league latin american citizens et al perry governor texas et argued march decided june census resulted increase seats previously allotted texas congressional delegation although democratic party controlled seats well state legislative houses governorship change air republican party received statewide vote democrats received faced possible republican ascent majority status legislature drew congressional redistricting plan favored democratic candidates republicans challenged plan unconstitutional partisan gerrymander avail census authorized two additional seats texas delegation republicans controlled governorship state senate yet control state house representatives constituted legislature unable pass redistricting scheme resulting litigation necessity plan comply constitution requirement conscious primary responsibility drawing congressional districts lies political branches government hesitant undo work one political party benefit another federal district sought apply neutral redistricting standards drawing plan including placing two new seats areas following county voting precinct lines avoiding pairing incumbents plan congressional elections resulted democratic majority texas delegation compared republican majority votes statewide office thus leaving democratic gerrymander largely place however texas republicans gained control houses legislature set increase republican representation congressional delegation protracted partisan struggle legislature enacted new congressional districting map plan congressional elections republicans seats democrats also obtaining vote statewide races democrats soon plan enacted appellants challenged alleging host constitutional statutory violations district entered judgment appellees vacated decision remanded consideration light vieth jubelirer remand district believing scope mandate limited questions political gerrymandering rejected appellants claims held judgment affirmed part reversed part vacated part cases remanded supp affirmed part reversed part vacated part remanded justice kennedy delivered opinion respect parts iii concluding held davis bandemer equal protection challenge political gerrymander presents justiciable case controversy although agree substantive standard apply compare disagreement persists vieth plurality held challenges nonjusticiable political questions majority declined see justiciability revisited issue whether appellants offer manageable reliable measure fairness determining whether partisan gerrymander unconstitutional texas redrawing district lines amounts vote dilution violative voting rights act pp plan changes district served dual goals increasing republican seats protecting incumbent republican increasingly powerful latino population threatened oust additional political nuance reelected district latino majority voting age population though latino majority citizen voting age population effective latino voting majority district changes required adjustments elsewhere state created new district avoid retrogression act pp state violates based totality circumstances shown political processes leading nomination election equally open members racial group members electorate thornburg gingles identified three threshold conditions establishing violation racial group must sufficiently large geographically compact constitute majority district group must politically cohesive white majority must vot sufficiently bloc enable usually defeat minority preferred candidate legislative history identifies factors courts use three threshold requirements met interpreting totality circumstances standard including state history discrimination extent voting racially polarized extent state used voting practices procedures tend enhance opportunity discrimination minority group see another relevant consideration whether number districts minority group forms effective majority roughly proportional share population relevant area johnson de grandy district determination whether requirements satisfied must upheld unless clearly erroneous see gingles supra ultimate finding dilution based misreading governing law however reversible error de grandy supra pp appellants satisfied three gingles requirements district creation new district remedy problem second third gingles factors latino cohesion majority bloc voting present given district finding racially polarized voting district throughout state first gingles precondition minority group large compact enough constitute majority district appellants established latinos opportunity district district lines altered one constituted majority citizen voting age population district plan district suggested incorrectly district latino opportunity district simply incumbent prevailed fact group win elections resolve vote dilution issue de grandy old district increase latino voter registration overall population concomitant rise latino voting power successive election near victory latino candidate choice resulting threat incumbent continued election reasons state redrew district lines since redistricting prevented immediate success emergent latino majority district denial opportunity real sense term plan version district contrast unquestionably latino opportunity district latinos bare majority district population dispositive since relevant numbers must account citizenship order determine group opportunity elect candidates latinos citizen majority district state argument met obligations creating new district offsetting opportunity district rejected district challenge first gingles condition requires possibility creating existing number reasonably compact districts sufficiently large minority population elect candidates choice district finding current plan contains six latino opportunity districts seven reasonably compact districts proposed appellant gi forum drawn clearly erroneous however failed perform required compactness inquiry number latino opportunity districts challenger proposal reinstating plan existing number reasonably compact districts ibid section forbid creation noncompact district bush vera district remedy violation elsewhere state see shaw hunt lower recognized gap two latino communities district similarly large gap needs interests two groups conclusion relative smoothness district lines made district compact despite combining discrete communities interest inapposite analyzed issue equal protection context compactness focuses contours district lines determine whether race predominant factor drawing lines see miller johnson contrast injury vote dilution compactness inquiry considers compactness minority population compactness contested district vera district reaches grab small apparently isolated minority communities reasonably compact lower findings regarding different characteristics needs interests two widely scattered latino communities district well supported uncontested enormous geographical distances separating two communities coupled disparate needs interests populations either factor alone renders district noncompact purposes therefore plan contains five reasonably compact latino opportunity districts one fewer plan pp totality circumstances demonstrates violation relevant proportionality inquiry see de grandy forms interests constituents protection means excluding voters district simply likely vote officeholder change benefit officeholder voters policy whatever validity political realm justify effect latino voters see gingles supra pp plan violates redrawing district appellants first amendment equal protection claims respect district need addressed equal protection claim drawing district need confronted district redrawn remedy district violation pp justice kennedy concluded part ii appellants established legally impermissible use political classifications state claim relief may granted contention texas statewide redistricting unconstitutional political gerrymander justice souter justice ginsburg joined part pp article constitution gives primary responsibility apportionment congressional districts growe emison also permits congress set requirements neither constitution congress stated explicit prohibition redistricting change districts drawn earlier conformance decennial census although legislative branch plays primary role congressional redistricting courts important role districting plan violates constitution see wesberry sanders federal courts sometimes must order legislative redistricting however shift primary responsibility away legislative bodies see wise lipscomb free replace remedial plans enacting redistricting plans see upham seamon judicial respect legislative plans however justify legislative reliance improper criteria districting determinations pp appellants claim unpersuasively decision effect redistricting solely motivated partisan objectives presumptively violates equal protection first amendment serves legitimate public purpose burdens one group political opinions affiliation number reasons test unconvincing merit state assertion partisan gain sole motivation replacing plan contours contested district lines seem drawn based mundane local interests number requests democratic state legislators honored moreover successful test identifying unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering must appellants theory explicitly disavows show burden measured reliable standard complainants representational rights see vieth supra appellants standard compelling linked circumstance plan legislation constitution text structure cases indicate nothing inherently suspect legislature decision replace plan one even fact redistricting alone sure indication unlawful political gerrymanders appellants test leave untouched texas redistricting entrenched party verge minority status striking redistricting plan resulted majority republican party capturing larger share seats test treats two similarly effective power plays different ways reliability appellants ascribe pp appellants political gerrymandering theory redistricting exclusively partisan purposes violates requirement rejected although conceding operate legal fiction plans constitutionally apportioned throughout decade see georgia ashcroft appellants contend fiction provide safe harbor legislature enacts voluntary plan overriding legal plan argument mirrors appellants attack redistricting solely motivated partisan considerations unsatisfactory reasons contention legislature intentionally sought manipulate population variances enacted plan unconvincing district finding effect present specific evidence support serious allegation bad faith demonstrated legislature decision enact plan constitutes violation requirement subsidiary reliance larios cox supp summarily aff unavailing pp justice kennedy joined chief justice justice alito concluded part iv dallas area redistricting violate voting rights act appellants allege dallas changes dilute voting strength minority effectively controlled district plan however plan district elected anglo democrat congress every election since since moreover incumbent opposition primary elections consistently voted racial group district anglos citizen voting age population even assuming first gingles prong accommodate appellants assertion claim may stated racial group makes less population see de grandy supra must show constitute sufficiently large minority elect candidate choice assistance votes voinovich quilter district committed clear error rejecting questionable evidence ability elect candidate choice favor evidence candidate choice prevail see anderson bessemer city influence district suffice state claim unnecessarily infuse race virtually every redistricting raising serious constitutional questions see georgia ashcroft distinguished appellants raise political gerrymandering claim district pp chief justice joined justice alito agreed appellants provided reliable standard identifying unconstitutional political gerrymanders noted question whether standard exists whether challenge gerrymander presents justiciable case controversy argued cases chief justice justice alito therefore take position question divided see vieth jubelirer join plurality part ii disposition without specifying whether appellants failed state claim relief granted failed present justiciable controversy pp justice scalia joined justice thomas concluded appellants claims unconstitutional political gerrymandering present justiciable case controversy see vieth jubelirer plurality opinion claims premised voting rights act lack merit reasons set forth justice thomas opinion concurring judgment holder hall reviewing appellants equal protection claims justice scalia joined chief justice justice thomas justice alito concluded district commit clear error rejecting appellant gi forum assertion removal latino residents district constituted intentional vote dilution justice scalia joined chief justice justice thomas justice alito subjected intentional creation district district strict scrutiny held standard satisfied appellants conceded creation district reasonably necessary comply voting rights act compelling state interest argue texas provision required pp kennedy announced judgment delivered opinion respect parts iii stevens souter ginsburg breyer joined opinion respect parts iv roberts alito joined opinion respect parts opinion respect part souter ginsburg joined stevens filed opinion concurring part dissenting part breyer joined parts ii souter filed opinion concurring part dissenting part ginsburg joined breyer filed opinion concurring part dissenting part roberts filed opinion concurring part concurring judgment part dissenting part alito joined scalia filed opinion concurring judgment part dissenting part thomas joined roberts alito joined part iii league latin american citizens et appellants rick perry governor texas et al travis county texas et appellants rick perry governor texas et al eddie jackson et appellants rick perry governor texas et al gi forum texas et appellants rick perry governor texas et al appeals district eastern district texas june justice kennedy announced judgment delivered opinion respect parts iii opinion respect parts iv chief justice justice alito join opinion respect parts opinion respect part justice souter justice ginsburg join four consolidated cases appeals judgment entered district eastern district texas convened heard appellants constitutional statutory challenges enactment texas state legislature drew new district lines seats texas holds house representatives though appellants join claims sake convenience refer appellants collectively entered judgment appellees issued detailed findings fact conclusions law session perry supp per curiam vacated decision remanded consideration light vieth jubelirer district reexamined appellants political gerrymandering claims second careful opinion held defendants henderson perry supp appeals followed noted probable jurisdiction appellants contend new plan unconstitutional partisan gerrymander redistricting statewide violates voting rights act stat amended appellants also contend use race politics drawing lines specific districts violates first amendment equal protection clause fourteenth amendment panel consisting circuit judge higginbotham district judges ward rosenthal brought considerable experience expertise instant case based knowledge state people history geography judges higginbotham ward moreover served drew plan texas legislature replaced intimately familiar history intricacies cases affirm district dispositions statewide political gerrymandering claims voting rights act claim district reverse remand voting rights act claim respect district reach appellants equal protection claim political gerrymandering claim district vacate judgment district claims set proper framework case first recount history litigation recent districting texas appropriate starting point reapportionment one census census resulted congressional delegation texas increase seats representatives allotted state decade see bush vera texas legislature drew new district lines time democratic party controlled houses state legislature governorship state seats congress yet change appeared horizon previous years democratic party dominance republican party eroded republicans received statewide vote democrats received henderson supra brief appellee perry et al hereinafter brief state appellees faced republican opposition moving toward majority status state legislature drew congressional redistricting plan designed favor democratic candidates using computer technology draw district lines artful precision legislature enacted plan later described shrewdest gerrymander barone cohen cook almanac american politics see henderson supra although plan enacted state legislature democratic congressman martin frost acknowledged architect session supra plan carefully constructs democratic districts incredibly convoluted lines packs republican suburban areas districts henderson supra quoting barone cohen almanac american politics hereinafter almanac voters considered unfair unlawful treatment sought invalidate plan unconstitutional partisan gerrymander avail see terrazas slagle supp wd tex terrazas slagle supp wd tex plan realized hopes democrats fears republicans respect composition texas congressional delegation years continued growth texas republican party end decade sweeping elections statewide office nevertheless despite carrying vote statewide elections republicans congressional seats democrats henderson supra events likely forgotten either party came time draw congressional districts conformance census incorporate two additional seats texas delegation republican party controlled governorship state senate yet control state house representatives however constituted legislature unable pass redistricting scheme resulting litigation necessity plan comply constitution requirement see balderas texas civ action ed per curiam summarily aff app juris statement congressional districting map resulting balderas litigation known plan said two members drew plan later served issued judgment review thus benefit candid comments concerning redistricting approach taken balderas litigation conscious primary responsibility drawing congressional districts given political branches government hesitant und work one political party benefit another balderas sought apply redistricting standards drawing plan henderson supp district applied principles placing two new seats areas following county voting precinct lines avoiding pairing incumbents drawing ceased leaving map free change except conform ibid plan congressional elections resulted democratic majority texas delegation compared republican majority votes statewide office reflecting balderas plan district henderson candid acknowledge practical effect effort leave democratic party gerrymander largely place plan continuing influence map perpetuated much gerrymander lost texas republicans gained control state house representatives thus houses legislature republicans legislature set increase representation congressional delegation session supp see also little question purpose texas legislature enacting new plan gain partisan advantage protracted partisan struggle democratic legislators left state time frustrate quorum requirements legislature enacted new congressional districting map october called plan congressional elections disappoint plan drafters republicans seats democrats also obtaining vote statewide races democrats henderson supra soon texas enacted plan appellants challenged alleging host constitutional statutory violations initially district entered judgment appellants claims see session supp ward concurring part dissenting part appellants sought relief jurisdictional statements filed issued vieth jubelirer order vacating district judgment remanding consideration light vieth issued weeks elections see remand district believing scope mandate limited questions political gerrymandering rejected appellants claims henderson supp judge ward granted relief theory presented first time remand redistricting violates requirement concluded argument within scope remand mandate specially concurring ii based two similar theories address character redistricting appellants argue plan invalidated unconstitutional partisan gerrymander davis bandemer held equal protection challenge political gerrymander presents justiciable case controversy disagreement substantive standard apply compare plurality opinion powell concurring part dissenting part disagreement persists plurality vieth jubelirer held challenges nonjusticiable political questions majority declined see kennedy concurring judgment stevens dissenting souter dissenting breyer dissenting revisit justiciability holding proceed examine whether appellants claims offer manageable reliable measure fairness determining whether partisan gerrymander violates constitution addressing appellants arguments redistricting appropriate note basic principles roles congress courts play determining congressional districts drawn article constitution provides section house representatives shall composed members chosen every second year people several section times places manner holding elections representatives shall prescribed state legislature thereof congress may time law make alter regulations text explained leaves primary responsibility apportionment federal congressional districts growe emison see also chapman meier eapportionment primarily duty responsibility state legislature body smiley holm reapportionment implicated state powers art congress text constitution also provides may set requirements respect districting generally required districts see art stat branch smith see plurality opinion multimember districts permitted stat limited circumstances respect redistricting change districts drawn earlier conformance decennial census constitution congress state explicit prohibition although legislative branch plays primary role congressional redistricting precedents recognize important role courts districting plan violates constitution see wesberry sanders litigation example discussed texas enact plan comply requirement census district found necessary draw redistricting map federal courts sometimes required order legislative redistricting however shift primary locus responsibility legislative bodies leave reapportionment tasks federal courts legislative responsibilities respond imminence state election makes impractical becomes obligation federal devise impose reapportionment plan pending later legislative action wise lipscomb principal opinion quoting connor finch quite apart risk acting without legislature expertise quite apart difficulties faces drawing map fair rational see obligation placed upon federal judiciary unwelcome drawing lines congressional districts one significant acts state perform ensure citizen participation republican congress federal body explicitly given constitutional power elections also noteworthy statement preference democratic process constitution vests redistricting responsibilities foremost legislatures congress lawful legislatively enacted plan preferable one drawn courts follow legislature acts replace plan one design presumption impropriety attach legislative decision act district noted session supp decisions assumed state legislatures free replace remedial plans enacting redistricting plans see upham seamon per curiam wise supra principal opinion quoting connor supra burns richardson reynolds sims underlying principle assumption prefer plan legislature replacement contrary ordinary proper operation political process judicial respect legislative plans however justify legislative reliance improper criteria districting determinations considerations mind next turn consider appellants challenges new redistricting plan appellants claim plan enacted texas legislature unconstitutional political gerrymander decision claim effect redistricting solely motivated partisan objectives violates equal protection first amendment serves legitimate public purpose burdens one group political opinions affiliation nature redistricting appellants say reveals legislature sole motivation unlike vieth legislature acted context required decennial redistricting texas legislature voluntarily replaced plan designed comply new census data texas constitutional obligation act brief appellant jackson et al hardly surprising according appellants district found little question purpose texas legislature enacting plan gain partisan advantage republican majority democratic minority session supra rule perhaps presumption invalidity redistricting plan adopted solely partisan motivations salutary one appellants view courts need inquire parties prove discriminatory effects partisan gerrymandering matter proved elusive since bandemer see vieth plurality opinion bandemer adding test simplicity quibble drawing individual district lines challenges decision redistrict number reasons appellants case adopting test convincing begin state appellees dispute assertion partisan gain sole motivation decision replace plan merit criticism pejorative label overlooks indications partisan motives dictate plan entirety legislature seem decided redistrict sole purpose achieving republican congressional majority partisan aims guide every line drew district found contours contested district lines drawn based mundane local interests session supra state appellees also contend appellants contest number requests democratic state legislators honored brief state appellees evaluating legality acts arising mixed motives complex affixing single label acts hazardous even actor individual performing discrete act see hartman moore slip actor legislature act composite manifold choices task even daunting appellants attempt separate legislature sole motive discarding plan complex choices made drawing lines plan seeks avoid difficulty skeptical however claim seeks invalidate statute based legislature unlawful motive without reference content legislation enacted even setting skepticism aside successful claim attempting identify unconstitutional acts partisan gerrymandering must appellants theory explicitly disavows show burden measured reliable standard complainants representational rights reason majority rejected test proposed vieth markedly similar one appellants present today compare stevens dissenting race factor dictate outcome districting process partisanship permissible consideration drawing district lines long predominate acceptable rational basis neither purely personal purely partisan plurality opinion kennedy concurring judgment standard offered compelling linked circumstance plan legislation text structure constitution case law indicate nothing inherently suspect legislature decision replace plan one even fact redistricting alone sure indication unlawful political gerrymanders appellants theory highly effective partisan gerrymander coincided decennial redistricting receive less scrutiny bumbling yet solely partisan redistricting concretely test leave untouched texas redistricting entrenched party verge minority status striking redistricting plan resulted majority republican party capturing larger share seats test treats two similarly effective power plays different ways reliability appellants ascribe furthermore compared map challenged vieth led republican majority congressional delegation despite democratic majority statewide vote plan seen making party balance congruent statewide party power sure constitutional requirement proportional representation equating party statewide share vote portion congressional delegation rough measure best nevertheless congressional plan closely reflects distribution state party power seems less likely vehicle partisan discrimination one entrenches electoral minority see gaffney cummings measure plan seen fairer plan survived vieth two previous texas plans three pass modified test plan fail brief one amici proposes symmetry standard measure partisan bias compar ing parties fare hypothetically turn received given percentage vote brief gary king et al standard measure map bias extent majority party fare better minority party respective shares vote reverse view amici proposed standard compensate appellants failure provide reliable measure fairness existence degree asymmetry may large part depend conjecture possible reside even assuming choose reliably among different models shifting voter preferences wary adopting constitutional standard invalidates map based unfair results occur hypothetical state affairs presumably challenge litigated feared inequity arose cf abbott laboratories gardner fundamentally counterfactual plaintiff face problem present actual appellants providing standard deciding much partisan dominance much without altogether discounting utility redistricting planning litigation conclude asymmetry alone reliable measure unconstitutional partisanship absence workable test judging partisan gerrymanders one effect appellants focus redistricting encourage partisan excess outset decade legislature redistricts pursuant decennial constitutional duty immune charge redistricting barred least subject close judicial oversight opposition legislators also every incentive prevent passage legislative plan try luck might give better deal negotiation political rivals see henderson supp appellants second political gerrymandering theory redistricting exclusively partisan purposes violates requirement observe population variances legislative districts tolerated unavoidable despite effort achieve absolute equality justification shown karcher daggett quoting kirkpatrick preisler internal quotation marks omitted working unchallenged premise appellants contend population texas shifted since census redistricting relied census created unlawful interdistrict population variances distinguish variances plan ordinary districting plans belatedly drawn plans appellants rely voluntary nature redistricting partisan motivation appellants contend decennial redistricting plan violate equal representation three five years decade state population shifted substantially must concede operate legal fiction plans constitutionally apportioned throughout decade presumption necessary avoid constant redistricting accompanying costs instability see georgia ashcroft reynolds appellants agree plan implemented using population data also enjoys benefit legal fiction presumably belated plans promote important interests ensuring plan complies constitution voting rights legislation appellants view however fiction provide safe harbor legislature enacts voluntary plan overriding legal plan thus creating population variance legal compulsion brief appellant travis county et al particularly appellants say legislature acts exclusively partisan motivation appellants theory improper motive outset seems enough condemn map violating principle reason appellants believe state justify karcher daggett population variances plan product partisan bias desire eliminate competitive districts district noted test turns whether redistricting furthers principles rather justification redrawing plan first place henderson supra respect appellants approach merely restates question whether permissible texas legislature redraw districting map appellants answer mirrors attack redistricting solely motivated partisan considerations unsatisfactory reasons already discussed appellants also contend legislature intentionally sought manipulate population variances enacted plan however district finding effect appellants present specific evidence support serious allegation bad faith appellants demonstrated legislature decision enact plan constitutes violation requirement find unavailing subsidiary reliance larios cox supp nd per curiam summarily aff larios district reviewed georgia legislature decennial redistricting state senate house representatives districts found deviations requirement district held objectives drafters included partisan interests along regionalist bias inconsistent incumbent protection justify deviations supp larios holding examination legislature motivations relevant response violation something appellants established even addressing political motivation justification violation moreover larios give clear guidance panel explained need resolve issue whether partisan advantage alone may justify deviations population plans plainly unlawful partisan motivations bound inextricably clearly rejected objectives sum disagree appellants view legislature decision override valid plan sufficiently suspect give shape reliable standard identifying unconstitutional political gerrymanders conclude appellants established legally impermissible use political classifications reason state claim relief may granted statewide challenge iii plan made changes district lines south west texas appellants challenge violations voting rights act equal protection clause fourteenth amendment significant changes occurred district redistricting covers large land area west texas district earlier included houston includes different area strip austin rio grande valley election became apparent district drawn increasingly powerful latino population threatened oust incumbent republican henry bonilla redistricting latino share citizen population bonilla support among latinos dropped successive election since session supp bonilla captured latino vote overall vote faced loss voter support legislature acted protect bonilla incumbency changing lines hence population mix district begin new plan divided webb county city laredo mexican border formed county population base webb county latino previously rested entirely within district new plan nearly people shifted neighboring district rest county approximately people remained district replace numbers district lost state added voters counties comprising largely anglo republican area central texas newly drawn district latino share citizen population dropped though latino share total population remained changes required adjustments elsewhere course state inserted third district two districts east district extended three farther north new district long narrow strip winds way mcallen mexican border towns south austin center state miles away includes seven full counties population resides split counties northern southern ends roughly half reside hidalgo county includes mcallen half travis county includes parts austin ibid latinos district comprising district citizen population also mostly divided two distant areas north south latino communities opposite ends district divergent needs interests owing differences status education employment health characteristics district summed purposes underlying redistricting south west texas change congressional district served dual goal increasing republican seats general protecting bonilla incumbency particular additional political nuance bonilla reelected district majority latino voting age population although clearly majority citizen voting age population certainly effective voting majority goal creating district clear avoid retrogression voting rights act given reduced latino voting strength district question address whether plan violates voting rights act state violates based totality circumstances shown political processes leading nomination election state political subdivision equally open participation members racial group members less opportunity members electorate participate political process elect representatives choice identified three threshold conditions establishing violation racial group sufficiently large geographically compact constitute majority district racial group politically cohesive majority vot es sufficiently bloc enable usually defeat minority preferred candidate johnson de grandy quoting growe gingles requirements three gingles requirements established statutory text directs us consider totality circumstances determine whether members racial group less opportunity members electorate de grandy supra see also abrams johnson general terms statutory standard totality circumstances require judicial interpretation purpose referred senate report amendments voting rights act identifies factors typically relevant claim including history discrimination state political subdivision extent voting elections state political subdivision racially polarized extent state political subdivision used voting practices procedures tend enhance opportunity discrimination minority group extent minority group members bear effects past discrimination areas education employment health hinder ability participate effectively political process use overt subtle racial appeals political campaigns extent members minority group elected public office jurisdiction report notes also evidence demonstrating elected officials unresponsive particularized needs members minority group policy underlying state political subdivision use contested practice structure tenuous may probative value gingles supra citing hereinafter senate report pinpoint citations omitted another relevant consideration whether number districts minority group forms effective majority roughly proportional share population relevant area de grandy supra district determination whether requirements satisfied must upheld unless clearly erroneous see gingles supra ultimate finding dilution based misreading governing law however reversible error de grandy supra appellants argue changes district diluted voting rights latinos remain district specifically redrawing lines district caused latino share citizen population drop district recognized latino voting strength congressional district unquestionably weakened plan session supp question whether weakening amounts vote dilution begin gingles analysis evident second third gingles preconditions cohesion among minority group bloc voting among majority population present district district found racially polarized voting south west texas indeed throughout state session supra polarization district especially severe latinos voted bonilla voted app table expert report allan lichtman issues texas congressional redistricting hereinafter lichtman report furthermore projected results new district show anglo citizen majority often always prevent latinos electing candidate choice district session supra reasons appellants demonstrated sufficient minority cohesion majority bloc voting meet second third gingles requirements first gingles factor requires group sufficiently large geographically compact constitute majority district latinos district constituted majority citizen population district fact plan though may possible citizen majority lack real electoral opportunity latino majority old district possess electoral opportunity protected district stated district effective opportunity district plan recognized district moving direction session supp indeed latino candidate choice district majority district votes elections statewide officeholders ward concurring part dissenting part congressional race bonilla prevailed without latino support limited though state legislators changed district specifically worried latinos vote bonilla office furthermore extent district suggested district latino opportunity district simply bonilla prevailed see incorrect circumstance group win elections resolve issue vote dilution said ultimate right equality opportunity guarantee electoral success candidates whatever race de grandy old district increase latino voter registration overall population session supp ward concurring part dissenting part concomitant rise latino voting power successive election latino candidate choice resulting threat bonilla incumbency reasons led state redraw district lines since redistricting prevented immediate success emergent latino majority district denial opportunity real sense term plan version district contrast unquestionably latino opportunity district latinos sure bare majority population new district hollow sense parties agree relevant numbers must include citizenship approach fits language eligible voters affect group opportunity elect candidates sum appellants established latinos opportunity district district lines altered one considering district isolation three gingles requirements satisfied state argues nonetheless met obligations creating new district offsetting opportunity district true course retain broad discretion drawing districts comply mandate shaw hunt shaw ii principle limits though rejected premise state always make opportunity individuals providing greater opportunity others see injuries suffered persons remedied creating safe district somewhere else state set conflicting concerns resolved allowing state use one district compensate absence another racial group area right accommodated first gingles requirement enough appellants show possibility creating district include latinos district see shaw ii supra rejecting idea plaintiff right placed district violation statute shown inclusion plaintiffs necessitate exclusion others state faulted choice context challenge drawing district lines first gingles condition requires possibility creating existing number reasonably compact districts sufficiently large minority population elect candidates choice de grandy supra district found current plan contains six latino opportunity districts seven reasonably compact districts drawn appellant gi forum presented plan seven districts district found districts reasonably compact part took disparate distant communities session supra evidence contrary resolution conflicting evidence clearly erroneous problem remains though district failed perform comparable compactness inquiry plan drawn de grandy requires comparison challenger proposal existing number reasonably compact districts sure forbid creation noncompact district bush vera kennedy concurring noncompact district however remedy violation elsewhere state see shaw ii supra unless district contains compact population racial group district sits neither wrong quoting growe simply put state creation opportunity district without right offers excuse failure provide opportunity district right since right district reasonably compact see abrams creation noncompact district compensate dismantling compact opportunity district chief justice claims compactness factor analysis see post opinion concurring part concurring judgment part dissenting part approach comports neither precedents nature right established de grandy expressly stated first gingles prong looks number reasonably compact districts shaw ii moreover refused consider noncompact district possible remedy violation true shaw ii applied analysis context state using compliance defense equal protection challenge holding clear state remedy violation creation noncompact district ibid shaw ii also distinguished based relative location remedial district compared district alleged violation remedial district shaw ii overlap district plaintiffs sought stated think degree incorporation mean remedial district substantially addresses violation see also de grandy supra expressing doubt idea even within county vote dilution half county compensated half overlap substantially different majority latinos old district still new district longer opportunity elect candidate choice apart conflict de grandy shaw ii chief justice approach deficiency creating rule whereby plaintiffs must show compactness need except seems using defense equal protection challenge chief justice appears accept plaintiff make violation must show part racial group form majority reasonably compact district post however noncompact district make lack compact district equally true whether plaintiff state proposes noncompact district district stated plan created six gingles latino districts session supp failed decide whether district reasonably compact purposes recognized gap latino communities district similarly large gap needs interests two groups making observations however make finding compactness ruled instead despite concerns district effective latino opportunity district combined voting strength latino groups allow candidate prevail elections ibid district general finding effectiveness substitute lack finding compactness particularly district measured effectiveness simply aggregating voting strength two groups latinos district approach district satisfy matter noncompact long members racial group added together control election outcomes district evaluate compactness purpose deciding whether race predominated drawing district lines latinos rio grande valley central texas found disparate communities interest differences status education employment health characteristics conclusion relative smoothness district lines made district compact despite combining discrete communities interest inapposite analyzed issue equal protection purposes equal protection context compactness focuses contours district lines determine whether race predominant factor drawing lines see miller johnson contrast injury vote dilution compactness inquiry embraces different considerations first gingles condition refers compactness minority population compactness contested district vera supra kennedy concurring see also abrams supra breyer dissenting compactness show violation equal protection concerns shape boundaries district differs compactness concerns minority group compactness shaw ii supra inquiry whether minority group geographically compact internal quotation marks omitted precise rule emerged governing compactness inquiry take account districting principles maintaining communities interest traditional boundaries abrams supra quoting vera absence prohibited assumption basis believe district combines two segments racial group disparate interests provides opportunity requires first gingles condition contemplates purpose voting rights act prevent discrimination exercise electoral franchise foster transformation society longer fixated race georgia ashcroft cf post opinion roberts disservice important goals failing account differences people race district recognized relevant differences performing compactness inquiry failed account significance differences cases district findings regarding different characteristics needs interests latino community near mexican border one around austin well supported uncontested legitimate yet differing communities interest disregarded interest race practical consequence drawing district cover two distant disparate communities one groups unable achieve political goals compactness therefore style points post opinion roberts critical advancing ultimate purposes ensuring minority groups equal opportunity participate political process elect representatives choice style points difficult understand plaintiff propose compact district make claim witnesses know south west texas culture politics testified districting plan make difficult thinly financed candidates achieve electoral success provide adequate responsive representation elected session supp see also elected officials region testified size diversity districts make difficult constituents rio grande valley control election outcomes question district finding groups combined voting strength enable elect candidate prefers anglos candidate choice also accept cases members racial group different areas example rural urban communities share similar interests therefore form compact district areas reasonably close proximity see abrams supra breyer dissenting however common index race result cause internal friction state make remedy violation elsewhere emphasize enormous geographical distance separating austin communities coupled disparate needs interests populations either factor alone renders district noncompact purposes mathematical possibility racial bloc make district compact since district reasonably compact plan contains five reasonably compact latino opportunity districts plan contrast created six districts district find state contend latino opportunity districts plan noncompact contrary chief justice suggestion post moreover latino population old district part closer geographic proximity latino population new district importantly contention different pockets latino population old district divergent needs interests clear set latino population district split apart particularly becoming cohesive latinos district found efficacious political identity entirely new difficult undertaking latinos district given geographic differences appellants thus satisfied three gingles requirements district creation new district remedy problem proceed totality circumstances first proportionality inquiry comparing percentage total districts latino opportunity districts latino share citizen population explained de grandy proportionality relevant fact totality circumstances however act safe harbor complying see also concurring proportionality always relevant evidence determining vote dilution never dispositive kennedy concurring part concurring judgment proportionality relevance though placing undue emphasis upon proportionality risks defeating goals underlying voting rights act proportionality act safe harbor ratify unexplored premise highly suspect validity given voting jurisdiction rights minority voters may traded rights members minority class see also shaw ii state contends proportionality decided regional basis appellants say claim requires conduct statewide analysis de grandy plaintiffs passed opportunity frame dilution claim statewide terms based parties apparent agreement proper frame reference dade county area used area decide proportionality cases hand appellants allege injury african american hispanic voters throughout state complaint civ action ed tex pp see also first amended complaint civ action ed tex pp plaintiff first amended complaint civ action etc ed tex pp district moreover expressly considered statewide proportionality argument result question proper geographic scope assessing proportionality presents conclude answer cases look proportionality statewide state contends seven districts south west texas correctly delimit boundaries proportionality area state reasonably compact latino opportunity districts drawn argument however misunderstands role proportionality already determined first gingles factor another reasonably compact latino district drawn question whether absence additional district constitutes impermissible vote dilution inquiry requires local challenged district gingles see also gingles supra concurring judgment local appraisal necessary right undiluted vote belong minority group rather individual members shaw ii supra state may trade rights members racial group rights members group see de grandy supra shaw ii supra question therefore whether challenged area whole dilutes minority voting strength post opinion roberts whether dilutes voting strength latinos district role proportionality displace local appraisal allow state trade rights rights others instead provides evidence whether political processes leading nomination election state political subdivision equally open participation purpose state area arbitrary easily included six eight districts appellants alleged statewide vote dilution based statewide plan electoral opportunities latinos across state bear whether lack electoral opportunity latinos district consequence plan redrawing lines simply consequence inevitable lose state racial bloc voting indeed several factors totality circumstances characterized reference state whole gingles supra listing senate report factors particularly given presence racially polarized voting possible submergence minority votes throughout texas makes sense use entire state assessing proportionality looking statewide congressional districts five reasonably compact latino opportunity districts amount roughly total latinos make texas citizen population appellant gi forum claims based data american community survey census bureau latinos constitute statewide citizen population figure neither available time redistricting presented district accept district finding latinos therefore two districts shy proportional representation course magic parameter de grandy rough proportionality must allow deviations need decide whether deficit cases weighs favor violation even plan disproportionality deemed insubstantial consideration overcome evidence vote dilution latinos district degree probative value assigned proportionality may vary facts facts cases convince us violation district latino voters poised elect candidate choice becoming politically active marked continuous rise voter registration see lichtman report app successive elections latinos voting bonilla greater numbers almost ousted webb county particular latino population spurred incumbent near defeat dramatically increased turnout see almanac response growing participation threatened bonilla incumbency state divided cohesive latino community webb county moving latinos district already latino opportunity district leaving rest district little hope electing candidate choice changes district undermined progress racial group subject significant discrimination becoming increasingly politically active cohesive cf de grandy supra finding violation state scheme thwart historical tendency exclude hispanics encourage perpetuate white regester looking totality circumstances whether proposed districting remedy effects past present discrimination bring community full stream political life county state encouraging registration voting political activities citation internal quotation marks omitted district recognized long history discrimination latinos blacks texas session supp courts elaborated history respect electoral processes texas long history discrimination touched upon rights hispanics register vote participate otherwise electoral process devices poll tax primary system restrictive voter registration time periods unfortunate part state minority voting rights history history official discrimination texas election process stretching back reconstruction led inclusion state covered jurisdiction section amendments voting rights act since texas became covered jurisdiction department justice frequently interposed objections state subdivisions vera richards supp sd tex citations omitted see also vera regester supra addition political social economic legacy past discrimination latinos texas session supra may well hinder ability participate effectively political process gingles citing senate report factors background latinos diminishing electoral support bonilla indicates belief unresponsive particularized needs members minority group ibid essence state took away latinos opportunity latinos exercise bears mark intentional discrimination give rise equal protection violation even accept district finding state action taken primarily political racial reasons session supra redrawing district lines damaging latinos district state made fruitless latinos mobilization efforts also acted latinos becoming politically active dividing district line middle laredo furthermore reason taking latinos district according district protect congressman bonilla constituency increasingly voting noted incumbency protection legitimate factor districting see karcher daggett experience teaches incumbency protection take various forms interests constituents justification incumbency protection keep constituency intact officeholder accountable promises made broken protection seems accord concern voters hand incumbency protection means excluding voters district simply likely vote officeholder change benefit officeholder voters purposely redrawing lines around opposed bonilla state legislature took latter course policy whatever validity realm politics justify effect latino voters see gingles supra citing senate report factor whether policy underlying state action tenuous policy becomes even suspect considered light evidence suggesting state intentionally drew district nominal latino majority without citizen majority political reasons session supra use race create façade latino district also weighs favor appellants claim contrary chief justice suggestion reducing state needed flexibility complying see post problem entirely state making state chose break apart latino opportunity district protect incumbent congressman growing dissatisfaction cohesive politically active latino community district state purported compensate harm creating entirely new district combined two groups latinos hundreds miles apart represent different communities interest state must held accountable effect choices denying equal opportunity latino voters notwithstanding facts chief justice places great emphasis district statement new district effective latino opportunity district congressional district post quoting session supp even assuming statement expressed context summarizing witnesses testimony qualifies finding district two points make minimal relevance first previously noted district measured effectiveness district without accounting detrimental consequences compactness problems second district referred effective district operate today significant distinction given growing latino political power district based foregoing totality circumstances demonstrates violation even assuming plan provides something close proportional representation latinos troubling blend politics race resulting vote dilution group beginning achieve goal overcoming prior electoral discrimination sustained hold plan violates redrawing district address appellants claims use race politics drawing district violates first amendment equal protection also need confront appellants claim equal protection violation drawing district districts south west texas redrawn remedy violation district cause pass legitimacy district must changed see session supra ward concurring part dissenting part district particular formed compensate loss district latino opportunity district reason believe district remain current form district brought compliance therefore vacate district judgment claims iv appellants also challenge changes district lines dallas area alleging dilute voting strength violation voting rights act specifically appellants contend minority effectively controlled district plan entitles district plan enacted district elected anglo democrat martin frost congress every election since session supra anglos largest racial group district citizen population third largest latinos state exh app group citizen population voted consistently frost new plan broke apart racially diverse district assigning pieces several districts accepting majority district seek vote cohesively hispanics session supra appellants nonetheless contend effective control district done several times assume purposes litigation possible state claim racial group makes less population see de grandy gingles even assumption first gingles prong accommodate claim however appellants must show constitute sufficiently large minority elect candidate choice assistance votes voinovich supra emphasis omitted relatively small population meet standard according appellants constituted voters democratic primary since significant number anglos latinos voted democrat general election argument goes control primary translated effective control entire election district found however elect candidate choice primary support finding relied testimony district drawn anglo democrat fact frost opposition primary elections since incumbency began district demographic similarity another district candidate failed ran anglo session supp short anglo democrats control district according district rational conclusion appellants fail demonstrate clear error finding absence contested democratic primary district last years obvious benchmark exists deciding whether elect candidate choice fact voted frost primary general elections signify candidate choice without contested primary however also interpreted show assuming racial bloc voting anglos latinos vote democratic primary greater numbers candidate choice run especially given texas open primary system district heard trial testimony support explanations say erred crediting testimony endorsed latter interpretation compare app testimony tarrant county precinct administrator frost favored candidate community gone unopposed primary challenges serves community interests testimony congresswoman eddie bernice johnson district drawn anglo democrat martin frost particular splitting minority community testimony state representative ron wilson ability elect preferred candidate particularly candidate district anglo democrats influence istricts fully responsive needs community analysis submitted appellants expert also inconsistent three elections statewide office examined district candidate choice one lost one third vote split see lichtman report state exh civ action ed tex state exh civ action ed district committed clear error rejecting questionable showing ability elect candidate choice favor evidence candidate choice prevail see anderson bessemer city two permissible views evidence factfinder choice clearly erroneous influence district session supra suffice state claim cases opportunity elect representatives choice requires ability influence outcome candidates none candidate choice doubt preferred martin frost republicans opposed fact preferred frost others however make candidate choice accordingly ability aid frost election make old district opportunity district purposes interpreted protect kind influence unnecessarily infuse race virtually every redistricting raising serious constitutional questions see georgia ashcroft kennedy concurring appellants respond pointing georgia ashcroft held presence influence districts relevant consideration voting rights act inquiry however concerns opportunity elect representatives choice whether change purpose effect denying abridging right vote ashcroft recognized differences tests concluded ability racial groups elect candidates choice one factor presence districts minority voters may able elect candidate choice play substantial decisive role electoral process relevant analysis lack districts establish violation failure create influence district cases thus run afoul voting rights act appellants raise political gerrymandering claim district even claim cognizable part appellants statewide challenge unpersuasive statewide claim appellants lack reliable measure partisan fairness justice stevens suggests burden representational rights measured comparing success democrats old district success new districts occupy post opinion concurring part dissenting part reason however old district special claim fairness fact old district less old redistricting plan whole formed partisan reasons see session supp see also balderas texas civ action ed per curiam summarily aff app juris statement furthermore justice stevens conclusion state complied voting rights act post effectively overruling attorney general without briefing argument lower opinion issue solve problem determining reliable measure impermissible partisan effect reject statewide challenge texas redistricting unconstitutional political gerrymander challenge redistricting dallas area violation voting rights act hold redrawing lines district violates voting rights act judgment district affirmed part reversed part vacated part cases remanded proceedings ordered league latin american citizens et appellants rick perry governor texas et al travis county texas et appellants rick perry governor texas et al eddie jackson et appellants rick perry governor texas et al gi forum texas et appellants rick perry governor texas et al appeals district eastern district texas june justice stevens justice breyer joins parts ii concurring part dissenting part suit perfectly clear judicially manageable standards enable us decide merits statewide challenge political gerrymander applying standards shall explain wholly unnecessary replacement neutral plan fashioned balderas texas civ action ed plan balderas plan plan creates districts less compact shapes violates voting rights act fragments communities interest purely partisan purposes violated state constitutional duty govern impartially prior misconduct texas legislature neither excuses justifies violation accordingly join decision invalidate district hold plan entirely invalid direct district reinstate plan moreover shall explain even remainder plan valid cracking balderas district still unconstitutional maintenance existing district boundaries advantageous voters candidates changes course must made every census equalize population district accommodate changes size state congressional delegation similarly changes must made response finding districting plan violates voting rights act interests orderly campaigning voting well maintaining communication representatives constituents underscore importance requiring decision redraw district boundaries like state action affects electoral process must least serve legitimate governmental purpose see burdick takushi kennedy joined blackmun stevens dissenting purely partisan desire minimize cancel voting strength racial political elements voting population fortson dorsey purpose desire minimize strength texas democrats sole motivation adoption plan see session perry supp ed tex per curiam plan withstand constitutional scrutiny districting map plan replaced plan manifestly fair neutral may legitimately described milestone texas political history put end long history democratic misuse power state decades civil war political party associated former commander chief union army attracted support former slaves handful carpetbaggers significant political influence texas democrats maintained political power excluding black voters participating primary elections see smith allwright artful management multimember electoral schemes see white regester recently outrageously partisan gerrymandering see ante opinion kennedy bush vera appendices plurality opinion stevens dissenting unfortunately tactics unique texas democrats apportionment scheme devised one example excessively gerrymandered districting plans parties control governing bodies implemented recent years see cox larios stevens joined breyer concurring democratic gerrymander georgia vieth jubelirer plurality opinion stevens dissenting republican gerrymander pennsylvania karcher daggett democratic gerrymander new jersey badham eu supp nd cal summarily aff democratic gerrymander california despite texas democratic party sordid history manipulating electoral process perpetuate stranglehold political power texas republican party managed become state majority party finally achieving political strength texas republicans adopted new plan order remove excessively partisan democratic gerrymander decision unquestionably supported neutral justification happened instead following discussion relevant events transpired texas following release census data demonstrates texas republicans abandoned neutral apportionment map sole purpose manipulating district boundaries maximize electoral advantage thus create impermissible stranglehold political power texas republicans overcome many aforementioned tactics designed freeze democrats status state dominant party republicans controlled governorship state senate democrats however continued constitute majority state house representatives march year results decennial census revealed result population growth texas entitled two additional seats house representatives bringing size texas congressional delegation texas therefore required draw equipopulous districts account additional representation comply mandate article see karcher texas law texas legislature required draw new districts see session supp texas legislature divided republican senate democratic house reach agreement new congressional map regular legislative session governor rick perry declined call special session litigation texas state courts also failed result plan texas vacated map created state trial judge see perry del rio left federal district eastern district texas unwelcome obligation performing legislature stead balderas texas civ action per curiam app juris statement hereinafter app juris statement quoting connor finch protracted proceedings included testimony impartial expert well representatives interested groups supporting different plans prepared plan conscious primary responsibility drawing congressional districts given political branches government hesitant work one political party benefit another balderas sought apply neutral redistricting standards drawing plan ante opinion kennedy quoting henderson perry supp ed tex explained started blank map texas drew existing districts protected voting rights act located new districts population growth produced occurred applied neutral criteria compactness contiguity respecting county municipal boundaries app juris statement see district purposely eschewed effort treat old lines independent locator concluded plan done much end plan myriad submissions us example patently irrational shapes districts plan extreme successful gerrymandering country conclusion process believed fashioned map likely produce congressional delegation roughly proportional party voting breakdown across state indeed reflecting growing strength republican party district plan plan offered party advantage congressional seats see session supp describing plan state expert litigation testified balderas plan biased favor democrats aybe slightly biased favor republicans app deposition ronald keith gaddie although groups latino voters challenged plan appeal neither major political party state texas filed motion asking affirm district judgment see balderas texas congressional elections however republicans able capitalize advantage balderas plan provided number democratic incumbents able attract votes individuals voted candidates one party statewide elections candidate different party congressional elections thus elections districts favored republicans result republicans carried districts drawn balderas republicans well hoped elections house representatives made gains texas house representatives majority seats body gave texas republicans control bodies state legislature well governor mansion first time since reconstruction full control state legislative executive branches republicans decided redraw state congressional districts solely purpose seizing five seven seats democratic incumbents session supp citation internal quotation marks omitted according former lieutenant governor bill ratliff highly regarded republican member state senate political gain republicans motivation plan entire motivation quoting trial transcript district stated first two decisions litigation little question purpose texas legislature enacting plan gain partisan advantage see also ante quoting district conclusion indeed state argued district overwhelming evidence demonstrated partisan gain motivating force behind decision redistrict state defendants brief ed tex hereinafter state brief desire political gain led series dramatic confrontations republicans democrats ultimately resulted adoption plan violated voting rights act legislature pass new map regular session part democratic house members absented thus denied body quorum governor perry called special session take congressional redistricting step declined take release decennial census figures republicans lacked majority house first special session house approved new congressional map senate longstanding tradition requiring body support measure full senate consider allowed democrats block plan lieutenant governor dewhurst announced suspend operation rule future special session considering congressional redistricting nonetheless second special session senate democrats prevented passage new districting map leaving state depriving senate quorum lone senate democrat returned texas governor perry called third special session consider congressional redistricting third special session state senate state house passed maps apparently avoided violation voting rights act inter alia essentially preserved balderas district district southwest texas balderas district district worth area black voters constituted significant majority voters democratic primary usually elected candidate choice general election representative phil king redistricting legislation chief sponsor texas house previously proposed fragmenting district lawyers reviewed map king expressed concern redrawing district might violate voting rights act drafted new map left district largely unchanged nonetheless conferees seeking reconcile house senate plans produced map part goal maximizing republican political advantage significantly altered districts existed balderas plan balderas district extended north take roughly new people predominately anglo republican also moved west thus splitting webb county city laredo pushing roughly people predominately latino democratic adjacent district session supp black voters previously resided balderas district fragmented five new districts predominately anglo republican see app representative king testified trial district cracked even though cracking district path least terms avoiding voting rights act liability leaving balderas district intact accomplish political objectives state brief quoting transcript map ultimately enacted law plan overall effect plan shift eight million texans new districts split counties pieces balderas plan moreover districts plan average much less compact either two standard measures counterparts balderas plan see app expert report professor gaddie numerous parties filed suit federal challenging plan grounds violated voting rights act constituted unconstitutional partisan gerrymander panel two also members balderas rejected challenges judge ward partial dissent claims see session supp responding plaintiffs appeals remanded reconsideration light vieth see characteristically thoughtful opinion written judge higginbotham district rejected challenges constitutionality plan see henderson supp correctly found constitution prohibit state legislature redrawing congressional districts middle census cycle see also correctly recognized yet endorsed clear standards judging validity partisan gerrymanders see district original decision reconsideration case light several opinions vieth jubelirer successive chapters saga began balderas appropriate quote final comment opinion addressing principal question presented balderas concluded finally state directly implicit said political gerrymandering purely partisan exercise inappropriate federal drawing congressional redistricting map even hands legislative body political gerrymandering much bloodfeud revenge exacted majority rival left political arena must wisely role limited see gerrymandering abuse power core evinces fundamental distrust voters serving political parties expense public good app juris statement omitted ii unique question law raised appeal one previously addressed narrow question whether unconstitutional texas replace lawful districting plan middle decade sole purpose maximizing partisan advantage juris statement question different simpler principal question presented vieth jubelirer judicially discoverable manageable prevented plurality deciding merits statewide challenge political gerrymander state points every claim considered focus map decision create map first place brief state appellees defense map rather basic decision whether draw map first place state notes plan district borders frequently follow county lines neutral criteria state describes relevant level granularity state correctly points appellants even attempted argue every district line motivated solely partisan gain ibid see also ante opinion kennedy noting partisan aims guide every line plan indeed multitude granular decisions made redistricting part vieth plurality concluded context statewide challenge redistricting plan promulgated response legal obligation redistrict manageable standards govern whether predominant motivation underlying entire redistricting map partisan see see breyer dissenting arguing judicially manageable standards assess statewide districting challenges even plan enacted response legal obligation redistrict unlike vieth narrow question presented statewide challenge litigation whether state decision draw map first place legal obligation permissible undeniable identifying motive making basic decision readily manageable judicial task see gomillion lightfoot noting plaintiffs allegations true establish circumstantial evidence tantamount practical purposes mathematical demonstration redistricting legislation enacted solely segregate voters along racial lines cf personnel administrator mass feeney analyzing whether purpose law discriminate women indeed although constitution places per se ban midcycle redistricting legislature decision redistrict middle census cycle legislature legal obligation makes judicial task identifying legislature motive simpler otherwise justice breyer pointed presence midcycle redistricting reason raises fair inference partisan machinations played major role process vieth dissenting opinion conclusion courts easily identify motive redistricting legislature legal obligation act reinforced record case district unambiguously identified sole purpose behind decision promulgate plan desire maximize partisan advantage see session supp clear evidence republicans redraw state congressional districts solely purpose seizing five seven seats democratic quoting amicus brief filed vieth jubelirer little question purpose texas legislature enacting plan gain partisan advantage matter whether district description purpose qualifies specific finding fact perfectly clear ample evidence record support finding evidence includes testimony state legislators procedural irregularities described accompanied adoption plan including targeted abolition longstanding rule designed protect rights minority party texas senate plan significant departures neutral districting criteria compactness respect county lines plan excessive deviations prior districts interfere development strong relationships members congress constituents plan failure comply voting rights act indeed state conceded overwhelming evidence demonstrated partisan gain motivating force behind decision redistrict state brief judgment even colorable basis contending relevant intent case purely partisan identified basis admissible evidence course conclusions courts fully capable analyzing intent behind decision redistrict desire partisan gain sole factor motivating decision redistrict issue resolve question whether proof partisan intent sufficient establish constitutional violation merits question state seems assume decision upham seamon per curiam already established legislature right replace plan plan drawn purely partisan purposes justice kennedy ultimately indulges similar assumption relying upham proposition decisions assumed state legislatures free replace remedial plans enacting redistricting plans ante justice kennedy recognizes udicial respect legislative plans however justify legislative reliance improper criteria districting determinations ibid justice kennedy incorrectly concludes singular intent maximize partisan advantage improper criterion ante reliance upham overlooks critical distinctions redistricting plan district drew upham redistricting plan district drew balderas judicial plan upham created provide interim response objection attorney general two contiguous districts plan originally drafted texas legislature violated voting rights act concluded fashioning interim remedy district erroneously substituted reapportionment preferences state legislature suggest federal courts honor partisan concerns rather identified relevant state policies statutory constitutional provisions reapportionment plans proposed state legislature whenever adherence state policy detract requirements federal constitution upham quoting white district upham exceeded authority drawing new districting map made clear legislature authorized remedy violation map choosing see upham stands proposition state legislature authorized redraw congressional districting map district exceeded remedial authority upham stand proposition state embraces valid neutral plan asking affirm opinion creating plan state may redistrict sole purpose disadvantaging minority political party indeed conclude otherwise reflect fundamental misunderstanding reason held state legislatures rather federal courts primary task creating apportionment plans comport federal law held state legislature institution far best situated identify reconcile traditional state policies requirements federal law finch wish supply dominant party opportunity disadvantage political opponents indeed straightforward application settled constitutional law leads inescapable conclusion state may decide redistrict sole motivation minimize cancel voting strength racial political elements voting population fortson emphasis added requirements federal constitution limit state power rely exclusively partisan preferences drawing district lines fourteenth amendment prohibition invidious discrimination first amendment protection citizens official retaliation based political affiliation equal protection component fourteenth amendment requires actions taken sovereign supported legitimate interest establishes bare desire harm politically disfavored group legitimate interest see cleburne cleburne living center similarly freedom political belief association guaranteed first amendment prevents state absent compelling interest penalizing citizens participation electoral process association political party expression political views vieth plurality opinion protections embodied first fourteenth amendments reflect fundamental duty sovereign govern impartially lehr robertson new york city transit authority beazer legislature decision redistrict issue litigation entirely inconsistent principles taking action sole purpose advantaging republicans disadvantaging democrats state texas violated constitutional obligation govern impartially state passed enactment declared future apportionment shall drawn burden party rights fair effective representation though still accord principles surely conclude constitution violated vieth kennedy concurring judgment iii relying solely vieth justice kennedy maintains even legislation enacted based solely desire harm politically unpopular minority fact insufficient establish unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering absent proof legislation fact burden complainants representative rights ante conclusion clearly goes merits rather manageability partisan gerrymandering claim inconsistent constitutional requirement state action must supported legitimate interest also provides insufficient response appellants claim merits justice kennedy argues adopting modified test encourage partisan excess outset decade legislature redistricts pursuant decennial constitutional duty immune charge ante problem making decision cox larios demonstrates fact readily manageable judicial standards allow injured parties challenge excessive unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering undertaken response release decennial census see also vieth stevens dissenting souter joined ginsburg dissenting breyer dissenting justice kennedy concern heightened incentive engage excessive partisan gerrymandering avoided willing enforce standards event justice kennedy additional requirement proof gerrymander fact burden complainants representative rights clearly satisfied record litigation indeed accurate exposition reasons changes district diluted voting rights latinos remain district simultaneously explains changes also disadvantaged democratic voters thus demonstrates effects political gerrymander evaluated pursuant judicially manageable standards judgment record amply supports conclusion plan burdens minority party district also imposes severe statewide burden ability democratic voters politicians influence political arguing plan impose unconstitutional burden democratic voters candidates state takes position plan resulted equitable distribution political power state two principal political parties state emphasizes elections held pursuant plan republicans congressional seats year republicans carried vote statewide elections admittedly numbers suggest state congressional delegation roughly proportional parties share statewide vote brief state appellees particularly light fact electoral system tends produce seat bonus party wins majority vote generally wins even larger majority seats see brief alan heslop et al amici curiae describing seat bonus phenomenon cf ante opinion kennedy arguing compared redistricting plan challenged vieth plan seen making party balance congruent statewide party power plan produced roughly proportional congressional delegation however answer question whether plan discriminatory effect democrats appellants point whether districting map biased political party depends upon bias map words depends upon opportunities map offers party regardless candidates perform given year state expert found litigation plan clearly discriminatory effect terms opportunities offers two principal political parties texas indeed discriminatory effect severe according professor gaddie state expert plan gives republicans advantage congressional seats plaintiffs expert professor alford cited favorably balderas applied neutral approach redistricting litigation app juris statement agreed added view surprise elections far things moved toward achieving split single election year declaration john alford advantage depend republicans winning share statewide vote received instead according professor gaddie republicans likely carry congressional seats statewide vote app put differently plan ensures even democratic party succeeds convincing people voted republicans last statewide elections vote democratic congressional constitute major electoral shift unlikely change number congressional seats democrats win moreover republicans still overwhelming advantage democrats achieved full electoral parity according professor gaddie analysis republicans likely carry congressional seats even matter statewide vote demonstrates plan inconsistent symmetry standard measure social scientists use assess partisan bias undoubtedly reliable standard measuring burden complainants representative rights ante opinion kennedy symmetry standard requires electoral system treat parties equally receives fraction legislative seats particular vote percentage party receive received percentage brief gary king et al amici curiae standard widely accepted scholars providing measure partisan fairness electoral systems see tufte relationship seats votes systems pol sci rev gelman king enhancing democracy legislative redistricting pol sci rev thompson election time normative implications temporal properties electoral process pol sci rev engstrom kernell manufactured responsiveness impact state electoral laws unified party control presidency house representatives pol sci like models experts use analyzing vote dilution claims compliance symmetry standard measured extrapolating sample known data see thornburg gingles discussing extreme case analysis bivariate ecological regression analysis litigation symmetry standard simply proposed amicus also used expert plaintiffs expert state assessing degree partisan bias plans see app report professor alford report professor gaddie noted republicans advantage significant majority seats even statewide vote equally distributed republicans democrats plan constitutes significant departure symmetry standard contrast based professor gaddie evaluation balderas plan though slightly biased favor republicans provided markedly equitable opportunities republicans democrats example consistent symmetry standard plan parties likely take congressional seats statewide vote see app plan clearly discriminatory impact opportunities democratic citizens elect candidates choice moreover discriminatory effect dismissed de minimis according state expert party receives half statewide vote plan republicans carry congressional seats whereas democrats win seats words vote distribution point politically neutral map result zero differential percentage seats captured party plan structured create differential redistricting map imposes significant disadvantage politically salient group voters state shoulder burden defending map cf brown thomson holding implementation redistricting plan state legislative districts population deviations creates prima facie case discrimination equal protection clause thus shifting burden state defend plan larios cox supp nd per curiam summarily aff pointing percent safe harbor concluding circumstances case state legislative districting plan unconstitutional even though population deviations least plaintiffs established legislature sole purpose adopting plan partisan plaintiffs established action see part ii supra severe discriminatory effect sufficient meet additional burden demonstrate redistricting map accomplishes discriminatory bias plan striking regard effect ability democratic voters elect candidates choice discriminatory effect end plan also lessens influence democratic voters likely able exert republican lawmakers thus minimizing democrats capacity play meaningful role political process even though defies political reality suppose members losing party much political influence government members victorious party davis bandemer powell concurring part dissenting part recognized power influence political process limited winning elections plurality opinion see also georgia ashcroft assessing whether members group whose candidate defeated polls nonetheless influence elected representative important consider likelihood candidates elected without decisive minority support willing take minority interests account quoting gingles plan undermines crucial assumption congressional representatives majority party case republicans seek represent entire constituency district obviously created solely effectuate perceived common interests one racial group elected officials likely believe primary obligation represent members group rather constituency whole ibid shaw analysis representational harms racial gerrymandering context applies least much force partisan gerrymandering context addition possibility representative may believe job represent interests dominant constituency representative may feel beholden cartographers drew district constituents live see vieth stevens dissenting short plan reduces likelihood republican representatives elected gerrymandered districts act vigorous advocates needs interests democrats reside within districts addition plan weakens incentives members majority party take interests minority party account locks republican congressional majority seats long republicans achieve least vote result according state expert republican seats safe seats meaning seats one party least advantage see app expert report professor gaddie members congress elected safe districts need worry much possibility shifting majorities little reason responsive political minorities within sum think clear plan severe burden capacity texas democrats influence political process far representing example one significant acts state perform ensure citizen participation republican ante opinion kennedy plan guarantees membership texas congressional delegation remain constant notwithstanding significant shifts public opinion moreover harms plan imposes democrats hypothetical counterfactual simply elections republicans share seats roughly proportional statewide voting strength creating safe republican seats plan already harmed democrats explained significantly undermines likelihood republican lawmakers districts responsive interests democratic constituents addition democrats surely difficult time recruiting strong candidates mobilizing voters resources safe republican districts thus appellants satisfied requisite obligation demonstrate harmed adoption plan furthermore discussed part ii supra sole intent motivating texas legislature decision replace plan plan benefit republicans burden democrats accordingly terms intent effect plan violates sovereign duty govern impartially state adopts rules governing election machinery defining electoral boundaries rules must serve interests entire community serve purpose favor one segment whether racial ethnic religious political may occupy position strength particular point time disadvantage politically weak segment community violate constitutional guarantee equal protection karcher stevens concurring citation omitted accordingly even accepting view gerrymander tolerable unless fact burdens minority representative rights hold plan iv even thought plan unconstitutional entirety hold cracking district balderas plan district consistently elected democratic congressman martin frost unconstitutional readily manageable standards enable us analyze purpose effect granular decisions produced replacements district applying standards set forth believe clear manipulation district purely partisan gain violated first fourteenth amendments constitutional principles discussed concerning sovereign duty govern impartially inform proper analysis claims particular district unconstitutional partisan gerrymander several occasions recognized multimember district subject challenge fourteenth amendment operates minimize cancel voting strength racial political elements voting population gaffney cummings emphasis added burns richardson constitutionally relevant distinction harms inflicted district gerrymanders minimize cancel voting strength political element population harms inflicted multimember districts situations state interfered voter constitutional right engage association advancement beliefs ideas naacp alabama ex rel patterson recognize legislatures always aware politics must tolerate consideration political goals redistricting process see cousins city council chicago stevens dissenting however think equally clear plaintiff prove legislature predominant motive drawing particular district disadvantage politically salient group decision intended effect plaintiff constitutional rights violated see indeed vieth five members explicitly recognized extreme partisan gerrymandering violates constitution see kennedy concurring judgment stevens dissenting souter joined ginsburg dissenting breyer dissenting four justices vieth stated disagree conclusion see plurality opinion vieth plurality nonetheless determined judicially manageable standards assess partisan gerrymandering claims however following test shares features standard assessing unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering proposed justice souter opinion vieth see provide remedy least blatant unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders also eminently manageable first standing challenge district unconstitutional partisan gerrymander plaintiff prove either candidate voter resided district changed new districting plan see stevens dissenting discussing hays see also souter joined ginsburg dissenting citing hays plaintiff standing required prove improper purpose effect respect purpose portion inquiry apply standard fashioned racial gerrymandering cases racial gerrymandering jurisprudence judges must analyze whether plaintiffs proved race predominant factor motivating districting decision districting principles subordinated racial considerations strict scrutiny applies see vera vera applying standards political gerrymandering context hold plaintiff carried burden demonstrating redistricters subordinated neutral districting principles political considerations predominant motive maximize one party power satisfy intent prong constitutional cf vieth souter joined ginsburg dissenting discussing importance district departures traditional districting principles determining whether district unconstitutional gerrymander respect effects inquiry plaintiff required demonstrate following three facts candidate choice election old plan residence district safe seat opposite party new district less compact old district first two prongs effects inquiry designed measure whether plaintiff harmed whereas third prong relevant shape gerrymander always provided crucial evidence character see karcher stevens concurring see also vieth souter joined ginsburg dissenting noting compactness traditional districting principle measured quantitatively moreover safe harbor compact districts allow newly elected majority eliminate prior partisan gerrymander without fear liability even need devote resources litigating whether legislature acted impermissible intent plaintiff standing meet intent effects prong test outlined plaintiff clearly demonstrated violation constitutional rights moreover think colorable claim test judicially manageable applying test facts case think plaintiffs new districts four districts plan replaced parts balderas district demonstrate constitutional rights violated cracking balderas district first assume plaintiffs reside districts whose homes previously located balderas district accordingly assume plaintiffs standing challenge creation districts second plaintiffs easily satisfy burden proving predominant partisan purpose indeed litigation state acknowledged predominant motivation cracking district achieve partisan gain see state brief noting spite concerns cracking district lead voting rights act liability legislature chose pursue political goal unseating congressman frost instead following course might lowered risks liability district agreed state analysis issue district plaintiffs claimed creation district violated equal protection clause decision create district motivated unconstitutional racial discrimination black voters district rejected argument concluding state decision crack balderas district driven racial prejudice rather political desire maximize republican advantage remove congressman frost required frost lose large portion democratic constituency many lived predominately black area tarrant county session supp impermissible predominantly partisan purpose motivated cracking former district demonstrated fact judgment cracking caused plan violate voting rights act state willingness adopt plan violated legal obligations voting rights act combined indicia partisan intent litigation compelling evidence politics simply one factor cracking district rather impermissible predominant factor section voting rights act intended insure gains thus far achieved minority political participation shall destroyed new discriminatory procedures techniques beer quoting alteration beer effectuate goal prevents covered jurisdictions texas making changes voting procedures lead retrogression position racial minorities respect effective exercise electoral franchise georgia internal quotation marks citations omitted words redistricting process covered jurisdictions may leave minority voters less chance effective electing preferred candidates prior districting plan see souter dissenting cracking balderas district offsetting loss black voters ability elect preferred dates elsewhere plan resulted impermissible retrogression balderas plan black americans constituted majority democratic primary voters district according unanimous report authored staff attorneys voting section department justice black voters district generally voted cohesively thus ability elect candidate choice democratic primary section recommendation memorandum available http internet materials visited june available clerk case file moreover black community candidates choice consistently attract sufficient crossover voting nonblacks win general election even though blacks constitute majority voters general election representative frost white clearly candidate choice black community district based election returns testimony community leaders scorecards received groups dedicated advancing interests see noted plan minority community balderas district splintered submerged majority anglo districts worth area dismantling one district blacks ability elect candidates offsetting loss district another district black voters similar opportunity plan retrogressive violation voting rights act see notwithstanding unanimous opinion staff attorneys voting section justice department plan retrogressive attorney general interposed objection attorney general elected preclear map thus allowing take effect held statutory scheme voters may directly challenge attorney general decision preclear redistricting plan see morris gressette means attorney general vigilant enforcement act critical also means plaintiffs bring challenge part however judges frequently called upon consider whether redistricting plan violates covered jurisdiction option seeking achieve preclearance either submitting plan attorney general filing declaratory judgment action district district columbia whose judgment subject review see georgia accordingly tools analyze whether redistricting plan retrogressive even though issue directly reasons stated believe cracking district caused plan retrogressive fact legislature promulgated retrogressive plan relevant provides additional evidence legislature acted predominantly partisan purpose complying neutral districting principle legislature promulgation retrogressive redistricting plan buttresses conclusion legislature subordinated traditional neutral districting principles political considerations miller johnson evidence particularly compelling light state acknowledgment legislature chose pursue political goal unseating congressman frost instead following course might lowered risks preclearance process state brief citing inter alia trial testimony state legislators sum record litigation makes clear predominant motive underlying fragmentation balderas district maximize republicans electoral opportunities ensure congressman frost defeated turning effects test proposed plaintiffs new districts easily meet three parts test balderas plan lived district candidate choice frost winning candidate plan placed districts safe seats republican party see app showing democratic share vote statewide elections less districts new districts less compact balderas district see app compactness scores districts balderas plan plan justice kennedy rejects proposed effects test applied case view balderas district lacks special claim fairness ante analysis way depends proposition balderas district fair district compact four districts replaced explained compactness serves important values districting process view state creates compact districts enjoy safe harbor partisan gerrymandering claims however mere fact prior district unfair surely provide safe harbor creation even unfair district conversely state may course create less compact districts without violating constitution long purpose disadvantage politically disfavored group see supra reason focus balderas district district fair prior district provides clear benchmark analyzing whether plaintiffs harmed sum applying judicially manageable test set forth part opinion reveals cracking balderas district created several unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders even believed plan invalid entirety reverse judgment regard districts foregoing reasons although concur majority decision invalidate district voting rights act respectfully dissent decision affirm judgment respect plaintiffs partisan gerrymandering claim reverse respect plan whole also specifically respect districts league latin american citizens et appellants rick perry governor texas et al travis county texas et appellants rick perry governor texas et al eddie jackson et appellants rick perry governor texas et al gi forum texas et appellants rick perry governor texas et al appeals district eastern district texas june justice souter justice ginsburg joins concurring part dissenting part join part principal opinion rejecting challenge plan based simply timing also join part preserves principle partisan gerrymandering recognized violation equal protection see vieth jubelirer kennedy concurring judgment stevens dissenting souter dissenting breyer dissenting see nothing gained working cases standard applied vieth supra dissenting opinion vieth majority single criterion impermissible gerrymander none conclusion plan unconstitutional across board therefore treat broad issue gerrymander much subject improvident grant certiorari add two thoughts future share justice kennedy seemingly flat rejection test gerrymander turning process followed redistricting see ante rule utility criterion symmetry test see king browning democratic representation partisan bias congressional elections pol sci rev interest exploring notion evident see ante principal opinion ante stevens concurring part dissenting part post breyer concurring part dissenting part perhaps attention devoted administrability criterion levels redistricting review join part iii principal opinion holds plan districts violate voting rights act diluting minority voting strength respectfully dissent part iv plurality upholds district rejection claim plan violated cracking black population prior district submerging fragments new districts contrary vacate judgment remand consideration district made threshold determination resting reasonably precedent clear rule laid fifth circuit see valdespino alamo heights independent school cert denied first condition making violation set thornburg gingles requires minority group demonstrate sufficiently large geographically compact constitute majority district old district dilution claim recognized although plurality today prior cases sidestepped question whether statutory dilution claim prevail without possibility district percentage minority voters see ante johnson de grandy voinovich quilter growe emison gingles supra day come answer chief among reasons time come holding georgia ashcroft replacement district coalition district minority voters making fewer half survive prohibition retrogression voting rights act enforced preclearance requirement georgia least coalition district take significance previously accorded one voting population thus despite independence reason think integrity minority voting population coalition district protected much bloc protection begin preclearance jurisdictions required process fails minority voter remedy state attorney general district district columbia participants preclearance see course vast areas country covered unless minority voter left recourse whatsoever relief must possible definition numerical majority minority voters reconstituted putative district necessary condition therefore hold minority less voting population might suffice gingles gatekeeping stage rule hold sufficient satisfaction first gatekeeping condition show minority voters reconstituted putative district constitute majority voting primary dominant party party tending win general rule makes sense light explanation gave gingles first condition entertaining claim breach guarantee racially equal opportunity elect representatives choice reason minority group making challenge must show threshold matter sufficiently large unless minority voters possess potential elect representatives absence challenged structure practice claim injured structure practice gingles supra pertinence minority voters role primary obvious dominant party primary determine representative ultimately elected recognized years ago evaluating constitutional importance primary elections see classic state law made primary integral part procedure choice fact primary effectively controls choice right elector ballot counted primary likewise included right protected article right choose representative fact controlled primary alleged indictment choice candidates democratic primary determines choice elected representative primary election involves necessary step choice candidates election representatives congress circumstances case controls choice election within meaning constitutional provision smith allwright noting fusing classic case primary general elections single instrumentality choice officers may taken postulate right vote primary nomination candidates without discrimination state like right vote general election right secured constitution constitution great privilege ballot may denied man state color conclusions predecessors fit recent scholarship showing electoral success minorities adequately predictable taking account primaries well elections among things see grofman handley lublin drawing effective minority districts conceptual framework empirical evidence rev accordingly reject claim step one gingles record dismiss jumping ultimate issue decided totality circumstances see de grandy determine black plaintiffs show submerging five new districts violated right equal opportunity participate political process elect candidates choice plurality contrary willing accept conclusion minority voters lost nothing cognizable show degree control guaranteed candidate choice old district see ante plurality accepts conclusion placing great weight fact martin frost perennially successful congressional candidate district white see ante clear error district findings black candidate ever filed democratic primary frost session perry supp ed tex per curiam measure anglo turnout democratic primary frost opposed black candidate ibid ante clear error district reliance testimony congresswoman eddie bernice johnson district drawn anglo democrat martin frost particular least two responses first nder status candidate chosen representative particular group race candidate important gingles supra emphasis deleted second frost convincingly shown chosen representative black voters old district absence primary contest unchallenged evidence black voters dominated primary consistently nominated ultimately successful candidate takes speculation rebut demonstration frost candidate choice black indication party rules device rigged primary ballot bar aspirants minority voters preferred see supra uncontroverted overwhelming evidence frost strongly supported minority voters two decades sedulously considering minority interests app frost rating voting record national association advancement colored people exceeded scores members texas congressional delegation including black hispanic members major parties testimony state expert frost candidate choice testimony ron kirk former mayor dallas senate candidate frost gained strong base support among voters strong voting records numerous areas incredible following amount respect among community kirk testimony frost never contested primary beloved community black candidate possibly including better frost primary strong rapport black community testimony county precinct administrator frost favored candidate community primary challenges serves interests decide point whether elimination prior district composition new one violates gingles gatekeeping rules considered particular attention third majority bloc voting see since claim coalition district come ultimate analysis totality circumstances see de grandy supra go hold enquiry truncated conducted light fifth circuit analysis rejected return claim old district district already labored mightily case members free look untethered barrier judge ward particular opportunity develop reasons unconstrained circuit rule rightly took limit consideration claim see session supp opinion concurring part dissenting part league latin american citizens et appellants rick perry governor texas et al travis county texas et appellants rick perry governor texas et al eddie jackson et appellants rick perry governor texas et al gi forum texas et appellants rick perry governor texas et al appeals district eastern district texas june justice breyer concurring part dissenting part join parts iii opinion also join parts ii justice stevens opinion concurring part dissenting part one thing timing redistricting census periods radical departure traditional criteria evidence justice stevens refers parts ii opinion make clear desire maximize partisan advantage sole purpose behind decision promulgate plan ante compare app ante stevens concurring part dissenting part vieth jubelirer breyer dissenting another thing evidence justice stevens refers part iii opinion demonstrates plan effort maximize partisan advantage ante stevens concurring part dissenting part encompasses effort exaggerate favored party electoral majority also produce majority congressional representatives even favored party receives minority popular votes compare stevens concurring part dissenting part app plaintiffs expert state expert vieth supra finally plan entrenches republican party state successfully defend effort simply neutralize democratic party previous political gerrymander state tried justify plan nonpartisan grounds either effort achieve legislative stability avoiding legislative exaggeration small shifts party preferences see vieth supra way sum risk entrenchment demonstrated partisan considerations render ed traditional compromises irrelevant justification party advantage found record reveals plan overwhelmingly relies upon unjustified use purely partisan considerations likely seriously harmful electoral consequences ibid reasons believe plan entirety violates equal protection clause league latin american citizens et appellants rick perry governor texas et al travis county texas et appellants rick perry governor texas et al eddie jackson et appellants rick perry governor texas et al gi forum texas et appellants rick perry governor texas et al appeals district eastern district texas june chief justice roberts justice alito joins concurring part concurring judgment part dissenting part join parts iv plurality opinion regard part ii agree determination appellants provided reliable standard identifying unconstitutional political gerrymanders ante question whether standard exists whether challenge political gerrymander presents justiciable case controversy argued cases therefore take position question divided see vieth jubelirer join disposition part ii without specifying whether appellants failed state claim relief granted failed present justiciable controversy must however dissent part iii opinion according district factual findings state drawing district lines south west texas caused area move five seven effective latino opportunity congressional districts additional district moving direction six seven effective latino opportunity districts see session perry supp ed tex per curiam end result latinos make citizen voting age population area control six seven districts state plan face findings majority nonetheless concludes state plan somehow dilutes voting strength latinos violation voting rights act majority reaches surprising result finds latino voters one state latino opportunity districts district insufficiently compact consist two different groups one around rio grande another around austin according majority may make difficult certain candidates elected district even though latino voters make citizen voting age population district vote bloc majority prefers old district despite district determination new district effective latino opportunity district congressional district see district based determination careful examination regression analysis showing candidate win every primary general election examined district emphasis added compared partial success candidates enjoyed former district majority dismisses district careful factfinding ground experienced judges properly consider whether district compact purposes ante district opinion clearly demonstrates carefully considered compactness minority group district majority says district recognized features district highlighted majority unambiguously concluded totality circumstances district effective latino opportunity district violation area shown unable escape district factfinding majority left awkward position maintaining theory compactness important actual prospects electoral success candidates state apportionment plan theory novel one boot never struck state redistricting plan ground plan achieves maximum number possible districts loses style points minority voters one districts compact minority voters another district lines drawn differently basis liability pushes voting rights litigation whole new area area far removed concern voting rights act ensure minority voters equal opportunity elect representatives choice plaintiff alleging denial abridgement right citizen vote account race color must show based totality circumstances political processes leading nomination election state political subdivision equally open participation members class citizens protected subsection members less opportunity members electorate participate political process elect representatives choice thornburg gingles found plaintiff challenging state use multimember districts meet standard showing replacement multimember district several districts likely provide minority voters least districts ability elect representatives choice basis requirement simple districts possible minority voters prospects electoral success use multimember districts hardly said thwart minority voting power see ibid minority voters contend multimember form districting violates must prove use multimember electoral structure operates minimize cancel ability elect preferred candidates next generation voting rights litigation confirmed manipulation district lines also dilute minority voting power packed minority voters districts might control dispersed among districts might control voinovich quilter basis application gingles clear configuration district lines dilute minority voting strength another configuration minority voters better electoral prospects thus cases involving districts question whether additional district created see abrams johnson growe emison whether additional influence districts created supplement existing districts see voinovich supra thus emphasized since gingles plaintiff must least show apportionment likely perform better minority voters compared existing one see concurring judgment relative lack minority electoral success challenged plan compared success predicted measure undiluted minority voting strength employing constitute powerful evidence vote dilution unsurprisingly context districting schemes invariably understood require possibility additional districts minority voters might control johnson de grandy reaffirmed understanding plaintiffs de grandy claimed reducing size hispanic majority districts additional districts created state defended plan ground proposed additional districts containing nominal hispanic majorities lack enough hispanic voters elect candidates choice without votes ethnic groups thus bolster hispanic voting strength ibid keeping requirement plaintiff must show alternative apportionment present better prospects candidates set condition challenge existing set districts must show possibility creating existing number reasonably compact districts sufficiently large minority population elect candidates choice ibid de grandy confirmed simply proposing set districts divides minority population different manner state chosen without gain minority opportunity districts show vote dilution lines drawn elsewhere district found six districts south west texas support plan provides six districts predecessor fact combined precedent making clear plaintiffs must show alternative better prospects minority success resulted affirmance district decision vote dilution south west texas see gingles supra test federal rule civil procedure appropriate standard appellate review finding vote dilution hether political process equally open minority voters peculiarly dependent upon facts internal quotation marks omitted rogers lodge majority avoids result finding fault district analysis one districts state plan district district like districts state plan like districts predecessor plan like districts plaintiffs proposed plan joins population concentrations around border area others closer center state district explained districts inevitable given geography demography area state session supp majority however criticizes district consideration compactness district deficient according majority analyzed issue equal protection purposes equal protection context compactness focuses contours district lines determine whether race predominant factor drawing lines contrast injury vote dilution compactness inquiry embraces different considerations ante citation omitted simply inaccurate description district opinion district expressly considered compactness context clear enough fact majority quotes district opinion elaborating standard compactness believes district applied see ante quoting session supra ante quoting session supra passage quoted majority different communities district ante appeared district opinion precisely district recognized concerns bear extent new districts including district functionally effective latino opportunity districts important understanding whether dilution results plan session supp emphasis added see also ibid noting different needs interests latino communities districts concluding issue whether features mean districts dilute voting strength latinos emphasis added indeed district addressed compactness two different sections opinion part respect vote dilution part respect whether race predominated drawing district lines purposes equal protection analysis district even explained considering part differences latino communities districts including district purposes vote dilution concerns bear plaintiffs equal protection claim discussed part majority faults district discussing relative smoothness district lines pertinent equal protection context ante equal protection context district mentioned relative smoothness district lines see supp discussing compactness part respect vote dilution district considered precisely majority says diverse needs interests different latino communities district unlike majority however district properly recognized question whether features mean districts dilute voting strength latinos district answer question unambiguous witnesses testified congressional districts span colonias hidalgo county suburban areas central texas witnesses testified regression data show districts effective latino opportunity districts candidate winning every primary general election examined district district emphasized point later districts cover territory travel farther north corresponding districts plan districts combine voters central part state voters border cities case plan population data regression analyses testimony expert witnesses witnesses knowledgeable politics actually works area lead finding congressional districts latino voters likely control every primary general election outcome find inexplicable majority read passages state district reached finding effectiveness district without accounting detrimental consequences compactness problems ante majority question district parsing statistical evidence reach finding district effective latino opportunity district ante majority nonetheless rejects finding based theory practical consequence drawing district cover two distant disparate communities one groups unable achieve political goals ante finding rests prohibited assumption voters race think alike share political interests prefer candidates polls ibid citations internal quotation marks omitted important perfectly clear following fairness district reason one made assumptions voters district vote based ethnic background district dissent trial trials assumptions assertions give way facts voting rights cases typically done regression analyses past voting records analyses showed latino candidate choice prevailed every primary general election examined district see session supp indeed plaintiffs expert conceded latino voters district effective opportunity control outcomes primary general elections district far assum ing latino voters district prefer candidate polls concluded likely based statistical evidence historic voting patterns contrary erroneous statements majority opinion district judges simply aggregat minority voters measure effectiveness ante simply rely mathematical possibility minority voters voting preferred candidate ante disservice state otherwise majority indulging unwarranted assumption voting contrary facts found trial based carefully considered evidence blushingly ironic district preferred majority former district suffers flaw majority ascribes district except greater degree majority decries district latino communities separated enormous geographical distance ante hundreds miles apart ante latino communities joined form voting majority old district nearly twice far apart old district runs el paso miles san antonio laredo covers much longer distance miles travis mcallen district app testimony giberson see report giberson istrict recent congressional plan extends outskirts el paso laredo dipping san antonio spanning miles much significance enormous geographical distance perhaps majority willing assume latinos around san antonio common interests rio grande rather around austin even though san antonio austin good bit closer less miles apart either rio grande district considered expert evidence projected election returns concluded district likely perform impeccably latino voters better indeed former district see session supp district also concluded districts plan give latino voters favorable opportunity elect preferred candidates see observing parties agreement districts plan clearly provide effective latino citizen voting age population majorities latino voters likely control every primary general election outcome district every primary outcome almost every general election outcome districts plan light findings district concluded compared plan plaintiffs shown impermissible reduction effective opportunities latino electoral control opportunities latino participation political process ibid viewed backdrop majority holding plan violates amounts state denied minority voters equal opportunity participate political process elect representatives choice districts plan state created better prospects success candidates alternative plan simply one state districts combines different minority communities event likely vote controlling bloc baffles vote dilution let alone district contrary conclusion clearly erroneous ii majority arrives wrong resolution begins analysis wrong place majority declares gingles violation made onsidering former district isolation chides state suggesting remedy violation creating new district offsetting opportunity district ante according majority forbid creation noncompact district noncompact district remedy violation elsewhere state ante issue however whether violation district viewed isolation remedied creation latino opportunity district district question fixed number districts located analysis never begin asking whether gingles violation made one district isolation circumstances always possible look one area minority population isolation see violation gingles example state drew three districts group minority voting age population first two third readily claim opportunities thwarted grouped additional minority voters one districts remaining minority voters districts precisely claim minority voters shifted districts join see de grandy shaw ii stevens dissenting approach leave state caught incompatible claims different groups minority voters see session supra neither sufficiently dense compact population general hispanic population particular support retaining former district adding district correct inquiry whether gingles violation made respect one district isolation instead whether challenged area whole dilutes minority voting strength proper focus district lines area whole also demonstrates majority reliance bush vera shaw ii misplaced cases rejected basis lack compactness districts state defended equal protection strict scrutiny grounds necessary avoid violation see vera supra plurality opinion shaw ii supra cases never suggested plaintiff proceeding rely lack compactness prove liability districts cases nothing like district begin incorporated multiple small farflung pockets minority population ignoring boundaries political subdivisions vera supra appendices plurality opinion depicting districts shaw ii supra describing districts district found long narrow normal shape district shared districts state plan predecessor plan mention plaintiffs proposed plan resulted demography geography south west texas see session supp none minority voters vera shaw ii districts formed part district see vera supra plurality opinion remarking one districts issue reaches grab small apparently isolated minority communities based evidence presented possibly form part compact district shaw ii describing challenged district way coincident compact gingles district one disputes least latino voters border area district larger concentration must part district six placed south west texas therefore case state drawing district anywhere violation established elsewhere state question instead whether state latitude deciding place maximum possible number districts one districts contains substantial proportion minority voters must district maximum number created today ever suggested lack compactness might invalidate district state chosen create first instance geographica compact ness minority population previously element plaintiff case see gingles say plaintiff bears burden demonstrating minority group sufficiently large geographically compact constitute majority district thus compactness invoked lower courts defeat claims applied remedial district plaintiff proposes see sensley albritton mallory ohio stabler county thurston indeed say compactness aspect gingles inquiry profess doubt whether met district plaintiff proposed oddly shaped growe emison even rejected liability odd shape evidence majority bloc voting submitted far imposing freestanding compactness obligation repeatedly emphasized retain broad discretion drawing districts comply mandate shaw ii supra imposes per se prohibitions particular types districts voinovich quilter said retain flexibility complying voting rights obligations federal courts enforcing lack vera supra majority intrusion authority lines already achieve maximum possible number opportunity districts suggests much hollow rhetoric majority finds fault rule whereby plaintiffs must show compactness need ante without bothering explain contrary rule equivalence plaintiffs litigating elected representatives people legislating comports repeated assurances concerning discretion flexibility left section part voting rights act compactness rights act word compactness appears nowhere even legislative history see gingles supra bestow compactness precedence inquiry antithesis totality test statute contemplates de grandy ultimate conclusions equality inequality opportunity intended congress judgments resting comprehensive limited canvassing relevant facts suggesting determinative weight given one factor contravenes understanding analysis proceeds see gingles quoting statement legislative history requirement particular number factors proved majority point one way particularly proper standard review district ultimate judgment clear error see plaintiff legally protected interest compactness apart deviations dilute equal opportunity minority voters elect representatives choice district found effect opportunity caused different needs interests latino voters within district least offset fact despite differences likely prefer candidates polls finding based evidence assumptions whatever competing merits old district new district margins judging two districts surely responsibility legislature courts see georgia ashcroft majority squeamishness supposed challenge facing candidate district appeal latino voters near rio grande near austin unlike challenges candidates face around country time part healthy political process particular unlike challenge faced candidate district favored majority former district must appeal latino voters san antonio el paso miles away inority voters immune obligation pull haul trade find common political ground virtue slighted applying statute meant hasten waning racism american politics de grandy explained ultimate right equality opportunity guarantee electoral success candidates whatever race holding opportunity denied state draws district minority citizen population rather keeping one similar percentage lower turnout event consistently elect candidates gives unfamiliar meaning word opportunity iii even plaintiff satisfies gingles factors finding vote dilution automatically follow de grandy identified another important aspect totality inquiry whether minority voters form effective voting majorities number districts roughly proportional minority voters respective shares population finding proportionality standard defeat liability even clear gingles violation made de grandy found substantial proportionality defeated claim district lines issue diluted votes cast hispanic voters even assuming plaintiffs shown possibility creating existing number reasonably compact districts sufficiently large minority population elect candidates choice emphasis added district determined south west texas appropriate geographic frame reference analyzing proportionality south west texas area gingles applied met plaintiffs argue also relevant area measuring proportionality session supp explained ower courts analyzed de grandy sense consistent using frame reference factor factors set forth gingles citing cases south west texas latinos constitute relevant population control six seven congressional seats region includes district district found without clear error latino voters district likely control every primary general election outcome even counting district latino opportunity district majority misplaced compactness concerns latinos south west texas still control congressional seats markedly greater proportion five seven share population words area gingles factors satisfied latino voters enjoy effective political power numerical strength even disregarding district opportunity district numerical strength see de grandy surely figures suggest denial equal opportunity participate political process majority answer shift focus statewide proportionality de grandy rejected argument proportionality analyzed statewide basis flaw ed argument recast cases come us order bar consideration proportionality except statewide scope whereas dilution claims litigated smaller geographical scale true plaintiffs claims concern impact legislative plan latino voting strength south west texas session supra emphasis added area state satisfy gingles factors accordingly proper frame reference analyzing proportionality event statewide level latino opportunity districts seats certainly seem roughly proportional latino share population see de grandy supra district accordingly determined proportionality suggested lack vote dilution even considered statewide basis session supra majority avoids suggestion disregarding district factual finding district effective latino opportunity district improper reasons given majority rejection district latino opportunity district also flatly inconsistent statewide approach analyzing proportionality majority view latino voters northern end district count along latino voters southern end form effective majority belong different communities latino voters everywhere around state texas even areas gingles factors satisfied count purposes calculating proportion effective latino electoral power measured heads plaintiffs win tails state loses state drawn redistricting plan provides six seven congressional districts effective majority latino citizens south west texas possible provide majority nonetheless faults state plan particular mix latino voters forming majority one six districts combination voters around rio grande around austin opposed majority uncritically views monolithic majority assembled farflung communities old district despite express factual findings judges far familiar texas state new district effective latino majority district old district ever despite fact plan necessarily leave latino voters outside district whatever majority believes fighting holding vote dilution basis race ethnicity believe role make judgments mixes minority voters count purposes forming majority electoral district face factual findings district effective district sordid business divvying us race state plan already provides maximum possible number effective opportunity districts minority enjoys effective political power area well excess proportion population conclude courts role play rejiggering district lines respectfully dissent part iii opinion league latin american citizens et appellants rick perry governor texas et al travis county texas et appellants rick perry governor texas et al eddie jackson et appellants rick perry governor texas et al gi forum texas et appellants rick perry governor texas et al appeals district eastern district texas june justice scalia justice thomas joins chief justice justice alito join part iii concurring judgment part dissenting part previously expressed claims unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering present justiciable case controversy see vieth jubelirer plurality opinion justice kennedy discussion appellants claims ably demonstrates yet party judge put forth judicially discernable standard evaluate see ante unfortunately opinion concludes appellants failed state claim political gerrymandering without ever articulating elements claim consist available disposition appeal must either conclude claim nonjusticiable dismiss else set forth standard measure appellant claim vieth supra instead dispose claim way provides guidance judges perpetuates cause action discernible content simply dismiss appellants claims nonjusticiable ii dismiss appellants claims premised voting rights act failure state claim reasons set forth justice thomas opinion joined holder hall opinion concurring judgment chief justice makes clear see ante opinion concurring part concurring judgment part dissenting part jurisprudence continues drift ever act purpose ensuring minority voters equal electoral opportunities iii find merit either claims addressed must consider appellants equal protection claims gi forum appellants focus removal residents latino district assert action constituted intentional vote dilution violation equal protection clause jackson appellants contend intentional creation district district impermissible racial gerrymander district rejected equal protection challenges districts gi forum appellants contend texas legislature removed large number latino voters living webb county district purpose diminishing latino electoral power district congressional redistricting primarily responsibility state legislatures legislative motives often difficult discern presume moreover legislatures fulfill responsibility constitutional manner although state almost always aware racial demographics redistricts follow awareness state redistricted basis race see miller johnson thus courts must exercise extraordinary caution concluding state intentionally used race redistricting nevertheless considerations race predominate hesitate apply strict scrutiny equal protection clause requires see shaw hunt shaw ii miller supra time legislature redrew texas congressional districts district represented congressman henry bonilla whose margin victory support among latinos steadily eroding see session perry supp ed tex per curiam election less percent vote ante opinion received percent latino vote session supp district found goal adjust lines district protect imperiled incumbent record presents undisputed evidence legislature desired increase number republican votes cast congressional district shore bonilla base assist reelection ibid achieve goal legislature extended district north include counties central part state residents voted republican adding people district comply requirement legislature took heavily democratic webb county southern part district included neighboring district appellants acknowledge state redrew district least part protect bonilla argue however assert intentional claim analytically distinct claim sort issue shaw reno shaw claim focuses majority intent harm minority voting power shaw claim focuses instead state purposeful classification individuals race regardless whether helped hurt distinguishing claim jewish organizations williamsburgh carey contrast shaw claim appellants contend claim plaintiff need show racially discriminatory motivation predominated invidious purpose motivating factor appellants contrast easley cromartie claim ace must simply motivation drawing district predominant factor motivating legislature districting decision citation internal quotation marks omitted arlington heights metropolitan housing development rogers lodge whatever validity distinction facts cases irrelevant district conclusion legislature racially motivated drew plan whole session supp split webb county dooms appellants claim review district factual finding legislature motivation clear error see easley supra overturn conclusion unless definite firm conviction mistake committed anderson bessemer city quoting gypsum say district clearly erred found legislative motivation division webb county congressional district congressional district plan political session supp appellants contend district evidence state intent minimize latino voting power note instance percentage latinos district citizen population decreased significantly result redistricting percent latinos voted bonilla last election also point testimony indicating legislature conscious protecting bonilla result removal latinos district pleased even redistricting represent district slight majority residents latino individuals removed district percent voting age latinos percent voted democrats district concluded individuals removed voted democrats bonilla latino finding entirely accord case law recognized jurisdiction may engage constitutional political gerrymandering even happens loyal democrats happen black democrats even state conscious fact hunt cromartie see also bush vera plurality opinion district lines merely correlate race drawn basis political affiliation correlates race racial classification justify appellants argue evaluating state stated motivation district improperly conflated race political affiliation failing recognize individuals moved democrats voted bonilla district found state purpose protect bonilla create safe republican district fact redistricted residents voted bonilla regardless voted races entirely consistent legislature political nonracial objective find clear error standard district required reach different conclusion see hunt supra discriminatory purpose implies intent volition intent awareness consequences implies decisionmaker selected reaffirmed particular course action least part merely spite adverse effects upon identifiable group personnel administrator mass feeney citation internal quotation marks omitted district cited ample evidence supporting finding state remove latinos district latinos new district compact old plan see session supp division webb county simply followed interstate highway district lines make twists turns jumps explained efforts include hispanics exclude anglos although appellants put forth alternative redistricting scenarios protected bonilla district noted alternatives furthered legislature goal increasing number republicans elected statewide see miller electoral districting difficult subject legislatures must discretion exercise political judgment necessary balance competing interests district finding impugned fact certain legislators pleased bonilla continue represent nominally district ultimate inquiry cases equal protection clause goes state purpose simply effect state action see washington davis although true effect action support inference intent see ample evidence overcome inference support state political explanation district commit clear error accepting district finding respect district another matter district applied approach set forth easley held race may motivation redistricting long predominant one see also bush concurring long subordinate traditional districting criteria use race sake proxy may intentionally create districts may otherwise take race consideration without coming strict scrutiny view however legislature intentionally creates district race necessarily predominant motivation strict scrutiny therefore triggered see thomas joined scalia concurring judgment bush state concession sufficiently establishes legislature classified individuals basis race drew district avoid retrogression achieve compliance voting rights act legislature chose create new district new cd allow hispanics actually elect candidate choice brief state appellees district similarly found legislature clearly intended create majority latino citizen voting age population district congressional district session supra unquestionably view drawing district triggers strict scrutiny texas must therefore show use race narrowly tailored compelling state interest see shaw ii since changes district reduced latino voting power district texas asserts needed create district district order avoid liability past left undecided whether compliance federal antidiscrimination laws compelling state interest see miller supra shaw ii supra hold compliance voting rights act interest long ago upheld constitutionality proper exercise congress authority fifteenth amendment enforce amendment prohibition denial abridgment right vote see south carolina katzenbach compliance compelling state interest state placed impossible position choose compliance compliance equal protection clause moreover compelling nature state interest compliance supported recognition previous cases race may used necessary remedy identified past discrimination see shaw ii supra citing richmond croson congress enacted purpose see katzenbach supra beer supra provision applies jurisdictions history official discrimination see vera richards supp sd tex recounting history racial discrimination texas became jurisdiction covered proper case therefore covered jurisdiction may compelling interest complying support use compliance compelling interest respect particular redistricting decision state must demonstrate compliance strong basis evidence believing shaw ii supra citations omitted redistricting decision issue reasonably necessary constitutional reading application act miller moreover order tailor use race narrowly purpose complying act state use racial considerations achieve results beyond required comply statute see rejecting department justice policy maximization minority districts required thus policy serve compelling state interest section forbids state take action worsen minorities electoral opportunities require action improve determining whether redistricting decision reasonably necessary must bear mind state permitted great flexibility deciding comply mandate see georgia ashcroft instance recognized constrain state choice creating districts districts emphasized determining whether state impaired minority effective exercise electoral franchise look totality circumstances statewide circumstances include ability minority group elect candidate choice participate political process positions legislative leadership held individuals representing minority districts support new plan representatives previously elected districts light many factors bearing upon question whether state strong evidentiary basis believing creation district reasonably necessary comply normally remand district undertake inquiry see appellants concede however changes made district necessitated creating additional effective latino district elsewhere attempt avoid voting rights act liability brief appellant jackson et al course precisely state position brief state appellees appellants charge creating district state required light concessions believe remand necessary affirm judgment district footnotes together travis county texas et al perry governor texas et jackson et al perry governor texas et gi forum texas et al perry governor texas et also appeal footnotes apparently electoral results later caused district state practical effect plan leave democratic party gerrymander largely place plan henderson perry supp ed tex see existence voters hardly demonstrates plan biased favor democrats instead noted even state expert litigation concluded plan anything biased favor republicans circumstances surrounding replacement plan suggest legislature motivated misimpression plan unfair republicans accordingly replaced equitable map rather discussed detail clear sole motivation enacting new districting map maximize republican advantage two standard measures compactness score compares relative length perimeter district area smallest circle score compares ratio space district space smallest circle encompass district app state suggests process drawing districts architects plan frequently followed county lines made effort keep certain entire communities within given district otherwise followed certain neutral principles facts relevant narrow question presented cases neutral motivations implementation particular features redistricting qualify solely partisan motivation behind basic decision adopt entirely unnecessary plan first place noted rather identifying arguably neutral reasons adopting plan record establishes purely partisan motivation unmistakable clarity therefore need point discuss standards guide judges enforcing rule allowing legislatures motivated part partisan considerations impose obligation apply much partisanship districting vieth jubelirer plurality opinion deciding much manageable decision explained also obviously correct one nonetheless worth emphasizing courts fact possess tools employ standards permit legislatures consider partisanship redistricting process allow legislatures use partisanship predominant motivation actions see part iv infra see larios cox supp nd per curiam cox district undertook searching review entire record concluding population deviations state legislative districts created georgia house senate release census data driven traditional redistricting criteria compactness preserving county lines instead driven impermissible factors regional favoritism discriminatory protection democratic incumbents judicially manageable standards assess whether state adoption redistricting map based valid governmental objectives summarily affirmed decision cox dissent one justice see scalia dissenting addition part iii opinion part opinion demonstrate assessing whether redistricting map discriminatory impact opportunities voters candidates particular party influence political process manageable judicial task although burdened group issue litigation consists democratic voters candidates partisan gerrymandering analysis throughout opinion equally applicable politically coherent group whose members engaged bloc voting vieth souter joined ginsburg dissenting congressional elections republicans seats designed favor republicans plan one democratic incumbent representative chet edwards narrowly defeated vote nonincumbent republican challenger district edwards outspent challenger lacked strong ties principal communities district republicans likely spend money find stronger challenger create significant chance republican defeating edwards app juris statement republican voters decided vote democratic candidates changes voter turnout preferences republicans share statewide vote reduced justice kennedy faults proponents symmetry standard providing standard deciding much partisan bias much ante proponents symmetry standard judicial obligation answer question much unfairness much course eminently manageable standard conclude deviations symmetry create prima facie case unconstitutional gerrymander population deviations among districts create prima facie case conclude significant departure symmetry one relevant factor analyzing whether totality circumstances districting plan unconstitutional partisan gerrymander see infra rate proponents symmetry standard provided helpful though certainly talismanic tool type litigation appreciate justice kennedy leaving door open use standard future cases see ante believe role social scientists determine much partisan dominance much safe seats may harm democratic process ways well according one recent article former chairman federal election commission electoral competition plainly positive effect interest participation voters electoral process potter viray election reform barriers participation reform hereinafter potter viray see also guinier tyranny majority impact noncompetitive elections depressing voter turnout especially troubling light fact voter participation lags behind often well behind participation rates democratic nations potter viray addition creation safe seats tends polarize decisionmaking bodies see clingman beaver stevens joined ginsburg dissenting noting safe districts increase bitter partisanship already poisoned legislative bodies provided inspiring examples courteous adversary debate deliberation cox partisan gerrymandering disaggregated redistricting rev arguing safe seats produce polarized representatives definition median voter district closely divided two major parties centrist median voter district dominated one party raviv unsafe harbors one person one vote partisan redistricting const arguing safe districts encourage polarization decisionmaking bodies representatives districts cater voters one party see generally issacharoff karlan draw line rev providing data large percentage safe seats recent congressional state legislative elections concluding oncompetitive elections threaten legitimacy vitality democratic governance litigation expert testimony provided principal evidence effects plan satisfy test justice kennedy impose judgment however statewide challenges alleged gerrymander evaluated primarily examining objective factors number people moved one district another number districts less compact predecessors degree new plan departs neutral districting criteria including respect communities interest compliance voting rights act number districts cracked manner weakens opposition party incumbent number districts include two incumbents opposite party whether adoption plan gave opposition party groups fair opportunity input redistricting process number seats likely safe seats dominant party size departure new plan symmetry standard justice breyer authorized state agrees justice scalia compliance voting rights act also compelling state interest see post agree justice scalia point hand state demonstrate example new district part statewide scheme designed apportion power fairly among politically salient groups enhance political power underrepresented community interest residents economically distressed region state avoid liability even results statewide districting predictably partisan effects see generally vieth souter joined ginsburg dissenting discussing legitimate interests state posit defense prima facie case partisan gerrymandering assumption justified based counsel undisputed representations oral argument see tr oral arg however genuine dispute whether plaintiffs whose residences previously located balderas district incorporated districts remand appropriate allow district address issue decision district concluded black voters fact control electoral outcomes district see session perry supp even assuming justice kennedy concludes see ante district commit reversible error analysis issue lack control might relevant analyzing plaintiffs vote dilution claim relevant evaluating whether plan retrogressive indisputable least balderas district strong influence district black voters district voters color play substantial decisive role electoral process georgia ashcroft accordingly dismantling balderas district failing create strong influence district elsewhere plan retrogressive see explaining deciding whether plan retrogressive must examine whether new plan adds subtracts justice kennedy explains see ante plaintiffs however challenge district substantial agreement justice souter discussion issue see post specifically agree justice souter rule finds support text history purposes proper part statutory vote dilution inquiry reasons stated analysis unique question law raised appeal supra part opinion however clear cracking district created unconstitutional gerrymander find unnecessary address statutory issue separately new district another district covers portions former district compact balderas district voters new district previously resided balderas district able bring successful partisan gerrymandering claim proposed test even though new district also safe republican district see app footnotes subsequent case however state first gingles condition terms absolute majority see johnson de grandy first gingles condition requires possibility creating existing number reasonably compact districts sufficiently large minority population elect candidates choice like justice stevens agree justice scalia compliance compelling state interest see ante stevens concurring part dissenting part post scalia concurring judgment part dissenting part recognize minority group might satisfy ability elect requirement ways mean rule circumstances coalition district might required minority group slightly less electorate nonpartisan elections local school board might example show elect preferred candidates owing consistent crossover support members groups cf valdespino alamo heights independent school cert denied cf california democratic party jones area political association right exclude important process selecting nominee process often determines party positions significant public policy issues day even positions predetermined nominee becomes party ambassador general electorate winning party views one must careful electoral success ostensibly shows primary choices constrained say party rules minority voters choice primary may truly candidate choice see mcloughlin note gingles limbo coalitional districts party primaries manageable vote dilution claims rev judge ward properly noted fact frost gone unchallenged may reflect favorably record responding concerns minorities district see session perry supp ed tex opinion concurring part dissenting part event although history prophecy success electing candidates choice powerful touchstone liability minority populations cracked packed electoral success manifestation equal opportunity participate political process see de grandy diminution opportunity taking minority voters previously dominated dominant party primary submerging new district readily discounted speculating effects primary contest old district way third condition understood claim putative coalition district made implications identification candidate choice first gingles condition suffice say criteria may dealing coalition districts cases districts populations aspects established analysis districts gingles progeny may rethought analyzing ostensible coalition districts notably texas legislature plan three undisputed districts tend elect candidates choice compose citizen voting age majority one three district see session supra even state expert pegged percentage app event others districts coalition districts citizen voting age populations respectively footnotes majority fig leaf stressing distances involved district ignoring greater ones former district note enormous geographical distance separating austin communities coupled disparate needs interests populations either factor alone renders district noncompact purposes ante course single factor determinative ultimate question whether district effective opportunity district trial district found district former district perform effective opportunity district session perry supp ed tex per curiam majority notes challenge finding compactness old district ante certainly compared district presumably majority dispute ntil today ever suggested lack compactness might invalidate district state chosen create first instance infra majority asserts latino voters old district found efficacious political identity challenge voters district ante latter group distinct advantage former regard actually vote significantly greater extent see app report gaddie governor senate races estimated latino turnout district compared district footnotes district find legislature two motivations dividing webb county one invidious political political one predominated rather accepted state explanation although individuals moved largely latino moved voted democrats bonilla reason appellants argument incumbent protection compelling state interest mark district found incumbent protection race lay behind redistricting district strict scrutiny therefore apply existence vel non compelling state interest irrelevant party raises constitutional challenge applied cases assume application consistent constitution appellants argue bush vera allow purpose incumbency protection one district justify use race neighboring district held bush district clearly erred concluding although state political purposes well use race predominated see plurality opinion applied strict scrutiny said nothing incumbency protection part analysis rather rejected state argument compliance compelling interest state gone beyond mere nonretrogression thomas joined scalia concurring judgment