r edi st r i ct i ng
l egi sl at i on] wer e dr awn was t o ensur e t hat t her e be no
r et r ogr essi on i n t he [ Thi r d] Congr essi onal Di st r i ct .
Because i f t hat occur r ed, t he pl an woul d be unl i kel y
t o sur vi ve a chal l enge ei t her t hr ough t he J ust i ce
Depar t ment or t he cour t s because i t woul d not compl y
wi t h t he const i t ut i onal l y mandat ed r equi r ement t hat
t her e be no r et r ogr essi on i n t he mi nor i t y vot i ng
i nf l uence i n t he [ Thi r d] Congr essi onal Di st r i ct .

Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 43, at 25.
1
Del egat e J ani s s ef f or t s wer e
successf ul . Hi s pr oposed l egi sl at i on was appr oved by t he Uni t ed
St at es Depar t ment of J ust i ce ( DOJ ) , whi ch f ound t hat i t di d
not ef f ect any r et r ogr essi on i n t he abi l i t y of mi nor i t i es t o
el ect t hei r candi dat es of choi ce.
2
As we expl ai n bel ow, however ,
t he Supr eme Cour t s Shel by Count y deci si on si gni f i cant l y al t er ed
t he st at us quo.

1
Because of Del egat e J ani s s key r ol e as sponsor of t he
l egi sl at i on at i ssue, we ci t e hi s vi ews f r equent l y.
2
As we di scuss i n gr eat er det ai l bel ow, i n di st i ngui shi ng
t he case bef or e us f r omt hat i n Shaw v. Hunt ( Shaw I I ) , 517 U. S.
899 ( 1996) , t he di ssent f i nds i t si gni f i cant t hat t he
l egi sl at i ve goal of mai nt ai ni ng mi nor i t y vot i ng st r engt h i n t he
Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct was not al so ar t i cul at ed i n t he
pr ecl ear ance submi ssi on. Wi t h r espect , we do not .
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 2 of 102 PageID# 3236
3

Bef or e t ur ni ng t o a descr i pt i on of t he hi st or y of t he
l i t i gat i on and an anal ysi s of t he i ssues i t pr esent s, we wi sh t o
emphasi ze at t he out set what we hope wi l l be cl ear t hr oughout .
We i mpl y no cr i t i ci sm of Del egat e J ani s or Def endant s, and do
not quest i on t hat al l at t empt ed t o act appr opr i at el y under t he
ci r cumst ances as t hey under st ood t hem t o be at t he t i me. We
must never t hel ess det er mi ne whet her t he Vi r gi ni a l egi sl at i on
passes const i t ut i onal must er , par t i cul ar l y i n t he wake of Shel by
Count y.
I. THE LITIGATION
Pl ai nt i f f s Dawn Cur r y Page, Gl or i a Per sonhubal l ah, and
J ames Far kas
3
( Pl ai nt i f f s) br i ng t hi s act i on agai nst Def endant s
Char l i e J udd, Ki mber l y Bower s, and Don Pal mer - - i n t hei r
r espect i ve of f i ci al capaci t i es of Chai r man, Vi ce- Chai r , and
Secr et ar y of t he Vi r gi ni a St at e Boar d of El ect i ons
4
- - and
I nt er venor - Def endant s Er i c Cant or , Rober t J . Wi t t man, Bob
Goodl at t e, Fr ank Wol f , Randy J . For bes, Mor gan Gr i f f i t h, Scot t
Ri gel l , and Rober t Hur t - - al l Congr essmen i n t he Commonweal t h of

3
Named Pl ai nt i f f Dawn Cur r y Page was di smi ssed f r om t hi s
case vi a st i pul at i on of di smi ssal on Apr i l 9, 2014. ( ECF No.
79) .
4
Or i gi nal Def endant s, t he Vi r gi ni a St at e Boar d of El ect i ons
and Kennet h T. Cucci nel l i , I I , At t or ney Gener al of Vi r gi ni a,
wer e di smi ssed f r om t hi s case vi a st i pul at i on of di smi ssal on
November 21, 2013. ( ECF No. 14) .
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 3 of 102 PageID# 3237
4

Vi r gi ni a- - ( col l ect i vel y, Def endant s)
5
chal l engi ng t he
const i t ut i onal i t y of Vi r gi ni a s Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct as
a r aci al ger r ymander i n vi ol at i on of t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause
of t he Four t eent h Amendment of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on.
I n l i ght of t he evi dence, and as St at e Boar d of El ect i ons
Def endant s have acknowl edged, we concl ude t hat compl i ance wi t h
Sect i on 5 of t he VRA ( Sect i on 5) , and accor di ngl y, r ace, was
t he [ l egi sl at ur e s] pr edomi nant pur pose . . . under l yi ng [ t he
Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct s] r aci al composi t i on i n 2012.
( I nt - Def . s Mem. Supp. Mot . Summ. J . 15, ECF No. 39) . Mor eover ,
t he r edi st r i ct i ng pl an cannot sur vi ve t he st r i ct scr ut i ny
r equi r ed of r ace- consci ous di st r i ct i ng because i t i s not
nar r owl y t ai l or ed.
6

Equi t abl e consi der at i ons pr ecl ude r emedi at i on pr i or t o
Vi r gi ni a s November 2014 el ect i ons. Because, however , t he
const i t ut i onal i nf i r mi t i es of t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct
cannot be r emedi ed i n i sol at i on, Vi r gi ni a shoul d act wi t hi n t he

5
Pl ai nt i f f s do not seek di f f er ent r emedi es agai nst
Def endant s and I nt er venor - Def endant s. Si nce t her e i s no
di st i nct i on bet ween t he i nt er est s of Def endant s and I nt er venor -
Def endant s, we r ef er t o t hemcol l ect i vel y.
6
Def endant s do not cont end ot her wi se. Def endant s make onl y
l i mi t ed nar r ow t ai l or i ng ar gument s, but do not asser t t hat any
ki nd of r aci al vot i ng anal ysi s i nf or med t hei r deci si ons.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 4 of 102 PageID# 3238
5

next l egi sl at i ve sessi on t o dr aw el ect or al di st r i ct s based on
per mi ssi bl e cr i t er i a.
Resol ut i on of t he i ssues bef or e us i nvol ves an anal ysi s of
t he i nt er pl ay bet ween t he VRA and Vi r gi ni a l aw gover ni ng vot i ng
r i ght s and t he r edi st r i ct i ng pr ocess. We t her ef or e begi n by
l ayi ng out t he f r amewor k t hat wi l l gui de t hat anal ysi s. We t hen
set out t he f act ual backgr ound and pr ocedur al hi st or y of t hi s
l i t i gat i on, bef or e pr oceedi ng t o t he i ssues at hand.
A. Voting Rights Act Background
A br i ef descr i pt i on of t he hi st or y and pur pose of t he VRA,
and i t s i mpact on Vi r gi ni a, i s a usef ul pr edi cat e f or t he
di scussi on t hat f ol l ows. The VRA, passed i n 1965, was
or i gi nal l y per cei ved as a r emedi al pr ovi si on di r ect ed
speci f i cal l y at er adi cat i ng di scr i mi nat or y pr act i ces t hat
r est r i ct ed bl acks abi l i t y t o r egi st er and vot e i n t he
segr egat ed Sout h. Hol der v. Hal l , 512 U. S. 874, 893 ( 1994)
( Thomas, J . , concur r i ng) . The VRA i s a compl ex scheme of
st r i ngent r emedi es ai med at ar eas wher e vot i ng di scr i mi nat i on
has been most f l agr ant . Sout h Car ol i na v. Kat zenbach, 383 U. S.
301, 315 ( 1966) .
Sect i on 4 of t he VRA out l i nes a f or mul a def i ni ng t he
St at es and pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons t o whi ch [ t he st at ut e s] . . .
r emedi es appl y. I d. Thi s cover age f or mul a i ncl udes st at es
or pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons wi t h t he f ol l owi ng char act er i st i cs: 1)
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 5 of 102 PageID# 3239
6

as of November 1964, t hey mai nt ai ned a t est or devi ce as a
pr er equi si t e f or vot i ng or r egi st r at i on; and 2) 1964 census dat a
i ndi cat ed t hat l ess t han 50% of t he vot i ng- age popul at i on was
r egi st er ed t o vot e. See 42 U. S. C. 1973b( b) ( 1) ( 2) . Sect i on 5
cont ai ns speci f i c r edi st r i ct i ng r equi r ement s f or j ur i sdi ct i ons
deemed cover ed under Sect i on 4. See i d. 1973c.
I n November 1964, Vi r gi ni a met t he cr i t er i a t o be
cl assi f i ed as a cover ed j ur i sdi ct i on under Sect i on 5. See i d.
1973b- c. As such, Vi r gi ni a was r equi r ed t o submi t any changes
t o i t s el ect i on or vot i ng l aws t o t he DOJ f or f eder al
pr eappr oval , a pr ocess cal l ed pr ecl ear ance. See i d. 1973c.
To obt ai n pr ecl ear ance, Vi r gi ni a had t o demonst r at e t hat a
pr oposed change had nei t her t he pur pose nor ef f ect of denyi ng
or abr i dgi ng t he r i ght t o vot e on account of r ace or col or .
I d. 1973c( a) .
The l egal l andscape changed dr amat i cal l y i n 2013, when t he
Supr eme Cour t r ul ed t hat Sect i on 4 s cover age f or mul a, descr i bed
above, was unconst i t ut i onal . Shel by Cnt y. , 133 S. Ct . at 2620-
31. The Cour t concl uded t hat t he f or mul a, al t hough r at i onal i n
pr act i ce and t heor y when t he VRA was passed i n 1965, was no
l onger j ust i f i ed by cur r ent vot i ng condi t i ons. I d. As a r esul t
of t he i nval i dat i on of t he cover age f or mul a under Sect i on 4,
Vi r gi ni a i s no l onger obl i gat ed t o compl y wi t h t he pr ecl ear ance
r equi r ement s of Sect i on 5. See i d.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 6 of 102 PageID# 3240
7

B. Factual Background
We t ur n now t o t he Vi r gi ni a const i t ut i onal and st at ut or y
scheme. The Vi r gi ni a Const i t ut i on r equi r es t he st at e
l egi sl at ur e t o r eappor t i on Vi r gi ni a s Uni t ed St at es
congr essi onal di st r i ct s ever y t en year s based on f eder al census
dat a. Di st r i ct s must be cont i guous and compact t er r i t or y . . .
const i t ut ed as t o gi ve, as near l y as pr act i cabl e, r epr esent at i on
i n pr opor t i on t o t he popul at i on of t he di st r i ct . Va. Const .
ar t . I I , 6.
Vi r gi ni a s Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct was f i r st cr eat ed
as a maj or i t y Af r i can- Amer i can di st r i ct i n 1991. See Va. Code
24. 1- 17. 303 ( 1991) ; 24. 1- 17. 303 ( 1992) ; 24. 2- 302 ( 1993) . At
t hat t i me, t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct had an Af r i can-
Amer i can popul at i on of 63. 98%, and a bl ack vot i ng- age popul at i on
( BVAP, t he per cent age of per sons of vot i ng age who i dent i f y as
Af r i can- Amer i can) of 61. 17%. Moon v. Meadows, 952 F. Supp.
1141, 114344 ( E. D. Va. 1997) .
The 2010 f eder al census showed t hat Vi r gi ni a s popul at i on
gr ew 13% bet ween 2000 and 2010. Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 1, at 18.
Because t he gr owt h was unevenl y di st r i but ed, Vi r gi ni a had t o
r edr aw i t s congr essi onal di st r i ct s i n or der t o bal ance
popul at i on t ot al s wi t hi n each di st r i ct . See i d. Pur suant t o
t hat goal , Vi r gi ni a s Senat e Commi t t ee on Pr i vi l eges and
El ect i ons adopt ed Commi t t ee Resol ut i on No. 2, est abl i shi ng goal s
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 7 of 102 PageID# 3241
8

and cr i t er i a concer ni ng appl i cabl e l egal r equi r ement s and pol i cy
obj ect i ves f or r edr awi ng Vi r gi ni a s congr essi onal di st r i ct s.
See Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 5. The cr i t er i a i ncl uded: 1) popul at i on
equal i t y among di st r i ct s; 2) compl i ance wi t h t he l aws of t he
Uni t ed St at es and Vi r gi ni a, i ncl udi ng pr ot ect i ons agai nst
di l ut i ng r aci al mi nor i t y vot i ng st r engt h and put t i ng mi nor i t y
vot er s i n a wor se posi t i on t han t hey wer e bef or e t he
r edi st r i ct i ng change ( r et r ogr essi on) ; 3) cont i guous and
compact di st r i ct s; 4) si ngl e- member di st r i ct s; and 5)
consi der at i on of communi t i es of i nt er est . I d. at 1- 2. The
Vi r gi ni a Senat e not ed t hat , al t hough [ a] l l of t he f or egoi ng
cr i t er i a [ woul d] be consi der ed i n t he di st r i ct i ng pr ocess[ , ] . .
. popul at i on equal i t y among di st r i ct s and compl i ance wi t h
f eder al and st at e const i t ut i onal r equi r ement s and [ t he VRA]
[ woul d] be gi ven pr i or i t y i n t he event of conf l i ct among t he
cr i t er i a. I d. at 2 ( emphasi s added) .
Del egat e J ani s used t he 2010 census dat a t o dr aw a new pl an
f or Vi r gi ni a s Uni t ed St at es congr essi onal di st r i ct s.
Del egat e J ani s pr esent ed hi s pl an, House Bi l l 5004, t o t he House
of Del egat es on Apr i l 6, 2011; t he House adopt ed i t si x days
l at er . Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 8, at 7. The Vi r gi ni a Senat e, however ,
r ej ect ed Del egat e J ani s s pl an and r epl aced i t wi t h a pl an
sponsor ed by St at e Senat or Mami e Locke. I d. The House and
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 8 of 102 PageID# 3242
9

Senat e wer e unabl e t o r econci l e t he compet i ng pl ans and t he
r edi st r i ct i ng ef f or t st al l ed. I d. at 8.
The November 2011 el ect i ons changed t he composi t i on of t he
Vi r gi ni a Senat e, and, i n J anuar y 2012, t he newl y seat ed House
and Senat e adopt ed Del egat e J ani s s pl an wi t hout any changes.
7

See i d. Gover nor Bob McDonnel l si gned t he pl an i nt o l aw on
J anuar y 25, 2012. I d. at 9. The congr essi onal di st r i ct i ng pl an
( 2012 Pl an) i s codi f i ed at Va. Code Ann. 24. 2- 302. 2.
The 2012 Pl an di vi des Vi r gi ni a i nt o el even congr essi onal
di st r i ct s. Pl ai nt i f f s descr i be t he boundar i es of t he Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct as f ol l ows:
The nor t hwest cor ner of t he di st r i ct i ncl udes par t s of
Ri chmond and t he nor t h shor e of t he J ames Ri ver . I t
t hen cr osses t he J ames Ri ver f or t he f i r st t i me and
j ut s west t o capt ur e par t s of Pet er sbur g. The
di st r i ct agai n cr osses t o t he nor t h shor e of t he J ames
Ri ver t o i ncl ude par t s of Newpor t News, t hough t hi s
por t i on of t he di st r i ct i s not cont i guous wi t h any
ot her par t of t he di st r i ct . The di st r i ct t hen hops
over par t of Congr essi onal Di st r i ct 2 t o i ncl ude par t
of Hampt on and cr osses t he J ames Ri ver and Chesapeake
Bay t o capt ur e par t of Nor f ol k, whi ch i s not
cont i guous wi t h any ot her par t of [ t he di st r i ct ] .

( Compl . 34, ECF No. 1) . A maj or i t y of t he vot i ng age
popul at i on i n t he 2012 Pl an s Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct i s
Af r i can- Amer i can. Wher eas t he BVAP of t he pr evi ous i t er at i on of
t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct ( Benchmar k Pl an) , f or med

7
Del egat e J ani s s bi l l was r enamed House Bi l l 251 but
r emai ned i dent i cal t o t he or i gi nal House Bi l l 5004.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 9 of 102 PageID# 3243
10

af t er t he 2000 census, was 53. 1%, t he BVAP of t he 2012 Pl an s
Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct i s 56. 3%. Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 27, at
14. Ther e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t hi s i ncr ease of mor e t han
t hr ee per cent age poi nt s was needed t o ensur e nonr et r ogr essi on,
however , because t he 2012 Pl an was not i nf or med by a r aci al bl oc
vot i ng or ot her , si mi l ar t ype of anal ysi s. See Tr i al Tr .
342: 11- 23, 354: 18- 355: 2. A r aci al bl oc vot i ng anal ysi s, whi ch
l egi sl at ur es f r equent l y use i n r edi st r i ct i ng, st udi es t he
el ect or al behavi or of mi nor i t y vot er s and ascer t ai ns how many
Af r i can- Amer i can vot er s ar e needed i n a congr essi onal di st r i ct
t o avoi d di mi ni shi ng mi nor i t y vot er s abi l i t y t o el ect t hei r
candi dat es of choi ce. Tr i al Tr . 62: 22- 63: 7, 98: 16- 99: 6, 198: 5-
8; Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 43, at 15.
Vi r gi ni a submi t t ed t he 2012 Pl an t o t he DOJ f or Sect i on 5
pr ecl ear ance. As we have not ed, t he DOJ pr ecl ear ed t he pl an on
Mar ch 14, 2012, f i ndi ng t hat i t di d not ef f ect any r et r ogr essi on
i n t he abi l i t y of mi nor i t i es t o el ect t hei r candi dat es of
choi ce. ( Def . s Mem. Supp. Mot . Summ. J . 7, ECF No. 37) .
On J une 25, 2013, t he Supr eme Cour t i ssued i t s deci si on i n
Shel by Count y. As a r esul t , as we have expl ai ned, Sect i on 5 s
r equi r ement s of r evi ew and pr ecl ear ance f or cover ed ar eas no
l onger appl y t o Vi r gi ni a wi t h r espect t o f ut ur e changes t o i t s
vot i ng and el ect i on l aws. See Shel by Cnt y. , 133 S. Ct . at
262731.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 10 of 102 PageID#
3244
11

C. Procedural History
Pl ai nt i f f s
8
br ought t hi s act i on on Oct ober 2, 2013, al l egi ng
t hat Vi r gi ni a used t he Sect i on 5 pr ecl ear ance r equi r ement s as a
pr et ext t o pack Af r i can- Amer i can vot er s i nt o Vi r gi ni a s Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct and r educe t hese vot er s i nf l uence i n
ot her di st r i ct s. ( Compl . 3, 40, ECF No. 1) . Pl ai nt i f f s seek
a decl ar at or y j udgment t hat Vi r gi ni a s Thi r d Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct , as dr awn i n t he 2012 Pl an, i s a r aci al ger r ymander i n
vi ol at i on of t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eent h
Amendment . I d. at 10. Pl ai nt i f f s al so seek t o per manent l y
enj oi n Def endant s f r om gi vi ng ef f ect t o t he boundar i es of t he
Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct , i ncl udi ng bar r i ng Def endant s f r om
conduct i ng el ect i ons f or t he Uni t ed St at es House of
Repr esent at i ves based on t he cur r ent Thi r d Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct . I d.
Any act i on under Sect i on 5 must be hear d and det er mi ned by
a cour t of t hr ee j udges i n accor dance wi t h t he pr ovi si ons of
sect i on 2284 of Ti t l e 28. 42 U. S. C. 1973c; see al so Al l en v.
St at e Bd. of El ect i ons, 393 U. S. 544, 56063 ( 1969) . Because
Pl ai nt i f f s act i on chal l eng[ es] t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he
appor t i onment of congr essi onal di st r i ct s i n Vi r gi ni a, t he Chi ef

8
Named Pl ai nt i f f s ar e al l Uni t ed St at es ci t i zens who ar e
r egi st er ed t o vot e i n t he Commonweal t h of Vi r gi ni a and r esi de i n
t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct . ( Compl . 7- 9, ECF No. 1) .
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 11 of 102 PageID#
3245
12

J udge of t he Uni t ed St at es Cour t of Appeal s f or t he Four t h
Ci r cui t gr ant ed Pl ai nt i f f s r equest f or a hear i ng by a t hr ee-
j udge cour t pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 2284( a) on Oct ober 21, 2013.
( ECF No. 10) .
Vi r gi ni a Congr essmen Er i c Cant or , Rober t J . Wi t t man, Bob
Goodl at t e, Fr ank Wol f , Randy J . For bes, Mor gan Gr i f f i t h, Scot t
Ri gel l , and Rober t Hur t moved t o i nt er vene as Def endant s i n t he
case on November 25, 2013. ( ECF No. 14) . On December 20, 2013,
al l Def endant s moved f or summar y j udgment . ( ECF Nos. 35, 38) .
We deni ed t he mot i ons on J anuar y 27, 2014. ( ECF No. 50) . A
t wo- day bench t r i al began on May 21, 2014. ( ECF Nos. 100, 101) .
We t hen or der ed t he par t i es t o f i l e post - t r i al br i ef s. ( ECF No.
99) . Af t er r evi ewi ng t hose br i ef s, we det er mi ned on J une 30,
2014, t hat f ur t her or al ar gument woul d not assi st i n t he
r esol ut i on of t he i ssues bef or e t he Cour t . ( ECF No. 108) .
Ther ef or e, t hi s case i s now r i pe f or di sposi t i on. We have
j ur i sdi ct i on pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 1331, 28 U. S. C.
1343( a) ( 3) , and 28 U. S. C. 1357.
II. ANALYSIS
To successf ul l y chal l enge t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he
Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct under t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause,
Pl ai nt i f f s f i r st bear t he bur den of pr ovi ng t hat t he
l egi sl at ur e s pr edomi nant consi der at i on i n dr awi ng i t s el ect or al
boundar i es was r ace. I f t hey make t hi s showi ng, t he assi gnment
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 12 of 102 PageID#
3246
13

of vot er s accor di ng t o r ace t r i gger s t he cour t s st r i ct est
scr ut i ny. Mi l l er v. J ohnson, 515 U. S. 900, 915 ( 1995) . Then,
t he bur den of pr oduct i on shi f t s t o Def endant s t o demonst r at e
t hat t he r edi st r i ct i ng pl an was nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o advance a
compel l i ng st at e i nt er est . See Shaw I I , 517 U. S. at 908.
For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, we f i nd t hat Pl ai nt i f f s have
shown r ace pr edomi nat ed. We f i nd t hat t he Thi r d Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct cannot sur vi ve r evi ew under t he exact i ng st andar d of
st r i ct scr ut i ny. Whi l e compl i ance wi t h Sect i on 5 was a
compel l i ng i nt er est when t he l egi sl at ur e act ed, t he
r edi st r i ct i ng pl an was not nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o f ur t her t hat
i nt er est . Accor di ngl y, we ar e compel l ed t o hol d t hat t he
chal l enged Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct vi ol at es t he Equal
Pr ot ect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment .
A. Race As the Predominant Consideration in Redistricting

As wi t h any l aw t hat di st i ngui shes among i ndi vi dual s on t he
basi s of r ace, equal pr ot ect i on pr i nci pl es gover n a St at e s
dr awi ng of congr essi onal di st r i ct s. Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 905.
Raci al cl assi f i cat i ons wi t h r espect t o vot i ng car r y par t i cul ar
danger s. Raci al ger r ymander i ng, even f or r emedi al pur poses, may
bal kani ze us i nt o compet i ng r aci al f act i ons; i t t hr eat ens t o
car r y us f ur t her f r om t he goal of a pol i t i cal syst em i n whi ch
r ace no l onger mat t er s . . . . Shaw v. Reno ( Shaw I ) , 509 U. S.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 13 of 102 PageID#
3247
14

630, 657 ( 1993) . As such, r ace- based di st r i ct i ng by our st at e
l egi sl at ur es demands cl ose j udi ci al scr ut i ny. I d.
To t r i gger st r i ct scr ut i ny, Pl ai nt i f f s f i r st bear t he
bur den of pr ovi ng t hat r ace was not onl y one of sever al f act or s
t hat t he l egi sl at ur e consi der ed i n dr awi ng t he Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct , but t hat r ace pr edomi nat ed. Bush v.
Ver a, 517 U. S. 952, 963 ( 1996) . The Supr eme Cour t has
emphasi zed t hat t hi s bur den i s a demandi ng one, Easl ey v.
Cr omar t i e ( Cr omar t i e I I ) , 532 U. S. 234, 241 ( 2001) ( quot i ng
Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 928) :
The pl ai nt i f f s bur den i s t o show, ei t her t hr ough
ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of a di st r i ct ' s shape and
demogr aphi cs or mor e di r ect evi dence goi ng t o
l egi sl at i ve pur pose, t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant
f act or mot i vat i ng t he l egi sl at ur e s deci si on t o pl ace
a si gni f i cant number of vot er s wi t hi n or wi t hout a
par t i cul ar di st r i ct . To make t hi s showi ng, a
pl ai nt i f f must pr ove t hat t he l egi sl at ur e subor di nat ed
t r adi t i onal r ace- neut r al di st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es,
i ncl udi ng but not l i mi t ed t o compact ness, cont i gui t y,
and r espect f or pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons or communi t i es
def i ned by act ual shar ed i nt er est s, t o r aci al
consi der at i ons.

Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 916. The Supr eme Cour t has ci t ed sever al
speci f i c f act or s as evi dence of r aci al l i ne dr awi ng: st at ement s
by l egi sl at or s i ndi cat i ng t hat r ace was a pr edomi nant f act or i n
r edi st r i ct i ng, see i d. , 515 U. S. at 917- 18; evi dence t hat r ace
or per cent age of r ace wi t hi n a di st r i ct was t he si ngl e
r edi st r i ct i ng cr i t er i on t hat coul d not be compr omi sed, see Shaw
I I , 517 U. S. at 906; cr eat i on of non- compact and oddl y shaped
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 14 of 102 PageID#
3248
15

di st r i ct s beyond what i s st r i ct l y necessar y t o avoi d
r et r ogr essi on, see Shaw I , 509 U. S. at 646- 48; use of l and
br i dges i n a del i ber at e at t empt t o br i ng Af r i can- Amer i can
popul at i on i nt o a di st r i ct , see Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 917; and
cr eat i on of di st r i ct s t hat exhi bi t di sr egar d f or ci t y l i mi t s,
l ocal el ect i on pr eci nct s, and vot i ng t abul at i on di st r i ct s
( VTDs) , see Bush, 517 U. S. at 974. As we demonst r at e bel ow,
al l of t hese f act or s ar e pr esent her e.
9
Mor eover , we do not vi ew
any of t hese f act or s i n i sol at i on. We consi der di r ect evi dence
of l egi sl at i ve i nt ent , i ncl udi ng st at ement s by t he l egi sl at i on s
sol e sponsor , i n conj unct i on wi t h t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence

9
I n cont endi ng t hat Pl ai nt i f f s do not make t hi s i ni t i al
showi ng, t he di ssent not es, among ot her t hi ngs, t hat Pl ai nt i f f s
f ai l ed t o pr oduce an adequat e al t er nat i ve pl an showi ng t hat t he
l egi sl at ur e coul d have achi eved i t s l egi t i mat e pol i t i cal
obj ect i ves i n al t er nat i ve ways t hat ar e compar abl y consi st ent
wi t h t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es. Cr omar t i e I I , 532
U. S. at 258. Whi l e t he di ssent acknowl edges t hat t he at t acki ng
par t y i s not conf i ned i n i t s f or m of pr oof t o submi t t i ng an
al t er nat i ve pl an, post at 49, i t makes much of t he f act t hat
t he al t er nat i ve pl an pr of f er ed by Pl ai nt i f f s accompl i shes a mor e
f avor abl e r esul t f or Democr at s t han does t he Enact ed Pl an.
However , t he si gni f i cance of t he di scr epancy bet ween t hese
pol i t i cal out comes i s over st at ed, and r el i es on an assumpt i on
t hat t he l egi sl at ur e s pol i t i cal obj ect i ve was t o cr eat e an 8- 3
i ncumbency pr ot ect i on pl an. See Tr i al Tr . 180- 81 ( not i ng t hat
t he Al t er nat i ve Pl an woul d onl y under mi ne i ncumbency pr ot ect i on
obj ect i ves i f i t was t he l egi sl at ur e s pol i t i cal goal t o have an
8- 3 spl i t , whi ch i s somet hi ng we don t have knowl edge of ) .
Thi s i nf er ence i s not suppor t ed by t he r ecor d, as we devel op
mor e f ul l y bel ow.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 15 of 102 PageID#
3249
16

suppor t i ng whet her t he 2012 Pl an compl i es wi t h t r adi t i onal
r edi st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es.
1. Direct Evidence of Legislative Intent

When anal yzi ng t he l egi sl at i ve i nt ent under l yi ng a
r edi st r i ct i ng deci si on, we agr ee wi t h t he di ssent t hat t her e i s
a pr esumpt i on of good f ai t h t hat must be accor ded l egi sl at i ve
enact ment s. Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 916. Thi s pr esumpt i on
r equi r es cour t s t o exer ci se ext r aor di nar y caut i on i n
adj udi cat i ng cl ai ms t hat a St at e has dr awn di st r i ct l i nes on t he
basi s of r ace. I d. Such r est r ai nt i s par t i cul ar l y war r ant ed
gi ven t he compl ex i nt er pl ay of f or ces t hat ent er a
l egi sl at ur e s r edi st r i ct i ng cal cul us, i d. at 915- 16, maki ng
r edi st r i ct i ng possi bl y t he most di f f i cul t t ask a l egi sl at i ve
body ever under t akes, Smi t h v. Beasl ey, 946 F. Supp. 1174, 1207
( D. S. C. 1996) ( t hr ee- j udge cour t ) .
Never t hel ess, t he good f ai t h of t he l egi sl at ur e does not
excuse or cur e t he const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on of separ at i ng vot er s
accor di ng t o r ace. I d. at 1208. Her e, [ w] e do not quest i on
t he good f ai t h of t he l egi sl at ur e i n adopt i ng [ t he 2012 Pl an]
so l ong as [ t ] he member s di d what t hey t hought was r equi r ed by
[ Sect i on 5] and by t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce at t he t i me. I d.
At t hi s st age of t he anal ysi s, we ar e concer ned onl y wi t h
whet her l egi sl at i ve st at ement s i ndi cat e t hat r ace was t he
pr edomi nant f act or mot i vat i ng t he l egi sl at ur e s deci si on t o
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 16 of 102 PageID#
3250
17

pl ace a si gni f i cant number of vot er s wi t hi n or wi t hout [ t he
Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct ] . Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 916. We
f i nd such st at ement s her e, dr awn f r ommul t i pl e sour ces.
We must al so not e, however , t hat i t i s i nappr opr i at e t o
conf use t hi s pr esumpt i on of good f ai t h wi t h an obl i gat i on t o
par se l egi sl at i ve i nt ent i n sear ch of pr oper ver sus i mpr oper
mot i ves under l yi ng t he use of r ace as t he pr edomi nant f act or i n
r edi st r i ct i ng, as t he di ssent does her e. The l egi sl at i ve r ecor d
her e i s r epl et e wi t h st at ement s i ndi cat i ng t hat r ace was t he
l egi sl at ur e s par amount concer n i n enact i ng t he 2012 Pl an. Yet
t he di ssent ur ges us t o consi der such st at ement s as mer e
l egi sl at i ve acknowl edgment s of t he supr emacy of f eder al l aw,
speci f i cal l y t he VRA. The di ssent ar gues t hat subj ect i ng a
r edi st r i ct i ng pl an t o st r i ct scr ut i ny when i t separ at es vot er s
accor di ng t o r ace as a means t o compl y wi t h Sect i on 5 t r ap[ s]
[ l egi sl at ur es] bet ween t he compet i ng hazar ds of [ VRA and
Const i t ut i onal ] l i abi l i t y, Bush, 517 U. S. at 992 ( O Connor , J . ,
concur r i ng) ,
10
but t hi s i s a r ed her r i ng. Whi l e [ a] ppl yi ng

10
The di ssent r el i es sol el y on J ust i ce O Connor s
concur r ence i n Bush t o make t hi s ar gument . The l anguage quot ed
by t he di ssent appear s i n t he cont ext of J ust i ce O Connor s
asser t i on t hat compl i ance wi t h Sect i on 2 of t he VRA i s a
compel l i ng st at e i nt er est , see Bush, 517 U. S. at 990- 93
( O Connor , J . , concur r i ng) , but J ust i ce O Connor s opi ni on al so
speci f i cal l y not es t hat usi ng r ace as a pr oxy f or VRA compl i ance
shoul d be subj ect t o st r i ct scr ut i ny, see i d.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 17 of 102 PageID#
3251
18

t r adi t i onal equal pr ot ect i on pr i nci pl es i n t he vot i ng- r i ght s
cont ext i s a most del i cat e t ask, Shaw I I , 517 U. S. at 905
( quot i ng Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 905) , we must appl y st r i ct scr ut i ny
when, as her e, t her e i s st r ong di r ect and ci r cumst ant i al
evi dence t hat r ace was t he onl y nonnegot i abl e cr i t er i on.
a. Defendants Statements

Def endant s concede t hat avoi di ng r et r ogr essi on i n t he Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct and ensur i ng compl i ance wi t h Sect i on 5
was t he l egi sl at ur e s pr i mar y pr i or i t y i n dr awi ng t he 2012 Pl an.
Def endant s acknowl edge t hat t he l egi sl at ur e s t op t wo pr i or i t i es
wer e compl i ance wi t h appl i cabl e f eder al and st at e l aws,
expr essl y i ncl udi ng t he [ VRA] and popul at i on equal i t y. ( Def . s
Mem. Supp. Mot . Summ. J . 12, ECF No. 37) . Mor eover , Def endant s
concede[ ] t hat compl i ance wi t h Sect i on 5 was [ t he
l egi sl at ur e s] pr edomi nant pur pose or compel l i ng i nt er est
under l yi ng Di st r i ct 3 s r aci al composi t i on i n 2012. ( I nt -
Def . s Mem. Supp. Mot . Summ. J . 15, ECF No. 39) . Of cour se, we
do not vi ew t he l anguage of t he I nt er venor - Def endant s summar y
j udgment br i ef as a bi ndi ng concessi on, as t he di ssent
suggest s. Rat her , we t ake i t f or what i t i s- a candi d
acknowl edgement of t he i ncont r over t i bl e f act t hat t he shape of
t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct was mot i vat ed by t he desi r e t o
avoi d mi nor i t y r et r ogr essi on i n vot i ng.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 18 of 102 PageID#
3252
19

b. Racial Threshold As the Means to Achieve
Section 5 Compliance

Def endant s exper t , J ohn Mor gan, al so acknowl edged t hat t he
l egi sl at ur e adopt ed t he [ 2012 Pl an] wi t h t he [ Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct ] Bl ack VAP at 56. 3% because l egi sl at or s
wer e consci ous of mai nt ai ni ng a 55% BVAP f l oor . I nt . Def . s
Tr i al Ex. 13, at 27. I n 2011, t he l egi sl at ur e enact ed a House
of Del egat es r edi st r i ct i ng pl an wi t h a 55% Bl ack VAP as t he
f l oor f or bl ack- maj or i t y di st r i ct s wi t h st r ong bi par t i san
suppor t . I d. at 26. Gi ven t he success of t hi s pr i or usage of a
55% BVAP f l oor , t he l egi sl at ur e consi der ed a 55% BVAP f l oor f or
t he 2012 congr essi onal r edi st r i ct i ng appr opr i at e t o obt ai n
Sect i on 5 pr ecl ear ance, even i f i t meant r ai si ng t he Bl ack VAP
above t he [ 53. 1%] l evel [ ] i n t he Benchmar k pl an. I d. at 26- 27.
The l egi sl at ur e t her ef or e act ed i n accor dance wi t h t hat vi ew,
i d. at 27, when adopt i ng t he 2012 Pl an, despi t e t he f act t hat
t he use of a 55% BVAP f l oor i n t hi s i nst ance was not i nf or med by
an anal ysi s of vot er pat t er ns. I ndeed, when asked on t he House
f l oor whet her he had any empi r i cal evi dence what soever t hat
55[ % BVAP] i s di f f er ent t han 51[ %] or 50[ %] , or whet her t he 55%
f l oor was j ust a number t hat has been pul l ed out of t he ai r ,
Del egat e J ani s, t he r edi st r i ct i ng bi l l s aut hor , char act er i zed
t he use of a BVAP f l oor as wei ghi ng a cer t ai nt y agai nst an
uncer t ai nt y. Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 45, at 7.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 19 of 102 PageID#
3253
20

c. Statements by the Author of the 2012
Congressional Maps

I n addi t i on t o Def endant s st at ement s, we cr edi t
expl anat i ons by Del egat e J ani s, t he l egi sl at i on s sol e aut hor ,
st at i ng t hat he consi der ed r ace t he si ngl e nonnegot i abl e
r edi st r i ct i ng cr i t er i on. Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 43, at 25. I n
di sagr eei ng, t he di ssent at t empt s t o di scount t he meani ng of
t hese st at ement s by pl aci ng gr eat r el i ance on r emar ks by
l egi sl at i ve opponent s char act er i zi ng t he r edi st r i ct i ng
l egi sl at i on as an i ncumbency pr ot ect i on pl an, and by par si ng
Del egat e J ani s s st at ement s r egar di ng compl i ance wi t h f eder al
l aw gener al l y f r om t he necessar y ant ecedent of r el yi ng on r ace
t o do so. I n t he f ace of Del egat e J ani s s cl ear wor ds, we do
not f i nd t hese ef f or t s per suasi ve.
11


11
Per haps t hi s i s al so t he appr opr i at e j unct ur e at whi ch t o
addr ess t he di ssent s r ej ect i on of t he cr edi bi l i t y of
Pl ai nt i f f s exper t , Dr . Mi chael McDonal d, and endor sement of
Def endant s exper t , Mr . Mor gan, whi ch we f i nd somewhat puzzl i ng.
We f i nd i t no mor e damni ng t hat Dr . McDonal d has t est i f i ed
di f f er ent l y i n di f f er ent cont ext s t han t hat Mr . Mor gan has
t est i f i ed consi st ent l y on t he same si de. Nor i s t he expl or at i on
of i ssues i n an academi c pi ece, wr i t t en bef or e Dr . McDonal d was
r et ai ned by Pl ai nt i f f s and bef or e he f ul l y eval uat ed t he
evi dence her e, of par t i cul ar r el evance. We do, however , f i nd
si gni f i cant t he f ol l owi ng f act s: t hat Mr . Mor gan pr of f er s no
academi c wor k, does not have an advanced degr ee, t hat hi s
under gr aduat e degr ee was i n hi st or y, t hat he has never t aken a
cour se i n st at i st i cs, t hat he has not per f or med a r aci al bl oc
vot i ng anal ysi s, t hat he di d not wor k wi t h or t al k t o any
member s of t he Vi r gi ni a l egi sl at ur e, and t hat he mi scoded t he
ent i r e ci t y of Pet er sbur g s VTDs. See Tr i al Tr . 334- 35, 338- 43,
361- 65.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 20 of 102 PageID#
3254
21

Del egat e J ani s emphasi zed t hat hi s pr i mar y f ocus i n
dr awi ng Vi r gi ni a s new congr essi onal maps was ensur i ng t hat t he
Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct mai nt ai ned at l east as l ar ge a
per cent age of Af r i can- Amer i can vot er s as had been pr esent i n t he
di st r i ct under t he Benchmar k Pl an. Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 43, at 25;
see al so Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 13, at 8 ( [ W] e can have no l ess
[ per cent age of Af r i can- Amer i can vot er s] t han per cent ages t hat we
have under t he exi st i ng l i nes. ) .
For exampl e, at t he second f l oor r eadi ng of t he
r edi st r i ct i ng bi l l i n Vi r gi ni a s House of Del egat es on Apr i l 12,
2011, Del egat e J ani s not ed t hat one of t he par amount concer ns
i n t he dr af t i ng of t he bi l l was [ t he VRA mandat e] t hat [ t he
l egi sl at ur e] not r et r ogr ess mi nor i t y vot i ng i nf l uence i n t he 3r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct . Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 43, at 10 ( emphasi s
added) . He cont i nued t o r ei t er at e t hi s sent i ment , not i ng t hat
he was most especi al l y f ocused on maki ng sur e t hat t he [ Thi r d]
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct di d not r et r ogr ess i n i t s mi nor i t y vot i ng
i nf l uence. I d. at 14- 15 ( emphasi s added) .
Del egat e J ani s al so st at ed t hat t he avoi dance of
r et r ogr essi on i n t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct t ook pr i macy
over ot her r edi st r i ct i ng consi der at i ons because i t was
nonnegot i abl e:
[ O] ne of t he par amount concer ns and consi der at i ons
t hat was not per mi ssi ve and nonnegot i abl e . . . i s
t hat t he 3r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct not r et r ogr ess i n
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 21 of 102 PageID#
3255
22

mi nor i t y vot er i nf l uence. . . . [ T] he pr i mar y f ocus of
how t he l i nes i n House Bi l l 5004 wer e dr awn was t o
ensur e t hat t her e be no r et r ogr essi on i n t he 3r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct . Because i f t hat occur r ed, t he
pl an woul d be unl i kel y t o sur vi ve a chal l enge ei t her
t hr ough t he J ust i ce Depar t ment or t he cour t s because
i t woul d not compl y wi t h t he const i t ut i onal l y mandat ed
r equi r ement t hat t her e be no r et r ogr essi on i n t he
mi nor i t y vot i ng i nf l uence i n t he 3r d Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct .

I d. at 24- 25 ( emphasi s added) . Unl i ke t he di ssent , we deem i t
appr opr i at e t o accept t he expl anat i on of t he l egi sl at i on s
aut hor as t o i t s pur pose. And t her e i s f ur t her suppor t .
2. Circumstantial Evidence of the Third Congressional
Districts Shape and Characteristics

I n addi t i on t o t he evi dence of l egi sl at i ve i nt ent , we al so
consi der t he ext ent t o whi ch t he di st r i ct boundar i es mani f est
t hat l egi sl at i ve wi l l .
12
Evi dence of a hi ghl y i r r egul ar
r eappor t i onment pl an i n whi ch a St at e concent r at ed a di sper sed

12
At t hi s j unct ur e, we must t ake i ssue wi t h t he manner i n
whi ch t he di ssent consi der s Pl ai nt i f f s ci r cumst ant i al evi dence.
When eval uat i ng evi dence of t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct s
shape, compact ness, cont i gui t y, pol i t i cal subdi vi si on spl i t s,
and popul at i on swaps, t he di ssent consi der s each i n i sol at i on,
concl udi ng t hat no f act or al one car r i es Pl ai nt i f f s bur den of
showi ng t hat r ace pr edomi nat ed. I n addi t i on, t he di ssent
i mpl i es t hat Pl ai nt i f f s must , f or each of t hese f act or s, make a
necessar y showi ng t hat t hese ci r cumst ant i al i r r egul ar i t i es,
consi der ed i ndi vi dual l y, r esul t ed f r om r aci al , r at her t han
pol i t i cal , mot i vat i ons. See post at 34. Pr ecedent counsel s,
however , t hat cour t s must consi der whet her t hese ci r cumst ant i al
f act or s t oget her wei gh i n f avor of t he appl i cat i on of st r i ct
scr ut i ny. Bush, 517 U. S. at 962 ( emphasi s added) . No one
f act or need be i ndependent l y suf f i ci ent t o show r ace
pr edomi nat ed. I d.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 22 of 102 PageID#
3256
23

mi nor i t y popul at i on i n a si ngl e di st r i ct by di sr egar di ng
t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es such as compact ness,
cont i gui t y, and r espect f or pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons, i ndi cat es
t hat r aci al consi der at i ons pr edomi nat ed dur i ng t he 201112
r edi st r i ct i ng cycl e. Shaw I , 509 U. S. at 647. We consi der each
of t hese f act or s bel ow.
a. Shape and Compactness

As t he Supr eme Cour t has r ecogni zed, r eappor t i onment i s
one ar ea i n whi ch appear ances do mat t er , Shaw I , 509 U. S. at
647, and t he obvi ous f act t hat t he di st r i ct s shape i s hi ghl y
i r r egul ar and geogr aphi cal l y non- compact by any obj ect i ve
st andar d suppor t s t he concl usi on t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant
f act or i n dr awi ng t he chal l enged di st r i ct . Shaw I I , 517 U. S. at
90506 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Mor eover ,
compact ness i s one of t wo r edi st r i ct i ng cr i t er i a r equi r ed by t he
Vi r gi ni a Const i t ut i on. Va. Const . ar t . I I , 6 ( Ever y
el ect or al di st r i ct shal l be composed of cont i guous and compact
t er r i t or y . . . . ) .
Because, as he expl ai ned t o t he Senat e Commi t t ee on
Pr i vi l eges and El ect i ons, Del egat e J ani s di dn t exami ne
compact ness scor es when dr awi ng t he 2012 congr essi onal maps,
Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 14, at 8, we begi n wi t h a vi sual , r at her t han
mat hemat i cal , over vi ew of t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct s
shape and compact ness. See Kar cher v. Dagget t , 462 U. S. 725,
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 23 of 102 PageID#
3257
24

762 ( Wi t hout appl yi ng any mat hemat i cal measur es of compact ness,
[ a] gl ance at t he [ congr essi onal ] map shows di st r i ct
conf i gur at i ons wel l deser vi ng t he ki nd of descr i pt i ve adj ect i ves
. . . t hat have t r adi t i onal l y been used t o descr i be acknowl edged
ger r ymander s. ) .
Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct i s
t he l east compact congr essi onal di st r i ct i n Vi r gi ni a. Tr i al Tr .
73: 10- 14. And, i ndeed, t he maps of t he di st r i ct r ef l ect bot h an
odd shape and a composi t i on of a di spar at e chai n of communi t i es,
pr edomi nant l y Af r i can- Amer i can, l oosel y connect ed by t he J ames
Ri ver . See Tr i al Tr . 42: 13- 16; Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 48. Def endant s
do not di sagr ee. I n f act , Def endant s exper t , Mr . Mor gan,
concedes t hat t he t hr ee pr i mar y st at i st i cal pr ocedur es used t o
measur e t he degr ee of compact ness of a di st r i ct al l i ndi cat e
t hat t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct i s t he l east compact
congr essi onal di st r i ct i n Vi r gi ni a. Tr i al Tr . 375: 21- 24, 376: 9-
13. Whi l e Def endant s acknowl edge t he i r r egul ar i t y of shape and
l ack of compact ness r ef l ect ed by t he Thi r d Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct , t hey submi t t hat a desi r e t o pr ot ect Republ i can
i ncumbent s expl ai ns t he Di st r i ct s shape, a cont ent i on we
di scuss l at er . See i nf r a sect i on I I . A. 3; see al so Tr i al Tr .
14: 24- 15: 6.


Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 24 of 102 PageID#
3258
25

b. Non-Contiguousness

I n addi t i on t o r equi r i ng compact ness, t he Vi r gi ni a
Const i t ut i on al so r equi r es t he l egi sl at ur e t o consi der
cont i gui t y when dr awi ng congr essi onal boundar i es. See Va.
Const . ar t . I I , 6. The Vi r gi ni a Supr eme Cour t has concl uded
t hat l and masses separ at ed by wat er may . . . sat i sf y t he
cont i gui t y r equi r ement i n cer t ai n ci r cumst ances. Wi l ki ns v.
West , 571 S. E. 2d 100, 109 ( Va. 2002) . Whi l e t he Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct i s not cont i guous by l and, i t i s l egal l y
cont i guous because al l segment s of t he di st r i ct bor der t he J ames
Ri ver . Tr i al Tr . 74: 22- 24. Ther ef or e, t he Thi r d Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct i s l egal l y cont i guous under Vi r gi ni a Law. See Wi l ki ns,
571 S. E. 2d at 109; see al so Tr i al Tr . 221: 12- 14.
Yet cont i gui t y and ot her t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es
ar e i mpor t ant not because t hey ar e const i t ut i onal l y r equi r ed,
but r at her because t hey ar e obj ect i ve f act or s cour t s may
consi der i n assessi ng r aci al ger r ymander i ng cl ai ms. Shaw I , 509
U. S. at 647. To show t hat r ace pr edomi nat ed, Pl ai nt i f f s need
not est abl i sh t hat t he l egi sl at ur e di sr egar ded ever y t r adi t i onal
di st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl e. See Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 917 ( hol di ng
t hat ci r cumst ant i al evi dence such as shape does not need t o be
suf f i ci ent , st andi ng al one, t o est abl i sh a r aci al ger r ymander i ng
cl ai m) . Rat her , we consi der i r r egul ar i t i es i n t he appl i cat i on
of t hese t r adi t i onal pr i nci pl es t oget her . Her e, t he r ecor d
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 25 of 102 PageID#
3259
26

est abl i shes t hat , i n dr awi ng t he boundar i es of t he Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct , t he l egi sl at ur e used wat er cont i gui t y as
a means t o bypass whi t e communi t i es and connect pr edomi nant l y
Af r i can- Amer i can popul at i ons i n ar eas such as Nor f ol k, Newpor t
News, and Hampt on. See Tr i al Tr . 75: 15- 76: 1. Such
ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i s one f act or t hat cont r i but es t o t he
over al l concl usi on t hat t he di st r i ct s boundar i es wer e dr awn
wi t h a f ocus on r ace.
c. Splits in Political Subdivisions
[ R] espect f or pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons i s an i mpor t ant
t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl e. Shaw I , 509 U. S. at 647. A
count y or ci t y i s consi der ed spl i t by a congr essi onal di st r i ct
when a di st r i ct does not ent i r el y cont ai n t hat count y or ci t y
wi t hi n i t s bor der s. See Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 27, at 8. The Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct spl i t s mor e l ocal pol i t i cal boundar i es
t han any ot her di st r i ct i n Vi r gi ni a. Tr i al Tr . 76: 18- 20. I t
spl i t s ni ne count i es or ci t i es, t he hi ghest number of any
congr essi onal di st r i ct i n t he 2012 Pl an. Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 27, at
9. Mor eover , t he boundar i es of t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct
cont r i but e t o t he maj or i t y of spl i t s i n i t s nei ghbor i ng
congr essi onal di st r i ct s. See i d.
The Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct al so spl i t s mor e vot i ng
t abul at i on di st r i ct s, or VTDs, t han any of Vi r gi ni a s ot her
congr essi onal di st r i ct s. Tr i al Tr . 78: 17- 19; see al so Pl . s
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 26 of 102 PageID#
3260
27

Tr i al Ex. 27, at 10. A VTD i s a Census Bur eau t er mr ef er r i ng t o
what i s commonl y t hought of as a vot i ng pr eci nct . Tr i al Tr .
78: 5- 8. I n t ot al , t he 2012 Pl an spl i t s 20 VTDs; t he Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct cont r i but es t o 14 of t hem. Tr i al Tr .
78: 20- 21; see al so Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 27, at 10. Whi l e some of
t hese ar e t echni cal spl i t s ( i . e. , a VTD spl i t t hat does not
i nvol ve popul at i on; f or exampl e, a spl i t acr oss wat er ) , such
t echni cal spl i t s wer e used st r at egi cal l y her e, as t hey woul d not
have been necessar y i f [ t he l egi sl at ur e was not ] t r yi ng t o
bypass [ whi t e] communi t i es usi ng wat er and br i ng pr edomi nant l y
Af r i can- Amer i can communi t i es i nt o t he di st r i ct . Tr i al Tr . 79-
80.
The di ssent cont ends t hat t he popul at i on swaps i nvol vi ng
t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct - - and r esul t i ng l ocal i t y spl i t s-
- wer e necessar y t o achi eve popul at i on par i t y i n accor dance wi t h
t he const i t ut i onal mandat e of t he one- per son- one- vot e r ul e,
13
and
can al so be expl ai ned by t he t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng cr i t er i on
of pr eser vi ng di st r i ct cor es.
14
See post at 28, 36. The

13
Thi s pr i nci pl e, cont ai ned i n ar t . I , 2 of t he Uni t ed
St at es Const i t ut i on, r equi r es al l congr essi onal di st r i ct s t o
cont ai n r oughl y equal popul at i ons. See Wesber r y v. Sander s, 376
U. S. 1, 17 ( 1964) .
14
A new di st r i ct pr eser ves di st r i ct cor es when i t r et ai ns
most of t he pr evi ous benchmar k di st r i ct s r esi dent s wi t hi n i t s
boundar i es. Tr i al Tr . 379.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 27 of 102 PageID#
3261
28

evi dence does not subst ant i at e ei t her of t hese ar gument s. I t i s
t r ue t hat t he Vi r gi ni a l egi sl at ur e needed t o add 63, 976 peopl e
t o t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct t o achi eve popul at i on
par i t y. See Tr i al Tr . 87. Yet , t hough t he di ssent asser t s t hat
i t i s ext r emel y unl i kel y t hat any combi nat i on of whol e
l ocal i t i es i n t he vi ci ni t y of [ t he Benchmar k Pl an] coul d have
been added t o t he [ Thi r d Congr essi onal ] Di st r i ct t o augment t he
popul at i on by exact l y 63, 976 peopl e, post at 36, Pl ai nt i f f s
al t er nat i ve pl an mai nt ai ns a maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct and
achi eves t he popul at i on i ncr ease needed f or par i t y, whi l e
si mul t aneousl y mi ni mi zi ng l ocal i t y spl i t s and t he number of
peopl e af f ect ed by such spl i t s. See Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 29, at 1.
Al t hough t hi s al t er nat i ve pl an r esul t s i n onl y one l ess l ocal i t y
spl i t t han t he 2012 Pl an, i t r educes t he number of peopl e
af f ect ed by t he l ocal i t y spl i t s bet ween t he Thi r d Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct and Second Congr essi onal Di st r i ct by 240, 080.
15
See
Tr i al Tr . 112; Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 29, at 5, t bl . 3. The
al t er nat i ve pl an al so r educes t he number of VTD spl i t s i nvol vi ng
t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct f r om14 i n t he 2012 Pl an t o 11.

15
The t ot al popul at i on af f ect ed by t he Thi r d Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct s l ocal i t y spl i t s wi t h t he Second Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct i n t he 2012 Pl an i s 241, 096, whi l e t he popul at i on
af f ect ed by t he spl i t s bet ween t hese di st r i ct s i n t he
al t er nat i ve pl an i s onl y 1, 016. Tr i al Tr . 112; Pl . s Tr i al Ex.
29, at 5, t bl . 3.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 28 of 102 PageID#
3262
29

Tr i al Tr . 111. Mor eover , Pl ai nt i f f s al t er nat i ve pl an, unl i ke
t he 2012 Pl an, keeps t he ci t i es of Newpor t News, Hampt on, and
Nor f ol k i nt act .
16
See i d. at 112. Thi s i s a par t i cul ar l y
i mpor t ant accompl i shment because i t r ef l ect s t he f ul f i l l ment of
a st r ong publ i c sent i ment , as expr essed dur i ng 2010
r edi st r i ct i ng f or ums,
17
agai nst spl i t t i ng l ocal i t i es, and i n
f avor of keepi ng t he i nt egr i t y of ci t i es l i ke Hampt on and
Nor f ol k i nt act . See Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 29, at 5; see al so Pl . s
Tr i al Ex. 11- 12.
The evi dence si mi l ar l y under cut s t he di ssent s cont ent i on
t hat t he boundar i es of t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct r ef l ect
an al l egi ance t o t he t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl e of
pr eser vi ng di st r i ct cor es. Far f r om at t empt i ng t o r et ai n most
of t he Benchmar k Pl an s r esi dent s wi t hi n t he new di st r i ct

16
The f act t hat t he 2012 Pl an spl i t s t hese ci t i es, despi t e
t he demonst r at ed f easi bi l i t y of achi evi ng popul at i on par i t y
whi l e keepi ng t hem whol e, f ur t her r ef ut es t he di ssent s
cont ent i on t hat t he popul at i on swaps wer e based on a desi r e t o
l i mi t l ocal i t y spl i t s. Post at 36. Despi t e t he f act t hat
doi ng so was unnecessar y, t he l egi sl at ur e spl i t Newpor t News and
Hampt on when i t excl uded cer t ai n l ow- BVAP VTDs f r om t he Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct . See Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 27, at 17 ( showi ng
t hat VTDs i n Newpor t News and Hampt on wi t h BVAPs of 23. 1% wer e
excl uded f r om t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct ) . Si mi l ar l y, t he
l egi sl at ur e s r emoval of pr edomi nant l y whi t e VTDs f r om t he Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct cont r i but ed t o ot her wi se unnecessar y
spl i t s i n Nor f ol k. See Tr i al Tr . 436- 39.
17
Vi r gi ni a at t ached t he t r anscr i pt s of t hese hear i ngs t o
i t s Sect i on 5 submi ssi on. See Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 11- 12.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 29 of 102 PageID#
3263
30

bor der s, t he 2012 Pl an moved over 180, 000 peopl e i n and out of
t he di st r i ct s sur r oundi ng t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct t o
achi eve an over al l popul at i on i ncr ease of onl y 63, 976 peopl e.
Tr i al Tr . 87. Tel l i ngl y, t he popul at i ons moved out of t he Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct wer e pr edomi nant l y whi t e, whi l e t he
popul at i ons moved i nt o t he Di st r i ct wer e pr edomi nant l y Af r i can-
Amer i can. I d. at 81- 82. Mor eover , t he pr edomi nant l y whi t e
popul at i ons moved out of t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct
t ot al ed near l y 59, 000 r esi dent s- a number ver y cl ose t o t he
t ot al r equi r ed i ncr ease of 63, 976 peopl e. See Pl . s Tr i al Ex.
27, at 15, t bl . 6; see al so Tr i al Tr . 87.
Whi l e [ t ] he Const i t ut i on does not mandat e r egul ar i t y of
di st r i ct shape, Bush, 517 U. S. at 962, Pl ai nt i f f s
ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct s
i r r egul ar i t i es and i nconsi st enci es wi t h r espect t o t he
t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng cr i t er i a descr i bed above, coupl ed wi t h
cl ear st at ement s of l egi sl at i ve i nt ent , suppor t s our concl usi on
t hat , i n t hi s case, t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng cr i t er i a [ wer e]
subor di nat ed t o r ace. I d.
3. Predominance of Race over Politics

Def endant s, as wel l as t he di ssent , r el y heavi l y on
i sol at ed st at ement s i n t he l egi sl at i ve r ecor d, made by opponent s
of Del egat e J ani s s bi l l , suggest i ng t hat i ncumbency pr ot ect i on
and par t i san pol i t i cs mot i vat ed t he 201112 r edi st r i ct i ng
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 30 of 102 PageID#
3264
31

ef f or t s. See, e. g. , Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 43, at 48- 49 ( opponent of
Del egat e J ani s s pl an st at i ng t hat J ani s admi t t ed t oday t hat
one of t he cr i t er i a t hat he used i n devel opment of t he pl an was
i ncumbent pr ot ect i on, and deemi ng t he r edi st r i ct i ng ef f or t one
f or i ncumbency pr ot ect i on f i r st , l ast , al pha, and omega) ; i d.
at 27 ( opponent of t he 2012 Pl an suggest i ng t hat Del egat e J ani s
used i ncumbency pr ot ect i on as a per mi ssi ve r edi st r i ct i ng
cr i t er i a) . The Supr eme Cour t has made i t cl ear , however , t hat
t he vi ews of l egi sl at i ve opponent s car r y l i t t l e l egal wei ght i n
char act er i zi ng l egi sl at i on. See, e. g. , Shel l Oi l Co. v. I owa
Dep t of Revenue, 488 U. S. 19, 29 ( 1998) ( The f ear s and doubt s
of t he opposi t i on ar e no aut hor i t at i ve gui de t o t he const r uct i on
of l egi sl at i on. ) ; see al so N. L. R. B. v. Fr ui t & Veget abl e
Packer s, 377 U. S. 58, 66 ( 1964) ( [ W] e have of t en caut i oned
agai nst t he danger , when i nt er pr et i ng a st at ut e, of r el i ance
upon t he vi ews of i t s l egi sl at i ve opponent s. I n t hei r zeal t o
def eat a bi l l , t hey under st andabl y t end t o over st at e i t s
r each. ) ; Schwegmann Br os. v. Cal ver t Di st i l l er s Cor p. , 341 U. S.
384, 39495 ( 1951) ( I t i s t he sponsor s t hat we l ook t o when t he
meani ng of t he st at ut or y wor ds i s i n doubt . ) . The r at i onal e
f or t hi s aut hor i t y i s pat ent : a bi l l s opponent s have ever y
i ncent i ve t o pl ace a compet i ng l abel on a st at ut e t hey f i nd
obj ect i onabl e.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 31 of 102 PageID#
3265
32

Def endant s and t he di ssent ar e i nar guabl y cor r ect t hat
par t i san pol i t i cal consi der at i ons, as wel l as a desi r e t o
pr ot ect i ncumbent s, pl ayed a r ol e i n dr awi ng di st r i ct l i nes. I t
woul d be r emar kabl e i f t hey di d not . However , i n a mi xed
mot i ve sui t - - i n whi ch a st at e s conceded goal of pr oduc[ i ng]
maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct s i s accompani ed by ot her goal s,
par t i cul ar l y i ncumbency pr ot ect i on- - r ace can be a pr edomi nant
f act or i n t he dr awi ng of a di st r i ct wi t hout t he di st r i ct i ng
r evi si ons bei ng pur el y r ace- based.
18
Bush, 517 U. S. at 959.
I ndeed, t he Supr eme Cour t has obser ved t hat par t i san
pol i t i cki ng may of t en pl ay a r ol e i n a st at e s r edi st r i ct i ng
pr ocess, but t he f act [ t ] hat t he l egi sl at ur e addr essed t hese
i nt er est s [ need] not i n any way r ef ut e t he f act t hat r ace was
t he l egi sl at ur e s pr edomi nant consi der at i on. Shaw I I , 517 U. S.
at 907.
The di ssent s at t empt s t o anal ogi ze t hi s case t o Cr omar t i e
I I ar e unavai l i ng. Cr omar t i e I I i nvol ved a chal l enged di st r i ct
i n whi ch r aci al i dent i f i cat i on cor r el at e[ d] hi ghl y wi t h
pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on, 532 U. S. at 258, and t he pl ai nt i f f s wer e
ul t i mat el y unabl e t o show t hat t he l egi sl at ur e coul d have

18
We do not , as t he di ssent i mpl i es, suggest t hat a
di f f er ent l egal t est appl i es t o a mi xed- mot i ve sui t . We
si mpl y obser ve t hat , when r aci al consi der at i ons pr edomi nat ed i n
t he r edi st r i ct i ng pr ocess, t he mer e coexi st ence of r ace- neut r al
r edi st r i ct i ng f act or s does not cur e t he def ect .
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 32 of 102 PageID#
3266
33

achi eved i t s l egi t i mat e pol i t i cal obj ect i ves i n al t er nat i ve ways
t hat ar e compar abl y consi st ent wi t h t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng
pr i nci pl es because t he chal l enged r edi st r i ct i ng pl an f ur t her ed
t he r ace- neut r al pol i t i cal goal of i ncumbency pr ot ect i on t o t he
same ext ent as i t i ncr eased t he pr opor t i on of mi nor i t i es wi t hi n
t he di st r i ct , i d.
Whi l e i t may be t r ue, as t he di ssent obser ves, t hat
Democr at i c vot es i n t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct , and
pr esumabl y many si mi l ar l y- si t uat ed di st r i ct s, can gener al l y be
pr edi ct ed si mpl y by t aki ng t he BVAP of a VTD and addi ng about 21
per cent age poi nt s,
19
post at 26, t he evi dence of pol i t i cal
j ust i f i cat i on f or t he r edi st r i ct i ng at i ssue i n Cr omar t i e I I i s
qui t e di f f er ent t han t hat pr esent ed i n t hi s case. I n Cr omar t i e
I I , t her e was over whel mi ng evi dence i n t he r ecor d
ar t i cul at [ i ng] a l egi t i mat e pol i t i cal expl anat i on f or [ t he
st at e s] di st r i ct i ng deci si on, 532 U. S. at 242, i ncl udi ng
unequi vocal t r i al t est i mony by st at e l egi sl at or s. Whi l e

19
Asi de f r om t he cl ear di st i nct i ons bet ween Pl ai nt i f f s
case her e and Cr omar t i e I I , t he di ssent s cont ent i on t hat t he
l egi sl at ur e used BVAP as a pr edi ct or f or Democr at i c vot es i s
pr eci sel y t he sor t of r ace- based consi der at i on t he Supr eme Cour t
has conf i r med t r i gger s st r i ct scr ut i ny. See Bush, 517 U. S. at
968 ( [ T] o t he ext ent t hat r ace i s used as a pr oxy f or pol i t i cal
char act er i st i cs, a r aci al st er eot ype r equi r i ng st r i ct scr ut i ny
i s i n oper at i on. ) ; Shaw I , 509 U. S. at 653 ( [ W] e unani mousl y
r eaf f i r med t hat r aci al bl oc vot i ng and mi nor i t y- gr oup pol i t i cal
cohesi on never can be assumed, but speci f i cal l y must be pr oved .
. . . ) .

Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 33 of 102 PageID#
3267
34

Def endant s have of f er ed post - hoc pol i t i cal j ust i f i cat i ons f or
t he 2012 Pl an i n t hei r br i ef s, nei t her t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y
as a whol e, nor t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence, suppor t t hat vi ew
t o t he ext ent t hey suggest .
For exampl e, Def endant s poi nt t o a r at her ambi guous
st at ement by Del egat e J ani s t hat one goal of t he 2012 Pl an was
t o r espect . . . t he wi l l of t he Vi r gi ni a el ect or at e. ( Post -
Tr i al Br . I nt . - Def . s and Def . s at 11- 12, ECF No. 106 ( ci t i ng
Pl s. Tr i al Ex. 43, at 19) ) . Taken i n cont ext , however , i t i s
cl ear t hat t hi s goal was per mi ssi ve and subor di nat e t o t he
mandat or y cr i t er i a of compl i ance wi t h t he VRA and sat i sf act i on
of t he one- per son- one- vot e r ul e. See Pl s. Tr i al Ex. 43, at 18
19. I n suppor t of t he ar gument t hat pol i t i cal concer ns t r umped
r aci al ones, t he di ssent poi nt s t o Del egat e J ani s s r emar ks t hat
i ncumbent l egi sl at or s conf i r med t hei r sat i sf act i on wi t h t he
l i nes of t hei r r espect i ve congr essi onal di st r i ct s. See i d. at
5- 6. I t i s undi sput ed, however , t hat t he i ncumbent s wer e not
shown t he ent i r e 2012 Pl an when t hey wer e sol i ci t ed f or t hei r
i nput , but wer e i nst ead shown onl y t he pr oposed changes t o t he
l i nes of t hei r i ndi vi dual di st r i ct s. See I nt . - Def . s Tr i al Ex.
9, at 9. Del egat e J ani s t est i f i ed t hat he had not asked any
congr essi onal r epr esent at i ves i f any of t hem suppor t ed t he
[ r edi st r i ct i ng] pl an i n i t s t ot al i t y, or [ spoken] wi t h anyone
who pl an[ ned] t o r un agai nst t hose i ncumbent s r egar di ng t he
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 34 of 102 PageID#
3268
35

r edi st r i ct i ng pl an. I d. at 13- 14. Del egat e J ani s st at ed: I
haven t l ooked at t he par t i san per f or mance. I t was not one of
t he f act or s t hat I consi der ed i n t he dr awi ng of t he di st r i ct .
I d. at 14.
Fi nal l y, t he nat ur e of t he popul at i on swaps and shi f t s used
t o cr eat e t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct suggest s t hat l ess
was done t o f ur t her t he goal of i ncumbency pr ot ect i on t han t o
i ncr ease t he pr opor t i on of mi nor i t i es wi t hi n t he di st r i ct .
[ A] mong t he pool of avai l abl e VTDs t hat coul d have been pl aced
wi t hi n t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct t hat wer e hi ghl y
Democr at i c per f or mi ng, t hose wi t h a hi gher BVAP wer e pl aced
wi t hi n t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct , and t hose VTDs t hat
wer e l ar gel y whi t e and Democr at i c wer e l ef t out , and i nst ead
shi f t ed i nt o t he Second Congr essi onal Di st r i ct .
20
Tr i al Tr . 89.
The r ecor d bef or e us pr esent s a pi ct ur e si mi l ar t o t hat i n
Shaw I I , i n whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t f ound t he evi dence
suf f i ci ent t o t r i gger st r i ct scr ut i ny:

20
Def endant s exper t , Mr . Mor gan, cont ends t hat t he
maj or i t y- whi t e popul at i ons excl uded f r om t he Thi r d Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct dur i ng r edi st r i ct i ng wer e pr edomi nant l y Republ i can.
I nt . - Def . s Tr i al Ex. 13, at 13- 14. The evi dence at t r i al ,
however , r eveal ed t hat Mr . Mor gan s anal ysi s was based upon
sever al pi eces of mi st aken dat a, a cr i t i cal er r or . See Tr i al
Tr . 359: 1- 14, 361: 10- 365: 10 ( i ndi cat i ng t hat Mr . Mor gan had
mi scoded sever al VTDs as t o whet her t hey wer e par t of t he Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct ) ; see al so i d. at 404: 17- 25 ( Mr . Mor gan s
codi ng mi st akes wer e si gni f i cant t o t he out come of hi s
anal ysi s) .
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 35 of 102 PageID#
3269
36

Fi r st , t he Di st r i ct Cour t had evi dence of t he
di st r i ct s shape and demogr aphi cs. The cour t obser ved
t he obvi ous f act t hat t he di st r i ct s shape i s hi ghl y
i r r egul ar and geogr aphi cal l y non- compact by any
obj ect i ve st andar d t hat can be concei ved. I n f act ,
t he ser pent i ne di st r i ct has been dubbed t he l east
geogr aphi cal l y compact di st r i ct i n t he Nat i on.

The Di st r i ct Cour t al so had di r ect evi dence of t he
l egi sl at ur e s obj ect i ve. The St at e s submi ssi on f or
pr ecl ear ance expr essl y acknowl edged t hat [ t he]
over r i di ng pur pose was t o compl y wi t h t he di ct at es of
[ t he DOJ ] and t o cr eat e t wo congr essi onal di st r i ct s
wi t h ef f ect i ve bl ack vot i ng maj or i t i es.

Shaw I I , 517 U. S. at 90506 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .
As we not ed ear l i er , we do not f i nd t he di ssent s at t empt s t o
di st i ngui sh Shaw I I f r om t he case at hand per suasi ve. As an
i ni t i al mat t er , i t i s i r r el evant t hat t he chal l enged di st r i ct i n
Shaw I I was not onl y t he l east compact i n t he st at e, as i s t he
Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct , but al so t he l east compact
di st r i ct i n t he nat i on. I r r egul ar i t i es i n shape need not be so
ext r eme as t o make t he di st r i ct an out l i er nat i onwi de; cour t s
si mpl y consi der a hi ghl y i r r egul ar and geogr aphi cal l y non-
compact shape evi dence of t he pr edomi nance of r ace. I d. at
905- 06. As t he l east compact and most bi zar r el y shaped di st r i ct
i n t he 2012 Pl an, t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct di spl ays such
char act er i st i cs. And agai n, we see no r eason why i t shoul d make
a di f f er ence whet her Def endant s expl i ci t and r epeat ed
admi ssi ons, post at 42, of t he pr edomi nance of r ace wer e made
i n t he cour se of hear i ngs on t he House of Del egat es f l oor , as
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 36 of 102 PageID#
3270
37

her e, or i n t he St at e s Sect i on 5 pr ecl ear ance submi ssi on, as i n
Shaw I I . These speci f i c and r epeat ed r ef er ences, when t aken
t oget her wi t h t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of r ecor d, compel our
concl usi on t hat r ace was t he l egi sl at ur e s par amount concer n.
B. Strict Scrutiny Analysis

The f act t hat r ace pr edomi nat ed when t he l egi sl at ur e
devi sed Vi r gi ni a s Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct i n 2012,
however , does not aut omat i cal l y r ender t he di st r i ct
const i t ut i onal l y i nf i r m. Rat her , i f r ace pr edomi nat es, st r i ct
scr ut i ny appl i es, but t he di st r i ct i ng pl an can st i l l pass
const i t ut i onal must er i f nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o ser ve a compel l i ng
gover nment al i nt er est . See Abr ams v. J ohnson, 521 U. S. 74, 91
( 1997) ; see al so Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 920. Whi l e such scr ut i ny
i s not necessar i l y st r i ct i n t heor y, but f at al i n f act ,
J ohnson v. Cal i f or ni a, 543 U. S. 499, 514 ( 2005) ( quot i ng Adar and
Const r uct or s, I nc. v. Pena, 515 U. S. 200, 237 ( 1995) ) , t he st at e
must est abl i sh t he most exact connect i on bet ween j ust i f i cat i on
and cl assi f i cat i on. Par ent s I nvol ved i n Cmt y. Sch. v. Seat t l e
Sch. Di st . No. 1, 551 U. S. 701, 720 ( 2007) ( quot i ng Gr at z v.
Bol l i nger , 539 U. S. 244, 270 ( 2003) ) .
And because, as we addr ess bel ow, compl i ance wi t h t he VRA
i s a compel l i ng st at e i nt er est , t he r edi st r i ct i ng pl an woul d not
f ai l under t he Equal Pr ot ect i on anal ysi s i f i t had been nar r owl y
t ai l or ed t o t hat i nt er est - i f i t had not gone beyond what was
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 37 of 102 PageID#
3271
38

r easonabl y necessar y t o avoi d r et r ogr essi on. Bush, 517 U. S. at
984. Whi l e t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct was dr awn i n
pur sui t of t he compel l i ng st at e i nt er est of compl i ance wi t h
Sect i on 5, Def endant s have f ai l ed t o show t hat t he 2012 Pl an was
nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o f ur t her t hat i nt er est .
1. Compelling Interest
The f act t hat Shel by Count y ef f ect i vel y r el i eved Vi r gi ni a
of i t s Sect i on 5 obl i gat i ons i n 2013 does not answer t he
quest i on of whet her Sect i on 5 compl i ance i n 2012 was a
compel l i ng st at e i nt er est . The appr opr i at e i nqui r y i s whet her
t he l egi sl at ur e s r el i ance on r aci al consi der at i ons was, at t he
t i me of t he r edi st r i ct i ng deci si on, j ust i f i ed by a compel l i ng
st at e i nt er est , not whet her i t can now be j ust i f i ed i n
hi ndsi ght . See Al a. Legi sl at i ve Bl ack Caucus v. Al abama, 989 F.
Supp. 2d 1227, 1307 ( M. D. Al a. 2013) ( t hr ee- j udge cour t ) ( We
eval uat e t he pl ans i n t he l i ght of t he l egal st andar d t hat
gover ned t he Legi sl at ur e when i t act ed, not based on a l at er
deci si on of t he Supr eme Cour t t hat exempt ed [ t he st at e] f r om
f ut ur e cover age under sect i on 5 of t he [ VRA] . ) .
Al t hough t he Supr eme Cour t has yet t o deci de whet her VRA
compl i ance i s a compel l i ng st at e i nt er est , i t has assumed as
much f or t he pur poses of subsequent anal yses. See, e. g. , Shaw
I I , 517 U. S. at 914 ( We assume, ar guendo, f or t he pur pose of
r esol vi ng t hi s sui t , t hat compl i ance wi t h 2 [ of t he Vot i ng
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 38 of 102 PageID#
3272
39

Ri ght s Act ] coul d be a compel l i ng i nt er est ) ; Bush, 517 U. S. at
977 ( [ W] e assume wi t hout deci di ng t hat compl i ance wi t h t he
r esul t s t est [ of t he VRA] . . . can be a compel l i ng st at e
i nt er est [ . ] ) . Par t i cul ar l y because t he par t i es do not di sput e
t hat compl i ance wi t h Sect i on 5 was a compel l i ng i nt er est pr e
Shel by Count y,
21
we l i kewi se do not .
2. Narrow Tailoring

We now consi der whet her t he 2012 Pl an was nar r owl y
t ai l or ed t o achi eve t hat compel l i ng i nt er est . Shaw I I , 517
U. S. at 908. The Supr eme Cour t has r epeat edl y st r uck down
r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans t hat di d mor e t han was necessar y t o avoi d a
r et r ogr essi on i n t he posi t i on of r aci al mi nor i t i es wi t h r espect
t o t hei r ef f ect i ve exer ci se of t he el ect or al f r anchi se. Bush,
517 U. S. at 983 ( quot i ng Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 926) ; see al so Shaw

21
Pl ai nt i f f s make l i mi t ed ar gument s t hat Sect i on 5
compl i ance i s no l onger a compel l i ng st at e i nt er est . Pl ai nt i f f s
f i r st cont end t hat Shel by Count y appl i es r et r oact i vel y ( See
Pl . s Tr i al Br . at 21- 23, ECF No. 86) , r el yi ng on Ci t i zens
Uni t ed v. Fed. El ect i on Comm n, 558 U. S. 310 ( 2010) , whi ch hel d
onl y t hat t he Supr eme Cour t s deci si on t hat a par t i cul ar
i nt er est does not qual i f y as a compel l i ng st at e i nt er est may
have r et r oact i ve ef f ect . The Supr eme Cour t deci ded no such
t hi ng i n Shel by Count y, so t hi s asser t i on mi sses t he mar k.
Pl ai nt i f f s al so ar gue t hat compl i ance wi t h Sect i on 5 cannot be a
compel l i ng i nt er est when t he l egi sl at ur e conduct ed no anal ysi s
t o det er mi ne whet her an i ncr ease i n t he Thi r d Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct s BVAP was necessar y, but t hi s poi nt i s r el evant onl y
t o t he nar r ow t ai l or i ng pr ong of t he st r i ct scr ut i ny anal ysi s.
( See Pl . s Tr i al Br . at 23- 24, ECF No. 86; Pl . s Post - Tr i al Br .
at 30- 31, ECF No. 105) .
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 39 of 102 PageID#
3273
40

I I , 517 U. S. at 910- 18 ( concl udi ng t hat di st r i ct s wer e not
nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o compl y wi t h t he VRA) .
I ndeed, t he [ VRA] and our case l aw make cl ear t hat a
r eappor t i onment pl an t hat sat i sf i es Sect i on 5 st i l l may be
enj oi ned as unconst i t ut i onal . Shaw I , 509 U. S. at 654.
Sect i on 5 does not gi ve cover ed j ur i sdi ct i ons car t e bl anche t o
engage i n r aci al ger r ymander i ng i n t he name of
nonr et r ogr essi on, and a r eappor t i onment pl an i s not nar r owl y
t ai l or ed t o t he goal of Sect i on 5 compl i ance i f t he St at e went
beyond what was r easonabl y necessar y t o avoi d r et r ogr essi on.
Shaw I , 509 U. S. at 655; see al so Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 921
( [ C] ompl i ance wi t h f eder al ant i di scr i mi nat i on l aws cannot
j ust i f y r ace- based di st r i ct i ng wher e t he chal l enged di st r i ct was
not r easonabl y necessar y under a const i t ut i onal r eadi ng and
appl i cat i on of t hose l aws. ) .
Cour t s have ci t ed sever al speci f i c exampl es of
char act er i st i cs of a r edi st r i ct i ng pl an t hat woul d suggest t hat
t he pl an di d mor e t han was r easonabl y necessar y t o avoi d
r et r ogr essi on. These i ncl ude si gni f i cant l y i ncr easi ng t he t ot al
number of Af r i can- Amer i can vot er s i n a hi st or i cal l y saf e
maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct , see Bush, 517 U. S. at 983; usi ng a
BVAP t hr eshol d f or maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct s, see Smi t h, 946
F. Supp. at 1210; and gener al l y f ai l i ng t o t ake speci f i c st eps
t o nar r owl y t ai l or a di st r i ct , such as by conduct i ng a r aci al
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 40 of 102 PageID#
3274
41

bl oc vot i ng anal ysi s bef or e maki ng r edi st r i ct i ng changes, see
Moon, 952 F. Supp. at 1150. As we expl ai n bel ow, al l of t hese
f act or s ar e pr esent her e.
a. BVAP Increase in a Safe Majority-Minority
District

Al t hough t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct has been a saf e
maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct f or 20 year s, t he 2012 Pl an i ncr eased
t he t ot al number of i t s Af r i can- Amer i can vot i ng age r esi dent s by
44, 711.
22
Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 27, at 11, 14; Tr i al Tr . 52: 18- 54: 5.
Thi s change al so i ncr eased t he di st r i ct s BVAP f r om 53. 1% t o
56. 3%. Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 27, at 14.
Congr essman Bobby Scot t , a Democr at suppor t ed by t he
maj or i t y of Af r i can- Amer i can vot er s i n t he Thi r d Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct , has r epr esent ed t he Di st r i ct si nce 1991. Pl . s Tr i al
Ex. 21, at 33; Tr i al Tr . 52: 18- 21. I n t he si x el ect i ons
bet ween 2002 t o 2012, Congr essman Scot t r an unopposed i n t hr ee;
he r an opposed i n t he gener al el ect i ons i n 2010 and 2012, but
was r eel ect ed each t i me. Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 27, at 11; Tr i al Tr .
53: 7- 22. I n 2010, Congr essman Scot t won 70% of t he vot e, whi l e
i n 2012- - under t he r edi st r i ct i ng pl an at i ssue her e- - he won by
an even l ar ger mar gi n, r ecei vi ng 81. 3%of t he vot e. I d.

22
Af r i can- Amer i can vot er s account ed f or over 90% of t he
vot i ng age r esi dent s added t o t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct .
Pl . s Tr i al Ex. 27, at 14.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 41 of 102 PageID#
3275
42

I n t hi s r espect , t he l egi sl at ur e s deci si on t o i ncr ease t he
BVAP of t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct i s si mi l ar t o t he
r edi st r i ct i ng pl an i nval i dat ed by t he Supr eme Cour t i n Bush.
See 517 U. S. at 983. I n Bush, a pl ur al i t y of t he Supr eme Cour t
hel d t hat i ncr easi ng t he BVAP f r om 35. 1% t o 50. 9% was not
nar r owl y t ai l or ed because t he st at e s i nt er est i n avoi di ng
r et r ogr essi on i n a di st r i ct wher e Af r i can- Amer i can vot er s had
successf ul l y el ect ed t hei r r epr esent at i ves of choi ce f or t wo
decades di d not j ust i f y subst ant i al augment at i on of t he BVAP.
I d. Such an augment at i on coul d not be nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o t he
goal of compl yi ng wi t h Sect i on 5 because t her e was no basi s f or
concl udi ng t hat t he i ncr ease t o a 50. 9% Af r i can- Amer i can
popul at i on . . . was necessar y t o ensur e nonr et r ogr essi on. I d.
Nonr et r ogr essi on i s not a l i cense f or t he St at e t o do what ever
i t deems necessar y t o ensur e cont i nued el ect or al success; i t
mer el y mandat es t hat t he mi nor i t y s oppor t uni t y t o el ect
r epr esent at i ves of i t s choi ce not be di mi ni shed, di r ect l y or
i ndi r ect l y, by t he St at e s act i ons. I d. Whi l e t he BVAP
i ncr ease her e i s smal l er t han t hat i n Bush, t he pr i nci pl e i s t he
same. Def endant s show no basi s f or concl udi ng t hat an
augment at i on of t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct s BVAP t o 56. 3%
was nar r owl y t ai l or ed when t he di st r i ct had been a saf e
maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct f or t wo decades.

Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 42 of 102 PageID#
3276
43

b. BVAP Threshold

At t r i al , Def endant s exper t , Mr . Mor gan, conf i r med t hat
t he l egi sl at ur e adopt ed a f l oor of 55% BVAP f or t he Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct t hr oughout t he 201112 r edi st r i ct i ng
cycl e. See I nt . - Def . s Tr i al Ex. 13, at 26- 27. Thi s BVAP
t hr eshol d was vi ewed as a pr oxy f or t he r aci al composi t i on
needed f or a maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct t o achi eve DOJ
pr ecl ear ance. See i d. at 26. Thus, t he l egi sl at ur e al t er ed t he
Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct s boundar i es i n or der t o meet or
exceed t hat t hr eshol d. See i d. at 26- 27 ( not i ng t hat
l egi sl at or s vi ewed t he 55% bl ack VAP . . . as appr opr i at e t o
obt ai n Sect i on 5 pr ecl ear ance, even i f i t meant r ai si ng t he
Bl ack VAP above t he l evel s i n t he benchmar k pl an) .
Because [ n] ar r ow t ai l or i ng [ i n t he di st r i ct i ng cont ext ]
demands . . . t hat t he di st r i ct chosen ent ai l s t he l east r ace-
consci ous measur e needed t o r emedy a vi ol at i on, Pr ej ean v.
Fost er , 227 F. 3d 504, 518 ( 5t h Ci r . 2000) , si mi l ar ad hoc uses
of r aci al t hr eshol ds have been hel d t o def eat nar r ow t ai l or i ng
by ot her t hr ee- j udge cour t s. For exampl e, one cour t i nval i dat ed
a pl an i mpl ement i ng a 55% t hr eshol d as ar bi t r ar y wi t hout
suppor t i ng evi dence. See Smi t h, 946 F. Supp. at 1210 ( hol di ng
t hat nar r ow t ai l or i ng r equi r es l egi sl at ur es t o consi der t he f act
t hat a 55% BVAP wi l l not be needed t o el ect a candi dat e of
choi ce i n di st r i ct s wher e most mi nor i t y ci t i zens r egi st er and
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 43 of 102 PageID#
3277
44

vot e, and caut i oni ng agai nst i nsi st [ i ng] t hat al l maj or i t y-
mi nor i t y di st r i ct s have at l east 55% BVAP wi t h no evi dence as t o
r egi st r at i on or vot er t ur nout ) . The l egi sl at ur e s use of a
BVAP t hr eshol d, as opposed t o a mor e sophi st i cat ed anal ysi s of
r aci al vot i ng pat t er ns, suggest s t hat vot i ng pat t er ns i n t he
Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct wer e not consi der ed i ndi vi dual l y.
I d.
23
Consi der i ng t he f or egoi ng f act or s, we concl ude t hat t he
2012 Pl an was not nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o achi eve compl i ance wi t h
Sect i on 5, and t her ef or e f ai l s st r i ct scr ut i ny.
III. REMEDY
Havi ng f ound t hat t he 2012 Pl an vi ol at es t he Equal
Pr ot ect i on Cl ause, we must now addr ess t he appr opr i at e r emedy.
Pl ai nt i f f s seek t o have us enj oi n t he use of t he cur r ent
congr essi onal pl an f or t he upcomi ng 2014 el ect i on, and t o have
t he cour t dr aw an i nt er i mpl an. Our consi der at i on of t hi s i ssue
i s gui ded by t he Supr eme Cour t s deci si on i n Reynol ds v. Si ms,
377 U. S. 533 ( 1964) . I n Reynol ds, t he Cour t st at ed:
[ O] nce a St at e' s l egi sl at i ve appor t i onment scheme has
been f ound t o be unconst i t ut i onal , i t woul d be t he
unusual case i n whi ch a cour t woul d be j ust i f i ed i n
not t aki ng appr opr i at e act i on t o [ ensur e] t hat no
f ur t her el ect i ons ar e conduct ed under t he i nval i d
pl an. However , under cer t ai n ci r cumst ances, such as

23
We pause t o cl ar i f y t hat , whi l e t he l egi sl at ur e di d not
conduct a r aci al bl oc vot i ng anal ysi s i n enact i ng t he 2012 Pl an,
we do not f i nd t hat one i s al ways necessar y t o suppor t a nar r ow
t ai l or i ng ar gument .
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 44 of 102 PageID#
3278
45

wher e an i mpendi ng el ect i on i s i mmi nent and a St at e' s
el ect i on machi ner y i s al r eady i n pr ogr ess, equi t abl e
consi der at i ons mi ght j ust i f y a cour t i n wi t hhol di ng
t he gr ant i ng of i mmedi at el y ef f ect i ve r el i ef i n a
l egi sl at i ve appor t i onment case, even t hough t he
exi st i ng appor t i onment scheme was f ound i nval i d.

377 U. S. at 585. We must al so be consci ous of t he power f ul
concer ns f or comi t y i nvol ved i n i nt er f er i ng wi t h t he st at e' s
l egi sl at i ve r esponsi bi l i t i es. As t he Supr eme Cour t has
r epeat edl y r ecogni zed, r edi st r i ct i ng and r eappor t i oni ng
l egi sl at i ve bodi es i s a l egi sl at i ve t ask whi ch t he f eder al
cour t s shoul d make ever y ef f or t not t o pr e- empt . Wi se v.
Li pscomb, 437 U. S. 535, 53940 ( 1978) . As such, i t i s
appr opr i at e, whenever pr act i cabl e, t o af f or d a r easonabl e
oppor t uni t y f or t he l egi sl at ur e t o meet const i t ut i onal
r equi r ement s by adopt i ng a subst i t ut e measur e r at her t han f or
t he f eder al cour t t o devi se . . . i t s own pl an. I d.
I t shoul d al so be not ed t hat cour t s have r epeat edl y al l owed
el ect i ons t o pr oceed under unconst i t ut i onal appor t i onment pl ans
when el ect i ons ar e i mmi nent , or necessi t y so r equi r es. See,
e. g. , Upham v. Seamon, 456 U. S. 37, 44 ( 1982) ( [ W] e have
aut hor i zed Di st r i ct Cour t s t o or der or t o per mi t el ect i ons t o be
hel d pur suant t o appor t i onment pl ans t hat do not i n al l r espect s
measur e up t o t he l egal r equi r ement s, even const i t ut i onal
r equi r ement s. ) ; Ki l gar l i n v. Hi l l , 386 U. S. 120, 121 ( 1967)
( af f i r mi ng t he di st r i ct cour t s deci si on al l owi ng st at e
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 45 of 102 PageID#
3279
46

l egi sl at i ve el ect i ons t o pr oceed even t hough di st r i ct i ng pl an
was const i t ut i onal l y i nf i r mi n cer t ai n r espect s) .
Wi t h t hese consi der at i ons i n mi nd, we det er mi ne t hat
gener al pr i nci pl es of equi t y di ct at e t hat Vi r gi ni a s 2014
el ect i ons shoul d pr oceed as schedul ed under t he chal l enged
di st r i ct i ng pl ans. Thi s case pr esent s pr eci sel y t he unusual
case r ef er r ed t o by t he Reynol ds Cour t , wher e compet i ng
i nt er est s wei gh heavi l y agai nst Pl ai nt i f f s equal pr ot ect i on
r i ght s. Del ayi ng t he el ect i ons or at t empt i ng t o conf i gur e an
i nt er i m di st r i ct i ng pl an woul d undul y di st ur b Vi r gi ni a s
el ect i on pr ocess. The gener al el ect i on i s cer t ai nl y i mmi nent ,
r oughl y t wo mont hs away. Vi r gi ni a s pr i mar y el ect i ons wer e hel d
as schedul ed i n J une, candi dat es have spent si gni f i cant t i me and
money campai gni ng, and vot er s have begun t o f ami l i ar i ze
t hemsel ves wi t h t he candi dat es. Del ayi ng t he el ect i ons woul d
cause si gni f i cant and undue conf usi on. Mor eover , Pl ai nt i f f s
ar e l ar gel y r esponsi bl e f or t he pr oxi mi t y of our deci si on t o t he
November 2014 el ect i ons. Al t hough t he 2012 Pl an was enact ed i n
J anuar y 2012, Pl ai nt i f f s del ayed br i ngi ng t hi s act i on unt i l
Oct ober 2013, ni net een mont hs l at er .
24
( See Compl . [ si gnat ur e
page] , ECF No. 1) .

24
Pl ai nt i f f s have of f er ed t he i nt er veni ng deci si on i n
Shel by Count y as an excuse f or t hei r del ay. ( See Pl . s Br .
Avai l abl e Remedi es 2, ECF No. 30 ( st at i ng t hat Pl ai nt i f f s
( Cont i nued)
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 46 of 102 PageID#
3280
47

I f we enj oi ned t he gener al el ect i on, we coul d not l i mi t t he
i nt r usi on t o t he unconst i t ut i onal Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct .
Any i nt er i m r emedy woul d have t o appl y t o al l of Vi r gi ni a s
el ect or al di st r i ct s because we coul d not pr edi ct how r epai r i ng
t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct woul d al t er t he boundar y l i nes
of nei ghbor i ng di st r i ct s. On t he ot her hand, we r ecogni ze t hat
i ndi vi dual s i n t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct whose
const i t ut i onal r i ght s have been i nj ur ed by i mpr oper r aci al
ger r ymander i ng have suf f er ed si gni f i cant har m. Those ci t i zens
ar e ent i t l ed t o vot e as soon as possi bl e f or t hei r
r epr esent at i ves under a const i t ut i onal appor t i onment pl an.
Cosner v. Dal t on, 522 F. Supp. 350, 364 ( E. D. Va. 1981) .
Ther ef or e, we wi l l r equi r e t hat new di st r i ct s be dr awn dur i ng
Vi r gi ni a s next l egi sl at i ve sessi on t o r emedy t he
unconst i t ut i onal di st r i ct s. I n accor dance wi t h wel l - est abl i shed
pr ecedent t hat a st at e shoul d have t he f i r st oppor t uni t y t o
cr eat e a const i t ut i onal r edi st r i ct i ng pl an, e. g. , Wi se, 437 U. S.


br ought t hei r chal l enge i n t he wake of t he Supr eme Cour t s
r ecent r ul i ng i n Shel by Count y) ; Pl . s Opp n Def . s Mot . Summ.
J . 21- 22, ECF No. 42 ( ar gui ng t hat cour t s ar e capabl e of
under t aki ng mi d- decenni al r edi st r i ct i ng when an i nt er veni ng
deci si on of t he Supr eme Cour t , such as Shel by Count y,
est abl i shes t hat a cur r ent pl an i s no l onger val i d) ) . Shel by
Count y, however , deal t wi t h Sect i on 4 of t he VRA, not Sect i on 5,
and t her ef or e pr ovi des no suppor t f or t hei r posi t i on.

Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 47 of 102 PageID#
3281
48

at 53940, we al l ow t he l egi sl at ur e unt i l Apr i l 1, 2015, t o
enact a r emedi al di st r i ct i ng pl an.
IV. CONCLUSION
Because Pl ai nt i f f s have shown t hat r ace pr edomi nat ed i n
Vi r gi ni a s 2012 Pl an, and because Def endant s have f ai l ed t o
est abl i sh t hat t hi s r ace- based r edi st r i ct i ng sat i sf i es st r i ct
scr ut i ny, we f i nd t hat t he 2012 Pl an i s unconst i t ut i onal , and
wi l l r equi r e t he Commonweal t h t o act wi t hi n t he next l egi sl at i ve
sessi on t o dr aw a new congr essi onal di st r i ct pl an.
I t i s so ORDERED.

____________/ s/ _____________ ____________/ s/ ______________
Al l yson K. Duncan Li amO Gr ady




Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a
Dat e: Oct ober 7, 2014
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 48 of 102 PageID#
3282
49

PAYNE, Seni or Di st r i ct J udge, Di ssent i ng,
I r espect ver y much t he vi ews of t he r ecor d expr essed by my
good col l eagues i n t he maj or i t y, but I am unabl e t o j oi n t hem
because I under st and t he r ecor d qui t e di f f er ent l y. Based on
t hat under st andi ng and f or t he r easons set f or t h bel ow, I
r espect f ul l y di ssent .

I.

The maj or i t y and I do not di f f er on t he f undament al l egal
pr i nci pl es t hat appl y her e. I t hi nk t hat we al l r ecogni ze t hat
[ f ] eder al - cour t r evi ew of di st r i ct i ng l egi sl at i on r epr esent s a
ser i ous i nt r usi on on t he most vi t al of l ocal f unct i ons. Mi l l er
v. J ohnson, 515 U. S. 900, 915 ( 1995) . Accor di ngl y, [ t ] he cour t s
. . . must be sensi t i ve t o t he compl ex i nt er pl ay of f or ces t hat
ent er a l egi sl at ur e' s r edi st r i ct i ng cal cul us. I d. at 915- 16.
Mor eover , t he r edi st r i ct i ng enact ment s of a l egi sl at ur e ar e
ent i t l ed t o a pr esumpt i on of good f ai t h, and t he j udi ci ar y must
exer ci se ext r aor di nar y caut i on i n adj udi cat i ng cl ai ms t hat a
St at e has dr awn di st r i ct l i nes on t he basi s of r ace. I d. at
916; see al so Easl ey v. Cr omar t i e, 532 U. S. 234, 257 ( 2001) . I
under st and Mi l l er and Easl ey t o mean t hat cour t s must pr esume
t hat a st at e l egi sl at ur e has not used r ace as t he pr edomi nat i ng
f act or i n maki ng i t s r edi st r i ct i ng deci si ons because t o do so
woul d not be r edi st r i ct i ng i n good f ai t h.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 49 of 102 PageID#
3283
50

I t i s up t o t he Pl ai nt i f f s t o di sl odge t hat pr esumpt i on by
pr ovi ng t hat t he l egi sl at ur e subor di nat ed t r adi t i onal r ace-
neut r al r edi st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es t o r aci al consi der at i ons and
t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant f act or i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng
deci si on at i ssue. I d. Thi s i s a demandi ng bur den t hat
cannot be sat i sf i ed by a mer e showi ng t hat t he l egi sl at ur e was
consci ous of t he r aci al ef f ect s of r edi st r i ct i ng or consi der ed
r ace as one f act or among sever al ; what i s r equi r ed i s pr oof t hat
t he r aci al consi der at i ons wer e domi nant and cont r ol l i ng.
Easl ey, 532 U. S. at 257. I f t he Pl ai nt i f f s meet t hei r bur den,
t hen t he chal l enged di st r i ct wi l l be subj ect t o st r i ct scr ut i ny,
but st r i ct scr ut i ny does not appl y mer el y because r edi st r i ct i ng
i s per f or med wi t h consci ousness of r ace. Bush v. Ver a, 517 U. S.
952, 958 ( 1996) .
25

As I under st and t he r ecor d, t he r edi st r i ct i ng deci si on her e
was dr i ven by a desi r e t o pr ot ect i ncumbent s and by t he
appl i cat i on of t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng pr ecept s even t hough
r ace was consi der ed because t he l egi sl at ur e had t o be cer t ai n
t hat t he pl an compl i ed wi t h f eder al l aw, i ncl udi ng t he Vot i ng

25
The maj or i t y comment s t hat t hi s case i s a mi xed mot i ve
sui t i nvol vi ng bot h r ace- based and r ace- neut r al r edi st r i ct i ng
f act or s. At t he most basi c l evel , and f or t he r easons expl ai ned
bel ow, I agr ee wi t h t hat char act er i zat i on as a gener al
pr oposi t i on. However , I do not f i nd any basi s i n pr ecedent t o
concl ude t hat appl yi ng t he mi xed mot i ve sui t l abel changes
anyt hi ng i n t he basi c anal ysi s. The appl i cabl e t est r emai ns
whet her r ace pr edomi nat ed i n t he deci si on- maki ng pr ocess.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 50 of 102 PageID#
3284
51

Ri ght s Act of 1965
26
( VRA) and, i n par t i cul ar , t he non-
r et r ogr essi on pr ovi si on of Sect i on 5 of t he VRA. But , whol l y
apar t f r om t hat concl usi on, I do not bel i eve t hat t he
Pl ai nt i f f s have car r i ed t hei r demandi ng bur den t o pr ove t hat
t he pr edomi nant f act or i n cr eat i ng Congr essi onal Di st r i ct 3
( C. D. 3) .
II.
The Pl ai nt i f f s, l i ke t he maj or i t y, base t hei r concl usi ons
on t he pr edomi nance i ssue on: ( 1) what t hey consi der t o be an
admi ssi on by t he Def endant s; ( 2) t he vi ews of t he Pl ai nt i f f s
exper t wi t ness, Dr . Mi chael P. McDonal d; and ( 3) di r ect evi dence
consi st i ng pr i nci pal l y of st at ement s made by t he Del egat e Bi l l
J ani s, t he sponsor of t he r edi st r i ct i ng l anguage, a l egi sl at i ve
r esol ut i on, and t he exi st ence of a per cei ved r aci al quot a. My
under st andi ng of t he r ecor d on t hese t opi cs ar e set f or t h bel ow.
A. The Perceived Admission
The maj or i t y st at es t hat , i n l i ght of t he evi dence, and as
t he Def endant s have acknowl edged, we concl ude t hat compl i ance
wi t h Sect i on 5 of t he Vot i ng Ri ght s Act ( Sect i on 5) , and
accor di ngl y, r ace, was t he [ l egi sl at ur e s] pr edomi nant pur pose
. . . under l yi ng [ t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct s] r aci al
composi t i on i n 2012. That , I r espect f ul l y submi t , i s not


26
42 U. S. C. 1973- 1973bb- 1.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 51 of 102 PageID#
3285
52

cor r ect i n subst ance and, even i f i t wer e, i t i s not an
admi ssi on by t he St at e.
The quot ed t ext i s t aken f r om t he br i ef of t he I nt er venor -
Def endant s i n suppor t of t hei r mot i on f or summar y j udgment . The
f ul l t ext i s: [ s] i nce i t i s conceded t hat compl i ance wi t h
Sect i on 5 was t he Gener al Assembl y s pr edomi nant pur pose or
compel l i ng i nt er est under l yi ng Di st r i ct 3 s r aci al composi t i on
i n 2012, t he pr edomi nant f act or mot i vat i ng t hat deci si on coul d
not have been an i mpr oper consi der at i on of r ace. I nt er venor -
Def endant s Vi r gi ni a Repr esent at i ves Memor andum i n Suppor t of
Mot i on f or Summar y J udgment ( Docket No. 39, p. 15) .
I t seems t o me t hat t he subst ant i ve i mpor t of t he sent ence
i s t o make t he ar gument t hat t he pr edomi nant f act or mot i vat i ng
t hat [ t he r edi st r i ct i ng] deci si on coul d not have been an
i mpr oper consi der at i on of r ace. I d. The sent ence r el i ed on by
t he Pl ai nt i f f s, and ci t ed by t he maj or i t y, i s t he l ast sent ence
i n a par agr aph t hat i s, I r espect f ul l y submi t , maki ng t he poi nt
t hat compl i ance wi t h t he non- r et r ogr essi on pr ovi si on of Sect i on
5 of t he VRA, whi ch necessar i l y i ncl udes consi der at i on of r ace
wher e, as her e, a maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct i s i nvol ved, does
not make r ace t he pr edomi nant consi der at i on i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng
deci si on. That i nt er pr et at i on i s suppor t ed by t he f act t hat t he
headi ng of t he sect i on of t he br i ef i n whi ch t he sent ence at
i ssue appear s i s: Plaintiffs Cannot Satisfy Their Burden To
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 52 of 102 PageID#
3286
53

Prove That The General Assembly Adopted The Enacted Plan With
Discriminatory Purpose. I d. at 11. I t woul d be st r ange,
i ndeed, f or t he par t y maki ng t hat ar gument t o i ncl ude i n i t a
concessi on t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant pur pose. For t he
f or egoi ng r easons, I do not r ead t he subst ance of t he sent ence
at i ssue t o be a concessi on at al l .
Mor e i mpor t ant l y, even i f t he ci t ed t ext f r om t he
I nt er venor - Def endant s summar y j udgment br i ef i s consi der ed t o
be a concessi on t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant pur pose, i t i s
cer t ai nl y not bi ndi ng upon, or useabl e agai nst , t he St at e
def endant s because t hey di d not make any such st at ement i n t hei r
br i ef s, or , t o my knowl edge, el sewher e. Hence, what ever may be
sai d as t o t he per cei ved admi ssi on, i t i s not pr obat i ve of t he
mot i vat i ons t hat at t ended t he Commonweal t h of Vi r gi ni a s
r edi st r i ct i ng deci si ons.
B. Dr. Michael P. McDonald: Generally
To pr ove t hat r ace was a pr edomi nant f act or i n t he
r edi st r i ct i ng deci si on, t he Pl ai nt i f f s r el i ed pr i nci pal l y upon
t hei r exper t wi t ness, Dr . Mi chael P. McDonal d. I n Sect i on I I . G
bel ow, I wi l l addr ess t he det ai l s of McDonal d s t est i mony and
hi s r epor t on whi ch t he Pl ai nt i f f s and t he maj or i t y r el y, but
t her e i s a mor e basi c poi nt about McDonal d s cr edi bi l i t y t hat I
t hi nk needs t o be addr essed f i r st and separ at el y.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 53 of 102 PageID#
3287
54

I n t hi s case, McDonal d t ook t he vi ew t hat r ace was t he
pr edomi nant f act or i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng of C. D. 3 but , i n Mar ch
2013, bef or e McDonal d had been r et ai ned as an exper t i n t hi s
case, he was a co- aut hor of a schol ar l y ar t i cl e publ i shed i n t he
Uni ver si t y of Ri chmond Law Revi ew i n whi ch he made t he case
r at her cl ear l y t hat t he ani mat i ng consi der at i on i n t he 2012
r edi st r i ct i ng was t he pr ot ect i on of i ncumbent s. Mi cah Al t man
and Mi chael P. McDonal d, A Hal f - Cent ur y of Vi r gi ni a
Redi st r i ct i ng Bat t l es: Shi f t i ng Fr om Rur al Mal appor t i onment t o
Vot i ng Ri ght s t o Publ i c Par t i ci pat i on, 47 U. Ri ch. L. Rev. 771
( 2013) .
That ar t i cl e begi ns wi t h t he st at ement t hat :
I n t he 2012 gener al el ect i on, Vi r gi ni a
Republ i can candi dat es f or t he Uni t ed St at es
House of Repr esent at i ves won a combi ned
70, 736 mor e vot es t han Democr at i c candi dat es
out of t he 3. 7 mi l l i on vot es cast f or t he
maj or par t y candi dat es, yet won ei ght of t he
st at e s el even House seat s. Thus, i s t he
power of ger r ymander i ng.

I d. at 772. The par agr aph t hen cont i nues t o out l i ne t he var i ous
f act or s of t en consi der ed i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng pr ocess and, af t er
r eci t i ng t hose f act or s, t he ar t i cl e obser ved t hat t hese
admi ni st r at i ve goal s [ t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es]
27
ar e

27
At t r i al , McDonal d conf i r med t hat t hi s t er m
admi ni st r at i ve goal s meant t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng
pr i nci pl es. Tr i al Tr . 132.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 54 of 102 PageID#
3288
55

nomi nal l y devoi d of pol i t i cal consi der at i ons, but such
consi der at i ons ar e at t he f or ef r ont f or t hose who conduct
r edi st r i ct i ng. I d.
Lat er , t he ar t i cl e expl ai ned t hat :

Whi l e t he Gener al Assembl y was abl e t o r each
a bi par t i san compr omi se t o r edi st r i ct t he
t wo [ Gener al Assembl y] chamber s cont r ol l ed
by di f f er ent pol i t i cal par t i es, i t was
unabl e t o r each agr eement on a congr essi onal
pl an. The st i cki ng poi nt was whet her t o
pr ot ect al l i ncumbent s, gi vi ng t he
Republ i cans an 8- 3 edge among t he st at e s
el even di st r i ct s, or t o r est or e t he Af r i can-
Amer i can popul at i on t o t he Four t h
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct t hat had been shi f t ed
t o t he Thi r d Congr essi onal Di st r i ct dur i ng
t he l ast r edi st r i ct i ng, yi el di ng a
Democr at i c- l eani ng Four t h Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct wi t h 45% Af r i can- Amer i can vot i ng-
age popul at i on and r educi ng t he Republ i cans
edge t o 7- 4. Af t er t he November 2011
el ect i ons, when Republ i cans gai ned a wor ki ng
maj or i t y i n t he Senat e, t he Gener al Assembl y
passed t he congr essi onal pl an t hat pr ot ect ed
al l i ncumbent s i ncl udi ng t he ei ght
Republ i cans.

I d. at 795- 96.
McDonal d was asked at t r i al about t hat st at ement i n hi s
ar t i cl e:
Q. So t he f i ght was about whet her or not t hey
wer e goi ng t o endanger Republ i can i ncumbent
For bes i n Di st r i ct 4 by shi f t i ng BVAP f r om
Di st r i ct 3 i n a way t hat woul d t ur n i t i nt o
a Democr at i c- l eani ng di st r i ct , cor r ect ?

A. Yes.


Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 55 of 102 PageID#
3289
56

Q. And i t was because of t hat desi r e t o pr ot ect
t he i ncumbent and mai nt ai n a Republ i can 8- 3
advant age t hat t he Republ i cans i n t he
Gener al Assembl y opposed i t , r i ght ?

A. Ri ght .

Tr i al Tr . 143- 44.
28

I n hi s ar t i cl e, McDonal d al so sai d t hat :
I n t he l egi sl at ur e, t wo compet i ng pl ans
emer ged: one f r om Republ i cans, who f avor ed a
8- 3 par t i san di vi si on of t he st at e t hat
pr ot ect ed al l i ncumbent s and one by t he
Democr at s, whi ch a 7- 4 par t i san di vi si on.
The par t i san cont ent i on i nvol ved t he Four t h
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct r epr esent ed by
Republ i can i ncumbent Randy For bes.
Democr at s wi shed t o f ashi on t hi s di st r i ct
i nt o a r oughl y 45% Af r i can- Amer i can
di st r i ct - somet i mes cal l ed a mi nor i t y-
i nf l uenced di st r i ct - t hat woul d l i kel y
el ect a Democr at whi l e Republ i cans wi sh t o
pr eser ve t he di st r i ct s Republ i can
char act er .

I nt er venor - Def endant s Ex. 55, pp. 19- 20; see Tr i al Tr . 150- 52.
McDonal d was quest i oned at t r i al about t hose st at ement s f r om hi s
ar t i cl e:

28
At t r i al McDonal d sought t o mi t i gat e t he ef f ect of hi s
answer by sayi ng t hat t her e wer e f oot not es i n hi s ar t i cl e
i ndi cat i ng t hat he si mpl y was char act er i zi ng what was i n t he
popul ar pr ess at t he t i me. Tr i al Tr . 144- 45. McDonal d was
shown t he ar t i cl es whi ch di d not suppor t hi s ef f or t t o
amel i or at e hi s t est i mony t hat he was mer el y quot i ng t he pr ess.
McDonal d Tr i al Tr . , pp. 146- 147. And, a r eadi ng of McDonal d s
ar t i cl e as a whol e ut t er l y r ef ut es hi s ef f or t t o make such a
poi nt .

Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 56 of 102 PageID#
3290
57

Q. The Republ i cans di d not want t o change
Di st r i ct 3 by t r ansf er r i ng BVAP
29
i nt o
Di st r i ct 4 f or pol i t i cal r easons; cor r ect ?

A. Most l y, yes.

* * *

Q. Bot h pol i t i cs and i ncumbency pr ot ect i on ar e
nonr aci al r easons; cor r ect ?

A. Yes. They can be yes.

Q. And you have no r eason t o t hi nk t hey wer en t
her e.

A. No, I do not .

Tr i al Tr . 151- 52.
On cr oss- exami nat i on, McDonal d was asked:
Q. When you wer e l ooki ng at i t as a
di si nt er est ed academi c, you det er mi ned t hat
i t was a pol i t i cal ger r ymander by t he
Gener al Assembl y, cor r ect ?

A. Yes, we eval uat ed t he par t i san per f or mance
of t he di st r i ct s and had det er mi ned t hat t he
i nt ent was t o cr eat e an 8- 3 Republ i can
maj or i t y.

I d. at 129.
He was t hen asked t hi s quest i on:
Q. So t hey pur posel y enhanced Republ i can vot i ng
power or pr eser ved i t at ei ght f or pol i t i cal
pur poses, cor r ect ?

A. Yes.
I d. at 130.

29
The t er m BVAP i s an acr onym f or Bl ack Vot i ng Age
Popul at i on.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 57 of 102 PageID#
3291
58

McDonal d al so quest i oned about a number of st at ement s i n
t he ar t i cl e r espect i ng t he basi s f or t he adopt i on of t he
r edi st r i ct i ng pl an her e at i ssue and about compet i ng pl ans
di scussed i n t he ar t i cl e and t hen was asked whet her t he basi s
f or your concl usi on [ i n t he ar t i cl e] t hat t he 8- 3 [ ei ght
Republ i cans and t hr ee Democr at s] was t he r esul t of consci ous
deci si on- maki ng by t he l egi sl at ur e because t hese ot her pl ans
wi t h si mi l ar char act er i st i cs had onl y pr oduced a 6- 5 Republ i can
advant age? t o whi ch McDonal d answer ed: we wer e usi ng t hese
compar i sons t o dr aw t hi s concl usi on, yes. Tr i al Tr . 136- 37.
30

Cer t ai nl y, i f McDonal d s car ef ul st udy, as r epor t ed i n hi s
ar t i cl e, had shown t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant f act or i n t he
r edi st r i ct i ng he woul d have sai d so. I nst ead, he sai d t hat
i ncumbent pr ot ect i on dr ove t he pr ocess and t he r esul t s. And,
hi s ar t i cl e devot ed si xt y pages ( and 27, 228 wor ds) demonst r at i ng
t hat poi nt and anal yzi ng how ot her pl ans coul d have achi eved a
di f f er ent pol i t i cal l i ne up.
Havi ng pr evi ousl y t aken t he vi ew i n a schol ar l y publ i cat i on
t hat t he 2012 r edi st r i ct i ng was dr i ven by t he desi r e t o pr ot ect

30
At t r i al , McDonal d appended t o sever al answer s t he phr ase
but wi t h a caveat . When asked what t hat caveat was, he
expl ai ned t hat i t was t he r ar e i nst ance when candi dat es can wi n
i n di st r i ct s t hat ar e of t he ot her pol i t i cal per suasi on. Tr i al
Tr . 124. However , McDonal d acknowl edged l at er t hat nei t her he
nor , t o hi s knowl edge, anyone el se had done any anal ysi s on t he
basi s of t hat caveat . I d.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 58 of 102 PageID#
3292
59

i ncumbent s, i t l i es not i n t he mout h of McDonal d now t o say t hat
r ace, not pr ot ect i on of i ncumbent s, was t he pr edomi nant r eason
f or t he 2012 r edi st r i ct i ng. I si mpl y cannot count enance, as a
f i nder - of - f act , such a 180 degr ee r ever sal on a key i ssue. I
concl ude t hat McDonal d s vi ews, i n whol e and i n i t s const i t uent
par t s, ar e not ent i t l ed t o any cr edi bi l i t y.
C. Statements Made By Delegate Janis
Del egat e Wi l l i am J ani s was t he aut hor of t he r edi st r i ct i ng
pl an at i ssue her e. The Pl ai nt i f f s, and t he maj or i t y, r el y
heavi l y on cer t ai n st at ement s made by J ani s i n t he f l oor debat es
over t he pl an t o suppor t t hei r vi ew t hat r ace was t he
pr edomi nant f act or i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng of C. D. 3. I do not
under st and t he st at ement s made by J ani s when consi der ed as a
whol e, t o suppor t , much l ess pr ove, such a concl usi on.
To under st and what J ani s had t o say about t he r edi st r i ct i ng
pl an t hat he f or mul at ed, i t i s i mpor t ant t o vi ew what he sai d i n
cont ext and t o consi der t he st at ement s as par t of a cohesi ve
whol e. Of cour se, i t i s not possi bl e her e t o r eci t e al l of t he
st at ement s t hat J ani s made i n t he f l oor debat es. Thus, I wi l l
f ocus on t he ones t hat seem t o be most compr ehensi ve.
Unf or t unat el y, t hat exer ci se wi l l t ake some space but , i t i s, I
t hi nk, an i mpor t ant one. I do not r epeat her e t he passages
al r eady ci t ed by t he maj or i t y, but I have t aken t hem i nt o
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 59 of 102 PageID#
3293
60

account i n my assessment of what J ani s meant i n al l t he
st at ement s t hat he made consi der ed as a whol e.
When t he bi l l was f i r st pr esent ed i n Apr i l 2011, J ani s
out l i ned t he sever al cr i t er i a on whi ch he had based t he bi l l i n
whi ch t he pl an was set out .
31
He began:
Fi r st , and most i mpor t ant l y, t he di st r i ct s
t hat wer e dr awn t o 3r d Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct conf or m [ si c] t o t he mandat es of
t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on and t he
Const i t ut i on of Vi r gi ni a, and speci f i cal l y
t o compl y wi t h t he one- per son- one- vot e r ul e,
whi ch occur s i n bot h t hese Const i t ut i onal
document s.

Pl s. 43, p. 3. J ani s went on t o expl ai n t hat meet i ng t hose
obj ect i ves was a si gni f i cant chal l enge because of t he dr amat i c
and non- uni f or m shi f t s i n popul at i on i n t he Commonweal t h over
t he past t hr ee year s. I d.
J ani s next expl ai ned t hat :
[ t ] he second cr i t er i a [ si c] t hat s appl i ed
i n House Bi l l 5004 i s t hat t he di st r i ct s
wer e dr awn t o conf or m wi t h al l mandat es of
f eder al l aw, and, most not abl y, t he Vot i ng
Ri ght s Act . The Vot i ng Ri ght s Act mandat es
t hat t her e be no r et r ogr essi on i n mi nor i t y
vot er i nf l uence i n t he 3r d Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct , and House Bi l l 5004 accompl i shes
t hat .

I d. Then, J ani s r eci t ed t hat :

31
As t he maj or i t y not es, t he bi l l ul t i mat el y was enact ed i n
2012 wi t hout any si gni f i cant change.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 60 of 102 PageID#
3294
61

[ t ] hi r d, t he di st r i ct s wer e dr awn t o r espect
t o t he gr eat est degr ee possi bl e t he wi l l of
t he Vi r gi ni a el ect or at e as i t was expr essed
i n t he November 2010 el ect i ons. And t hese
di st r i ct s ar e based on t he cor e of t he
exi st i ng congr essi onal di st r i ct s wi t h t he
mi ni mal amount of change or di sr upt i on t o
t he cur r ent boundar y l i nes, consi st ent wi t h
t he need t o expand or cont r act t he t er r i t or y
of each di st r i ct t o r ef l ect t he r esul t s of
t he 2010 census and t o ensur e t hat each
di st r i ct had t he r i ght 727, 365 benchmar k.

I d. at 4. Accor di ng t o J ani s:
House Bi l l 5004 r espect s t he wi l l of t he
el ect or at e by not cut t i ng out cur r ent l y
el ect ed congr essmen f r om t hei r cur r ent
di st r i ct s nor dr awi ng cur r ent congr essmen
i nt o di st r i ct s t oget her . And i t at t empt s t o
do t hi s whi l e st i l l maki ng sur e t hat we
compl y wi t h t he const i t ut i onal mandat e and
t he f eder al l aw mandat es.

I d. J ani s expl anat i on cont i nued wi t h t he obser vat i on t hat :
We al so at t empt t o keep t oget her
j ur i sdi ct i ons and l ocal i t i es, count i es,
ci t i es, and t owns. We t r y ei t her t o keep
t hem i nt act or , i n some cases, r euni t e
count i es, ci t i es, or t owns t hat wer e
spl i nt er ed i n pr evi ous r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans.

* * *

Whenever possi bl e, t he pl an al so seeks t o
pr eser ve exi st i ng l ocal communi t i es of
i nt er est , and, i n some cases, t o r euni t e
such communi t i es t hat may have been
f r act ur ed i n t he cour se of pr evi ous
r eappor t i onment pl ans, most not abl y, Rest on
i n nor t her n Vi r gi ni a.

Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 61 of 102 PageID#
3295
62

I d. at 5. Then J ani s poi nt ed out t hat t he pl an was based i n
par t on t he vi ews of Vi r gi ni a s Congr essi onal r epr esent at i ves
r espect i ng t he conf i gur at i on of t hei r di st r i ct s, st at i ng:
The di st r i ct boundar y l i nes wer e dr awn based
i n par t on speci f i c and det ai l ed
r ecommendat i ons t hat wer e pr ovi ded by each
of t he 11 cur r ent member s of t he Uni t ed
St at es Congr ess i n t he Vi r gi ni a del egat i on.

* * *

I have per sonal l y spoken wi t h each member of
t he Vi r gi ni a congr essi onal del egat i on, bot h
Republ i can and Democr at , and t hey have each
conf i r med f or me and assur ed me t hat t he
l i nes f or t hei r congr essi onal di st r i ct as
t hey appear i n t hi s l egi sl at i on conf or m t o
t he r ecommendat i ons t hat t hey pr ovi ded.

I d. at 5- 6. To summar i ze, J ani s st at ed:
That s why we dr ew t he l i nes t hi s way was
t o, [ si c] t o t he gr eat est degr ee possi bl e,
conf or m wi t h t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on
and f eder al l aw and pur suant t o t he
si gni f i cant popul at i on shi f t s over t he l ast
t en year s, t o r espect t he cor e of t he
exi st i ng congr essi onal di st r i ct boundar i es
wi t h t he l east amount of di sr upt i on i n t he
cont i nui t y of r epr esent at i on on t he par t of
t he const i t uent s of t hese di st r i ct s.

I d. at 6.
Af t er maki ng hi s pr esent at i on, J ani s r ecei ved quest i ons
f r om Del egat e War d Ar mst r ong, who was t he House of Del egat es
Mi nor i t y Leader and t he pr i nci pal spokesper son f or t he Democr at s
i n t he House of Del egat es when i t was consi der i ng t he
Congr essi onal r edi st r i ct i ng l egi sl at i on. I n one of t hose
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 62 of 102 PageID#
3296
63

quest i ons, Ar mst r ong asked J ani s t o expl ai n what cr i t er i a wer e
used t o ar r i ve at t he r edi st r i ct i ng pl an ot her t han t he VRA and
t he one- per son- one- vot e cr i t er i a. To t hat , J ani s r esponded as
f ol l ows:
The f i r st cr i t er i a [ si c] t hat we appl i ed
was, i t had t o compl y wi t h al l mandat es of
t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on and t he
Const i t ut i on of Vi r gi ni a, mor e especi al l y i t
must compl y wi t h t he one- per son- one- vot e
r ul e as i nt er pr et ed by appr opr i at e case l aw
. . . .

I d. at 18.

Second, t hat i t was dr awn t o conf or m wi t h
al l mandat es of f eder al l aw, and most
not abl y t he Vot i ng Ri ght s Act and most
speci f i cal l y, t hat i t f ol l ow a zer o- var i ance
r ul e, whi ch i s t he 727, 365 r ul e, and al so
t hat t her e be no r et r ogr essi on i n t he
mi nor i t y vot er i nf l uence i n t he 3r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct .

Those ar e t he mandat or y cr i t er i a t hat ar e
not per mi ssi ve, t hat t her e i s no di scr et i on
i n t he appl i cat i on of t hose.

Then, consi st ent wi t h t hose cr i t er i a and t he
2010 census dat a t hat mandat ed si gni f i cant
shi f t s i n popul at i on bet ween t he var i ous
congr essi onal di st r i ct s, t he t hi r d cr i t er i a
t hat we t r i ed t o appl y was, t o t he gr eat est
degr ee possi bl e, we t r i ed t o r espect t he
wi l l of t he Vi r gi ni a el ect or at e as i t was
expr essed i n t he November 2010 congr essi onal
el ect i ons.

And what t hat meant was we based t he
t er r i t or y of each of t he di st r i ct s on t he
cor e of t he exi st i ng congr essi onal
di st r i ct s. We at t empt ed - - I at t empt ed t o
not di sr upt t hose l i nes, t o t he mi ni mum
degr ee possi bl e, consi st ent wi t h t he need t o
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 63 of 102 PageID#
3297
64

ei t her expand or cont r act t he t er r i t or y of
t hese di st r i ct s.

We r espect ed t he wi l l of t he el ect or at e by
not pl aci ng - - one of t he cr i t er i a was not
pl aci ng t wo congr essmen i n a di st r i ct
t oget her . And one of t he cr i t er i a was t hat
we woul d not t ake t he di st r i ct l i nes and
dr aw a congr essman out of hi s exi st i ng
di st r i ct .

The l ast cr i t er i a t hat we appl i ed t hat was
per mi ssi ve was, t o t he gr eat est degr ee
possi bl e, consi st ent wi t h t he const i t ut i onal
mandat es, t he f eder al l aw mandat es, and t he
popul at i on shi f t s, we at t empt ed t o t he
gr eat est degr ee wher ever possi bl e not t o
spl i t count i es, ci t i es, and t owns, l ocal
j ur i sdi ct i ons, and t o r euni t e wher ever
possi bl e j ur i sdi ct i ons such as Al l egheny
Count y, Br unswi ck Count y, Car ol i ne Count y,
and t he Ci t y of Covi ngt on.

And t hen we al so t r i ed not t o spl i t l ocal
communi t i es of i nt er est based on t he
r ecommendat i ons we r ecei ved f r om t he cur r ent
member s of t he congr essi onal del egat i on.

I d. at 19- 20.
Ar mst r ong t hen quer i ed why i t was of any si gni f i cance
what soever t o cont act i ncumbent member s of t he U. S. Congr ess and
t o gat her t hei r opi ni on on wher e t he l i nes shoul d be dr awn.
I d. at 26. To t hat , J ani s r esponded:
I di dn t bel i eve t hat i t was t he - - t hat t he
pur pose of t hi s l egi sl at i on shoul d be t o
over t ur n t he wi l l of t he el ect or at e as i t
was expr essed i n 2010.

And you ve got member s of t he cur r ent
congr essi onal del egat i on t hat have ser ved
f or one year , and you ve got member s of t he
del egat i on t hat have ser ved f or 20 year s,
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 64 of 102 PageID#
3298
65

and ever yt hi ng i n bet ween. And when l ooki ng
f or i nput as t o how t o best pr eser ve l ocal
communi t i es of i nt er est - - l ocal j ur i sdi ct i ons
and l ocal i t i es ar e easy t o see because
t hey r e on a map, but l ocal communi t i es of
i nt er est ar e not r eadi l y sel f - evi dent on a
map - t hat i t was r el evant and i t was
r easonabl e t o seek i nput and r ecommendat i ons
f r om t hose cur r ent congr essmen because not
onl y do t hey know t he l ocal communi t i es of
i nt er est , but t he l ocal communi t i es of
i nt er est know t hem and have el ect ed t hem t o
publ i c of f i ce.

I d.

I n r esponse t o t hat expl anat i on, Ar mst r ong asked: woul d
t he gent l eman t hen admi t t hat i ncumbency pr ot ect i on was one of
t he per mi ssi ve cr i t er i a t hat he ut i l i zed i n t he devel opment of
HB 5004? I d. at 27. J ani s r esponded:
Wel l , I woul d say t hat , as one member of t he
congr essi onal del egat i on sai d, i ncumbency
pr ot ect i on i s how t hi s has been descr i bed i n
ever y si ngl e newspaper r epor t and ever y
account i n ever y newspaper was t hat t hi s i s
an i ncumbency pr ot ect i on pr ogr am.

* * *

And i t was - - I j ust di dn t t hi nk t hat i t
was t he pl ace of t he House of Del egat es t o
t hwar t t he wi l l of t he el ect or at e as i t was
expr essed l ast year by di sr upt i ng t he
cur r ent congr essi onal boundar i es. And what
we t r i ed t o do was mai nt ai n t he cor e of what
t hose boundar i es wer e under t he exi st i ng
l i nes.

I d. at 27- 28.

Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 65 of 102 PageID#
3299
66

Anot her del egat e quest i oned J ani s r espect i ng what he meant
by hi s r ef er ences t o t he wi l l of t he el ect or at e based on t he
2010 el ect i ons. I d. at 40. J ani s r esponded:
I woul d say t o t he gent l eman t hat t he vot er s
went t o t he pol l s i n November of 2010 and
t hey el ect ed 11 Congr essmen, Republ i can and
Democr at . Some of t hem t hey el ect ed f or t he
f i r st t i me, some of t hem t hey el ect ed f or
t he f i f t h or si xt h t i me.

And t hese member s of t he congr essi onal
del egat i on, t hat one of t he cr i t er i a t hat I
appl i ed her e t hat i s per mi ssi ve i n nat ur e
was t hat we wer e not goi ng t o
del i ber at el y - - t hi s pl an was not goi ng t o
del i ber at el y l ump exi st i ng congr essmen
t oget her and not cut exi st i ng congr essmen
out of t hei r cur r ent congr essi onal di st r i ct s
and t hat t hi s pl an was goi ng t o t r y t o
r espect , t o t he gr eat est degr ee possi bl e,
consi st ent wi t h t he const i t ut i onal mandat es
and t he f eder al l aw mandat es, most
especi al l y t he Vot i ng Ri ght s Act , wi t h t he
cor e - - i t woul d r espect t he cor e of t he
exi st i ng congr essi onal di st r i ct s.

And t hat one of t he per mi ssi ve cr i t er i a t hat
was appl i ed was t hat t hi s pl an was not goi ng
t o seek t o del i ber at el y r e- engi neer t he map
of Vi r gi ni a i n a way t hat was i ncompat i bl e
wi t h t he r esul t s of l ast year s el ect i on.

I d. at 40- 41.

When consi der ed i n cont ext and as a whol e, I t hi nk t hat
J ani s s st at ement s ( i ncl udi ng t hose ci t ed by t he maj or i t y) show
t hat t he pr edomi nant f act or i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng her e at i ssue
was pr ot ect i on of i ncumbent s. Those st at ement s al so show t hat
t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng f act or s pl ayed an i mpor t ant r ol e as
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 66 of 102 PageID#
3300
67

wel l . And, t hey show t hat , al bei t necessar i l y consi der ed i n t he
pr ocess, r ace was not t he pr edomi nant f act or i n t he dr awi ng of
C. D. 3 or ot her wi se i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng.
Wi t h t hat vi ew of t he r ecor d, I cannot concl ude t hat t he
Pl ai nt i f f s have met t hei r demandi ng bur den of pr oof t o show t hat
r ace was t he pr edomi nant f act or .
I f , as t he maj or i t y acknowl edges, t her e wer e t wo ani mat i ng
f act or s - i ncumbency pr ot ect i on and r ace - t hen, when assessi ng
l egi sl at i ve mot i vat i on, i t i s necessar y t o det er mi ne how r ace
was consi der ed i n or der t o deci de whet her i t was t he pr edomi nat e
f act or . Her e, t he r ecor d est abl i shes t hat r ace was a f act or
onl y because f eder al l aw r equi r ed i t t o be consi der ed. I n ot her
wor ds, t hat i s a mandat or y, and per mi ssi bl e use of r ace. But ,
t hat does not pr ove t hat , of t wo acknowl edged f act or s, r ace was
t he pr edomi nant one.
D. Janiss Statements About The VRA And Non-Retrogression
The Pl ai nt i f f s, and t he maj or i t y, t ake t he vi ew t hat
J ani s s speci f i c r ef er ence t o t he non- r et r ogr essi on r equi r ement
of t he VRA and hi s subsequent r ei t er at i ons of t hat r equi r ement s
i mpor t ance i n r esponse t o quest i oni ng i n f l oor debat es, see i d.
at 10, 14, and 25, pr ove t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant f act or . I
bel i eve t hat , t aken i n cont ext , however , t hose comment s pr ove a
mor e gener al pur pose t o avoi d vi ol at i ons of f eder al
const i t ut i onal l aw, st at e const i t ut i onal l aw, and f eder al
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 67 of 102 PageID#
3301
68

st at ut or y l aw, r at her t han i l l ust r at i ng t he use of r ace as t he
pr edomi nant r edi st r i ct i ng f act or .
I t i s a t r ui sm t hat The Supr emacy Cl ause obl i ges t he
St at es t o compl y wi t h al l const i t ut i onal exer ci ses of Congr ess
power . Bush v. Ver a, 517 U. S. at 991- 92; see al so U. S. Const . ,
Ar t . VI , cl . 2. The Supr emacy Cl ause al so bi nds t he Uni t ed
St at es t o t he t er ms of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. U. S.
Const . , Ar t . VI , cl . 2. Not abl y, J ani s s f i r st st at ed goal
i ncl uded compl i ance wi t h t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on, whi ch
i s mandat ed by t he Supr emacy Cl ause. I d. Hi s second st at ed goal ,
of whi ch non- r et r ogr essi on was an el ement , was al so mandat ed by
t he Supr emacy Cl ause.
I n any r edi st r i ct i ng, compl i ance wi t h f eder al st at ut or y and
const i t ut i onal l aw i s an absol ut e necessi t y. For a j ur i sdi ct i on
cover ed by Sect i on 5 of t he VRA, compl i ance wi t h Sect i on 5 i s
mandat or y a f act t hat appl i es wi t h equal f or ce whet her or not
a l egi sl at or openl y acknowl edges i t . To const r ue a l egi sl at or s
( or t he l egi sl at ur e s) acknowl edgement of t he r ol e of t he
Supr emacy Cl ause as a de f act o t r i gger f or st r i ct scr ut i ny of
maj or i t y- mi nor i t y j ur i sdi ct i ons i s t o pl ace t he l egi sl at ur es and
t hei r l egi sl at or s i n a t r ap[ ] bet ween t he compet i ng hazar ds of
l i abi l i t y. Bush v. Ver a, 517 U. S. at 992 ( O Connor , J . ,
concur r i ng) .
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 68 of 102 PageID#
3302
69

The maj or i t y opi ni on s descr i pt i on of t hi s val i d pr i nci pl e,
and ver y r eal pr obl em, as a r ed her r i ng i s based on i t s
mi sappr ehensi on of what t he sent ence act ual l y says. Thus, t he
maj or i t y says t hat [ t ] he di ssent ar gues t hat by subj ect i ng a
r edi st r i ct i ng pl an t o st r i ct scr ut i ny when i t separ at es vot er s
accor di ng t o r ace as a means t o compl y wi t h Sect i on 5 t r ap[ s]
[ l egi sl at ur es] bet ween compet i ng hazar ds of [ VRA and
Const i t ut i onal ] l i abi l i t y. That , of cour se, i s not what t he
di ssent act ual l y says. The subj ect sent ence act ual l y says t hat
[ t ] o const r ue a l egi sl at or s ( or t he l egi sl at ur e s)
acknowl edgement of t he r ol e of t he Supr emacy Cl ause as a def act o
t r i gger f or st r i ct scr ut i ny pl aces t hem i n t he t r ap i dent i f i ed
i n Bush. Thus, t he sent ence makes t he poi nt i s t hat i t i s not
r i ght t o ani mat e st r i ct scr ut i ny because a l egi sl at or , or t he
l egi sl at ur e, acknowl edges t he r ol e of t he Supr emacy Cl ause i n
r edi st r i ct i ng. That i s a f ar di f f er ent mat t er t han subj ect i ng a
r edi st r i ct i ng pl an t o st r i ct scr ut i ny because i t separ at es
vot er s accor di ng t o r ace.
To be sur e, t he Supr emacy Cl ause and t he appl i cat i on of
Sect i on 5 pr ovi de t he pot ent i al f or t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng
cr i t er i a t o be subor di nat ed t o r ace. But I r ead t he Supr eme
Cour t s pr ecedent as demandi ng act ual conf l i ct bet ween
t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng cr i t er i a and r ace t hat l eads t o t he
subor di nat i on of t he f or mer , r at her t han a mer el y hypot het i cal
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 69 of 102 PageID#
3303
70

conf l i ct t hat per f or ce r esul t s i n t he concl usi on t hat t he
t r adi t i onal cr i t er i a have been subor di nat ed t o r ace. Cf . Mi l l er ,
515 U. S. at 928- 29 ( Appl i cat i on of t he Cour t ' s st andar d does
not t hr ow i nt o doubt t he vast maj or i t y of t he Nat i on' s 435
congr essi onal di st r i ct s, wher e pr esumabl y t he St at es have dr awn
t he boundar i es i n accor dance wi t h t hei r cust omar y di st r i ct i ng
pr i nci pl es. That i s so even t hough r ace may wel l have been
consi der ed i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng pr ocess. ) And, on t he f act s
bef or e us, wher e t he Enact ed Pl an i mpr oves upon t he Benchmar k
Pl an i n cer t ai n t r adi t i onal cr i t er i a, see Pl s Exh. 43, at 5,
and al l Congr essi onal i ncumbent s have per sonal l y i ndi cat ed t hei r
sat i sf act i on t hat t he Enact ed Pl an conf or ms wi t h t hei r pol i t i cal
i nt er est s, see i d. at 5- 6, and bot h exper t s i n t hi s case agr ee
t hat t he Gener al Assembl y had pol i t i cal r easons t o make t he
changed embodi ed i n t he Enact ed Pl an r egar dl ess of t he r ace of
t he af f ect ed vot er s, see Tr i al Tr . at 128- 29 ( McDonal d) , 266
( Mor gan) , I cannot concl ude t hat J ani s s st at ement s about t he
VRA and non- r et r ogr essi on show, or even t end t o pr ove, t hat t he
t r adi t i onal cr i t er i a wer e act ual l y subor di nat ed t o r ace i n t he
cr eat i on of t he C. D. 3.
E. The Senate Resolution
Li ke t he Pl ai nt i f f s, t he maj or i t y poi nt s t o a Vi r gi ni a
Senat e Resol ut i on as evi dence t hat r ace was gi ven pr i or i t y over
al l ot her r edi st r i ct i ng consi der at i ons. The r esol ut i on pr ovi des
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 70 of 102 PageID#
3304
71

t hat popul at i on equal i t y among di st r i ct s and compl i ance wi t h
f eder al and st at e const i t ut i onal r equi r ement s and t he Vot i ng
Ri ght s Act of 1965 shal l be gi ven pr i or i t y i n t he event of
conf l i ct among t he [ pr evi ousl y enumer at ed r edi st r i ct i ng]
cr i t er i a. Pl s Ex. 5, p. 2, VI ( emphasi s added) .
As expl ai ned above, i t i s bot h necessar y, and unr emar kabl e,
t hat a st at e l egi sl at ur e woul d r ecogni ze i t s obl i gat i ons under ,
and t he ef f ect of , t he Supr emacy Cl ause. And, I do not see how
t he r ecogni t i on of t hat obl i gat i on coul d suppor t , or t end t o
pr ove, a f i ndi ng t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant r eason f or t he
Enact ed Pl an. Mor e i mpor t ant l y f or t oday s case, t he r esol ut i on
est abl i shes a pr i or i t y i n t he event of a conf l i ct , and I can
f i nd not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t o suggest t hat t her e was a conf l i ct
bet ween, or among, t he cr i t er i a out l i ned i n t he r esol ut i on. Nor
does i t appear f r om t he r ecor d t hat t he l egi sl at ur e consi der ed
t hat t her e was conf l i ct . Hence, t her e never ar ose a need t o
r esor t t o t he pr i or i t y cl ause of t he r esol ut i on.
F. The Perceived Racial Quota
Next , t he Pl ai nt i f f s have ar gued, and t he maj or i t y has
f ound, t hat t he Gener al Assembl y i mposed a 55 per cent Bl ack
Vot i ng Age Popul at i on ( BVAP) quot a f or t he C. D. 3. The suppor t
f or t hi s vi ew i s a pat chwor k qui l t of st at ement s made by Mor gan
and Vi r gi ni a s Sect i on 5 pr e- cl ear ance submi ssi on t o t he
Depar t ment of J ust i ce. See Pl s Post - Tr i al Br . at 7- 9. However ,
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 71 of 102 PageID#
3305
72

i n t he f i nal anal ysi s, I do not t hi nk t hat t he st at ement s by
Mor gan or t he Sect i on 5 submi ssi on car r y t he wei ght ascr i bed t o
t hem.
The Sect i on 5 submi ssi on mer el y st at es, as a f act ual
mat t er , t hat t he pr opor t i on of Af r i can- Amer i cans i n t he t ot al
and vot i ng age popul at i on i n C. D. 3 had been i ncr eased t o over 55
per cent . See Pl s Exh. 6, at 2. That , t o me, i s an obj ect i ve
descr i pt i on of a l egi sl at i ve out come, r at her t han a decl ar at i on
of subj ect i ve l egi sl at i ve i nt ent or any evi dence of a
pr edet er mi ned quot a.
Mor gan s exper t r epor t st at ed t hat t he Gener al Assembl y
enact ed . . . a House of Del egat es r edi st r i ct i ng pl an [ a pl an
f or seat s i n t he Gener al Assembl y] wi t h a 55% Bl ack VAP as t he
f l oor f or bl ack- maj or i t y di st r i ct s subj ect t o J ust i ce Depar t ment
pr ecl ear ance under Sect i on 5. I nt . Def s Exh. 13, at 26. Agai n,
t hi s st at ement per t ai ns t o a di f f er ent r edi st r i ct i ng pl an [ t he
st at e House of Del egat es pl an] , and gi ves no i ndi cat i on of
whet her t he f l oor was a pr edet er mi ned quot a or an af t er - t he-
f act descr i pt i on of t he di st r i ct s t hat wer e cont ai ned i n t he
enact ed House of Del egat es pl an. Mor gan went on t o wr i t e t hat
t he Gener al Assembl y had ampl e r eason
32
t o bel i eve t hat

32
That was so, sai d Mor gan, because t he Gener al Assembl y
pr evi ousl y had enact ed, wi t h st r ong suppor t of bi par t i san and
bl ack l egi sl at or s, a House of Del egat es r edi st r i ct i ng pl an wi t h
( Cont i nued)
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 72 of 102 PageID#
3306
73

l egi sl at or s of bot h par t i es . . . vi ewed t he 55% VAP f or t he
House of Del egat es di st r i ct s as appr opr i at e t o obt ai n Sect i on 5
pr ecl ear ance, and t hat [ t ] he Gener al Assembl y act ed i n
accor dance wi t h t hat vi ew f or t he congr essi onal di st r i ct s. I d.
at 26- 27. Whi l e t hese st at ement s suggest t hat , i n Mor gan s vi ew,
t he Gener al Assembl y l ooked f avor abl y upon a pl an wi t h a BVAP
gr eat er t han 55 per cent , t hey do not go so f ar as t o show t hat
t he l egi sl at ur e i mposed a pr edet er mi ned quot a of 55 per cent BVAP
t hat pr edomi nat ed over ever y ot her r edi st r i ct i ng cr i t er i on i n
ef f ect i ng t he Congr essi onal r edi st r i ct i ng her e at i ssue.
J ani s s publ i c st at ement s, on t he ot her hand, suggest t hat
t he t r ue st ar t i ng poi nt f or t he changes t o C. D. 3 was t he
r ecommendat i ons pr ovi ded by Vi r gi ni an Congr essmen bef or e any
assessment of t he ef f ect of t hose changes on t he Di st r i ct s
BVAP. Compar e Pl s Exh. 13, at 11 ( di scussi ng i nput f r om
Congr essmen Scot t and For bes on t he boundar i es bet ween C. D. 3 and
C. D. 4) wi t h I nt . Def s Exh. 10 ( di scussi ng anal ysi s of
pr evi ousl y pr oposed changes t o ver i f y t hat t hey di d not l ead t o
r et r ogr essi on) . Rat her t han i ndi cat i ng t hat r ace was t he
pr edomi nant f act or or t he subj ect of a har d quot a, t hi s sequence


a 55% BVAP as t he f l oor f or bl ack- maj or i t y di st r i ct s, subj ect t o
J ust i ce Depar t ment pr ecl ear ance under Sect i on 5, i ncl udi ng
di st r i ct s wi t hi n t he geogr aphy cover ed by Congr essi onal Di st r i ct
3. I d.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 73 of 102 PageID#
3307
74

of l egi sl at i ve dr af t i ng suggest s onl y t hat J ani s was consci ous
of t he possi bl e ef f ect s on r aci al demogr aphi cs and pot ent i al f or
Sect i on 5 pr ecl ear ance. And st r i ct scr ut i ny does not appl y
mer el y because r edi st r i ct i ng i s per f or med wi t h consci ousness of
r ace. Bush v. Ver a, 517 U. S. at 958.
Si gni f i cant l y, pr omi nent opponent s of t he Enact ed Pl an
opposed i t because i t pr ovi ded i ncumbent pr ot ect i on, not because
i t was t he pr oduct of adopt i ng a r aci al quot a. Senat or Locke,
t he sponsor of a r i val r edi st r i ct i ng pl an, st at ed on t he f l oor
of t he Vi r gi ni a Senat e t hat , I st and i n opposi t i on t o t hi s
l egi sl at i on, whi ch cl ear l y i s desi gned t o pr ot ect i ncumbent s.
Va. S. Sess. Tr . , ( J an. 20, 2012) , Pl s Exh. 47, at 15. Senat or
Locke l at er r ei t er at ed her bel i ef t hat t hi s pl an i s not about
t he ci t i zens of t he [ C] ommonweal t h but about pr ot ect i ng
i ndi vi dual s who cur r ent l y hol d t he of f i ce. I d. at 16. Del egat e
Ar mst r ong, t he mi nor i t y l eader i n t he Vi r gi ni a House of
Del egat es, st at ed unequi vocal l y, The exer ci se i s one f or
i ncumbency pr ot ect i on f i r st , l ast , al pha, and omega. Va. HB
5004, 1st Spec. Sess. Tr . ( Apr . 12, 2011) , Pl s Exh. 43, at 48-
49.
Del egat e Mor r i ssey compar ed t he r equest s f or r edi st r i ct i ng
i nput f r om i ncumbent s t o aski ng a pr of essi onal f oot bal l t eam
wher e i t woul d l i ke t he bal l t o be pl aced bef or e a cr uci al pl ay.
I d. at 44- 45. I n Mor r i ssey s vi ew, We r e not her e t o pr ot ect
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 74 of 102 PageID#
3308
75

[ i ncumbent ] Congr essman Connel l y [ si c] or Congr essman Her d
[ si c] . We r e her e t o do t he peopl e s busi ness and t o pr ot ect
t hei r i nt er est . I d. at 45. Because t he r edi st r i ct i ng bi l l
pr ot ect ed i ncumbent s, he was opposed t o i t .
Not wi t hst andi ng t he f act t hat t hese opponent s of t he
Enact ed Pl an had ever y r eason t o char act er i ze t he Enact ed Pl an
i n t he har shest t er ms possi bl e ( i . e. , as r ace dr i ven or as t he
pr oduct of a r aci al quot a) , t hey di d not do so. The r ecor d
pr oves t hat was because t hey saw t he pl an as dr i ven by t he goal
of i ncumbency pr ot ect i on r at her t han as r aci al ger r ymander i ng.
I amawar e of t he deci si ons t hat gi ve l i t t l e, t o no, wei ght
t o st at ement s made by t he opponent s of l egi sl at i on. See Shel l
Oi l Co. v. I owa Dep t of Revenue, 488 U. S. 19, 29 ( 1998) ;
N. L. R. B. v. Fr ui t & Veget abl e Packer s, 377 U. S. 58, 66 ( 1964) ;
Schwegmann Br os. v. Cal ver t Di st i l l er s Cor p. , 341 U. S. 384, 394-
395 ( 1951) . That aut hor i t y exi st s because opponent s ar e t hought
of t en t o be mot i vat ed t o make t he wor st possi bl e case agai nst
t he pi ece of l egi sl at i on under debat e and t hus t hei r vi ews ar e
of l i t t l e ef f ect i n i nt er pr et i ng t he l egi sl at i on. Those
aut hor i t i es do not appl y her e t o bar consi der at i on of t he
opponent s vi ews because we ar e not i nvol ved her e i n t he
i nt er pr et at i on of a l aw. Rat her , we ar e seeki ng t o det er mi ne
t he mot i vat i on f or enact i ng t he l aw. And, I t hi nk, we can
assume t hat t he opponent s woul d have condemned t he Enact ed Pl an
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 75 of 102 PageID#
3309
76

as r ace dr i ven had t hey t hought t hat t o be t he case because i t
i s f ar wor se t o be r ace dr i ven t han t o have been ani mat ed by
i ncumbency pr ot ect i on. So when t he opponent s l abel l ed t he
Enact ed Pl an as an i ncumbency pr ot ect i on pl an, we can t ake t hei r
vi ews i nt o account .
I n t hat r egar d, i t i s i mpor t ant t o r ecal l t hat t he most
sal i ent di f f er ence bet ween t he Enact ed Pl an and Senat or Locke s
al t er nat i ve r edi st r i ct i ng pl an was not t he pr opor t i on of
Af r i can- Amer i cans i n C. D. 3, but whet her one of t he di st r i ct s
t hen hel d by a Republ i can i ncumbent woul d be t r ansf or med i nt o a
Democr at - l eani ng di st r i ct . As t he Pl ai nt i f f s own exper t ,
McDonal d, wr ot e l ast year :
The st i cki ng poi nt was whet her t o pr ot ect
al l i ncumbent s, gi vi ng t he Republ i cans an 8-
3 edge among t he st at e s el even di st r i ct s,
or t o r est or e t he Af r i can- Amer i can
popul at i on t o t he Four t h Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct t hat had been shi f t ed t o t he Thi r d
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct dur i ng t he l ast
r edi st r i ct i ng, yi el di ng a Democr at i c- l eani ng
Four t h Congr essi onal Di st r i ct wi t h 45%
Af r i can Amer i can vot i ng- age popul at i on and
r educi ng t he Republ i cans edge t o 7- 4. Af t er
t he November 2011 el ect i ons, when
Republ i cans gai ned a wor ki ng maj or i t y, i n
t he Senat e, t he Gener al Assembl y passed t he
congr essi onal pl an t hat pr ot ect ed al l
i ncumbent s i ncl udi ng t he ei ght Republ i cans.

McDonal d, supr a, at 796- 97. Thi s assessment , of f er ed i n a
schol ar l y publ i cat i on a year af t er t he Enact ed Pl an was si gned
i nt o l aw, sever el y damages t he cr edi bi l i t y of McDonal d s
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 76 of 102 PageID#
3310
77

subsequent t est i mony t hat r ace t r umped pol i t i cs i n t he dr awi ng
of t he Enact ed C. D. 3. See Tr i al Tr . 88. Per haps mor e
i mpor t ant l y, however , McDonal d s ar t i cl e demonst r at es t hat even
r edi st r i ct i ng exper t s wr i t i ng wi t h t he benef i t of hi ndsi ght
bel i eved t hat t he choi ce of r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans was dr i ven by
i ssues of i ncumbency pr ot ect i on and par t i san bal ance. Gi ven t hat
obser vat i on, t her e i s ampl e r eason t o concl ude t hat J ani s and
ot her l egi sl at or s wer e ani mat ed i n t hei r r edi st r i ct i ng deci si ons
by i ncumbency pr ot ect i on and par t i san bal ance.
For t hose r easons, I do not consi der t hat t he Pl ai nt i f f s
pr oved t hei r r aci al quot a ar gument .
G. McDonalds Opinions: Circumstantial Evidence
I n t hei r pr esent at i on of t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence
t hought t o suppor t pr oof of a r aci al ger r ymander , t he Pl ai nt i f f s
have r el i ed on McDonal d s opi ni on and r epor t .
33
And, as I
under st and i t , t he maj or i t y r el i es heavi l y on t he exhi bi t s
pr epar ed by McDonal d and hi s t est i mony about t hem when assessi ng
t he Pl ai nt i f f s ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hought t o show t hat
r ace was t he pr edomi nant f act or i n dr awi ng C. D. 3.

33
McDonal d s r epor t and i t s exhi bi t s ( l i ke t hat of t he
Def endant s exper t , J ohn Mor gan) wer e admi t t ed i nt o evi dence by
agr eement , not wi t hst andi ng t hat exper t r epor t s ar e hear say and
hence not admi ssi bl e usual l y.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 77 of 102 PageID#
3311
78

I n r eachi ng hi s concl usi on t hat t he r ace was t he
pr edomi nant f act or i n t he cr eat i on of t he Enact ed Pl an and t he
dr awi ng of C. D. 3, McDonal d anal yzed t he r aci al composi t i on of
popul at i ons t hat moved i n and out of C. D. 3, t he compact ness of
t he di st r i ct , t he over al l shape of t he di st r i ct ( i ncl udi ng t he
use of wat er t o bypass r aci al communi t i es whi l e mai nt ai ni ng
t echni cal cont i gui t y) , and t he number of pr eci nct and l ocal i t y
boundar i es t hat wer e spl i t by t he Enact ed Pl an. See Tr i al Tr .
72. I wi l l addr ess each of t hese f act or s i n t ur n.
But , bef or e doi ng so, I r ei t er at e t hat , f or t he r easons set
out i n Sect i on I I . B, I woul d gi ve no cr edence t o any par t of
McDonal d s t est i mony or r epor t . However , because t he
Pl ai nt i f f s case, l i ke t he maj or i t y opi ni on, depends on
McDonal d s vi ews on t hese t opi cs, I t hi nk i t i s wi se t o addr ess
t hem, whol l y apar t f r om my vi ew of hi s cr edi bi l i t y. Thus, I
t ur n now t o t he el ement s of what t he maj or i t y cal l s
Ci r cumst ant i al Evi dence of t he Thi r d Di st r i ct s Shape and
Char act er i st i cs. I n so doi ng, I di scuss, as has t he maj or i t y,
each poi nt i ndi vi dual l y but assess t hemas a whol e.
1. Population Swaps Racial Composition
The Enact ed Pl an i ncor por at ed a number of popul at i on swaps
bet ween C. D. 3 and t he sur r oundi ng Congr essi onal di st r i ct s.
McDonal d t est i f i ed t hat t he ef f ect of t hese var i ous swaps was t o
r emove ar eas wi t h a compar at i vel y l ow BVAP f r om C. D. 3 and add
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 78 of 102 PageID#
3312
79

ar eas wi t h a compar at i vel y hi gher BVAP i nt o C. D. 3. Tr i al Tr . 82-
87; Pl s Exh. 27, at 15, Tabl e 6. Even i f we assume t hat poi nt
t o be accur at e, i t does l i t t l e t o pr ove t hat r ace was t he
pr edomi nant f act or i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng because, [ i ] n a case .
. . wher e maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct s . . . ar e at i ssue and
wher e r aci al i dent i f i cat i on cor r el at es hi ghl y wi t h pol i t i cal
af f i l i at i on, Easl ey, 532 U. S. at 258, a si mpl e anal ysi s
demonst r at i ng t hat bl acks ar e di spr opor t i onat el y l i kel y t o be
moved i nt o a par t i cul ar l egi sl at i ve di st r i ct i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o
pr ove a cl ai m of r aci al ger r ymander i ng. As Mor gan expl ai ned,
t he Enact ed Pl an t r eat s Di st r i ct 3 t he same way as t he maj or i t y-
whi t e di st r i ct s by pr eser vi ng i t s essent i al cor e and maki ng
r el at i vel y mi ni mal changes t o benef i t i ncumbent s i n Di st r i ct
t hr ee and adj acent di st r i ct s. Tr i al Tr . 256.
Nei t her par t y di sput es t hat r aci al i dent i f i cat i on
cor r el at es hi ghl y wi t h pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on i n C. D. 3 and
sur r oundi ng ar eas. And, t he r ecor d shows t hat t he Democr at vot e
shar e of l ocal vot i ng t abul at i on di st r i ct s ( VTDs) can gener al l y
be pr edi ct ed si mpl y by t aki ng t he BVAP of a VTD and addi ng about
21 per cent age poi nt s. See Pl s Exh. 57, Tabl e 2 ( r ef l ect i ng t he
anal ysi s of t he Pl ai nt i f f s exper t and showi ng t hat most VTDs
have a Democr at vot e shar e 20- 22 poi nt s hi gher t han t hei r BVAP) ;
I nt . Def s Cor r ect ed Exh. 50, Tabl e 1 ( r ef l ect i ng t he anal ysi s
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 79 of 102 PageID#
3313
80

of t he Def endant s exper t and showi ng t he same cor r el at i on
bet ween BVAP and Democr at vot e per f or mance) .
The maj or i t y f i nds f aul t wi t h t hi s anal ysi s because i t i s,
i n t hei r vi ew, pr eci sel y t he sor t of r ace- bi ased consi der at i on
t he Supr eme Cour t has conf i r med t r i gger s st r i ct scr ut i ny.
( ci t i ng Bush v. Ver a, 517 U. S. at 968; and Shaw I , 509 U. S. at
653) . However , t he anal ysi s of r aci al cor r el at i on and pol i t i cal
af f i l i at i on her e i s based on f act s i n t he r ecor d: t he
Pl ai nt i f f s own exper t , t he Def endant s exper t , and t he r esul t s
of t he most r ecent pr esi dent i al el ect i on. Hence, t hi s case does
not pr esent t he r aci al st er eot ypi ng t hat Bush and Shaw I r i ght l y
pr ohi bi t . And t hat f act - based cor r el at i on bet ween r ace and
pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on has si gni f i cance. That i s because t he
pr oven cor r el at i on r equi r es t hat t he par t y at t acki ng t he
l egi sl at i vel y dr awn boundar i es must show at t he l east t hat t he
l egi sl at ur e coul d have achi eved i t s l egi t i mat e pol i t i cal
obj ect i ves i n al t er nat i ve ways t hat ar e compar abl y consi st ent
wi t h t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es. Easl ey, 532 U. S. at
258.
I t i s not , I t hi nk, di sput ed by anyone t hat , at l east , one
of t he l egi t i mat e pol i t i cal obj ect i ves ar t i cul at ed i n t he
Vi r gi ni a l egi sl at ur e was i ncumbent pr ot ect i on, whi ch di r ect l y
i mpl i cat ed t he par t i san per f or mance of t he var i ous Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct s. McDonal d pur por t edl y t est ed t hese pol i t i cal
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 80 of 102 PageID#
3314
81

consi der at i ons t o det er mi ne whet her t hey coul d expl ai n t he
changes t o C. D. 3, and concl uded t hat r ace t r umped pol i t i cs.
See Tr i al Tr . 87- 88. But McDonal d s t est i s si mpl y t oo cr ude t o
suppor t such a concl usi on, as McDonal d s own f ol l ow- up anal ysi s
demonst r at es.
McDonal d i ni t i al l y cr eat ed a set of VTDs dr awn f r om ever y
l ocal i t y t hat was par t i al l y or compl et el y cont ai ned wi t hi n t he
Benchmar k C. D. 3. See Tr i al Tr . 88. To t hat set , he added t he
VTDs f r om ever y l ocal i t y adj acent t o t he Benchmar k C. D. 3. I d.
McDonal d i sol at ed t hose VTDs wher e Democr at s aver aged 55 per cent
of t he vot e or mor e, and t hen compar ed t he hi ghl y Democr at
VTDs t hat wer e pl aced wi t hi n t he Enact ed C. D. 3 wi t h t hose t hat
wer e pl aced i n ot her di st r i ct s. I d. at 88- 89. McDonal d f ound
t hat t he hi ghl y Democr at VTDs pl aced wi t hi n C. D. 3. possessed a
hi gher BVAP t han t hei r count er par t VTDs out si de C. D. 3. I d. at
89; Pl s Exh. 28, at 8 ( f i ndi ng an aver age BVAP of 59. 5% f or
hi ghl y Democr at VTDs wi t hi n t he Enact ed C. D. 3 and an aver age
BVAP of 43. 5% f or hi ghl y Democr at VTDs out si de t he Enact ed
C. D. 3) . Fr om t hi s f i ndi ng, McDonal d i nf er r ed t hat r ace
pr edomi nat ed over pol i t i cs i n t he sel ect i on of VTDs f or
i ncl usi on i n t he Enact ed C. D. 3.
McDonal d s anal ysi s suf f er s f r om t wo maj or def i ci enci es.
Fi r st , he made no di st i nct i on bet ween VTDs t hat wer e al r eady
wi t hi n t he pr e- exi st i ng boundar i es of C. D. 3 and VTDs t hat wer e
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 81 of 102 PageID#
3315
82

out si de t he boundar i es of C. D. 3. McDonal d s anal ysi s assumes
t hat , but f or par t i san per f or mance, a VTD i n t he i nner cor e of
t he ol d C. D. 3 i s no mor e l i kel y t o be i ncl uded i n t he new C. D. 3
t han a VTD t hi r t y mi l es out si de t he ol d C. D. 3. Thi s assumpt i on
can be val i d onl y i f t he r edi st r i ct i ng l egi sl at ur e gave no val ue
t o t he goal s of pr eser vi ng di st r i ct cor es and pr ot ect i ng t he
pr e- exi st i ng communi t i es of i nt er est f or med wi t hi n t hose cor es.
However , t he r ecor d makes i t cl ear t hat t he l egi sl at ur e, i n
f act , di d assi gn subst ant i al val ue t o t hose goal s. And, t he
r ecor d shows t hat , of t he 189 hi ghl y Democr at VTDs assi gned t o
t he Enact ed C. D. 3, 159 wer e al so i ncl uded i n t he Benchmar k
C. D. 3. Those 159 VTDs had an aver age BVAP of 60%. On t hi s
r ecor d, and consi der i ng t he vot i ng per f or mance dat a f r om past
pr esi dent i al el ect i ons, i t shoul d not come as a sur pr i se t hat a
pr e- exi st i ng maj or i t y- mi nor i t y Congr essi onal di st r i ct woul d have
a hi gher aver age BVAP i n i t s hi ghl y Democr at VTDs t han t he
sur r oundi ng l ocal i t i es, and evi dence t o t hat ef f ect does not
demonst r at e t hat t he changes t o t he Benchmar k C. D. 3, a pr e-
exi st i ng maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct , wer e pr edomi nat el y
mot i vat ed by r ace.
The second pr obl em wi t h McDonal d s anal ysi s and t est i mony
i s t hat , al t hough t he hi ghl y Democr at VTDs wi t hi n C. D. 3 had a
hi gher aver age BVAP, t hey wer e al so on aver age mor e hi ghl y
Democr at . Pl ai nt i f f s own Exhi bi t 57 shows t hat , whi l e t he
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 82 of 102 PageID#
3316
83

hi ghl y Democr at VTDs wi t hi n C. D. 3 had a BVAP 16 per cent age
poi nt s gr eat er , t hey al so per f or med 15. 5 per cent age poi nt s
bet t er f or Democr at candi dat es. Thus, pl aci ng t hose VTDs wi t hi n
C. D. 3 and keepi ng t hem out of t he sur r oundi ng Congr essi onal
di st r i ct s woul d ser ve t he pur pose of pr ot ect i ng i ncumbent s ( t he
Democr at i ncumbent i n C. D. 3, t he Republ i can i ncumbent s i n C. D. 1,
C. D. 4, C. D. 7, and especi al l y C. D. 2) t o a gr eat er degr ee t han
woul d be possi bl e i f t he l ower BVAP, l ess hi ghl y Democr at VTDs
wer e al so pl aced wi t hi n C. D. 3.
When t hei r own evi dence shows t hat t he sel ect i on of hi ghl y
Democr at VTDs does as much t o f ur t her t he r ace- neut r al pol i t i cal
goal of i ncumbency pr ot ect i on as i t does t o i ncr ease t he
pr opor t i on of mi nor i t i es wi t hi n t he di st r i ct , t he Pl ai nt i f f s
cannot be sai d t o have car r i ed t hei r bur den t o show t hat r ace
pr edomi nat ed over pol i t i cs, and cer t ai nl y not t hr ough
McDonal d s VTD anal ysi s.
34
As i n Backus v. Sout h Car ol i na,

34
The Pl ai nt i f f s have pl aced gr eat i mpor t ance on f i ve
hi ghl y Democr at VTDs t hat wer e r emoved f r om t he Benchmar k C. D. 3.
See Tr i al Tr . 411- 14; Pl s Post - Tr i al Repl y, at 7- 9 & n. 4. These
VTDs, however , wer e subst ant i al l y l ess Democr at ( 19. 2 per cent age
poi nt s) t han t he hi ghl y Democr at i c VTDs added t o Benchmar k
C. D. 3, and i n f act cl ose t o t he 55% cut of f sel ect ed by t he
Pl ai nt i f f s as t he def i ni t i on of a hi ghl y Democr at VTD. See Pl s
Exh. 57, Tabl e 2. The Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat , because t he
di scr epancy i n t he BVAPs of t he added and r emoved di st r i ct s
( 35. 9 per cent age poi nt s) i s gr eat er t han t he di scr epancy i n t he
Democr at per f or mance, t hose f i ve VTDs pr ove t hat r ace
pr edomi nat ed over pol i t i cs.
( Cont i nued)
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 83 of 102 PageID#
3317
84

anot her case i n whi ch McDonal d s si mi l ar t est i mony was f ound
want i ng, t hi s anal ysi s f ocuse[ s] t oo much on changes t hat
i ncr eased t he BVAP i n cer t ai n [ VTDs] and not enough on how
t r adi t i onal r ace- neut r al pr i nci pl es wer e subor di nat ed t o r ace i n
maki ng t hose changes. 857 F. Supp. 2d 553 ( D. S. C. 2012) ( t hr ee-
j udge cour t ) , summ. af f d, 133 S. Ct . 156 ( 2012) .
2. Compactness
McDonal d al so based hi s opi ni on on t he pr edomi nance of r ace
i n par t on hi s anal ysi s of C. D. 3 s compact ness. Based on a
vi sual i nspect i on of t he di st r i ct s map and t hr ee di f f er ent


I can f i nd no basi s i n pr ecedent f or t hi s ar gument , and as
a mat t er of l ogi c i t i s a t hi n r eed. Ther e i s no di sput e t hat
t he f i ve VTDs i n quest i on ar e l ess hi ghl y Democr at t han t hei r
count er par t s t hat wer e added t o t he Benchmar k C. D. 3. Ther e i s
al so no di sput e t hat t hey have subst ant i al l y l ower BVAPs. Bot h
t he Def endant s al l eged goal s of i ncumbency pr ot ect i on and t he
r ace f act or t hat Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege woul d have been subst ant i al l y
f ur t her ed by t hese r edi st r i ct i ng choi ces. When bot h goal s ar e
subst ant i al l y ser ved by a par t i cul ar r edi st r i ct i ng deci si on,
t hat deci si on of f er s no i nsi ght i nt o whi ch goal pr edomi nat ed i n
t he deci si on- maki ng pr ocess. The i mpl i cat i on of t he Pl ai nt i f f s
ar gument i s t hat t he Def endant s shoul d have compr omi sed t hei r
abi l i t y t o achi eve t hei r pol i t i cal goal s i n or der t o avoi d an
even l ar ger r aci al i mpact . But t hat i s not t he t est set f or t h i n
Easl ey, and so t he f i ve VTDs hi ghl i ght ed by t he Pl ai nt i f f s do
not pr ove t hei r cl ai m. I n f act , t he Supr eme Cour t r ej ect ed a
si mi l ar pr eci nct - based ar gument i n Easl ey i t sel f . See 532 U. S.
at 255. ( Fi r st , appel l ees suggest , wi t hout i dent i f yi ng any
speci f i c swap, t hat t he l egi sl at ur e coul d have br ought wi t hi n
Di st r i ct 12 sever al r el i abl y Democr at i c, pr i mar i l y whi t e,
pr eci nct s i n For syt h Count y. None of t hese pr eci nct s, however ,
i s mor e r el i abl y Democr at i c t han t he pr eci nct s i mmedi at el y
adj acent and wi t hi n Di st r i ct 12. )
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 84 of 102 PageID#
3318
85

st at i st i cal measur es of compact ness ( The Reock t est , t he
Pol sby- Popper t est , and t he Schwar t zber g t est ) , McDonal d
t est i f i ed t hat C. D. 3 i s t he l east compact di st r i ct of any
di st r i ct i n t he Commonweal t h of Vi r gi ni a. Tr i al Tr . 73. Whi l e
t hat asser t i on seems t o be accur at e as f ar as i t goes, i t does
not speak di r ect l y t o t he quest i on whet her t he di st r i ct s l ack
of compact ness i s const i t ut i onal l y suspect .
I n any gi ven set of el ect or al di st r i ct s, one or mor e must
be t he l east compact . I n al l t hr ee t est s used by McDonal d,
C. D. 3 i s t he l east compact di st r i ct by t he sl i mmest of mar gi ns.
See Pl s Exh. 27, at 7. On t he Reock t est , wher e l ower scor es
ar e l ess compact , t he scor es of Vi r gi ni a s Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct s r ange f r om 0. 19 t o 0. 37, and C. D. 3 scor es onl y 0. 01
wor se t han t he second- l east compact di st r i ct . I d. On t he Pol sby-
Popper Test , wher e l ower scor es ar e l ess compact , t he scor es
r ange f r om 0. 08 t o 0. 26, and C. D. 3 scor es onl y 0. 01 wor se t han
t he second- l east compact di st r i ct . I d. On t he Schwar t zber g t est ,
wher e hi gher scor es ar e l ess compact , t he scor es r ange f r om1. 76
t o 3. 07, and C. D. 3 scor es onl y 0. 01 wor se t han t he second- l east
compact di st r i ct . I d.
But , as McDonal d conceded dur i ng hi s t est i mony, even a
di f f er ence of 0. 03 on t he Reock t est , 0. 03 on t he Pol sby- Popper
t est , and 1. 03 on t he Schwar t zber g t est does not hol d
compar at i ve si gni f i cance under any pr of essi onal st andar d. See
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 85 of 102 PageID#
3319
86

Tr i al Tr . 217 ( t est i f yi ng about di f f er ences i n compact ness
bet ween Enact ed C. D. 3 and Pl ai nt i f f s al t er nat i ve pl an) ; Pl s
Exh. 29, at 7 ( quant i f yi ng t hose di f f er ences i n compact ness
scor es) . Ther ef or e, by McDonal d s own l ogi c, C. D. 3 i s not
si gni f i cant l y l ess compact t han some of t he ot her Congr essi onal
di st r i ct s i n t he Commonweal t h of Vi r gi ni a. Thus, McDonal d s
compact ness cont ent i on does not advance t he t heor y t hat r ace was
t he pr edomi nant f act or i n t he cr eat i on of C. D. 3. And, cer t ai nl y
i t does not pr ove t he poi nt .
3. VTD And Locality Splits
McDonal d al so exami ned t he number of VTDs and l ocal i t i es
t hat wer e spl i t by t he boundar i es of t he Enact ed C. D. 3. He
t est i f i ed t hat C. D. 3 spl i t mor e VTDs and l ocal i t i es t han any
ot her Congr essi onal Di st r i ct i n Vi r gi ni a. Tr i al Tr . 76- 80. See
al so Pl s Exh. 27, at 8- 11 ( McDonal d s exper t r epor t ) .
Ther eupon, McDonal d concl uded t hat C. D. 3 s posi t i on as t he
l eadi ng sour ce of spl i t l ocal i t i es and VTDs i ndi cat ed t hat r ace
was t he pr edomi nant f act or i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng of C. D. 3.
But , as wi t h hi s t est i mony about compact ness, McDonal d s
l ogi c i s t oo sweepi ng. Unl ess a st at e manages t o avoi d spl i t t i ng
any l ocal i t i es and VTDs ( an al most i mpossi bl e t ask when combi ned
wi t h t he need t o achi eve per f ect popul at i on equal i t y bet ween
di st r i ct s) , one or mor e di st r i ct s wi l l i nevi t abl y par t i ci pat e i n
mor e spl i t s t han ot her di st r i ct s. McDonal d has not of f er ed any
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 86 of 102 PageID#
3320
87

cogni zabl e pr i nci pl e or pr of essi onal st andar d t hat di st i ngui shes
bet ween a r easonabl e di st r i but i on of spl i t s bet ween di st r i ct s
and a t r ue out l i er i ndi cat i ve of r aci al ger r ymander i ng. Hi s
t heor emf ai l s f or t hat r eason al one.
Mor eover , C. D. 3 now spl i t s f ewer l ocal i t i es and VTDs t han
t he ver si on of C. D. 3 t hat was st r uck down i n 1997. See Pl s Exh.
27, at 8- 11 ( quot i ng st at i st i cs ci t ed by Moon v. Meadows, 952
F. Supp. 1141, 1148 ( E. D. Va. 1997) ) . Si mi l ar l y, t he Enact ed
Pl an spl i t s f ewer l ocal i t i es and VTDs st at ewi de t han t he
r edi st r i ct i ng pl an st r uck down i n 1997. I d. The Enact ed Pl an
al so spl i t s f ewer l ocal i t i es t han t he Benchmar k Pl an t hat was
pr evi ousl y i n pl ace. Tr i al Tr . 321. Tel l i ngl y, McDonal d
pr evi ousl y wr ot e i n hi s ar t i cl e t hat t he Enact ed Pl an scor ed
hi ghl y i n hi s r egar d f or i t s abi l i t y t o l i mi t t he number of
spl i t pol i t i cal boundar i es. See McDonal d, supr a, at 819- 20.
35
On
t hi s r ecor d, I concl ude t hat t he number of VTD and l ocal i t y
spl i t s ar e not pr obat i ve of t he t heor y t hat t he spl i t s wer e
r aci al l y mot i vat ed.



35
Thi s i s yet anot her i l l ust r at i on of t he f aci l e and
mal l eabl e qual i t y of McDonal d s opi ni ons. When opi ni ng bef or e
bei ng r et ai ned i n t hi s case, McDonal d s vi ew on t he spl i t s
i ssue was f ar di f f er ent t han t he one he posi t s i n t hi s case.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 87 of 102 PageID#
3321
88

4. Contiguity
McDonal d conceded t hat C. D. 3 was cont i guous, but f ound
f aul t wi t h t he f act t hat t he di st r i ct was not compl et el y
cont i guous by l and or br i dge connect i ons. Tr i al Tr . 74- 76.
Speci f i cal l y, McDonal d concl uded t hat C. D. 3 s use of wat er
connect i ons acr oss t he J ames Ri ver t o bypass whi t e communi t i es
l ocat ed bet ween Newpor t News and Hampt on showed t hat t r adi t i onal
r edi st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es had been subor di nat ed t o r ace. I d. at
75- 76. However , McDonal d made no at t empt t o anal yze t he
pol i t i cal and par t i san i mpact of excl udi ng t hose whi t e
communi t i es, and t her ef or e di d not make t he necessar y showi ng
under Easl ey t o demonst r at e t hat t hese bypasses wer e cr eat ed f or
r aci al r at her t han pol i t i cal r easons.
Fur t her mor e, McDonal d conceded upon cr oss- exami nat i on t hat
wat er cont i gui t y wi t hout a br i dge i s per mi ssi bl e i n Vi r gi ni a.
Tr i al Tr . 221. The Vi r gi ni a Senat e Redi st r i ct i ng Cr i t er i a
adopt ed i n 2011 expl i ci t l y st at ed t hat , Cont i gui t y by wat er i s
suf f i ci ent . Pl s Exh. 5, at 1. And, t he Supr eme Cour t of
Vi r gi ni a has hel d t hat cont i gui t y by wat er does not necessar i l y
vi ol at e t he Const i t ut i on of Vi r gi ni a, r easoni ng t hat cont i gui t y
by l and i s not necessar y f or exer ci si ng t he r i ght t o vot e, does
not i mpact ot her wi se i nt act communi t i es of i nt er est , and, i n
t oday s wor l d of mass medi a and t echnol ogy, i s not necessar y f or
communi cat i on among t he r esi dent s of t he di st r i ct or bet ween
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 88 of 102 PageID#
3322
89

such r esi dent s and t hei r el ect ed r epr esent at i ve. Wi l ki ns v.
West , 571 S. E. 2d 100, 109, 264 Va. 447, 463 ( Va. 2002) . Under
t hese ci r cumst ances, t he Pl ai nt i f f s have not shown t hat
cont i gui t y by wat er i s a vi ol at i on of t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng
pr i nci pl es i n Vi r gi ni a, l et al one t hat t he per cei ved
i mper mi ssi bl e f or m of cont i gui t y was dr i ven by r ace r at her t han
pol i t i cs.
5. Population Swaps - Volume
The Pl ai nt i f f s have al so made an i ssue of t he f act t hat ,
al t hough t he Benchmar k C. D. 3 was under popul at ed by r oughl y
63, 976 peopl e, t he popul at i on swaps used t o br i ng t he Enact ed
C. D. 3 t o par wi t h t he ot her Vi r gi ni a Congr essi onal Di st r i ct s
i nvol ved r oughl y 180, 000 peopl e. See Tr i al Tr . 80- 81, 87. The
maj or i t y t oo f i nds t hi s t o be evi dence i n suppor t of a f i ndi ng
t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant f act or i n t hi s r edi st r i ct i ng.
However , t o a l ar ge degr ee, t hi s di scr epancy i s expl ai ned
by t he changes i n Vi r gi ni a s popul at i on over t i me and t he need
t o mi ni mi ze spl i t l ocal i t i es. C. D. 3 was not t he onl y
under popul at ed di st r i ct t hat needed t o be augment ed af t er t he
2010 census. Congr essi onal Di st r i ct s 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 wer e
al so under popul at ed. Tr i al Tr . 248. Di st r i ct 2, whi ch i s
adj acent t o Di st r i ct 3 and l ocat ed on t he f ar east er n edge of
t he Commonweal t h, was under popul at ed by mor e t han 81, 000 peopl e.
I d. The goal of t he popul at i on swaps i nvol vi ng C. D. 3 was not
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 89 of 102 PageID#
3323
90

mer el y t o augment t hat Di st r i ct s popul at i on, but t o wor k i n
concer t wi t h ot her popul at i on swaps t o achi eve t he near - per f ect
popul at i on par i t y t hat woul d sat i sf y t he Const i t ut i onal mandat e
of one- man- one- vot e.
The need t o achi eve popul at i on par i t y bet ween di st r i ct s was
compl i cat ed by a si mul t aneous desi r e t o l i mi t l ocal i t y spl i t s.
The Enact ed Pl an managed t o add pr eci sel y 63, 976 peopl e t o C. D. 3
whi l e r educi ng t he number of spl i t l ocal i t i es. See Tr i al Tr . 321
As a mat t er of l ogi c, i t i s ext r emel y unl i kel y t hat any
combi nat i on of whol e l ocal i t i es i n t he vi ci ni t y of Benchmar k
C. D. 3 coul d have been added t o t he Di st r i ct t o augment t he
popul at i on by exact l y 63, 976 peopl e, and t he Pl ai nt i f f s have
made no ef f or t t o demonst r at e t he f easi bi l i t y of t hat scenar i o.
I n or der t o hi t i t s popul at i on t ar get f or C. D. 3, t he Vi r gi ni a
l egi sl at ur e had t o ei t her spl i t addi t i onal l ocal i t i es or t r ade
compl et e l ocal i t i es back and f or t h bet ween di st r i ct s t o achi eve
t he desi r ed net t r ansf er of popul at i on. The evi dence shows t hat
t he Vi r gi ni a l egi sl at ur e t ook t he l at t er r out e, whi ch al l owed i t
t o achi eve i t s popul at i on t ar get and act ual l y r educe t he number
of spl i t l ocal i t i es, al bei t at t he expense of i nvol vi ng mor e
peopl e i n t he popul at i on swaps bet ween di st r i ct s.
Fi nal l y, t o t he ext ent t hat any popul at i on swaps cannot be
expl ai ned by t he t wo f act or s above, t her e i s not hi ng about t hei r
exi st ence t hat by t hemsel ves i ndi cat e t hat t he swaps wer e
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 90 of 102 PageID#
3324
91

r aci al l y mot i vat ed. That det er mi nat i on must be made on t he basi s
of ot her evi dence, and t he ot her evi dence i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o
t hat end.
6. The Shape Of C.D.3
The shape of a di st r i ct , i f i t i s bi zar r e, can be
consi der ed as t endi ng t o show t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant
f act or i n dr awi ng t he di st r i ct l i nes. See Shaw v. Hunt ( Shaw
I I ) , 517 U. S. 899, 905- 906 ( 1996) ; Kar cher v. Dagget t , 462 U. S.
725, 762 ( 1983) ; Mi l l er , 519 U. S. at 914 ; Bush v. Ver a, 517
U. S. at 980- 81. The Pl ai nt i f f s and t he maj or i t y t ake t he vi ew
t hat C. D. 3 i s conf i gur ed so as t o f al l wi t hi n t he r each of t hose
deci si ons.
Wi t h r espect , when I exami ned t he map t hat shows al l of t he
Vi r gi ni a di st r i ct s ( I nt . Def s. Ex. 02) , I coul d not concl ude
t hat C. D. 3 f i t s t he mol d of t he deci si ons i n whi ch t he shape of
t he di st r i ct was gi ven such pr obat i ve ef f ect . C. D. 3 i s somewhat
i r r egul ar i n shape, but t hat i s t r ue of many of Vi r gi ni a s ni ne
di st r i ct s, especi al l y C. D. s 1, 2, 4 and 7, none of whi ch ar e
accused of bei ng dr awn on t he basi s of r ace. Mor eover , t he
shape of pr oposed C. D. 3 i n t he Pl ai nt i f f s Al t er nat i ve Map i s
har dl y any l ess i r r egul ar t han t he cur r ent shape of C. D. 3 or i n
t he Enact ed Pl an. Thus, on t hi s r ecor d, I concl ude t hat t he
shape of C. D. 3 does not t end t o pr ove t hat r ace was t he
pr edomi nant f act or i n dr awi ng t he di st r i ct .
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 91 of 102 PageID#
3325
92

H. The Credibility of John Morgan
The maj or i t y quest i ons why I cr edi t t he t est i mony of t he
Def endant s exper t , J ohn Mor gan, on a number of poi nt s. That
quest i on ar i ses because, says t he maj or i t y, Mor gan has no
advanced degr ee, hi s under gr aduat e degr ee was i n hi st or y, he has
never t aken a cour se on st at i st i cs, he di d not t al k t o or wor k
wi t h member s of t he Vi r gi ni a l egi sl at ur e and he mi scoded some
VTD s i n hi s anal ysi s. The maj or i t y s quer y i s a f ai r one and
deser ves an answer . So t oo does t he r ecor d i n t hi s case.
To begi n, t he Pl ai nt i f f s accept ed Mor gan as an exper t i n
demogr aphy and r edi st r i ct i ng. Tr i al Tr . , p. 241. Second,
Mor gan has been accept ed as an exper t i n ot her f eder al cour t
r edi st r i ct i ng cases. Thi r d, hi s r esume shows ext ensi ve wor k i n
shapi ng st at ewi de and congr essi onal r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans i n
ni net een st at es si nce 1991. Four t h, he has ser ved as a
consul t ant t o r edi st r i ct i ng boar ds or commi ssi ons i n f i ve
st at es. Fi f t h, f r om 1991 t o dat e ( excl udi ng a t hr ee year t our
as Execut i ve Di r ect or of GOPAC) he has been empl oyed wi t h
Appl i ed Resear ch Associ at es, a consul t i ng f i r m speci al i zi ng i n
pol i t i cal and demogr aphi c anal ysi s and i t s appl i cat i on t o
el ect i ons and r edi st r i ct i ng. Mor gan st ar t ed as a r esear ch
anal yst , became Vi ce- Pr esi dent i n 1999 and has ser ved as t he
f i r m s Pr esi dent si nce 2007. I nt er venor - Def endant s Ex. 1.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 92 of 102 PageID#
3326
93

Si xt h, Mor gan s undi sput ed t r i al t est i mony shows t hat he
has r ecei ved f or mal t r ai ni ng i n t he i nt r i caci es of r edi st r i ct i ng
f r om t he Nat i onal Col l ege of St at e Legi sl at or s, f r om Republ i can
or gani zat i ons, and f r om a vendor of sof t war e used i n
r edi st r i ct i ng anal ysi s. Tr i al Tr . , p. 243- 244. Sevent h, Mor gan
has t r ai ned ot her s i n how t o dr aw r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans, and i n
t he pr ocess has t r ai ned st at e l egi sl at or s who ar e i nvol ved i n
t he r edi st r i ct i ng pr ocess as wel l as t he Nat i onal Col l ege of
St at e Legi sl at or s. Tr i al Tr . , p. 244. Ei ght h, al t hough Mor gan
di d not assi st or advi se i n t he devel opment of t he r edi st r i ct i ng
pl an at i ssue her e, he di d wor k di r ect l y wi t h t he Vi r gi ni a s
Gener al Assembl y and i t s counsel i n dr awi ng t he st at ewi de
r edi st r i ct i ng pl an i n 2011. Ni nt h, I f ound hi m t o be
knowl edgeabl e about al l aspect s of r edi st r i ct i ng and t he
demogr aphi cs r el at ed t her et o and I f ound hi s anal ysi s t o make
sense and t o squar e wi t h t he ot her evi dence i n t he case.
Fi nal l y, I adj udged Mor gan t o be ent i r el y t r ut hf ul .
I r ecogni ze t hat Mor gan made some mi st akes i n hi s or i gi nal
assi gnment of dat a about VTD s. Those mi st akes occur r ed i n t he
r un up t o t r i al when t he par t i es wer e exchangi ng dat a. And,
Mor gan havi ng candi dl y acknowl edged t hem, and t aken anot her l ook
at hi s vi ews i n per spect i ve of t he cor r ect dat a, expl ai ned t hat
t hey di d not af f ect hi s bot t om l i ne concl usi ons even i f
McDonal d s vi ews of t he mi sassi gned VTD s wer e accept ed as t r ue.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 93 of 102 PageID#
3327
94

Tr i al Tr . , pp. 391- 92. And, i n my vi ew, t he cr oss- exami nat i on
of McDonal d i n t he Pl ai nt i f f s r ebut t al case conf i r med what
Mor gan sai d. Tr i al Tr . , pp. 424- 31. I n assessi ng hi s
cr edi bi l i t y, I consi der ed t he mi st ake t hat Mor gan made on t he
mi sassi gnment of dat a, but , because i t was an under st andabl e,
and honest , mi st ake of t he ki nd t hat of t en happens i n t he pr ess
of l i t i gat i on, I di d not concl ude t hat i t under cut s hi s
cr edi bi l i t y as a whol e and cer t ai nl y not i n t he ar eas ci t ed i n
t hi s opi ni on.
36

I. Plaintiffs Failure To Produce An Adequate Alternative Plan
As par t of t hei r ef f or t t o show t hat t he l egi sl at ur e coul d
have achi eved i t s l egi t i mat e pol i t i cal obj ect i ves i n al t er nat i ve
ways t hat ar e compar abl y consi st ent wi t h t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng
pr i nci pl es, Easl ey, 532 U. S. at 258, t he Pl ai nt i f f s pr of f er ed
an al t er nat i ve r edi st r i ct i ng pl an ( Al t er nat i ve Pl an) . The
Pl ai nt i f f s have not pr esent ed any ot her suggest i ons f or how t he
l egi sl at ur e coul d have achi eved i t s st at ed obj ect i ves.
Ther ef or e, t he Pl ai nt i f f s cannot succeed on t he mer i t s of t hei r
cl ai m unl ess t he Al t er nat i ve Pl an subst ant i al l y achi eves t he

36
Wi t h al l hi s backgr ound, t r ai ni ng, and exper i ence i n
demogr aphi cs and r edi st r i ct i ng, I j ust do not t hi nk Mor gan s
cr edi bi l i t y suf f er s because he di d not have an advanced degr ee,
hi s under gr aduat e degr ee was i n hi st or y, and he has not t aken a
cour se i n st at i st i cs. I have set out above my vi ews on t he
mi st ake ci t ed by t he maj or i t y and have not ed hi s f ami l i ar i t y
wi t h Vi r gi ni a s st at ewi de r edi st r i ct i ng.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 94 of 102 PageID#
3328
95

same pol i t i cal obj ect i ves t hat t he l egi sl at ur e achi eved t hr ough
t he Enact ed Pl an and t he Enact ed C. D. 3.
Mor gan expl ai ned t hat , under t he Benchmar k Pl an,
Congr essi onal Di st r i ct 2 was a t oss- up di st r i ct , and t hat t he
l egi sl at ur e woul d have had r eason t o pr ot ect t he Republ i can
i ncumbent who had r ecent l y been el ect ed i n t hat di st r i ct . Tr i al
Tr . 258. McDonal d agr eed t hat Di st r i ct 2 was a t oss- up di st r i ct
over t he past t en year s and under t he Enact ed Pl an. Tr i al Tr .
119. Mor gan went on t o t est i f y t hat t he Pl ai nt i f f s Al t er nat i ve
Pl an woul d i ncr ease t he Democr at i c vot e shar e i n Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct 2 f r omr oughl y 50 per cent t o about 55 per cent , r i ght at
t he t hr eshol d of what McDonal d consi der ed t o be a hi ghl y
Democr at ar ea. Tr i al Tr . 304- 05. Not onl y woul d t hi s r epr esent
t he l ar gest pol i t i cal shi f t i n any of t he di st r i ct s r edr awn
under t he Pl ai nt i f f s Al t er nat i ve, but i t woul d be a si gni f i cant
pol i t i cal shi f t agai nst an i ncumbent .
McDonal d di d not di sput e Mor gan s anal ysi s. I n f act ,
McDonal d admi t t ed t hat t he Al t er nat i ve Pl an does not pr ot ect al l
pol i t i cal i ncumbent s:
Q: So t he al t er nat i ve pl an subor di nat es
t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es t o r ace,
but unl i ke t he enact ed pl an, does not
f ur t her t he Gener al Assembl y s pol i t i cal
goal s of havi ng an 8 [ Republ i can] / 3
[ Democr at ] i ncumbency pr ot ect i on pl an;
cor r ect ?

A: Yes.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 95 of 102 PageID#
3329
96


Q: Yes, i t does not ?

A: Yeah. That s why I m t r yi ng t o t hi nk how t o
f or mul at e t he answer .

Q: And you have no basi s f or di sagr eei ng wi t h
t he not i on t hen t hat t he al t er nat i ve pl an
moves an over whel mi ngl y Democr at i c gr oup
i nt o Di st r i ct 2 and moves and evenl y di vi ded
gr oup out of Di st r i ct 2, do you?

A: No, I do not .

* * * *

Q: And you don t have any basi s f or di sagr eei ng
wi t h t he f act t hat t hat move conver t s
Di st r i ct 2 f r om a 50 per cent t oss- up
di st r i ct t o a heavi l y Democr at i c 55 per cent
noncompet i t i ve di st r i ct , do you?

A: No, I do not .

Q: And i f al l of t hat wer e t r ue, t hen t hi s
woul d be not onl y t hi s woul d be di r ect l y
under mi ni ng t he Gener al Assembl y s goal s of
i ncumbency pr ot ect i on and maxi mi zi ng
Republ i can congr essi onal r epr esent at i on;
cor r ect ?

A: I f t hose wer e t he goal s of t he Gener al
Assembl y, yes.

Tr i al Tr . 180: 10- 18; 184: 10- 24. At no poi nt have t he Pl ai nt i f f s
even at t empt ed t o expl ai n how an Al t er nat i ve Map t hat t hr eat ens
t o unseat a Republ i can i ncumbent and cr eat e a 7- 4 par t i san spl i t
i n Vi r gi ni a s Congr essi onal Del egat i on ser ves t he pol i t i cal
obj ect i ves of t he Republ i can- cont r ol l ed Gener al Assembl y.
I f r ace t r ul y pr edomi nat ed over pol i t i cs i n t he cr eat i on of
t he Enact ed Pl an and C. D. 3, t hen t he Pl ai nt i f f s shoul d have been
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 96 of 102 PageID#
3330
97

abl e t o pr oduce an al t er nat i ve pl an t hat r emedi ed t he al l eged
r aci al ger r ymander i ng wi t hout di st ur bi ng t he pol i t i cal vi abi l i t y
of i ncumbent s or t he par t i san bal ance i n Vi r gi ni a s
Congr essi onal Del egat i on. I nst ead, t he Pl ai nt i f f s Al t er nat i ve
Pl an woul d have a si gni f i cant ef f ect on bot h t he r aci al
demogr aphi cs and t he pol i t i cal envi r onment s of Congr essi onal
Di st r i ct s 2 and 3. The Al t er nat i ve Pl an i t sel f , I t hi nk,
act ual l y pr ovi des st r ong and per suasi ve evi dence t hat pr ot ect i on
of i ncumbent s, not r ace, was t he pr edomi nant f act or i n t he
r edi st r i ct i ng r ef l ect ed i n t he Enact ed Pl an. Apar t f r om t hat ,
t he Al t er nat e Pl an al so f ai l s t o show t hat t he l egi sl at ur e
coul d have achi eved i t s l egi t i mat e pol i t i cal obj ect i ves i n
al t er nat i ve ways t hat ar e compar abl y consi st ent wi t h t r adi t i onal
r edi st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es. Easl ey, 532 U. S. at 258.
The maj or i t y acknowl edges t hat par t i es at t acki ng
r edi st r i ct i ng boundar i es must show t hat t he l egi sl at ur e coul d
have achi eved i t s l egi t i mat e pol i t i cal obj ect i ves i n al t er nat e
ways t hat ar e compar abl y consi st ent wi t h t r adi t i onal
r edi st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es. ( ci t i ng Cr omar t i e I I , 532 U. S. at
258) . Then, i t says t hat t he at t acki ng par t y i s not conf i ned i n
i t s f or m of pr oof t o submi t t i ng an al t er nat i ve pl an. I do not
quar r el wi t h t hat st at ement as a gener al pr oposi t i on, but i t i s
di f f i cul t t o envi si on what ot her f or m of pr oof coul d ef f ect i vel y
est abl i sh t hat el ement of a pl ai nt i f f s r aci al ger r ymander i ng
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 97 of 102 PageID#
3331
98

cl ai m wher e, as her e, t he Pl ai nt i f f s exper t acknowl edges, and
t he evi dence shows, t hat pr ot ect i on of i ncumbent s was, at l east ,
an i mpor t ant goal of t he r edi st r i ct i ng.
However , t hat i s of no moment her e because t he Pl ai nt i f f s,
i n f act , of f er ed i n evi dence t he Al t er nat i ve Pl an i n an ef f or t
t o meet t hei r bur den t o show t hat t he l egi sl at ur e coul d have
achi eved i t s l egi t i mat e pol i t i cal obj ect i ves i n al t er nat e ways
t hat ar e consi st ent wi t h t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es.
Havi ng done so, t hey cannot be excused f r om t he pr obat i ve
consequences of t hei r own evi dence mer el y because ot her f or ms of
pr oof concept ual l y mi ght have been avai l abl e.
The maj or i t y i s cor r ect t hat t he Al t er nat i ve Pl an pr ovi des
a sl i ght i mpr ovement i n spl i t s and t hat i t s spl i t s af f ect f ewer
peopl e, but t hat i s accompl i shed at t he expense of pr ot ect i ng
i ncumbent s. When al l i s sai d, I submi t t hat t he Al t er nat i ve
Pl an shows t hat t hi s case i s about pol i t i cs, not r ace, f or i t
seeks t o accompl i sh her e a mor e f avor abl e r esul t f or Democr at s
t han does t he Enact ed Pl an t hat was cr eat ed t hr ough t he
l egi sl at i ve pr ocess.
J. Any Analogy To Shaw v. Hunt Is Inapt
I t i s suggest ed t hat t hi s case i s anal ogous t o Shaw I I , i n
whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t appl i ed st r i ct scr ut i ny t o Nor t h
Car ol i na s cr eat i on of t wo maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct s. I f i nd
t hi s anal ogy i napt f or sever al r easons.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 98 of 102 PageID#
3332
99

Fi r st , Nor t h Car ol i na s Di st r i ct 12 was not mer el y t he
l east compact di st r i ct i n t he st at e, but [ had] been dubbed t he
l east geogr aphi cal l y compact di st r i ct i n t he nat i on. Shaw I I ,
517 U. S. at 906. An ear l i er Supr eme Cour t opi ni on had descr i bed
t he di st r i ct i n al most sur r eal i st t er ms:
Nor t hbound and sout hbound dr i ver s on I 85
somet i mes f i nd t hemsel ves i n separ at e
di st r i ct s i n one count y, onl y t o t r ade
di st r i ct s when t hey ent er t he next count y.
Of t he 10 count i es t hr ough whi ch Di st r i ct 12
passes, 5 ar e cut i nt o 3 di f f er ent
di st r i ct s; even t owns ar e di vi ded. At one
poi nt t he di st r i ct r emai ns cont i guous onl y
because i t i nt er sect s at a si ngl e poi nt wi t h
t wo ot her di st r i ct s bef or e cr ossi ng over
t hem. One st at e l egi sl at or has r emar ked t hat
[ i ] f you dr ove down t he i nt er st at e wi t h
bot h car door s open, you' d ki l l most of t he
peopl e i n t he di st r i ct .

Shaw v. Reno ( Shaw I ) , 509 U. S. 630, 636 ( 1993) ( i nt er nal
ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Whi l e C. D. 3 coul d har dl y be descr i bed as
comel y, t her e i s no evi dence t hat i t s i r r egul ar i t i es ar e an
out l i er of t he sor t at i ssue i n Shaw I I .
Second, t he r ecor d i n Shaw I I i ncl uded expl i ci t and
r epeat ed admi ssi ons t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant f act or i n t he
r edi st r i ct i ng pl an. Nor t h Car ol i na s pr ecl ear ance submi ssi on had
expr essl y acknowl edged t hat [ t he r edi st r i ct i ng pl an s]
over r i di ng pur pose was t o compl y wi t h t he di ct at es of t he
At t or ney Gener al s December 18, 1991 l et t er and [ t her eby] t o
cr eat e t wo congr essi onal di st r i ct s wi t h ef f ect i ve bl ack vot i ng
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 99 of 102 PageID#
3333
100

maj or i t i es. Shaw I I , 517 U. S. at 906 ( quot i ng f r om di st r i ct
cour t r ecor d) . Per haps mor e i mpor t ant l y, i n Shaw I I , t he
def endant s f or mal l y conceded t o t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he
st at e l egi sl at ur e del i ber at el y cr eat ed t he t wo di st r i ct s i n a
way t o assur e bl ack- vot er maj or i t i es. I d. ( quot i ng Shaw v.
Bar r , 808 F. Supp. 461, 470 ( E. D. N. C. 1992) ) . Ther e i s no such
concessi on i n t hi s case,
37
and no expl i ci t admi ssi on of
pr edomi nant r aci al pur pose was made i n Vi r gi ni a s Sect i on 5
pr ecl ear ance submi ssi on.
Thi r d, i n Shaw I I t he above i ndi cat or s of r aci al
pr edomi nance wer e conf i r med by t he t est i mony of t he
r edi st r i ct i ng pl an s pr i nci pal dr af t sman, who t est i f i ed t hat
cr eat i ng t wo maj or i t y- bl ack di st r i ct s was t he pr i nci pal r eason
f or Di st r i ct s 1 and 12. I d. ( quot i ng f r om di st r i ct cour t
r ecor d) . I n t hi s case, t he pr i nci pal dr af t sman, Del egat e J ani s,
di d not t est i f y, so t he Cour t and t he par t i es must det er mi ne
Del egat e J ani s s i nt ent f r om what he sai d dur i ng t he
r edi st r i ct i ng pr ocess. And, as expl ai ned i n Sect i on I I . C,
J ani s s st at ement s i n t he f l oor debat es do not , i n my vi ew, show
t hat r ace pr edomi nat ed her e. Fur t her mor e, because t he Enact ed

37
As expl ai ned pr evi ousl y, I concl ude t hat no such
concessi on was made her e; and, even i f what t he I nt er venor -
Def endant s sai d i s const r ued as an admi ssi on, i t i s not bi ndi ng
on, or useabl e agai nst , t he St at e def endant s.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 100 of 102 PageID#
3334
101

Pl an mai nt ai ns r at her t han cr eat es a maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct ,
t he r ace- neut r al f act or s of i ncumbent pr ot ect i on and cor e
pr eser vat i on deser ve much mor e wei ght i n t he anal ysi s her e, t han
woul d t he comment s made i n Shaw I I . I n t he end, however , i t i s
f ar f r om cl ear t hat t he Shaw I I Cour t woul d have f ound t hat
r ace was t he pr edomi nant f act or i n t he absence of st r ong
cor r obor at i ng evi dence i n t he Shaw I I dr af t sman s comment s. And,
as expl ai ned above, I do not bel i eve t hat t hi s r ecor d pr esent s
cor r obor at i ve evi dence t hat r ace pr edomi nat ed over pol i t i cs ( and
par t i cul ar l y pol i t i cal i ncumbency pr ot ect i on) .
III.
Wi t h r espect f or t he vi ews of my good col l eagues i n t he
maj or i t y, I t hi nk t hat t he r ecor d i n t hi s case, consi der ed as a
whol e, shows t hat t he Vi r gi ni a Gener al Assembl y set out t o
r edr aw di st r i ct l i nes t o pr ot ect i ncumbent s and, i n so doi ng, i t
al so sought t o r espect t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es.
The l egi sl at ur e was al so f ul l y awar e of i t s obl i gat i on t o compl y
wi t h f eder al l aw and t hus, of necessi t y, i t consi der ed r ace i n
t r yi ng t o assur e t hat compl i ance. But , at al l t i mes and i n al l
t he deci si ons i t made, t he pr edomi nant f act or i n t he Gener al
Assembl y s r edi st r i ct i ng deci si ons was t he pr ot ect i on of
i ncumbent s, not r ace.
For t he r easons out l i ned above, I woul d f i nd t hat r ace was
not t he pr edomi nant f act or i n t he dr awi ng of C. D. 3. And, f or t he
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 101 of 102 PageID#
3335
102

same r easons, I cannot concl ude t hat t he Pl ai nt i f f s have met
t hei r bur den t o pr ove t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant f act or i n
t hi s r edi st r i ct i ng. Ther ef or e, I woul d ent er j udgment i n f avor
of t he Def endant s and di smi ss t he act i on wi t h pr ej udi ce.
38

I t i s so ORDERED.

________________/ s/ _________________
Rober t E. Payne
Seni or Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge


Ri chmond, Vi r gi ni a
Dat e: Oct ober 7, 2014

38
I shar e t he vi ews on r emedy i n Sect i on I I I of t he
maj or i t y opi ni on.
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-AKD Document 109 Filed 10/07/14 Page 102 of 102 PageID#
3336